Obama Sponsors Fingerprint Registry Bill

Heineken Helen

slightofjeff wrote:

Well, like, I wouldn't want Osama bin Laden visiting my hometown. Once you blow up a couple buildings here, you're pretty much not welcome anymore.

So I can understand wanting to have some level of security to ensure that you are not, in fact, Osama bin Laden.

well I think anyone in the world would recognise him without having to check his fingerprints first :rolleyes: besides even if he's had surgery... I'm sure you can get fingerprint surgery too.

So one man goes and ruins all the fun huh? How is that fair? :(

slightofjeff

Heineken Helen wrote:

well I think anyone in the world would recognise him without having to check his fingerprints first :rolleyes: besides even if he's had surgery... I'm sure you can get fingerprint surgery too.

So one man goes and ruins all the fun huh? How is that fair? :(

Don't blame me. Blame that bearded son of a bitch.

ledvedderman

PEPPER wrote:

So let me get this straight...democrates are against the Patriot Act and the wiretapping but are now oK with fingerprinting???

No. Read my post on page 4 of this thread where I post the actual language from the bill.

blackredyellow

PEPPER wrote:

So let me get this straight...democrates are against the Patriot Act and the wiretapping but are now oK with fingerprinting???

maybe read the bill...

ledvedderman

blackredyellow wrote:

maybe read the bill...

It is called the "S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act", and it's bill number is S 2595 for those interested in reading what it really does.

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

No. Read my post on page 4 of this thread where I post the actual language from the bill.

Right.
If you want a private sector job in your state,
and it happens to be in the mortgage industry,
you MUST - AT A MINIMUM - submit your fingerprints to the FEDERAL authorities.

How many other private sector jobs could they then apply this to \ create a similar bill for?

Anyone who works for a credit card company?
Anyone who works for an accounting firm?
Anyone who works for an auto dealership?
Anyone who works for a radio station?
Anyone who works for an energy company?

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Right.
If you want a private sector job in your state,
and it happens to be in the mortgage industry,
you MUST - AT A MINIMUM - submit your fingerprints to the FEDERAL authorities.

How many other private sector jobs could they then apply this to \ create a similar bill for?

Anyone who works for a credit card company?
Anyone who works for an accounting firm?
Anyone who works for an auto dealership?
Anyone who works for a radio station?
Anyone who works for an energy company?

When I put my logic hat on, it seems to make sense to me. People in the mortgage industry have some very secure information just a click away. Do I want a background check on anyone that could look up my SSN and and credit information? Without a doubt.

anotherclone

I work in the mortgage industry as an escrow officer and when I took my state test, part of the process was submitting my fingerprints to the state. As a result I have a fancy plaque on the wall that says I have a "high moral character" among other things. I think the bill has to do with people (such as myself) handling the utmost private and personal information for other people. I see hundreds, maybe thousands of social security numbers in a year.

If they are going to regulate the mortgage industry, one way to begin is to filter out the riff-raff used car salesmen (no offense) that try to double as mortgage professionals.

Rather than getting your panties in a wad over the bill and blaming Obama and the co-sponsors of the bill, if you want to voice your opinion and suggest that the bill does not pass, write your Senators and demand their action.

Probably posting your outrage on a fanclub forum won't solve anything.

ledvedderman

PEPPER wrote:

I still don't get it...you are OK with fingerprinting someone who is applying for a license but not OK with wiretapping a sespected murderer

Who is applying for a "license"? It allows states to make sure that mortgage companies are doing background checks (which does include fingerprinting) on its employees.

blackredyellow

PEPPER wrote:

I still don't get it...you are OK with fingerprinting someone who is applying for a license but not OK with wiretapping a sespected murderer

Who is stopping anyone from wiretapping a suspected murder? If gov't has a suspicion about someone, they can easily get a warrant for a wiretap. But that wasn't good enough for this administration, they wanted unchecked power to eavesdrop on anyone and everyone they felt like.

Collin

blackredyellow wrote:

Apples and oranges... I'm not talking about fingerprint checkpoints or whatever inside a country. I can fly anywhere in the country with just a photo ID, or drive coast to coast. But, when I enter a foreign country, I don't have a problem with being checked more in depth.

You missed my point. I was answering your question with a hypothetical situation.

Air travel is not mandatory. Neither is road travel. But since 9/11 you cannot get into the US without having your fingerprints and your picture taken.

So if you just have to comply with the US government rules and there's nothing you can do except, like you suggested, not fly.

