It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michelle Obama requires photo ID and SS number for book signing

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
US Political Madness indeed! At least the Democrats weren't against the Mark of the Beast until they were for the Mark of the Beast.

Remember When Republicans Called Government ID Cards "The Mark of The Beast"?

I can remember when zip codes and UPC bars were declared TMOTB...the madness never ends, just becomes political fodder




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



hmmm, without going down the comparison road so many have laid before me, i still have a question or two.
anyone care to explain how or why this requirement isn't discriminatory to every citizen who does not possess them?

It’s been explained….I will try to recap for the others who don't get it.

You need an ID to:

Drive

Cash a check

Rent a movie

Open a bank account

Buy beer/cigs

Rent an apartment

Buy a car

Buy a house

Get a credit card

Is it such a stretch to ask someone to show an ID to vote? NOPE!

It seems reasonable compared to what someone has to go through to get a damned signature from Michelle!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I feel so sorry for all the poor, elderly, and illegal aliens who are being discriminated against by Michelle. She's such and evil, bigoted, xenophobe for requiring ID. Does she have no heart? I mean, it's their right to assemble at her book signing, then go vote without ID. Right?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
hello seabag, thanks for your response but that didn't answer any of the questions i posed.

yes, i'm well aware of occasions when ID is required, many of which you didn't list.
however, my question is about the discriminatory factor.
No ID = No signed copy ?? wtf?

protocol, schmotocol, they should have exercised some of that with the hookers on their last duty assignment.
should Michelle have protection for a personal business venture? sure.
taxpayer provided? NOT.

imho, there isn't any signature worthy of that hassle.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
First of all, an SSN is "NOT!!" a personal I.D., it never has been, and is never "supposed" to be used as such in any case whatsoever, it was for proof of membership in a retirement account, that garners points for each year worked, until you have the amount needed to actually "Qualify" for the SS Program as an actual paid up "member" by your taxes you have had taken from your check..

It is as that point you can fill out a yearly SSN paperwork, and stop the FED's from taking anymore out, at the loss of a greater retirement package (which of course nobody form my generation will EVER see anyway), when you are actually "allowed" to receive the bi-weekly check from the SS fund itself..

Now did anyone else catch that you "HAVE" to by a book, then leave the dang book at the store?.... WTH is that all about?...

Personally I would have to carry an upchuck bag to even be within 200 yards of her, before her skanky smell reaches my nose, causing me to upchuck explosively, that "thing" is one vile creature of non human origins IMO..

But the S.S. are only supposed to monitor the situation, take control of the environment, and watch for tell's on anyone or anybody that is within the "circle of protection"...

Asking for someones I.D. is akin to saying "Papers Please"... asking for the SSN is "Verboten", and a federal crime to associate it with an I.D...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I think this has more to do with the fact that she is FLOTUS. I mean, come on, I know we'd all love to believe that this world is all gumdrops, rainbows and cheeseburger farting unicorns but it's not. We have to expect some form of screening is going to be required.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
If this was about protecting the First Lady, she wouldn't be doing a book signing. So let me get this straight, she is using tax payer dollars to push her book? How much is it costing to run back ground checks on each person? When will people stop treating these so called "public servents" like rock stars?


Well, let's see, the first president to be "treated like a rock star" was a guy by the name of George Washington, i'm guessing it won't be changing anytime soon. I'm sure Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton had similar security measures in place, espe ially for a pre-announced event. Further, its more about protecting the security of the nation than the First Lady herself. Unless you don't think a major incident could be started by the assassination of the POTUS' wife.

I'm not a fan of Dems or Reps, but the ridiculous obsession of the anti-Obama crowd with making something out of nothing to try to discredit Obama is just plain stupid. Nothing in this nation that I can find facts for has gotten noticably worse during his administration. It hasn't gotten better as fast as I'd like, and there's a whole SLEW of policies I'd like to see different, but when nobody can make a valid argument against the president, you have to kinda think that while he may not be in the top 20, he's cettainly not the worst:

"he's always on vacation" - far, far less than W, and anyhow, presidential "vacations" aren't really. They're working just the same. George W was, and so does Obama.

"he's ruined the economy" - by turning around MASSIVE job losses, doubling the stock market, strengthening the dollar, and in 3 years going from 10 years of skyrocketing debt:GDP ratio to the beginnings of a downward decline. For the Macro-Economically impaired: like Cheney allegedly said: "deficits don't matter". What he was getting at is that if GDP is growing faster than debt, things are good.

I could go on, but I won't bother. Things aren't nearly as bad as some of you have been duped into believing, and obsessing about every little thing the POTUS or FLOTUS does is just another way to remain distracted from actual issues which matter.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



imho, there isn't any signature worthy of that hassle.


Something is always better than nothing (which many states have now).

What do you propose; national ID?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by U4ea82
 



I think this has more to do with the fact that she is FLOTUS. I mean, come on, I know we'd all love to believe that this world is all gumdrops, rainbows and cheeseburger farting unicorns but it's not. We have to expect some form of screening is going to be required.

You’re right…and its been covered!
Maybe THIS POST of mine will help you understand that I get that part.

This issue runs a little deeper...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I can't get a theme song out of my head. And to think, these clowns are going to be with us for another fourty years..... ugggg. "Were moving on up"



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Honor93
 



imho, there isn't any signature worthy of that hassle.


