Obama College Records Sealed (NOT IMPORTANT)

[Woodruff]

Well, Woodruff, seeing that you agree to the fact that he is hiding something, and that he's using shady methods in order to hide it (well, perhaps shady is too strong a word, but regardless...), in light of this newly found mutual understanding, let me ask you one question:

Because of this, what do you think of Obama?

I find it irrelevent due to the far more critical issues on which he has failed, on everything from the Patriot Act to transparency in government. (You don't really consider me an Obama fan, do you?)

[Woodruff]

I think he flunked out, maybe twice...

I don't think you actually think that at all.

[Phatscotty]

I think he flunked out, maybe twice...

I don't think you actually think that at all.

oh yes I do! I think he dropped out, possibly because we was not passing. I really, really do. I think some other things too

[Phatscotty]

I love making a thread and having good discussion about it, and then a couple weeks later, we see what the story is that they go with...

Syn-chronolgy initiate

Obama Writes His Thesis Statement

Sep 8 2010, 10:35

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ent/62630/

Where is the thesis statement?

Do you see what I mean now?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, Woodruff, seeing that you agree to the fact that he is hiding something, and that he's using shady methods in order to hide it (well, perhaps shady is too strong a word, but regardless...), in light of this newly found mutual understanding, let me ask you one question:

Because of this, what do you think of Obama?

I find it irrelevent due to the far more critical issues on which he has failed, on everything from the Patriot Act to transparency in government. (You don't really consider me an Obama fan, do you?)

You? A fan of Obama? <chuckles>

Sure, there's far more critical issues, but we've already went over them in the fora.

[Snorri1234]

Now, as president, if you were to tell the Conquerclub business that they had to hide/delete all your posts, so that no one could read what you've written, then that's suspicious, is it not?

By deleting that information, aren't you hiding something?

Why the hell would it be suspicious? If I were to run for president I would ask sites to delete my posts too. Personal info and shit that you don't want to get twisted by the media.

[BigBallinStalin]

Now, as president, if you were to tell the Conquerclub business that they had to hide/delete all your posts, so that no one could read what you've written, then that's suspicious, is it not?

By deleting that information, aren't you hiding something?

Why the hell would it be suspicious? If I were to run for president I would ask sites to delete my posts too. Personal info and shit that you don't want to get twisted by the media.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Suspicious behavior would've been better.

For example, as the president, I'm asking this information to be hidden, but it's suspicious for me to engage in such an action because it causes others to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition. Hiding that information arouses suspicion.


[source: Merriam Webster]

[PLAYER57832]

Now, as president, if you were to tell the Conquerclub business that they had to hide/delete all your posts, so that no one could read what you've written, then that's suspicious, is it not?

By deleting that information, aren't you hiding something?

Why the hell would it be suspicious? If I were to run for president I would ask sites to delete my posts too. Personal info and shit that you don't want to get twisted by the media.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Suspicious behavior would've been better.

For example, as the president, I'm asking this information to be hidden, but it's suspicious for me to engage in such an action because it causes others to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition. Hiding that information arouses suspicion.


[source: Merriam Webster]

Of course, no one would EVER want ANYTHING hidden unless they were hiding something nefarious. Privacy does not exist. Once you enter private life, everyone on Earth has a full and complete right to know everything about you......

Except, here in the U.S. even Presidents get some privacy. And, supposedly we in this country were supposed to have learned that lesson back with McCarthy.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, Woodruff, seeing that you agree to the fact that he is hiding something, and that he's using shady methods in order to hide it (well, perhaps shady is too strong a word, but regardless...), in light of this newly found mutual understanding, let me ask you one question:

Because of this, what do you think of Obama?

I find it irrelevent due to the far more critical issues on which he has failed, on everything from the Patriot Act to transparency in government. (You don't really consider me an Obama fan, do you?)

Or maybe its just irrelevant because what one does in College rarely reflects upon one's long term career. Like or dislike Obama based upon his actions and policies, that is legitimate. (and discussed well in other threads by you and others) Claiming he is supposed to be impeached or is somehow not to be trusted because we haven't seen his college records... is stupid. But then... that's about what we have come to expect from Phattscotty.