So what if the US started taking fingerprints and pictures if you wanted to go to another state by plane or by car? Would you also say "well, travel isn't mandatory" or would you realize that's just a way of avoiding the problem?
My guess is you would stand up against it, at least I hope so, and not hide behind a cop-out phrase like "travel is not mandatory"

I'm for a free world, not a police state world.

my2hands

by the way drifting...


when i applied for my current job and was hired... i had to submit fingerprints to pass a criminal background check

call alex jones!

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

by the way drifting...


when i applied for my current job and was hired... i had to submit fingerprints to pass a criminal background check

call alex jones!

I don't have a problem with EMPLOYERS taking fingerprints.

I have a problem with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATING THAT EMPLOYEES SUBMIT PRINTS TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

It is outside of their constitutional authority to do this.

But i guess, like someone pointed out earlier (and what a "great" point it was), the government already oversteps its constitutional bounds, so why get upset over this? Fuck it.

I mean. They already violated it once.
May as well just get over it and accept the fact that they will continue to, right?

my2hands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't have a problem with EMPLOYERS taking fingerprints.

and what if my employer was the government? state government to be exact?

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

and what if my employer was the government? state government to be exact?

I don't have a problem with that.
It is government interfering with private enterprise I have a problem with.

Your question goes to some of what Tom Cryer addressed in his court case concerning his not paying taxes, and the fraud that is the income tax.

See, the income tax actualy DOES tax GOVERNMENT employees.
And the reason for that is that man has a RIGHT to work, okay?
The government can NOT infringe that RIGHT by impossing a burden on it (such as taxes) ...

however, working for the GOVERNMENT is considered a PRIVELAGE.

RIGHT vs. PRIVELAGE.

However, in your case specificaly,
the STATE has every right to do whatever the hell it wants, if that is what it's citizens vote to legislate.

So, as much as i wouldn't like the idea personaly, if i lived in that state, i would just have to up and move to another one.

But the FEDERAL government impossing this idea NATIONALY is strictly against the ideals this country was founded upon -- no matter how "right" intentioned it may be.

:cool:

catefrances

slightofjeff wrote:

Well, like, I wouldn't want Osama bin Laden visiting my hometown. Once you blow up a couple buildings here, you're pretty much not welcome anymore.

So I can understand wanting to have some level of security to ensure that you are not, in fact, Osama bin Laden.

just in case youve forgotten, bin laden managed to orchestrate 9/11 from outside US borders, so he seriously has no use for ever visiting the US. his work is done. hes managed to get the trigger happy US government freaking out and turning the screws on its own people because...why? bin laden is sitting in his cave somewhere releasing videos and whatnot every now and again just so he can feel relevant while the most technologically advanced military on the planet chases its tail unable to find him. i have to wonder why that is. and i also have to wonder if his fingerprints are even on file anywhere in the world for comparative purposes anway. anyhoo my point is(if i actually have one) is that if the US government were deadly serious about finding bin laden, they would have found him by now. having him on the loose provides them with a very convenient boogey man with which to scare the people and push through their bullshit laws.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Instead of privately flying all of Bin Laden's family out (and a bunch of Saudis) while all other planes were grounded after 9/11....

why not just pick up and detain all his family members until the guy is forced out, or just monitor all his families communications in a nice wide circle? Something has to break there. but....ooops... Bush Sr likes to go for dinner at the Bin Ladens, and rub his greedy hands together.

I guess it's easier to wantonly bomb innocent civilians. What's the kill rate now at 90% civilians..yeah it is 90%. Nice.

What a farce....the jokes on us, as in the U.S..

slightofjeff

catefrances wrote:

just in case youve forgotten, bin laden managed to orchestrate 9/11 from outside US borders, so he seriously has no use for ever visiting the US. his work is done. hes managed to get the trigger happy US government freaking out and turning the screws on its own people because...why? bin laden is sitting in his cave somewhere releasing videos and whatnot every now and again just so he can feel relevant while the most technologically advanced military on the planet chases its tail unable to find him. i have to wonder why that is. and i also have to wonder if his fingerprints are even on file anywhere in the world for comparative purposes anway. anyhoo my point is(if i actually have one) is that if the US government were deadly serious about finding bin laden, they would have found him by now. having him on the loose provides them with a very convenient boogey man with which to scare the people and push through their bullshit laws.

Man, I was just having a light-hearted moment earlier this afternoon. Don't you people ever stop being so serious?

catefrances

slightofjeff wrote:

Man, I was just having a light-hearted moment earlier this afternoon. Don't you people ever stop being so serious?

*hands on hips staring off into the distance, a big red S on my chest... my cape flowing out behind me*


not so long as there is injustice in the world.

slightofjeff

catefrances wrote:

*hands on hips staring off into the distance, a big red S on my chest... my cape flowing out behind me*


not so long as there is injustice in the world.

Nicely played ...