LOL you can't make this stuff up FBI denies background check on Palin

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/palin_and_the_fbi_background_c.php)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not participate in the vetting of Gov. Sarah Palin and did not conduct a background check as part of the process, an FBI spokesman said today.

The Washington Post reported Sunday, citing an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis, that the vetting process "included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers nvolved in the deliberations.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

The FBI did not participate in a vet, nor did it run a background check of Gov. Palin as part of the process.

Palin might already have a clearance that relates to her duties as governor. But the FBI can't speak to that, and in any event, those investigations wouldn't be accessible to the McCain campaign anyway.

[iceberg]

i guess i don't get it. are we to be upset the fbi didn't go through her entire life minute by minute?

[BrAinPaiNt]

i guess i don't get it. are we to be upset the fbi didn't go through her entire life minute by minute?

Not hard to grasp here.

The McCain spokesman said that part of the vetting process for Palin was a FBI background check. The FBI comes out later and says...we did not do a back ground check.

In other words...it would appear that Rick, for McCain, was lying.

It also seems to further go along with the idea that McCain wanted Joe or Tom and got pushed into taking Palin instead and they did it with a quick process instead of really looking into everything.

[Hostile]

Not hard to grasp here.

The McCain spokesman said that part of the vetting process for Palin was a FBI background check. The FBI comes out later and says...we did not do a back ground check.

In other words...it would appear that Rick, for McCain, was lying.

It also seems to further go along with the idea that McCain wanted Joe or Tom and got pushed into taking Palin instead and they did it with a quick process instead of really looking into everything.Yeah, that's a rib splitter.

;)

[yeahyeah]

i guess i don't get it. are we to be upset the fbi didn't go through her entire life minute by minute?



She is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart...this is the second most powerful position in the WORLD. Dont you think it might be an important consideration? To maybe do a thorough investigation on a person prior to them assuming a position? Its not like they are gonna tell her to hit the road after the vote.
WOW...oh my god...great foresight...Republican?

[ConcordCowboy]

Not hard to grasp here.

The McCain spokesman said that part of the vetting process for Palin was a FBI background check. The FBI comes out later and says...we did not do a back ground check.

In other words...it would appear that Rick, for McCain, was lying.

It also seems to further go along with the idea that McCain wanted Joe or Tom and got pushed into taking Palin instead and they did it with a quick process instead of really looking into everything.

She is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart...this is the second most powerful position in the WORLD. Dont you think it might be an important consideration? To maybe do a thorough investigation on a person prior to them assuming a position? Its not like they are gonna tell her to hit the road after the vote.
WOW...oh my god...great foresight...Republican?

Why would the FBI need to check her out?

:rolleyes:

Good Lord.

[burmafrd]

Isn't it funny that someone like YeahYeah who hates the FBI suddenly wants them to check out Palin?

[iceberg]

Why would the FBI need to check her out?

:rolleyes:

Good Lord.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

let me repeat...

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

so they don't seem to check out anyone unless there is a need. are you just as mad the "other side" isn't getting checked out to this degree or is this type of security only needed FOR the OTHER side?

geez some people are such lemmings. not you concord - but people like the mouth of idiocy yeahyeah who just rails to rail and puts no thought behind it. just whatever emotion of the minute has control of his mouth.

[BrAinPaiNt]

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

let me repeat...

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

so they don't seem to check out anyone unless there is a need. are you just as mad the "other side" isn't getting checked out to this degree or is this type of security only needed FOR the OTHER side?

geez some people are such lemmings. not you concord - but people like the mouth of idiocy yeahyeah who just rails to rail and puts no thought behind it. just whatever emotion of the minute has control of his mouth.

Can you explain why someone from McCain's Campaign lied about the FBI background check?

[ConcordCowboy]

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

let me repeat...

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

so they don't seem to check out anyone unless there is a need. are you just as mad the "other side" isn't getting checked out to this degree or is this type of security only needed FOR the OTHER side?

geez some people are such lemmings. not you concord - but people like the mouth of idiocy yeahyeah who just rails to rail and puts no thought behind it. just whatever emotion of the minute has control of his mouth.

She's running for the Frickin second highest office in the land...If there isn't a need for the FBI to check her out, then why do it at all on any campaign.

[iceberg]

Can you explain why someone from McCain's Campaign lied about the FBI background check?

no. i can't. just found out about it and yes, *this* is the issue, not that it wasn't done as some are crying about. from what the fbi said in that article they don't normally do that.

yet they should have for palin now cause it's crap to throw.

the real problem is the lie about yes, i do have an interest in that because it doesn't seem to be random mud, but a valid point to consider.

[iceberg]

She's running for the Frickin second highest office in the land...If there isn't a need for the FBI to check her out, then why do it at all on any campaign.

