Michelle Obama requires photo ID and SS number for book signing

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Lie #1: Michelle Obama is asking for the ID.

The OP clearly states the SS checked ID…not sure what your point is.

Was an ID required to see Michelle Obama at the book signing????? I rest my case!!

Lie #2: It is not standard SS protocol to do so.

Yes…and isn’t is standard protocol to verify eligibility to vote?

Lie #3: This has ANY parallels to voter identity.

Both SHOULD require ID without the race card being played!

Lie #4: The Obamas have ANY say in standard SS protocol.

If they thought there was a problem with the SS protocol don’t you think they’d sic Eric Holder on the SS?? Of course they would! Hence the hypocrisy!

Lie #5: Only the Obamas have done this.

Who said that??

You’re distracting….you have no argument.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


and your point being? its standard protocal because you dont want just anyone that close to them. Its still on the taxpayers' dime. so why are we footing the bill so she can sign her book?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Lie #1: Michelle Obama is asking for the ID.

The OP clearly states the SS checked ID…not sure what your point is.

Lie #2: It is not standard SS protocol to do so.

Yes…and isn’t is standard protocol to verify eligibility to vote?

Lie #3: This has ANY parallels to voter identity.

Both SHOULD require ID without the race card being played!

Lie #4: The Obamas have ANY say in standard SS protocol.

If they thought there was a problem with the SS protocol don’t you think they’d sic Eric Holder on the SS?? Of course they would! Hence the hypocrisy!

Lie #5: Only the Obamas have done this.

Who said that??

You’re distracting….you have no argument.

1)The SECRET SERVICE checks ID and social security numbers, as is standard protocol. NOWHERE in the article does it claim Michelle Obama is requiring it, as your title (yes, YOUR title, not the title of the article you linked) states. So yes, that would be the first lie.

2)So you admit that #2 was also a lie.

3)"Should be" is a utopian term. There is FACT, and there is what "should be". To claim what "should be" as truth is, in fact, a lie. 3 IN A ROW!

4)What exactly are you talking about. This is SS protocol. Has been since long before Obama came into office. Therefore, calling him a hypocrite for following the same protocol as other presidents is, again, a lie.

You admit all of these lies, and then try to claim I have no argument? Wow....

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

and your point being? its standard protocal because you dont want just anyone that close to them. Its still on the taxpayers' dime. so why are we footing the bill so she can sign her book?

It doesnt matter if its a book signing, a vacation, a work day, or lunch break. The SS would be there. That is their job. So you arent footing the bill for anything different here.

Or are you saying you dont think the presidential family should be protected?

reply to post by captaintyinknots



The more I think about the salaries you quoted for a SS aggent, I think it's important to remember that they also have Co. cars, expense accounts, very good health and dental insurance, and other perks that actually make thier salaries more then just thier base pay. The average American spends alot of thier base salary to pay for the "perks" I just mentioned.

I don't wanna pay for a SS service agent to stay in hotels, eating nice meals, etc. to protect any ex government official or current one's wife's on a "book tour"...especially when we see what a "wonderful" job they did protecting JFK ....

reply to post by captaintyinknots

1)The SECRET SERVICE checks ID and social security numbers, as is standard protocol. NOWHERE in the article does it claim Michelle Obama is requiring it, as your title (yes, YOUR title, not the title of the article you linked) states. So yes, that would be the first lie.

Actually, the title of the article reads:

First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; Voter ID Law-hating Media Fail to Note Obama Hypocrisy

Who is the liar??

2)So you admit that #2 was also a lie.

I never said it wasn’t protocol.

3)"Should be" is a utopian term. There is FACT, and there is what "should be". To claim what "should be" as truth is, in fact, a lie. 3 IN A ROW!

Texas and other states have passed voter ID laws and Eric Holder is challenging them. It’s not that I’m lying it’s that you’re uninformed.

4)What exactly are you talking about. This is SS protocol. Has been since long before Obama came into office. Therefore, calling him a hypocrite for following the same protocol as other presidents is, again, a lie.

So what???? You’re the ONLY PERSON talking about that!!

WE GET IT!! That doesn't make the hypocrisy go away!!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

1)The SECRET SERVICE checks ID and social security numbers, as is standard protocol. NOWHERE in the article does it claim Michelle Obama is requiring it, as your title (yes, YOUR title, not the title of the article you linked) states. So yes, that would be the first lie.