And to answer you both (even if you did not ask me directly). There are many things I would like to change about Obama, but he is still better than the alternatives. Also, I find far too much of the criticism against him akin to Phatt's arguments and far to little serious and real criticism of things he has actually done (or not done)

[Phatscotty]

Player. Was George Bush hiding anything about his college years?

[PLAYER57832]

Player. Was George Bush hiding anything about his college years?

I don't know and don't really care. It had nothing to do with his presidency.

Now Nixon's activities.. did, but you will have to delve into that on your own. (hint.. it had absolutely nothing to do with his grades, transcript or thesis').

[BigBallinStalin]

As far irrelevancy is concerned, I can't really support the opposite with much evidence.

However, I don't think the demand for Obama's thesis is as bad as McCarthyism, but that's just like my opinion, (wo)man.

And, I've never liked how a president can somehow be above the law. This cover-up (although minor) is a reflection of his character--and similar to many other people's characters--which I find disenguine, slightly "Stalinist", and just plain old wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

As far irrelevancy is concerned, I can't really support the opposite with much evidence.

However, I don't think the demand for Obama's thesis is as bad as McCarthyism, but that's just like my opinion, (wo)man.

And, I've never liked how a president can somehow be above the law. This cover-up (although minor) is a reflection of his character--and similar to many other people's characters--which I find disenguine, slightly "Stalinist", and just plain old wrong.

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law. All these attacks very much show why this is the case. Most of the right wing would be very happy to bring up all kinds of petty violations.. doesn't matter if there is anything real or not, they just make the accusation and then he is supposed to spend his time defending them instead of doing the real business of running the country.

There are issues, but this is as far from a real one as you can get. AND, most of the criticisms voiced in this forum, definitely by Phattscotty, but also many others, are similar irrelevant or untrue attacks. Ironically, often true stuff is along the lines of "yeah, he tried to do what he compaigned for but didn't get it 100% because he cannot work alone, so we are going to blast him" OR, "he did what he said he was, but we don't like it, so we are going to paint him as a villain and a liar based on some petty details".

Calling Obama "Stalinist" after Bush is... well, pretending that history doesn't matter.

[PLAYER57832]

There IS no reason why anyone should see Obama's records. They are utterly irrelevant to the presidency. He could have gotten all F's and it would not matter. He did not, as is obvious because he got into law school, etc.

As to why.. because it is pretty hard to conceive of a way it would benefit anybody. It won't silence anyone, it won't offer anything real, but will give people even more fodder for this exact type of "debate". The quotes are becuase claims that "if you don't tell us [fill in whatever you wish], then you are obviously guilty or hiding something" is not a debate it is a violation of one of the primary principles upon which this nation was founded. It was so important it was even put in the first few amendments.

Sure, it's relevant to the presidency, but that's not the point of this discussion, and his college grades are not something of particular interest to me.

Regarding the underlined: Wow, you've reached the same conclusion that I did a LONG time ago in this thread: his thesis will give people more fodder to be used against him. You see? It wasn't that hard to agree! Therefore, he IS hiding something. What's he hiding? Information that can be used against him. So, [1] do you agree with the fact that he is hiding something?

Of course he is "hiding something". I have yet to meet or hear of a person on Earth who is not. As president, it is inherent that he hide more than most.

[Which leads me to this question: [2] On what legal grounds can he deny the American public access to his thesis, with the intention of preventing the citizens of this country to be able to talk more in depth about his thesis? Surely, as long as people don't engage in illegal activities by use of his thesis (like slander), then surely there's nothing illegal in regards to talking about it.

Yes, typical McCarthy argument. Unless you can show us you aren't keeping something dangerous/evil/etc we are going to assume you are.

Let's say he even does have something to hide in his records... likely something that would be twisted well out of context (like maybe writing a pro-marxist paper becuase he wanted a good grade from his professor, as opposed to actually being a Marxist... or maybe he was reprimanded for some kind of stupid young "kid" college stuff.. or who knows and who, except those who have nothing buy negative intent. If he is hiding something, its not anything that will endanger this country or threaten our security. That is gauranteed, because even if you, Phattscotty and I don't have access to this information, plenty of people do, have seen it. One doesn't get to be president without being pretty thoroughly investigated.

AND... he IS our president. So, the time to have criticized him on that type of grounds was BEFORE he was elected, not now. Now, yes, he deserves a certain amount of respect so he can do his job.

Yes, you mentioned something about "the first few amendments," so please explain because that's very vague.

Begin with the 5th Amendment.

Oh, yes, but of course... The McCarthyist argument is that the only reason anybody looks to THAT amendment is if they are wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

That's not true at all Woody. I simply hold the opinion that, since the records are sealed, he probably got shitty grades and was one of those shitty students who never showed up except for a test. I would bet his GPA was 2.something... He probably dropped a lot of classes at Occidental too (he admits he partied way too much) just doing my own thinking here pal. Is that a stretch?

It's a lie in my book, unless you know it is the truth, because you are intentionally making a statement about which you have no evidence at all.

Yes, well, since you cannot PROVE you don't have communistic thoughts and no doubt have acquaintances who are communist (You previously admitted actually working with illegal immigrants! ... that has to just be the tip of the iceberg.. probably are secretly transporting Illegal aliens across the border).

Well... just mere speculation, you understand, but can you prove it false? I mean, come on... what are you trying to hide? We don't even know what college you attended, or IF you attended college. LIkely it was a terrorist training camp! (and don't try to hide behind the fact that you aren't running for office. That could change at any time. After all, its like dominoes falling... one hits another and before long we live in a fully communist state, simply because we allowed ONE communist to exist!)

I would dearly love to one day run for public office. But I fear my Conquer Club activity would come back to haunt me!

At least the information from CC is accessible to the public, and from this information people can make a more informed opinion about who you are. And that means a lot. There's much to be said about you (good and bad) judging from your posts.

If you think you can truly judge a person based on CC forum posts... that says a lot.

Now, as president, if you were to tell the Conquerclub business that they had to hide/delete all your posts, so that no one could read what you've written, then that's suspicious, is it not?

I see, so comparing the deletion of normally public information is, in your mind, equivalent to simply not releasing information that most people keep private? And, you consider the risk that release of that information from a non-public figure to be equal to the release from a highly public person, a person in power, a person who represents our country to the world?

The main reason most people don't care about release of some records is simply that no one will care to even read them.

By deleting that information, aren't you hiding something?

If you are a McCarthyist, then sure, that is a reasonable argument.
For the rest of us, the question is not whether something is hidden. Obviously, many things are. The question is whether the hidden information is something that needs to be released. No one has given any legitimate reason why we should see Obama's college records. Saying "well, he needs to release it to PROVE he is not hiding something"... that is a very, very dangerous route.

[BigBallinStalin]

At least the information from CC is accessible to the public, and from this information people can make a more informed opinion about who you are. And that means a lot. There's much to be said about you (good and bad) judging from your posts.

If you think you can truly judge a person based on CC forum posts... that says a lot.

Well, I can't truly judge a person based on CC forum posts, but from what I can gather on here, one's posts usually betrays one's opinions on life, their political stance, religion, mentality, analytical capabilities, education, knowledge, fears, concerns, goals, and basically what makes you tick. With that info, you fit under certain stereotypes, which may or not be true, but they certainly point one to a closer picture of who you are.

Also, you're a mother, you have kids who you're concerned about, you teach, and there's so much potential for anyone to get you to inadvertently talk about more personal information. For example, I could make the off-hand comment that someone like you who spends a lot of time on here probably has marital issues. Now, I honestly don't believe that to be true, but I could see a statement like that making you give out more personal information in a fit of anger.

Already, anyone here that follows your posts knows a good bit about you. So, in short, yes, with the information you provide on here, one can figure out a ton about someone on here--they can judge you as they see fit with the more information they collect on you. People engage in this all the time (even you), whether they're aware of it or not; therefore, don't give me that crap like "that says a lot."

Now, as president, if you were to tell the Conquerclub business that they had to hide/delete all your posts, so that no one could read what you've written, then that's suspicious, is it not?

[1]I see, so comparing the deletion of normally public information is, in your mind, equivalent to simply not releasing information that most people keep private?
[2] And, you consider the risk that release of that information from a non-public figure to be equal to the release from a highly public person, a person in power, a person who represents our country to the world?
[3] The main reason most people don't care about release of some records is simply that no one will care to even read them

1) We're talking about the president here. It's important to clearly understand who it is that wants your vote for one of the most powerful positions in the world.

2) Of course not... That's a pretty dumb question.

3) A lot of people care, but some people don't ask the right questions. Don't you think it's necessary for the public to understand who their president is and who each presidential candidate is?

