National Fingerprint Registry

Chance174 · 06-09-2008, 01:00 PM

This kind of scares me.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/...rint-registry/

I understand why some people would want this but isn't this giving "Big Brother" too much power.

What do you guys think?

Yes I know the title has obama in it but let's try to keep the presidental politics out of it and talk about the issue.

ban basketball · 06-09-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Chance174

This kind of scares me.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/...rint-registry/

I understand why some people would want this but isn't this giving "Big Brother" too much power.

What do you guys think?

Yes I know the title has obama in it but let's try to keep the presidental politics out of it and talk about the issue.

Yeah, let's worry about this, but then turn our heads at the "Patriot" Act and the suspension of Habeus Corpus.

To even compare the two is criminal.

washed up wrestler · 06-09-2008, 01:24 PM

The Heritage foundation is famous for bringing us Paula Jones.

They have zero credibility in reporting anything objectively. They try to play into fears, hence your thread.

If I was you I would worry a bit more about your government listening to your phone calls but that's just me.

Any reason the HF didn't put the other 11 sponsor's names in the headline?

ban basketball · 06-09-2008, 01:32 PM

I would also add that when a "president" authorizes the use of illegal wiretaps on its citizens, and petitions communications companies to do it for him on the sly, and furthermore uses legislation to make them immune from prosecution for going along with this illegal wiretapping, Big Brother has already reached our shores. In fact, the harsh, but appropriate, word for it when government uses private companies to spy on its citizens and seeks to have them immune from prosecution is fascism.

For those who don't read and must ask (insert your favorite dumb guy voice now), "Gotta link for that?" here you are.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ping%2Bverizon

matclone · 06-09-2008, 01:44 PM

I agree with Washed-Up's comments; the source needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Moreoever, the facts are spare. The intent of the article seems to be nothing more than to raise fear.

In general, a national fingerprint registry doesn't sound good. But don't we already have something like this? I've been fingerprinted more times than I can count, merely on account of my military duty.

FloggingSully · 06-09-2008, 01:50 PM

Why should I worry about this? I don't even like ginger...

Chance174 · 06-09-2008, 01:56 PM

Okay you guys are missing the point!

Not talking about the source or the patriot act. I was asking for opinions on a "national fingerprint registry".

Thank you Matclone for being the only person to give an opinon on that issue.

and thank you flogging for pointing out my mistake when I was typing the title. It really adds to the debate on this issue.

JensenS · 06-09-2008, 02:00 PM

I thought this thread was about forcing redheads to register so we know where they're at and what they're doing at all times.

I daresay I'd be in favor of that one.

FloggingSully · 06-09-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Chance174

and thank you flogging for pointing out my mistake when I was typing the title. It really adds to the debate on this issue.

I'm sorry, I'll try to avoid any sort of humor in any further postings.

Who exactly is going into this proposed registry? The only thing the article said is that it "may" require people working in the morgage industry, but the quote was obviously taken out of context (didn't even contain the entire first sentence) and is from a questionable source.

If it means we'll have a fingerprint registry for people who've been convicted of a crime (don't we already have this) I'd be all for it, if it is for anyone working even remotely close to the morgage industry I'd be against it.

Chance174 · 06-09-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

I'm sorry, I'll try to avoid any sort of humor in any further postings.

Who exactly is going into this proposed registry? The only thing the article said is that it "may" require people working in the morgage industry, but the quote was obviously taken out of context (didn't even contain the entire first sentence) and is from a questionable source.

If it means we'll have a fingerprint registry for people who've been convicted of a crime (don't we already have this) I'd be all for it, if it is for anyone working even remotely close to the morgage industry I'd be against it.

First of all, my bad was irritated when i wrote that post. Humor is always good.

I should have wrote my question better. I was asking about a national regirstry where were everyone would have to register.

National Fingerprint Registry

Politics & Religion