GWB had held one elected office. Palin had been Gov. of a tiny state for less than a term. Ike had never had a political office. The idea the Press didn't look at Obama is ridiculous. Finding embarrassing secrets about Candidates is the stuff of pullitzers and even liberals love fame and fortune.http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...to-vets-i.html No he loves America actually.Originally Posted by dalem
Herein lies the crux of the matter.
(I've always wanted an excuse to use that phrase.)
Obama is/was one of the LEAST-vetted and -known candidates to run for and reach the highest office in the land, at least in recent decades. Since the U.S. press wanted him elected they failed to discharge their duty of deep investigation of the man Obama, hence it's left to the "little man" of the American public.
If the U.S. press spent one tenth of the energy they spent during GW Bush's presidency trying to cut him down on actually investigating Obama and presenting the facts of his background during his candidacy or during his first term, 99% of these side issues would have been laid to rest for 99% of the voting public a long time ago.
They didn't, though, and so here we are, wasting breath and pixels on silly side questions. I don't really give a sh!t whether Obama was a C student at whatever school or an A student, or was born in Hawaii or on Mars - I just wish he actually liked the nation that he chose to lead. Even a little. As it is, he f*cks us deeper into economic and foreign policy holes with each passing day.
-dale
Last edited by Roosveltrepub; 01 May 11, at 08:48.
Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
~Ronald Reagan
And was vetted very thoroughly. I voted for Gore and regretted it right after Election Night. I think the 2000 election was covered pretty well, and both candidates vetted pretty well.
I disagree.Palin had been Gov. of a tiny state for less than a term. Ike had never had a political office. The idea the Press didn't look at Obama is ridiculous.
-dale
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...13gravity.html
Seems like some respected scientists are doing just that...
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
And I can say that I love pork cutlets, even though I really don't. I can also say that I'm a cross-dressing transvestite, though I'm really not. I can also say that I'm going to run for the Democratic candidacy for President, though I don't think I would ever do that.
Man, these word things are really versatile, aren't they?
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Elected officials as a general rule do not have the same rights to privacy as others. The higher the office, the less the right.
Because proving citizenship by birth is one of two constitutional requirements for the office.In that context, why should the bloke show his birth certificate.
What due process? The Law of the Land requires the US President be born an American and of a certain age, a birth certificate is in fact part of that due process your claiming.They can waste all that energy on questioning where he was born, but not on acknowledging due process, handed down by the laws of the land by representatives of the people that citizens of the land are supposed to respect and abide by, and by making it personal.
Nope, 10 years ago they were convinced that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed and shot down their own commerce secretary.Nope, they didn't give a shit about any other president, Just 'this president'.
pquote] If they could demonstrate a care factor beyond the current president,and showed no personal malice, where's the movement to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for the electoral office to make a piece of paper viewable to the public, by the government office concerned? What is the congressional view or support for this even? [/quote]
There are in fact several laws requiring disclosure by candidates for office.
Some of them spent their own money and went to the courts- the primary venue for seeking relief. At least one was court martialed for his beliefs. They are nutters, but earnest nutters.For a group of people supposedly legitimately concerned, they do have some credibility issues, people that complain, but take no action to alleviate this 'situation' for the benefit of future generations, taking their cause to their elected rep and gaining public momentum - don't deserve credibility if we are talking about genuine concern from citizens hiding under the guise of civic responsibility to question, yet do nothing about concerns - and do not respect the rights of the individual not to.
So did the Wright Brothers, Nan Braun, Goddard, Newton and a number of others. Sadly far more simply try and ignore it often to very sad result.
Where is the law that says he must show any piece of paper whatsoever to the general public of his own accord?
And his sole responsibility to do so is towards the appropriate government authority? He doesn't have to Gazette his Birth Certificate for crying-out-loud! If thats what you want, then demand it in the legislation. You treat all the same equal or under precedent, or you don't do it at all!Because proving citizenship by birth is one of two constitutional requirements for the office.
Presumably he has to show this to the appropriate authority. Not to you. You don't go to the public to judge the validity of your details, you go to the relevant authority. That's due process.What due process? The Law of the Land requires the US President be born an American and of a certain age, a birth certificate is in fact part of that due process your claiming.
Just not to Joe Bloggs. If there are these laws, the prosecute him. If there aren't, then move on.There are in fact several laws requiring disclosure by candidates for office.
