Wanna work fot the new Administration?

[DeusTrismegistus]

it's because we elected an intelligent, well educated, well spoken, open-minded president, who prefers diplomacy to war.

We have had other presidents who fit that description without the overwhelming approval of the rest of the world. Somehow I don't think the feeling would be the same if it was a republican who was elected who fit the same bill.

[Dmitri]

Some comedian said something like, "Saying 'better president than Bush' is like saying nothing at all. My dog would be a better president."

[nianfong]

there hasn't been a republican who fit that bill since... lincoln?

[Walter Joyce]

What, no response AT ALL to my corruption post?

[Dmitri]

What, no response AT ALL to my corruption post?

I wouldn't say "AT ALL", because I sort'a did respond... That's some entertaining stuff, eh? I sometimes wish I had those skills...

But anyway, I didn't reply seriously because that would mean going into levels of "conspiracy theories" and I'm not too big on that. I'm kind of an agnostic about them , i.e. I don't really have enough knowledge to really tell one way or the other. So whether and how much "lobbying" relates to "corruption" is subjective, a matter of a personal opinion, I think. (And the larger sums of lobbyists' funds are involved, the tighter that relationship becomes IMO, and at the top of the list they probably pretty close to being equal...) So discussing it would probably be largely pointless.

[Walter Joyce]

What, no response AT ALL to my corruption post?

I wouldn't say "AT ALL", because I sort'a did respond... That's some entertaining stuff, eh? I sometimes wish I had those skills...

But anyway, I didn't reply seriously because that would mean going into levels of "conspiracy theories" and I'm not too big on that. I'm kind of an agnostic about them , i.e. I don't really have enough knowledge to really tell one way or the other. So whether and how much "lobbying" relates to "corruption" is subjective, a matter of a personal opinion, I think. (And the larger sums of lobbyists' funds are involved, the tighter that relationship becomes IMO, and at the top of the list they probably pretty close to being equal...) So discussing it would probably be largely pointless.

I confess my legal training has narrowed my definition of corruption in politics to that which is actually illegal.

I'm glad you enjoyed it though as it was mainly posted for entertainment value.

I guess I've been in Boston too long when stuff like that entertains, rather than enrages me though.

BTW, LOVED the link, especially as the response to my line.

[Michael]

it's because we elected an intelligent, well educated, well spoken, open-minded president, who prefers diplomacy to war.

He's backtracked on Iraq, saying significant troops and bases will stay indefinitely. He's the most vocal about a new war with Pakistan, and he wants to escalate the failed war in Afghanistan. Check the facts. Where's the diplomacy?

[Michael]

My momma's, of course!

I'm a US citizen

PROVE IT!!!!!!!

Which hospital? Show us your birth certificate (not your certificate of live birth)! What is your Social Security Number?

LOL, but I'm not running for President.

[Walter Joyce]

LOL, but I'm not running for President and I did have to prove all that when I enlisted in the Marines.

And Barack had to prove it when he ran for president. Somehow I think the burden of proof may have been a little bit higher and had to survive greater scrutiny and challenges.

[Michael]

Like I said a couple of days ago, I'm not trying to make this an issue because there are better topics for discussion.

[Walter Joyce]

I don't know what proof he provided. Last time I checked, I found no mention of any eligibility vetting on Obama's web site or the DNC's. Now that he's been elected, it will likely be settled in the courts. He's either an eligible citizen or he's not. If there's a court decision or some strong evidence to the contrary before the electors meet or before the inauguration, it will make for another planned distraction, sort of like the election itself. Like I said a couple of days ago, I'm not trying to make this an issue because there are better topics for discussion.

There is probably nothing on his web site because it is a NON-ISSUE.

Like if someone asked me "when did you stop beating your wife" I wouldn't dignify it with a response.

[DeusTrismegistus]

LOL, but I'm not running for President and I did have to prove all that when I enlisted in the Marines.

And Barack had to prove it when he ran for president. Somehow I think the burden of proof may have been a little bit higher and had to survive greater scrutiny and challenges.

What are the established proceedures for making sure a candidate for president is eligible? I would imagine there should be some standard method and an impartial party responsible for it, but if there was it should have never been an issue? I find it hard to believe that our govt could be so stupid as to not have a way to prove the eligibility of the highest office in the country, especially one with only 2 requirements.

[Michael]

Regarding the attack on the USS Liberty, it was declared by both governments to be a tragic mistake with horrendous consequences. A quick review of sites that put forth conspiracy and coverup theories revealed too many fringe, extremist, Christian militant supremacist cesspools etc for me to bother with and was reason enough for me to click off even quicker.

I can relate to that. Try looking at this site of the Navy vets who were on the Liberty at the time of attack. This site disavows any connection, by name, to other sites like those that you found.

Here are some links to three films about the attack on the USS Liberty:
Dead in the Water, 60 minutes, BBC 2002 documentary
Watch it online here

Loss of Liberty documentary, 52 minutes, download here

Alex Jones included about 13 minutes on the USS Liberty in his 2005 film Terrorstorm.

[Michael]

There is probably nothing on his web site because it is a NON-ISSUE.

Like if someone asked me "when did you stop beating your wife" I wouldn't dignify it with a response.

So first you suggest he had to go through a more difficult background check than a military enlistee and then you say it's a non-issue and might imply an insult to ask a candidate for President to prove his eligibility. It's a very simple request, but now the burden of proof is on people who question his eligibility, so we will see what comes of it.

[Michael]

What are the established proceedures for making sure a candidate for president is eligible? I would imagine there should be some standard method and an impartial party responsible for it, but if there was it should have never been an issue? I find it hard to believe that our govt could be so stupid as to not have a way to prove the eligibility of the highest office in the country, especially one with only 2 requirements.

I don't think it's ever come up before as a controversial issue with a candidate with such a wafer thin claim to eligibility for President. The requirements are clear, but I don't think there's an established procedure to demonstrate that you've satisfied them.