Michelle Obama requires photo ID and SS number for book signing

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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?

"Yes, she is one of the highest priority targets in the world. Oh well. "

If you are claiming this would not have a HUGE impact on america, youre fooling yourself.

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.

Thats just too logicly simple.

1. This pretains to the Obamas so it must be a loathsome act.

2. This is ATS so something must be conspirital in nature.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

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

Hypocrisy –

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

link


This administration claims it’s wrong to check voters ID’s to protect our election process but they don’t have any reservations about the SS checking ID’s at Michelle’s book tour for her personal protection.

If this administration really believed it was wrong or some kind of civil rights violation to check ID’s then it shouldn’t be done under ANY circumstance; they don’t get to pick and choose!

Either its wrong or its not!!

Their actions are hypocritical....Get it?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by windword

 

Sorry, but I don't see the hypocrisy at all. I only see the Secret Service doing their job. Not just anyone can walk up to the 1st Lady, without first being cleared.

And NOT JUST ANYONE can walk into a voting booth and dictate my future or yours!

You can’t be serious when you say you don't see the hypocrisy!

Um, er, yeah! Just anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. Sorry if that vote goes against the way you would like things to be.

I don't know what Mrs Obama's security precautions have to do with anyone dictating your future, but yeah, I do see the hypocrisy, now that you mention it, YOURS!

reply to post by windword

Um, er, yeah! Just anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. Sorry if that vote goes against the way you would like things to be.

And how do you verify eligibility, professor?

I don't know what Mrs Obama's security precautions have to do with anyone dictating your future, but yeah, I do see the hypocrisy, now that you mention it, YOURS!

You didn’t even read the thread!

And people wonder why Obama gets away with so much! I don’t!!

reply to post by seabag


It's just the Secret Service getting the info to do background checks before these people can be at an event with the first lady. The only difference between now and every instance in the past is that it's in the news.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

It's just the Secret Service getting the info to do background checks before these people can be at an event with the first lady. The only difference between now and every instance in the past is that it's in the news.

OK…so what’s wrong with Texas and other states verifying eligibility to vote by checking ID’s?

Is there a problem with this? Holder thinks there is. Seems like a reasonable precaution to me.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

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

Hypocrisy –

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

link


This administration claims it’s wrong to check voters ID’s to protect our election process but they don’t have any reservations about the SS checking ID’s at Michelle’s book tour for her personal protection.

If this administration really believed it was wrong or some kind of civil rights violation to check ID’s then it shouldn’t be done under ANY circumstance; they don’t get to pick and choose!

Either its wrong or its not!!

Their actions are hypocritical....Get it?

You are still comparing two unrelated things, and trying to claim hypocrisy by doing so. Thats simply not the case, nor does it fit the definition of hypocrisy.

Its ok though, you seem dead set on spreading propaganda and lies, so carry on.

reply to post by seabag


It's likely not Michelle Obama requiring these people to submit the ID and SS number, but the Secret Service... Secret Service does these things for a reason.. That reason is to protect the first lady... I dont see anything wrong with the Secret Service doing their jobs... Ill take this any day over them banging prostitutes in 3rd world countries...

reply to post by seabag


Nothing, did I say there was a problem with that? I don't recall even mentioning it in my post.
I don't see any problem, but they would have to accept multiple forms of I.D.
What has this got to do with your thread exactly and why are you bringing up Holder to me?
Seems like a fair and reasonable precaution to me, but that's not what this thread was about.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by seabag

 

Nothing, did I say there was a problem with that? I don't recall even mentioning it in my post.
I don't see any problem, but they would have to accept multiple forms of I.D.
What has this got to do with your thread exactly and why are you bringing up Holder to me?

He tried to use the same tactic with me. He cant back what he is claiming, so he is trying to turn this into a "holder/racism/birther" thread.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


OK, now I know you’re intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

You asked me to SPELL IT OUT and I did…then you still claim they’re unrelated when I've demonstrated they are related!