Sincere citizens are measured by their actions. If they aren't getting up and proposing amending legislation (Surely there is some government body charged with discharging responsibilities demanded by the constitution) then I have, as does anyone else, the valid right to question their conviction. Any joker can go to the courts. Its been a few years now - and they are still carping on about it. If they want anyone's support, then they deserve as equal scrutiny as that they claim to be undertaking. In a year, or 5, there will no longer be an Obama as President. What are they doing about it, should it happen again?Some of them spent their own money and went to the courts- the primary venue for seeking relief. At least one was court martialed for his beliefs. They are nutters, but earnest nutters.
They can't be given any credibility if they can't even pass a basic goal test. What is their goal even? Is it to stop an Obama presidency? Or is it to encourage greater transparency of due process? I don't see much evidence on face value that leans towards the latter. To be perfectly frank, I don't care to research past here and a few news articles - because these bunch can't even establish bonafides'. If they called themselves 'Statesiders for electoral process', had a mission statement, gave a brief as to why it's so important to gazette information - then perhaps so. Meanwhile, as far as my dumbass can tell, the bloke has complied with all requirements to hold office, I have no reason to doubt those people - why should I (tongue in cheek, its not my concern as you know)?.
Tis easy enough to build a theory on what you want to believe and build an entire case around it. It's exactly the same as the people that have legitimate problems and moan incessantly about it, instead of taking it up with their local MP or getting some sitting time with the relevant minister.
Last edited by Chunder; 01 May 11, at 10:46.
Ego Numquam
No. They didn't think he was a citizen, and he provided documentation that demonstrated that. Transparency wasn't their goal. It was citizenship validation, which had already been met.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Pete,
I'd agree with your post, but would offer that there can be a difference between an individual stating support for a conspiracy and a politician doing so. In the case of a politician, while it could offer a glimpse into a lacking intellect, it could also simply be a politician jockeying for a political advantage by appealing to a certain segment of the vote. For 9/11, there is no upside for jumping on a troofer bandwagon. For Obama, there could be an upside for jumping on the birther bandwagon.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I think that really speaks to the trustworthiness of those Politicans.
Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
~Ronald Reagan
I think that there's very few you can trust. For most, their primary motivation is to remain in office and garner power. When that can align with the national interest as they see it through whatever ideological lens they have, they do so, so it's not mutually exclusive with trying to better the country.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Here's some ammo for the next time you're asked--
The most obvious lie was the justification for invading Iraq. As we knew then, and as we know now, there was never any connection between the only secular regime in the Middle East and the fundamentalist terrorists who attacked America on 9-11. (cf Republican National Committee Platform, 2000.)
Paul Wolfowitz and his former assistant, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, defined the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism that was later revised by Dick Cheney (1992) and became known as the Bush Doctrine. This created the intellectual [sic] space for Donald Rumsfeld to recommend invading Iraq, during the first NSC meeting held on 9-11. The administration then set about justifying why the invasion, destruction and oh-so-poorly-executed occupation of another sovereign nation was not strictly something out of the vast right-wing conspiracy’s bag of tricks.
= = = = =
The 2000 Presidential election saw more concern about fairness than any presidential election in living memory. In Florida, the efforts to ensure a GOPer victory began early, with the purging of the electoral rolls of more than 54,000 people identified as felons (and, 54% African-Americans), the majority of whom were innocent cases of misidentification. A BBC interview with ChoicePoint VP James Lee on the subject showed that it was the intent to disenfranchise more people than were actually verified as being convicted felons.
Under the rules, John Williams = William John = John P. William = William G. John, Jr. African-Americans accounted for 88% of those removed from the rolls, although they comprise just 11% of the state’s voters. In all, 1% of voters and 3% of African-American voters were removed from the rolls.
Florida State Senator Daryl Jones (D-Miami) said there was an executive order to set up road blocks in heavily Democratic areas, to discourage a high voter turnout. Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ consultation with GOPer consultants and advisers – exclusively – was blatantly partisan.
Last edited by DOR; 02 May 11, at 04:52.
The American legislations for war against Iraq was based upon Iraqi violations of UNSCRs, not 11 Sept.
Chimo
Exactly.
DOR, we have many many threads right here on the WAB filled with facts - search up a few and educate yourself.
-dale
That would explain why we had no plans to do anything about Iraq prior to 9-11.
Gentlemen, with all do respect, the events of September 11, 2001, gave the Bush Administration the political cover to attack Iraq. If was nothing else, not resolution nor evidence of involvement.
Until later, when yellowcake and other stories were created.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: