posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:56 AM
Well this thread sure got active in a major way since that first page.
This really still comes down to one simple thing though and it isn't a birther
issue. This is a character issue. It isn't about removing
the man from office or saying he isn't legal to run the second time. A court has made this a moot point, whatever side someone was on before that.
It's over. Kaput.
Now Obama is asking for the nation's votes for re-election. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for whatever might be of relevance from his official
background. Official would be along the lines of transcripts, diplomas, published or publicly submitted writings in the past...etc. Privacy is a
CROCK. A United States President sits at the helm of the most powerful (or dangerous...depending on who leads it) military currently in existence. I
don't think a man in that job has squat for privacy rights on the official stuff...and he was a total fool (any one of them) to think there could
I wonder...... Would everyone have been as tolerant if Bush had been equally obstructive and quick to hire lawyers to block everything under the sun
where it related to his very average academic history and national guard service? I seem to recall the light resistance he did raise at any point
being met with almost deafening protest of how the public had the right to know.
Nice double standards....
Obama isn't answering to stay in office, he needs to be answering IF he wants our vote. If he doesn't? Fine.... Roll
the dice and take the chances for how many people have at least a few of the same questions and just don't vocalize it to anyone. It should be
interesting to see play out to the end in November.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Typo