Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave

I hope rosco and boss hog get punished for thier Stupidity.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by greydaze]

Originally posted by lpowell0627


Then tell me, why if what they do in the bedroom is none of our business, are so many politicians asked to resign when caught with their pants down?

Because of people with child-like views of the world like you.

This has been going on for ages, as a matter of fact there was a story written about it in the early 1800's... drat the name fails me now... but it was a story about how this one person goes walking in the woods at night and runs into all sorts of scandalous and irreverence being done by pillars of the community. It speaks about how everyone who was looked up to were actually doing everything they "shouldn't".

It's a tale that has been told over and over and over again, and has shown to be true.

So when you go thinking your candidate is somehow better than the average person, you are deluding yourself. When you go thinking your preacher is a holier man than the butcher, you are deluding yourself.

When you think that any man or woman is any better or less than you are... you are deluding yourself.

What I want to know when I elected a man or woman, is not how they conduct themselves, but if they can get the job done.

EOF

reply to post by phoenix103


I do agree with you. I understand privacy, security, etc.

My point is that this information SHOULD be public knowledge.

Think about how much waste and corruption could have been avoided had we known what politicians were CROOKS before they ever got into office.

And again, if there's nothing to hide....

My argument is and will remain, no matter what names people continue to call me, that until we start demanding that these politicians answer to a higher standard, we will never achieve a higher standard.

And I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, the current standard is completely unacceptable.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

This has been going on for ages, as a matter of fact there was a story written about it in the early 1800's... drat the name fails me now... but it was a story about how this one person goes walking in the woods at night and runs into all sorts of scandalous and irreverence being done by pillars of the community. It speaks about how everyone who was looked up to were actually doing everything they "shouldn't".

And because of views like this, that because "everyone is doing it and always has", we will never actually better this country. Rather, we will continue down our current path. Which, by your acceptance of these practices, I can only assume is OK with you. Which is fine and I need not refer to name-calling simply because we have a difference of opinion.

I'm sorry if you think me a child -- but I want this country to be better. I'm sick and tired of politics as usual.

When you think that any man or woman is any better or less than you are... you are deluding yourself.

Interesting statement after you've spent many lines insulting me and calling me names.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by lpowell0627


Then tell me, why if what they do in the bedroom is none of our business, are so many politicians asked to resign when caught with their pants down?

Because of people with child-like views of the world like you.

This has been going on for ages, as a matter of fact there was a story written about it in the early 1800's... drat the name fails me now... but it was a story about how this one person goes walking in the woods at night and runs into all sorts of scandalous and irreverence being done by pillars of the community. It speaks about how everyone who was looked up to were actually doing everything they "shouldn't".

It's a tale that has been told over and over and over again, and has shown to be true.

So when you go thinking your candidate is somehow better than the average person, you are deluding yourself. When you go thinking your preacher is a holier man than the butcher, you are deluding yourself.

When you think that any man or woman is any better or less than you are... you are deluding yourself.

What I want to know when I elected a man or woman, is not how they conduct themselves, but if they can get the job done.

EOF

Personal conduct means nothing to you?? That statement surprises me. Especially coming from you. Does the term moral rectitude mean anything to anyone? We all have our dark spots but it would seem that our elected leaders choose to go above and beyond a minor dark spot. Governor Blago is great example as are the tax scofflaws that sit in congress and in Obama's cabinet.

I feel myself straying off topic. Background means everything especially when it concerns the POTUS. Just ask anyone who works for the Secret Service. They take up to a year just to check out a candidate before hiring.

reply to post by LiquidMirage


The birthers just keep getting dumber by the day.

This has nothing to do with Obamabots and everything to do with people refusing to accept what is right in front of their eyes.

If you go back and look at the post where it included excerpts from officers that ran background checks on other Presidents, the exact same thing happened.

In other words, there is NO conspiracy. If you run a background check on any POTUS, you'll get your ass handed to you.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

This has been going on for ages, as a matter of fact there was a story written about it in the early 1800's... drat the name fails me now... but it was a story about how this one person goes walking in the woods at night and runs into all sorts of scandalous and irreverence being done by pillars of the community. It speaks about how everyone who was looked up to were actually doing everything they "shouldn't".

And because of views like this, that because "everyone is doing it and always has", we will never actually better this country. Rather, we will continue down our current path. Which, by your acceptance of these practices, I can only assume is OK with you. Which is fine and I need not refer to name-calling simply because we have a difference of opinion.

You are mistaken on two points.

1. It has nothing to do with "our country" it has to do with humanity. You can't divorce concupiscence from humanity.

2. I'm not saying this is OK.. .I'm saying that if you expect anyone to be beyond reproach you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Look at Bush... alcoholic.... coke-head.... n'er do well draft dodger etc... but people elected him anyway because they thought that he could get the job done.

What bothers me is when you have someone arguing for "family values" and then goes and cheats on his wife and family.

That's simply being a hypocrite. I'll never vote for someone who supports "family values" because I know they are simply being a hypocrite and shilling for votes.

