WWTBAM Bored

This is pretty big news, although it's been talked about for awhile.

Starting in 2021, U.S. citizens will require a special kind of visa to visit most of Europe.
Here's a CNN piece that explains the rationale and detail:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/us-c ... index.html

Correction: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) as a visa. It is an authorization system. The story also incorrectly stated that this announcement was made on Friday. The headline and story have been updated.

It is not a visa and it is not targeted at the USA.

CNN - Come to your own conclusion.

I don't think this is a big deal. Folks have to get docs to visit us; now we have to get docs to visit them (a passport will still go a long way toward the requirements).

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Correction: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) as a visa. It is an authorization system. The story also incorrectly stated that this announcement was made on Friday. The headline and story have been updated.

It is not a visa and it is not targeted at the USA.

CNN - Come to your own conclusion.

I checked out the ETIAS website. It's a visa waiver program, but there are places on their own website where they call it a visa, so there's practically no difference. There will be a fee; the website dosen't say how much, but probably small.

When I visited Jordan, I got a visa upon landing in Amman for a small charge. The travel agency tried to sell me a visa in advance, for a much higher charge, "to avoid last-minute problems." That would have been a waste of money.

Darn it! All I have is American Express...

flockofseagulls104 wrote: CNN - Come to your own conclusion.

I guessed I missed the post in which you expressed your outrage at Jeanine Pirro's comments over the weekend. Or Tucker Carlson's.

I'm sure an impartial media watchdog like you would have been all over that.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: CNN - Come to your own conclusion.

I guessed I missed the post in which you expressed your outrage at Jeanine Pirro's comments over the weekend. Or Tucker Carlson's.

I'm sure an impartial media watchdog like you would have been all over that.

What does that have to do with anything in this thread?

Your reference to the above is more proof of bias by outlets like CNN.

You think Media Matters goes back in time to find shit on MSM anchors?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Your reference to the above is more proof of bias by outlets like CNN.

Let me see if I have this straight. Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson shoot off their mouths and that's proof of bias by CNN.

Got it.

Where is the outrage that anyone needs to have any form of ID?

BackInTex wrote:Where is the outrage that anyone needs to have any form of ID?

Everyone should have ID to travel. No?

BackInTex wrote:Where is the outrage that anyone needs to have any form of ID?

Americans could previously visit these Schengen (European Union) countries without a visa. Now we will have to get clearance (permission) in advance, and for a price. The necessity for a passport does not change.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Your reference to the above is more proof of bias by outlets like CNN.

Let me see if I have this straight. Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson shoot off their mouths and that's proof of bias by CNN.

Got it.

I believe in the first amendment and I totally reject political correctness. Ilhan Omar can say anything she wants, and so can Carlson and Pirro. I will judge them individually on what I believe is the content of their character. I will discount what any media person on either side tells me what to think.
CNN is supposed to be an objective observer of events. But they are not.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: CNN is supposed to be an objective observer of events. But they are not.

I'm curious who you think is an objective observer of events. Fox? Breitbart? The Washington Free Beacon? Sean Hannity?

Pirro and Carlson may be free to say anything they want, but as representatives of Fox News, the network bears some responsibility for them. But I didn't hear any condemnation of Fox News from you today or ever, while you bash CNN all the time.

If anything, CNN, the Post, and the Times often bend over too far in trying to present "both sides" of a story.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: CNN is supposed to be an objective observer of events. But they are not.

Pirro and Carlson may be free to say anything they want, but as representatives of Fox News, the network bears some responsibility for them.

To be fair, FOX did state its disapproval Pirro's comments.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... haria.html - see the update at the bottom of the page.

If anything, CNN, the Post, and the Times often bend over too far in trying to present "both sides" of a story.

Are you serious? 90+% negative stories on trump? I guess 10% is too much? That's an agenda, sir. And it feeds your bigotry.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... new-study/

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

If anything, CNN, the Post, and the Times often bend over too far in trying to present "both sides" of a story.

Are you serious? 90+% negative stories on trump? I guess 10% is too much? That's an agenda, sir. And it feeds your bigotry.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... new-study/

Other than the detail that your source is a year old and the second detail that it comes from the Washington Times and the third detail that their source is the Media Research Center, a right wing organization whose mission is "to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media," which might affect how they categorize certain references, I don't know what's wrong with your source.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason why coverage of Trump is so negative is the same as the reason why the coverage of the Baltimore Orioles was so negative last year... because they were both terrible.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

If anything, CNN, the Post, and the Times often bend over too far in trying to present "both sides" of a story.

Are you serious? 90+% negative stories on trump? I guess 10% is too much? That's an agenda, sir. And it feeds your bigotry.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... new-study/

Other than the detail that your source is a year old and the second detail that it comes from the Washington Times and the third detail that their source is the Media Research Center, a right wing organization whose mission is "to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media," which might affect how they categorize certain references, I don't know what's wrong with your source.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason why coverage of Trump is so negative is the same as the reason why the coverage of the Baltimore Orioles was so negative last year... because they were both terrible.

Similar results from a Harvard University study, but that is beside the point. You don't need a study. All you need to do is watch the 'news' from any of your 'accepted' sources of information that only report the news that fits their narrative and agenda. If the coverage of the incident with the Covington kids doesn't make you think, you have no mind. Once again, you totally discredit FACTS because the facts aren't from your 'accepted' sources, the only ones that tell the truth. Where is the list I asked for?

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't think this is a big deal. Folks have to get docs to visit us; now we have to get docs to visit them (a passport will still go a long way toward the requirements).

On Sunday, at the Philadelphia Travel Show (down the hall from the Philadelphia Flower Show), we had a discussion with someone from the State Department about this. There was a roving passport office set up (free admission if you were applying for/renewing a passport) and

The visa will last several years and cost about $15. A Skoop points out, it is a reciprocal agreement situation. It is not a big deal.

Implementation will be late 2020 or - most likely - beginning of 2021.

mellytu74 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't think this is a big deal. Folks have to get docs to visit us; now we have to get docs to visit them (a passport will still go a long way toward the requirements).

On Sunday, at the Philadelphia Travel Show (down the hall from the Philadelphia Flower Show), we had a discussion with someone from the State Department about this. There was a roving passport office set up (free admission if you were applying for/renewing a passport) and

The visa will last several years and cost about $15. A Skoop points out, it is a reciprocal agreement situation. It is not a big deal.

Implementation will be late 2020 or - most likely - beginning of 2021.

Probably a good thing. I was involved in a software project in Germany a couple of years ago. Some of the people who were involved from the beginning were not allowed back in because they had over 90 days in total in country.