Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill Maher, Real Time, New Rules, Election 2012, Sex, etc' to 'Bill Maher, Real Time, New Rules, glee, la prairie, india, pennies, secret service, news' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, new rules' to 'bill maher, new rules, discovery, secret service, kony, mel gibson, pink slime' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Man Sues Secret Service (Arrested After Insulting Cheney), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Thanks. Is it springtime up north yet?
Flowers are coming out already down here.
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*promote



It feels real Springy for sure. I've still got about 3 ft of snow to melt though before I can check for flowers!

Lots of religious discussion in the last half dozen years or so. Maybe notice it more because I'm older, but it seems more prevalent.

I saw a quote somewhere else by Napoleon Bonaparte, so I looked up his quotes and found two I thought were interestingly applicable to the current climate.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte

We're coming off of the biggest financial crime of our lifetimes, with no one being punished. And they aren't even trying to stop it from happening again, they are fortifying the regulations that made it possible for it to happen in the first place and attempting to add more craziness with SOPA/PIPA to solidify control over the only location everyone can have a say and organize -- the internet.

So, I have to call into question all of this religious posturing that is becoming the forefront of the debates and "hot topics" in most traditional media coverage. Anything regarding rights of gays = religion based arguments, abortion = religion based, etc......everyone is affected by the economic meltdown and financial theft that occurred. And they address it by skipping back to "Those damn gaaaaaaayyyyss" or "ABORTION --- RAWRRR" and anytime they can't flip over to those we get the piracy! and It's your fault for buying a house during the bubble! oh and OWS rapes people so you can't believe in any of that.

And the OWS argument makes me laugh, because they'll have you believe the whole movement is made up to allow rape to occur and it's a legitimate reason to call their ethics and argument into question. But when Gingrich was asked a question in the debate allowing him to respond to his cheating on his wives and leaving at least one of them in a bad situation, it was applauded when he refused to answer and how that was bad form to question his morality based on those acts. When you could say, he just wants to be President so he can get more on the side with the secret service to facilitate or some other overly dismissive thing they do to the OWS.

The whole process is insulting, they speak of stability but create controversy to take focus away from issues that going unaddressed whom 70% or more of the citizenry agrees needs to be addressed. And I suspect it's not because they don't see there's issues, it's because they want those issues to remain....it makes it easier to stay rich if you can exploit them.

They're the Seacrest Service.>> ^critical_d:


The security guards hustling Cohen off is over the top....jesus...you would think they were Secret Service.

This couldn't have happened to a better guy...it would have been perfect to have Seacrest flip his shit and scream out a "FFFFFUUUUUUUUCCKKKKKKKKK".



The security guards hustling Cohen off is over the top....jesus...you would think they were Secret Service.

Pause the vid around the :50 mark...look at the expression on their faces...and check this out.

"...He also relayed how Boris Yeltsin's late-night drinking during a visit to Washington in 1995 nearly created an international incident. The Russian president was staying at Blair House, the government guest quarters. Late at night, Clinton told Branch, Secret Service agents found Yeltsin clad only in his underwear, standing alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a cab. He wanted a pizza, he told them, his words slurring.

The next night, Yeltsin eluded security forces again when he climbed down back stairs to the Blair House basement. A building guard took Yeltsin for a drunken intruder until Russian and U.S. agents arrived on the scene and rescued him...."

This story is taken from an interview with Clinton, read more here http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-21-clinton-tapes_N.htm

More info at Snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/secretservice.asp

Conclusion: completely unverified and unverifiable given the 'anonymous' nature of its alleged "source." Downvote.

>> ^blackoreb:

The gentleman in the video appears to be parroting a debunked chain email. By "parroting", I mean the dude is repeating an anonymous email and pretending he heard the information first hand. And by "debunked", I mean the email claims to list highlights from a real book ("In The President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect" by Ronald Kessler), but the contents of the book do not match the contents of the email.
More Info:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/secret-service-tattletales/

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.
Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.


How about reading what you fucking quote first. Tell yourself whatever you need to. ""Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly" -- it doesn't? of course it does. Do you expect the hijacker to land the plane so you can reprogram it?

Read the other quote from the former head of British Airways “suggested ... that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

It's part of the autopilot system. There's no need to hack into the system and "write complex programs correctly ... in mere minutes."

Why is that so hard to understand?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.


I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.

Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.


Are you purposely acting dense?

"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.


“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

>> ^Stormsinger:

@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.


What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.

On a side note, the NORAD computers probably were hacked.

Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

The gentleman in the video appears to be parroting a debunked chain email. By "parroting", I mean the dude is repeating an anonymous email and pretending he heard the information first hand. And by "debunked", I mean the email claims to list highlights from a real book ("In The President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect" by Ronald Kessler), but the contents of the book do not match the contents of the email.

More Info:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/secret-service-tattletales/