Something is always better than nothing (which many states have now).

What do you propose; national ID?
seabag, i don't know where you are going with this question but again, it doesn't add to the topic or answer the questions i posed nor is the topic about voter IDs.

perhaps, i am presenting my mental scenario improperly ... let's try this instead ... example:
Ms Obama (for some reason unknown to me) does appeal to many youthful girls in this country.
i would presume, there is an abundance of youth who would like to participate in this "signing".
how many 12-14 yr olds have or carry Photo ID and SS cards ???
(showing my age a bit here but my generation didn't even consider it til after age 16)

i suppose it's possible that many youth today have said credentials but i don't assume such.
So, in light of the above, what's with the discrimination associated with this public event that taypayers are being forced to finance ??

and btw, i didn't approve when previous such incidents occurred either, but that was then and this is now, so why hasn't it changed for the better ?

ps: just so you know i'm not ignoring your question, i'm all for voter ID requirements, however, this conversation isn't about that and to be totally honest, if i had to choose which is more important ... the vote or its representative --> the vote wins, every time.
i can always get a new representative.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
In an extreme display of hypocrisy, the first lady required people to provide photo ID and their SS number before she would consider autographing her book that they purchased.


On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee. At the same time, customers must also submit their social security number and show an official photo ID (driver's license, passport) to a Secret Service agent, and they will be issued a wristband to the First Lady's event on June 12.( Emphasis added)

The liberal media, particularly Obama-boosting cable network MSNBC has done its best to attack voter ID laws as discriminatory at best and racist at worst.
link

I thought requiring people to provide ID and their SSN was a racist act like the Jim Crow laws of 1877? Isn’t that what we have been told? Obama himself has done his best to prevent stricter voting laws that would require people to show ID but apparently it’s ok to have that requirement to get an autograph from an elitist like Michelle Obama?


I’m sick of these hypocritical elitists?


Your completely right those blacks are so racist it couldn't have anything to do with security for the first lady right?
They must think your such an idiot not to see right through there plan.



I don’t begrudge the first lady the necessary level of security required to ensure her safety. I understand why the SS did what they did. My point is that Obama says it’s “racist” to check people's ID when it comes to voting but somehow its justified in this case.


Makes No sense what so ever. You say you understand but clearly you do not.

If you wanted this thread to be about voter ID law then you should of made a thread about Voter ID law and why its needed.
But instead you decided to post some ridiculous Right wing blog article (clearly biased) and compare two unrelated things.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



Ms Obama (for some reason unknown to me) does appeal to many youthful girls in this country.
i would presume, there is an abundance of youth who would like to participate in this "signing".
how many 12-14 yr olds have or carry Photo ID and SS cards ???
(showing my age a bit here but my generation didn't even consider it til after age 16)

i suppose it's possible that many youth today have said credentials but i don't assume such.
So, in light of the above, what's with the discrimination associated with this public event that taypayers are being forced to finance ??


If a few 14 yr old girls missing “Michelle” is the price to pay to somewhat clean up voter fraud – so be it!

I have a daughter but I’m here to tell you – I don’t give a CRAP about 14 yr old girls feelings. When they are 18 and legally recognized as adults then I’ll care! Right now I care about illegal freaking aliens taking away votes; and you should too!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Anyone who wants her autographed book deserves to have to show ID...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by seabag
 


I think that the White House is just taking security measures to protect Mrs. Obama...nothing more...nothing less.


Yes, becasue the First Lady's life is way more important than the integrity of the voting process.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
what are you drinking tonight ??
since when do 12-14yr olds vote ??

are you so tripped up by the hypocrisy of it all, that you don't see the blatant and obvious discrimination?

and just because i'm curious, how would this work, exactly ?

a few 14 yr old girls missing “Michelle” is the price to pay to somewhat clean up voter fraud

no offense intended here, but, if you don't give a crap, don't expect anyone else to either.

besides, feelings have nothing to do with it, it's discrimination we're talking about here, not feelings.

puhleez, i reside in FL (more than 2 decades), tell me something NEW about voter fraud, please



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Some people never change. She did the same thing back then when she used to be a stripper.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by seabag
 


I think that the White House is just taking security measures to protect Mrs. Obama...nothing more...nothing less.


Yes, becasue the First Lady's life is way more important than the integrity of the voting process.



There not related its funny how idiotic people can be with it comes to right & left.
I wish the usa did have voter ID laws bush probably would not of been reelected.
Its not like people can fake a drivers ID, right?
Deaths are public records you can find out if a dead person took part in a vote. doesn't mean we need to show ID to vote. Seems like a extreme response why not just introduce fact checking
edit on 18-6-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
yeah, i said i was done talking on other threads, but, i dunno.. i'm either a liar or i'm correcting a mistake..

it's funny she needed this stuff, i don't need photo i.d. to buy a bottle of wine anymore, i just need my smile




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
just wondering how many of you fine folks know why the Secret Service came into existence?
i assure you it wasn't for Presidential protection and it was 1865 when it originated but not until 1902 before they were first used as protection, then subsequently, it wasn't until 1906 when Congress finally agreed to fund them.

considering their origin and initial purpose, they already have plenty to keep them busy ... with no special protective duties or hooker privileges necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join