Actually, the title of the article reads:

First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; Voter ID Law-hating Media Fail to Note Obama Hypocrisy

Who is the liar??

2)So you admit that #2 was also a lie.

I never said it wasn’t protocol.

3)"Should be" is a utopian term. There is FACT, and there is what "should be". To claim what "should be" as truth is, in fact, a lie. 3 IN A ROW!

Texas and other states have passed voter ID laws and Eric Holder is challenging them. It’s not that I’m lying it’s that you’re uninformed.

4)What exactly are you talking about. This is SS protocol. Has been since long before Obama came into office. Therefore, calling him a hypocrite for following the same protocol as other presidents is, again, a lie.

So what???? You’re the ONLY PERSON talking about that!!

WE GET IT!! That doesn't make the hypocrisy go away!!

edit on 17-6-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

1)Who is the liar? You and the headline writer, since it is blatantly false.

2)So you admit that it is protocol and has nothing to do with M.O. In other words, claiming that it is M.O. that is requiring it is, thats right, A LIE.

3)No, it IS that you are lying.

4)So, you admit this lie, again. Good.

We get it. You hate Obama. That doesnt change the fact that this is outright propaganda.

reply to post by wardk28


Thank you for understanding my logic. Thats pretty much how I see it. If they aren't holding an actual Public Office, well then, fend for yourself. Most if not all other celebrities or retired public figures pay for private security out of pocket, if they feel they might need it.

Im not exactly sure how its the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the security of any Private citizens.

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by wardk28

 

Thank you for understanding my logic. Thats pretty much how I see it. If they aren't holding an actual Public Office, well then, fend for yourself. Most if not all other celebrities or retired public figures pay for private security out of pocket, if they feel they might need it.

Im not exactly sure how its the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the security of any Private citizens.

She isnt a private citizen, she is a political asset. Imagine the political implications if a first lady was kidnapped and held for ransom.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

1)Who is the liar? You and the headline writer, since it is blatantly false.

Is it OK for a state to require ID to vote? Did SS check ID to see Michelle?

Hypocrisy!

I rest my case.

2)So you admit that it is protocol and has nothing to do with M.O. In other words, claiming that it is M.O. that is requiring it is, thats right, A LIE.

I assume it is? Can you site one example SS doing this for another first lady at a book signing? I’ll wait.

3)No, it IS that you are lying.

You didn’t even know that Holder (under Obama’s orders I’m sure) is going after the states for checking ID!!

4)So, you admit this lie, again. Good.

I admit that no other AG or POTUS has EVER called citizens “racist” for wanting to secure their election process by checking ID!

We get it. You hate Obama. That doesnt change the fact that this is outright propaganda.

This actually happened so it’s not propaganda….its’ reality.

It’s only propaganda to you because you disagree with it!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by wardk28

 

Thank you for understanding my logic. Thats pretty much how I see it. If they aren't holding an actual Public Office, well then, fend for yourself. Most if not all other celebrities or retired public figures pay for private security out of pocket, if they feel they might need it.

Im not exactly sure how its the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the security of any Private citizens.

She isnt a private citizen, she is a political asset. Imagine the political implications if a first lady was kidnapped and held for ransom.

She is a private citizen and tax money should not be spent protecting her. She is certainly no "asset" or even a friend to this country.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

1)Who is the liar? You and the headline writer, since it is blatantly false.

Is it OK for a state to require ID to vote? Did SS check ID to see Michelle?
Hypocrisy!
I rest my case.

2)So you admit that it is protocol and has nothing to do with M.O. In other words, claiming that it is M.O. that is requiring it is, thats right, A LIE.

I assume it is? Can you site one example SS doing this for another first lady at a book signing? I’ll wait.

3)No, it IS that you are lying.

You didn’t even know that Holder (under Obama’s orders I’m sure) is going after the states for checking ID!!

4)So, you admit this lie, again. Good.

I admit that no other AG or POTUS has EVER called citizens “racist” for wanting to secure their election process by checking ID!

We get it. You hate Obama. That doesnt change the fact that this is outright propaganda.

This actually happened so it’s not propaganda….its’ reality.
It’s only propaganda to you because you disagree with it!

1)Again, SS checked ID to see Michelle because THAT IS THEIR JOB. That is what they do, and have done for quite some time not. There is NO parallel between this and voting. None. You are stretching way to far here....you're going to pull something.

2)Laura Bush. Sarah Palin (who wasnt even elected at the time). Nancy Reagan. Nice try though.