And back to my reply. Aren't such actions of his suspicious?

[BigBallinStalin]

As far irrelevancy is concerned, I can't really support the opposite with much evidence.

However, I don't think the demand for Obama's thesis is as bad as McCarthyism, but that's just like my opinion, (wo)man.

And, I've never liked how a president can somehow be above the law. This cover-up (although minor) is a reflection of his character--and similar to many other people's characters--which I find disenguine, slightly "Stalinist", and just plain old wrong.

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law. All these attacks very much show why this is the case. Most of the right wing would be very happy to bring up all kinds of petty violations.. doesn't matter if there is anything real or not, they just make the accusation and then he is supposed to spend his time defending them instead of doing the real business of running the country.

There are issues, but this is as far from a real one as you can get. AND, most of the criticisms voiced in this forum, definitely by Phattscotty, but also many others, are similar irrelevant or untrue attacks. Ironically, often true stuff is along the lines of "yeah, he tried to do what he compaigned for but didn't get it 100% because he cannot work alone, so we are going to blast him" OR, "he did what he said he was, but we don't like it, so we are going to paint him as a villain and a liar based on some petty details".

Calling Obama "Stalinist" after Bush is... well, pretending that history doesn't matter.

The president may feel justified in taking certain liberties with the law, but his position alone shouldn't make him "above the law." Otherwise, he'd be impeachable and impervious to criminal suit.

_____________
I'd say it's a relevant issue because it's one piece of the pie in shaping Obama's character. Honestly, not much is really known about him. I just like to think about things like this in order to form a better picture of this man's character. It's important to understand who is running this country, AND who will be running for re-election. Given this, don't you think it's important to know who it is you're really voting for? (If you've already answered this question in the previous reply, there's no need to answer it again).

I'm not painting him as a villain, for he hasn't done anything illegal (that I'm aware of); however, I'm of the opinion that all presidents are liars.
__________________

He chooses to get himself involved, yet he doesn't have to. He can have his Public Relations take care of the legal discussion about Obama's character. He gets himself personally involved because he's not a smooth talker (can't joke things off), takes things way overboard (his attack on Fox news), etc.

What I mean by "SLIGHTLY Stalinist," is that he tries to control the media to suit his needs, especially when it's being negative about him. We've seen that with his attack on Fox News (which, sure, was understandable, but legal? ... Turns out it was just silly on his part). Also, I really don't care about Bush because I'm not talking about Bush.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course he is "hiding something". I have yet to meet or hear of a person on Earth who is not. As president, it is inherent that he hide more than most.

Why is it inherent that he do so? What right does he have in preventing the American public from clearly understanding who their president/upcoming candidate is?

[Which leads me to this question: [2] On what legal grounds can he deny the American public access to his thesis, with the intention of preventing the citizens of this country to be able to talk more in depth about his thesis? Surely, as long as people don't engage in illegal activities by use of his thesis (like slander), then surely there's nothing illegal in regards to talking about it.

Yes, typical McCarthy argument. Unless you can show us you aren't keeping something dangerous/evil/etc we are going to assume you are.

Let's say he even does have something to hide in his records... likely something that would be twisted well out of context (like maybe writing a pro-marxist paper becuase he wanted a good grade from his professor, as opposed to actually being a Marxist... or maybe he was reprimanded for some kind of stupid young "kid" college stuff.. or who knows and who, except those who have nothing buy negative intent. If he is hiding something, its not anything that will endanger this country or threaten our security. That is gauranteed, because even if you, Phattscotty and I don't have access to this information, plenty of people do, have seen it. One doesn't get to be president without being pretty thoroughly investigated.

AND... he IS our president. So, the time to have criticized him on that type of grounds was BEFORE he was elected, not now. Now, yes, he deserves a certain amount of respect so he can do his job.

Instead of dismissing my statements as "McCarthyist," I'd like you to address this question: Surely, as long as people don't engage in illegal activities by use of his thesis (like slander), then surely there's nothing illegal in regards to talking about it, correct?
______

Sure, some big shots have probably seen his thesis. We can safely assume the FBI have determined that what he wrote isn't illegal. Great! But he's still preventing the American public from understanding who their president (and soon to be presidential candidate) is. Right?