Come right out and claim your own humanity... then let's talk about what has to get done. Because some of the worst behaved humans have been our greatest heroes while some of the more purest among us have been the worlds worst dictators....

I'm sorry if you think me a child -- but I want this country to be better. I'm sick and tired of politics as usual.

Well, I don't think you a child to be honest.

If you want things to get better, stop putting politicians on pedestals!

You say they work for you... then treat them like an employee... not the boss. Understand they are human, do human things, etc. Hire them because they can lead or get the job done... not because they are beyond reproach in the eyes of polite society.

When you think that any man or woman is any better or less than you are... you are deluding yourself.

Interesting statement after you've spent many lines insulting me and calling me names.

Look, I never called you a name. I said you are thinking in a childish manner... meaning child-like. I have a child too, and I don't think any less of him for viewing the world through rose-colored glasses.

Not sure how that's an interesting statement, it's a tactic used by many a Rinpoche as they attempt to get people to think for themselves...

This is an invasion of privacy as far as im concerned, I just got a job today and they had to do a background check on me, but they had to have written consent, just like when you buy a gun, etc.

These cops had to be idiots if they thought they could get away with snooping around.

And honestly i'm surprised to see so many people supporting the cops, if you found out that they were doing background checks on you for no reason at all then i'm sure you wouldn't be too happy about it either.

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by lpowell0627


Then tell me, why if what they do in the bedroom is none of our business, are so many politicians asked to resign when caught with their pants down?

Because of people with child-like views of the world like you.

This has been going on for ages, as a matter of fact there was a story written about it in the early 1800's... drat the name fails me now... but it was a story about how this one person goes walking in the woods at night and runs into all sorts of scandalous and irreverence being done by pillars of the community. It speaks about how everyone who was looked up to were actually doing everything they "shouldn't".

It's a tale that has been told over and over and over again, and has shown to be true.

So when you go thinking your candidate is somehow better than the average person, you are deluding yourself. When you go thinking your preacher is a holier man than the butcher, you are deluding yourself.

When you think that any man or woman is any better or less than you are... you are deluding yourself.

What I want to know when I elected a man or woman, is not how they conduct themselves, but if they can get the job done.

EOF

Personal conduct means nothing to you??

Not in an age where it's 90% false advertising.

That statement surprises me. Especially coming from you. Does the term moral rectitude mean anything to anyone?

My point here is that all humans are fallible. Let's not "put on airs" about who we are. When we start to respect the pious amongst us, then piety becomes commodotized and a cover for our own corruption.

Yes I would expect that a person who is elected will be in line with whatever morality the society has at that time. But when it is used as a measuring stick, it becomes a false identifier.

As for coming from me... I expect all people to fall to temptations of the flesh. What I don't expect is for people to claim they are beyond it while looking down on others.

We all have our dark spots but it would seem that our elected leaders choose to go above and beyond a minor dark spot. Governor Blago is great example as are the tax scofflaws that sit in congress and in Obama's cabinet.

We may be talking about two different things.

For example... I don't believe Bill Clinton should have been gone after for being a philanderer... It just doesn't have any bearing on his ability to be a president. Now obviously in this witch hunt that ensued, he perjured himself. But it was this assumption that a president's private life should be squeaky clean that is alien, not only to countries other than ourselves, but also to political life in America. It's only been since around Nixon that these things have become fashionable and I think we are worse off for it.

That is a completely different thing from actual government corruption as you mention with Blago. I'm not supporting corruption in government.

I feel myself straying off topic. Background means everything especially when it concerns the POTUS. Just ask anyone who works for the Secret Service. They take up to a year just to check out a candidate before hiring.

I agree.... and as part of the campaign, I expect that the opposing side will run these background checks as private citizens.

What I take issue with is two things.

1. Local Law Enforcement (local to me anyway) abusing the system I paid for to "dig up dirt" on someone. I don't care who it is.
2. The assumption that good leaders should be morally better than anyone else. Look at Churchill vs Hitler.... if you described both men based on their private life without using their names Hitler comes out smelling like a rose, athletic, diet conscious etc, whereas Churchill looks like a philandering alcoholic.


[edit on 31-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Law Enforcements DO NOT have the right to be running back ground investigations or checks on anyone just for the hell of it... Only when you arrest some one ( At lest as a Federal Law Enforcement) you run background check to see what kind of person you are dealing with and if the person has any wants/warrant.

Those officers were not in their right minds when they did that... specially to the president of the U.S..

When you log on in the system, you have a special hash ID that has the logger information and anything you do is monitor by a superior. Also you are logging in to certain data bases that the FBI monitor very closely because it is their database.

Running checks on a citizen for no reason is bad enough, picture doing that on the President...

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

"I would qualify that.... what he does in the bathroom, the bedroom, the kitchen etc is NOT our business. If he and Michelle decided to have an open marriage... that wouldn't be our business either. "

That didn't work out so well for Elliot Spitzer did it? He makes a public statemenet regarding unethical actions by some and gets politically assasinated for it. Sorry, but politicians behavior seems to be everyone's business whether or not it should be.