3)Care to back that one up? Where did I ever say I didnt know holder was doing this. Better yet, where have I mentioned holder, at all, in this thread?

4)Hmmmm, maybe it has happened, but I would love to see some video of Obama calling anyone a racist since he's been in office. Like I said, I may be wrong, as I stopped paying attention to the "racism" card long ago, from both sides.

5)Its propaganda because, as I have already pointed out multiple times, it is not true. Michelle Obama NEVER required ID for a book signing, and there is no parallel to voter ID. See, when you stop talking facts, and distort the truth, it becomes propaganda. Get it?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by wardk28

 

Thank you for understanding my logic. Thats pretty much how I see it. If they aren't holding an actual Public Office, well then, fend for yourself. Most if not all other celebrities or retired public figures pay for private security out of pocket, if they feel they might need it.

Im not exactly sure how its the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the security of any Private citizens.

She isnt a private citizen, she is a political asset. Imagine the political implications if a first lady was kidnapped and held for ransom.

She is a private citizen and tax money should not be spent protecting her. She is certainly no "asset" or even a friend to this country.

Really? So there is nothing to be gained politically by, say, kidnapping her? Threatening her?

Come on now.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

She is a private citizen and tax money should not be spent protecting her. She is certainly no "asset" or even a friend to this country.

I see why they protect her though. What if she was kidnapped? The most powerful man in the world would be at the mercy of these people. Lord only knows what he’d say or do to get her back. Do you think for a second he wouldn't throw us under the bus?

I don’t begrudge her security BUT....a book signing...REALLY??

I think she should knock off the BS and all the vacations and stop acting like royalty on our dime! She can do a book tour when they’re out of office!

reply to post by captaintyinknots

1)Again, SS checked ID to see Michelle because THAT IS THEIR JOB. That is what they do, and have done for quite some time not. There is NO parallel between this and voting. None. You are stretching way to far here....you're going to pull something.

Is it a states right to ID voters? YES!

Why then is holder going after Texas?

You’ve proven nothing in all your posts and I’m done going in circle with you.

I’m obviously right and you’re obviously desperate so we’ll leave it at that!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

1)Again, SS checked ID to see Michelle because THAT IS THEIR JOB. That is what they do, and have done for quite some time not. There is NO parallel between this and voting. None. You are stretching way to far here....you're going to pull something.

Is it a states right to ID voters? YES!

Why then is holder going after Texas?

You’ve proven nothing in all your posts and I’m done going in circle with you.

I’m obviously right and you’re obviously desperate so we’ll leave it at that!

Keep clinging to your notion that this has ANYTHING to do with voter id. Have fun with that. Some day, you'll see that the two topics have NOTHING in common. Then again, I am fairly certain you already know that, and simply figure if you keep pushing the lie hard enough, some might buy it.

Which is, afterall, why you continue to ignore all of the points I have made.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by wardk28

 

Thank you for understanding my logic. Thats pretty much how I see it. If they aren't holding an actual Public Office, well then, fend for yourself. Most if not all other celebrities or retired public figures pay for private security out of pocket, if they feel they might need it.

Im not exactly sure how its the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the security of any Private citizens.

She isnt a private citizen, she is a political asset. Imagine the political implications if a first lady was kidnapped and held for ransom.

She is a private citizen and tax money should not be spent protecting her. She is certainly no "asset" or even a friend to this country.

Really? So there is nothing to be gained politically by, say, kidnapping her? Threatening her?

Come on now.

Let them do it. We don't negotiate with terrorists. She is just another private citizen. Her husband may be president for now but she is not. She holds no public office and she has been a serious drain on the taxpayer. If they want protection for her, let bammy pay for it, or maybe the proceeds from her book can pay for it?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Which is, afterall, why you continue to ignore all of the points I have made.

I’ve addressed all of your points…

We’re just so far off on this subject that neither of us is going to budge!

By the way, if I’m wrong about this then why does a Google search quickly turn up dozens of articles pointing to this hypocrisy? Obviously others see it too!

We’ll agree to disagree on this subject because I’ve made my case clearly and we obviously aren’t going to see eye to eye (I think your eyes are closed! ).

reply to post by seabag

I guess he decided to avoid the rush. He has been throwing America under the bus for years now.

reply to post by seabag


So then, explain this simple thing: HOW is this hypocritical? What part fits the definition of hypocrisy?