____________
Criticism should be allowed at whatever time, unless of course you're of the opinion that freedom of speech should be unlawfully limited in regards to the president (which is exactly what you're implying).

Yes, you mentioned something about "the first few amendments," so please explain because that's very vague.

Begin with the 5th Amendment.

Oh, yes, but of course... The McCarthyist argument is that the only reason anybody looks to THAT amendment is if they are wrong.

[The 5th amendment] protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure

Which leads to the question: Does his preventing his college thesis from being made public illegal? Which reminds me of the case against him concerning his citizenship, but that's another matter.

Also, haven't presidents simply legalized their actions via Executive Orders and what not? Wouldn't those step into the realm that the 5th Amendment tries to prevent?

[stahrgazer]

This link provides an example of a "sealed" Obama publication.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/08 ... Page2.html

Apparently, authorship of Harvard Law Review articles is kept anonymous, with only the President having the original, thus, the only evidence of who wrote what.

The point here is, the "sealed records" are not because Obama became president, but because it is Harvard's policy to keep things anonymous unless "someone who knows" wants to reveal it.

"Like most second-year law students on the Harvard Law Review, Senator Obama wrote an unsigned student case comment that summarized a recent decision by a state or lower federal court.

Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases.

The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he'd written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review.

Notice, when asked, Obama did not deny authorship, and went to the trouble of finding out if he was, indeed, considered the author, and additionaly queried what else he may have authored rather than merely edited.

I certainly can't recall every paper or contribution I made in high school or college, and I can't expect Obama to remember it all either, because it seems he was more active in contributions than I was.

As for his grades? I imagine if they really were bad, Republicans (I'm a reg'd Republican myself) would have sniffed out the information and blandished it in bold neon letters across billboards everywhere. Since they haven't done that, (and I really am sure they would have!) then I'm guessing Obama probably got pretty high grades, especially since he graduated from HLS with Honors... so his refusal to find out and publish just how high his honors are is likely a bit of his innate modesty.

As for his time at Columbia, pre-Harvard?
This link reveals that Obama did not graduate with honors from Columbia, although he graduated high enough to be accepted at Harvard Law School (but it's possible affirmative action helped).
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-ye ... ery/85015/

So, let's say Affirmative Action, not Columbia grades, got Obama into Harvard. His graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard kind of proves that in his case, the Affirmative Action help (if it occurred) was correct.

The article continues to compare Obama to McCain. Apparently, McCain graduated in the bottom 1% of his class, but, like Obama, has not released his transcripts.

Shame on both or who the hell cares?

[tzor]

I am 95% sure that his record is sealed for one reason.

It can be used against him.

Evidence? Or is this just another of your mindless, baseless accusations that you wish to pretend has some reality?

In politics, anything you do or say, can be used against you by the opponent.

Note that the opponent can and will often twist those things so that they say what he wants them to say.

You can't say "it's not fair" because politics by definition is not fair.

[Woodruff]

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law.

I must stridently disagree. In fact, I cannot disagree enough. Those who are part of the law are the ones who MUST be as perfect as possible regarding the law and CANNOT be seen as being above the law.

[Woodruff]

I would dearly love to one day run for public office. But I fear my Conquer Club activity would come back to haunt me!

At least the information from CC is accessible to the public, and from this information people can make a more informed opinion about who you are. And that means a lot. There's much to be said about you (good and bad) judging from your posts.

If you think you can truly judge a person based on CC forum posts... that says a lot.

I don't know...I'm pretty much the same person here that I am in real life. Ok, one exception...I definitely don't swear nearly as much in real life. But honestly...that's pretty much it.

[PLAYER57832]

I would dearly love to one day run for public office. But I fear my Conquer Club activity would come back to haunt me!

At least the information from CC is accessible to the public, and from this information people can make a more informed opinion about who you are. And that means a lot. There's much to be said about you (good and bad) judging from your posts.

If you think you can truly judge a person based on CC forum posts... that says a lot.

I don't know...I'm pretty much the same person here that I am in real life. Ok, one exception...I definitely don't swear nearly as much in real life. But honestly...that's pretty much it.

Some people are, but you just never really know. And... it is good to remember that.

[Phatscotty]

How does one get their college records sealed anyways?

[PLAYER57832]

How does one get their college records sealed anyways?

You simply decline to allow the college to release them. You would have to know my SS#, graduation date, etc. to get my records.