On February 14, the Washington Post published an editorial by Spitzer titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,” which charged, “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

link

Most of us know what happened to Spitzer's career after his "private life" was made public.

Yes you are speaking of the hypocrite. The one who goes after those who he claims to be immoral and unethical while he himself is not beyond reproach.

I'm not speaking of that at all.

I'm saying that these private matters don't have any effect on a persons ability to perform their job, unless of course they are attempting to be "holier than thou".

Which is why I feel politicians should be frank... if you like to drink.. say so,, like to smoke.. say so... like to screw around... say so... and if you don't say so for your own sense of privacy... well then by golly don't go pointing out the splinter in your brothers eye when you have an entire 2x4 in your own...

Have too agree with all you said. Especially how unnerving the lack of background information on him is. How many soc. sec. #'s did he use? Last I heard - 39 - and they all start out with different state codes - what is up with that ? Also, his selective service registration is all dummied up. Don't we need to and have a duty to ask WHY?

Originally posted by phoenix103

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by phoenix103

 

Dont you think that was a rather rude response? Clearly the OP didn't think so and wanted to let us know that LEO's have no rights to Obama's historical record either. It would stand to reason that they used their ability to tap into his background to determine his "status". What's wrong with that? I'm as dense as the OP, so please help me out here.

Not especially, it takes little more than common sense to work it out.

Why do i need to explain what is wrong with law enforcement officers abusing the trust placed in them?!

In the UK these to chancers would find themselves in jail for some time.

I agree for the most part in what you are saying. However your last statement regarding the UK is way off. The police here are no different from those in America.

They wouldn't go to jail here in the UK, they'd have printed out the information and left it carelessly lying around until some journo found it and caused a resignation from some government patsy.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Clearly as it is a stupid, blatant and gross invasion of privacy/abuse of their authority.

Why the hell should you need it explained to you?



Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/30/2009 by maria_stardust]

The President loses his general privacy the minute that he takes Office, and subsequently becomes a servant of the People, by the People, and for the People of the United States of America.

I'm hearing this claim so presumably this is laid out in statute somewhere? Would anyone be as gracious as to tell me which document(s) outline this and the relevant parts?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Fair enough.

After walking away for a few hours, and re-reading my statements, I can see how it can be construed as nothing more than a temper tantrum and a rather "holier than thou" type stance. Of course, my rose colored glasses broke some decades back, so that was not my intent.

My frustration over the fact that we as a nation have allowed our standards to drop -- for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of politicians have failed to meet them -- got the best of me. Nobody's perfect. (irony intended)

Have a good weekend.

reply to post by lpowell0627


Dude, (or dudette), I know... I'm also bothered by the changes in our society as well.

And I hope I didn't offend.


Hope you have a great weekend too fellow ATSer!

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Clearly as it is a stupid, blatant and gross invasion of privacy/abuse of their authority.

Why the hell should you need it explained to you?



Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/30/2009 by maria_stardust]

>> It needs to be explained repeatedly, because so few people understand ABUSE OF POWER. Namely officers doing background checks on people. This was also done during elections as well.

The President has a high security clearance -- he's had a background check. A private citizen can also conduct one. But if you have access to government databases -- you don't have the right to go willy nilly and sniff around people's private data. Do you want police selling your Social Security data?

That said, I wonder how Bush ever got a security clearance with all his ties to the Mafia... probably because the Mafia/CIA are joined at the hip. But that has NOTHING to do with this case.

it is Wrong to question The Leader. No one must do so.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by phoenix103

 

I understand all of that privacy stuff. It was the same thing when hospital workers checked for medical records on celebrities.

My point really was:

The secret service was notified AS SOON AS THE CHECK WAS DONE -- obviously via some electronic method as nobody called THEM.

The secret service then notified the police department.

I find this to be a huge amount of overkill over something that, although intrusive, is hardly threatening. Or is it? -- was my point.

the backround check would reveal addresses of relatives and friends. do you really think the secret service is going to let anybody have access to obamas relatives whereabouts? i mean c'mon...use some critical thinking skills. there are millions of people in this country that would love nothing better, then to do harm to obama or people close to him.

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by ninecrimes
They broke their oaths, and more importantly federal laws.

Good riddance, piggie iggies!

Oh really? They broke an "oath" by running a background check? LOL. Police can run background checks, it's what they do. My brother is a cop and he ran background checks on all the guys my sisters have dated. The only reason these cops got in trouble is because they did it on the Pres. from a PC they can be traced to.

Then your brother is no better & has repeatedly broke the law himself for he didn't have just cause or reason for suspicion either. Simply saying because they dated your sister is a gross abuse of authority & he is definately a piggy-wiggy that should be charged & sent to jail to be given an anal probe by some 400 pound bloke named Bobo.

edit to correct spelling when noticed

[edit on 31-7-2009 by acrux]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by acrux]