Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ad Comparing Bush to Hitler Gets HeatFollow

#1 Jan 05 2004 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,471 posts
Nothing like wriling up the natives...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html
#2 Jan 06 2004 at 5:06 AM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
All I gotta say is "Seig heil!" and where do I sign up to get my brown shirt?

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#3 Jan 06 2004 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Fox news: Fair and ballanced strawmen as far as the eye can see!

Oddly they didn't report it when Junkie Limbaugh compared Clinton to Hitler on his radio show. I guess that it was ok, because, you know, Old Rush was probably all hopped up on Oxy and was halucinating again.

Edited, Tue Jan 6 11:30:04 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Jan 06 2004 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
794 posts
In the same vein, what do you all think about the new finger-printing US-VISIT policy?

Brazil likened it to **** acts and began to finger print and photo all Americans in retaliation, because the US refused to remove them from the 'hit-list'.

Even Canadians using Visas to live in the US will be subject to it!

I tell you, this **** is getting out of hand and it's getting scary. Where/When the **** is it all going to end? Probably WWIII.
____________________________
Hello 911? This is Quagmire. Yeah, it's in a window this time.
#5 Jan 06 2004 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,245 posts
Quote:
I tell you, this sh*t is getting out of hand and it's getting scary. Where/When the **** is it all going to end? Probably WWIII.


I say they finger-print everyone who enters the country. I could give a **** less if they print me when I go somewhere else. Print the entire planet. Then, when you get a hit, shoot the ************* in the INS queue. More over, If countries want to do things "in retaliation", let's make a regime change. If that doesn't work, tactical thermo-nuclear weapons. I bet we could hit Brazilia and not do too much damage to the rain forests, right? I mean, who are we kidding, why stop at printing people? If you are not white, why are you coming to my country? You live here? How come? and how soon can I start the re-patriation project? God, grant me the power to cleanse the country, nay the world, of these mongrel races. Ve vill prove zee power of zee pure race! Bont blue eyed boyz and gyrlz vill conquer zee future. My arian zupermen vill prevail!

/ehem
Sorry about that. I got a little carried away. Trust us. This is the right thing to do. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Uncle D1ck will tell me what to do.

/sneaks back under the rock for oxi and *** ****

EDIT: Alla doesn't like me to talk about Uncle D1ck. I keep forgetting that I have to change the name to keep the king, I mean vice president, in my post.

Edited, Tue Jan 6 14:59:22 2004 by MoebiusLord
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#6 Jan 06 2004 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
I was watching CNN last night and there was a little blurb about it being up for renewal/reexamination in a year and a half. It was almost an afterthought to the segment, so I'm not quite certain of the context, but Tom Ridge was in it watching a visa stamper check the prints and interviewing the foreigner.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#7 Jan 06 2004 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Yeah, because that'll certainly stop terrorists from oh...I don't know...flying into Montreal or Vancouver and WALKING across the invisible US/Canada "border"

It's assinine to a*l degree rarely seen by even Republicans. Spend more tax dollars on a program that will inconvience the people coming *legally* into the country while not doing anything at all to make anyone safer.

Good going. Maybe next we could require a retina span to get a library card so we'd know just who was checking out books about civil liberties. Oh wait, I mean dangerous explosives manuals.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Jan 06 2004 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,714 posts
While I'm a bit leary about the whole fingerprint thing as well, Smash's rationalization reminds me *alot* of things I've heard when discussing securing computer systems:

"Why should we <install some easy patch to prevent a common and easy attack> when we still have no defense for <some harder and more round-about attack that would be more difficult to block>? If we can't be 100% secure, why bother doing anything?..."


I'll say the same thing. Something is better then nothing. Right now, the most common method for a terrorist to enter the country is to use a false ID in some other nation, and just fly in. This allows us to track that and block it. He can give any name he wants on any bogus ID in any country in the world, but if his finger print says he's someone else (or even just entered using a different ID before), we can check it out.

Um... So this forces someone to fly into Canada and cross into the US from there. At least that limits their options. You don't just snap your fingers and have security. You have to start somewhere. Also, many other nations around the world already fingerprint and/or photo all passengers on international flights. Many nations are viewing this as "The US is finally doing something about securing their airports", and most foreign travellers don't mind it in the least.


Last I heard, you're already required to have a photo ID and fingerprint in order to get a passport. So anyone coming into the US on an international flight has already had that done, right? How can it possibly be an infringement to do it again? You aren't giving up any information you haven't already given. The only difference is that we're actually going to do something intelligent with the information instead of just trust everyone that the info in their passport is real. Yeah. Go figure...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jan 06 2004 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
It's a pain in the *** for people to fingerprinted in public and it's going to cost literally BILLIONS of doallrs to do it.

To compare it to your computer security analogy it would be like if Yahoo bought Google and required everyone who used the Yahoo front end for the search engine to provide a Social Security Number while just leaving the Google site unchanged.

That make a lot of sense to you?

Just wondering.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Jan 06 2004 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,714 posts
Yeah. That's one of the reasons I'm leary about it. But my concerns aren't really about privacy issues (which is what you seemed to be talking about). As I stated, technically, they've already collected that data. It's how effectively they utilize the technology.

As to cost. That really depends on how it's implemented. My understanding is that they are using fingerprint scanners. Those things cost maybe a couple hundred bucks a piece and take about half a second to scan your thumb. Sure. The initial infrastructure cost will be pretty high, but I don't think it will be prohibitively so. What would really make the system work well would be if they added a barcode or something to the passport itself so that someone could simply scan the code while you put your thumb on the scanner and it would immediately identify that you're the valid holder of the passport.

It's not really about knowing who's entering or leaving the country. We already collect that data. It's about knowing that the person we think is entering or leaving is actually the person in the airport at that moment. Over time, you build up a data base that can automatically catch inconsistencies. Over time, that will cost vastly less then paying security personel to look at passports (and would be far less prone to mistakes as well).


My biggest concern is that it will just be a skin deep process. If they don't have any way to correlate the info they gather locally to the info on the passport and to past information about that person, then the whole process is a waste. If they don't also combine that with reasonable intelligence efforts to identify known bad guys, then the system really is a waste of time. I'm kinda in a "it might work, or it might not" frame of mind on this one. However, private companies already use biometrics for security. It's really not that far fetched or that expensive. Of course, government tends to always do things in the least efficient and most expensive manner, but that's just the nature of the beast...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jan 07 2004 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,903 posts
Just to clarify one point, the "fingerprinting" actually consists of sticking your hands on a glass plate that takeas a picture of your fingerprints at the exact same time as the digital photograph. They are doing the old fashioned fingerpringting to us in Brazil and it is taking forever. the new us system, right or wrong, only takes a few seconds.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help