Good day, sir! Enjoy your Kool Aid!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

OK, now I know you’re intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

You asked me to SPELL IT OUT and I did…then you still claim they’re unrelated when I've demonstrated they are related!

Good day, sir! Enjoy your Kool Aid!

No, I asked you to tell me how this fits the definition of hypocrisy. You then posted the definition of the word, and a rant that does not fit said definition at all.

You want this to fit your agenda....the problem is in your execution.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by seabag

 

Nothing, did I say there was a problem with that? I don't recall even mentioning it in my post.
I don't see any problem, but they would have to accept multiple forms of I.D.
What has this got to do with your thread exactly and why are you bringing up Holder to me?
Seems like a fair and reasonable precaution to me, but that's not what this thread was about.

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

Of course that is what the thread is about.

Read the OP again.

reply to post by seabag


It isn't hypocritical because the scenarios are not even remotely similar. I agree they should have people show some form of I.D. in light of all the corruption (though I am not sure that would help), but this is comparing apples and oranges. You are making something out of nothing.

On one hand you have millions of people checking in some place to cast a ballot, on the other you have a select group of people getting to be in very close proximity at a private even with the President's wife. Someone who could be a very likely target for attack. You seriously can't see the difference here?

They are right about you completely missing the definition of hypocrisy.

reply to post by seabag


Ah. I skipped over the end paragraph to point out what a non issue this was I guess.
I wouldn't roll my eyes too much if I were you though. You are the one overexaggerating something in an attempt to justify calling it an hypocrisy. These two scenarios really share nothing in common. Not even the motive for asking for the I.D.

Also, regardless of what the thread was about and what I missed you did respond to me with implications, information, and questions that had absolutely NOTHING to do with my original post. So it's not exactly a wonder that it made no sense to me. In your OP you way over exaggerate the governments response with "jim crowe" blah blah. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Originally posted by windword
I'm thinking that this is a Secret Service vetting of people who are invited to meet the 1st lady, nothing more.

the only thing the secret service should be checking for, are weapons and explosives.

is lady obama hiring, because that's the only legitimate reason is see for showing strangers your i.d. and social security no.

i wonder what people would be saying if the next store she visits, the security guard stops her at the door and asks her to produce i.d. and her ssn before letting her in.

you know, to vet undesirables. terms like racism and "this isn't america" come to mind.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Maybe you will better understand this explanation?

The Obama administration has done its best to oppose states from instituting new, stricter voter ID laws, complaining that many minority voters lack photo identification. But those same folks it wants voting in November are apparently not welcome anywhere near the First Lady’s book signings. Something tells me that the same media outlets comparing voter ID laws to the Jim Crow Laws, however, won’t see any hint of hypocrisy here, if they even report the story at all.

link

I guess they were talking about you and captaintyinknots.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Maybe you will better understand this explanation?

The Obama administration has done its best to oppose states from instituting new, stricter voter ID laws, complaining that many minority voters lack photo identification. But those same folks it wants voting in November are apparently not welcome anywhere near the First Lady’s book signings. Something tells me that the same media outlets comparing voter ID laws to the Jim Crow Laws, however, won’t see any hint of hypocrisy here, if they even report the story at all.

link

I guess they were talking about you and captaintyinknots.

Still posting lies. It isnt the obama administration asking for the ID. IT IS THE SECRET SERVICE. IT IS STANDARD PROTOCOL.

Therefore, to claim that the Obama administration is hypocritical for something that has nothing to do with them, is deceitful at best, and likely a blatant and intentional lie.

Get it yet? It aint that complicated.

reply to post by seabag


Come on man. Open your eyes. They are making that connection, not because it's sensible, but because they are a right wing trash rag. It's garbage journalism. I agree that people should show some i.d. when they vote to prevent fraud. I'm a Paul supporter so of course I support that. However that has absolutely nothing to do with a small gathering of people meeting the first lady. Of course they would have to have i.d. to prove who they are. The secret service isn't going to let anyone near her that doesn't have an extensive background check.

Are you seriously that naive?