RIF - reading is fun.

comprehension optional.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

concord - the FBI is saying they don't do it. go ***** at them if you must ***** but stop whining that it wasn't done for palin. it wasn't done for biden it would seem because the FBI said:

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

the problem is the lie where mccains camp said they did, not that the FBI didn't cause from what they say:

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

are we clear yet? maybe they did it for biden, maybe not. but in genera... WE DO NOT DO VETTING....

let me know when that sinks in and let's back up from the mud-truck for a bit shall we?

[ConcordCowboy]

Can you explain why someone from McCain's Campaign lied about the FBI background check?

Ultimitly, that will be the big issue.

[BrAinPaiNt]

no. i can't. just found out about it and yes, *this* is the issue, not that it wasn't done as some are crying about. from what the fbi said in that article they don't normally do that.

yet they should have for palin now cause it's crap to throw.

the real problem is the lie about yes, i do have an interest in that because it doesn't seem to be random mud, but a valid point to consider.

One thing I think you might be missing with the FBI spokesman's quote...

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

Call me crazy, I am sure many have and will, but I would think that the VP of the USA would need to have security clearances.:D

[Hostile]

She is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart...this is the second most powerful position in the WORLD. Dont you think it might be an important consideration? To maybe do a thorough investigation on a person prior to them assuming a position? Its not like they are gonna tell her to hit the road after the vote.
WOW...oh my god...great foresight...Republican?No it isn't. It hasn't suddenly become more powerful since she was nominated.

[iceberg]

One thing I think you might be missing with the FBI spokesman's quote...

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

Call me crazy, I am sure many have and will, but I would think that the VP of the USA would need to have security clearances.:D

i wouldn't disagree. but that's to fix *now* if we feel it's an issue and yes, i'm a bit surprised they don't do a clearance on a VP candidate, dem, repub, indie, or whatever. but if they say they don't normally do it, i won't get surprised when they don't.

like some are in here.

if we need to do it going forward i'm all for that.

2 different issues i'm not going to mix for my own feel good measures. but yes, i caught teh security clearance also and just wonder what that means.

many others are assuming for their own benefit and not taking the time to find out first.

"react, not think". far too common.

[ConcordCowboy]

RIF - reading is fun.

comprehension optional.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

concord - the FBI is saying they don't do it. go ***** at them if you must ***** but stop whining that it wasn't done for palin. it wasn't done for biden it would seem because the FBI said:

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

the problem is the lie where mccains camp said they did, not that the FBI didn't cause from what they say:

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

are we clear yet? maybe they did it for biden, maybe not. but in genera... WE DO NOT DO VETTING....

let me know when that sinks in and let's back up from the mud-truck for a bit shall we?

I'm past this...I'm onto the why the campaign lied about it now. :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

No it isn't. It hasn't suddenly become more powerful since she was nominated.

I am confused by what you mean here.

Are you saying nobody has done checks on Biden?

One thing that did not make much news about Hillary and the Obama ticket was that she refused to submit all of the documents for her vetting to the Obama camp.

So it does not seem to be just about Palin here...unless I am completely missing your point.

[iceberg]

I'm past this...I'm onto the why the campaign lied about it now. :D

well at least you made it to an actual problem vs making one up.

[Hostile]

I am confused by what you mean here.

Are you saying nobody has done checks on Biden?

One thing that did not make much news about Hillary and the Obama ticket was that she refused to submit all of the documents for her vetting to the Obama camp.

So it does not seem to be just about Palin here...unless I am completely missing your point.I'm disagreeing that VP of the US is the 2nd most powerful position on the planet. Which was a point he was making just a week or so ago. Now suddenly it is? Why? Because she got the GOP nod? I don't agree. For the most part the VP is a figurehead, not powerful.

[ConcordCowboy]

well at least you made it to an actual problem vs making one up.

It's not the crime it's the cover up that will get you every time.

McCain's campaign being caught in a lie about this is so much better than the FBI just not checking her out.

[iceberg]

I am confused by what you mean here.

Are you saying nobody has done checks on Biden?

One thing that did not make much news about Hillary and the Obama ticket was that she refused to submit all of the documents for her vetting to the Obama camp.

So it does not seem to be just about Palin here...unless I am completely missing your point.

i don't think anyone knows who's done checks on biden or how a security clearance would be involved. : ) would be interesting to flush this out and see what it's really all about however.

how much do they look into the past of a candidate overall? how involved do they get or are they required to get?

i would think by now the media can dig up more dirt on someone than the FBI these days anyway. : ) (sorta kidding!)

[yeahyeah]

I'm disagreeing that VP of the US is the 2nd most powerful position on the planet. Which was a point he was making just a week or so ago. Now suddenly it is? Why? Because she got the GOP nod? I don't agree. For the most part the VP is a figurehead, not powerful.

I think you misread..."she is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart"

I am belittling the security importance of THAT position..not VP

[zrinkill]

I would like to see the actual Quote from "McCains Camp"

Other than The Washington Post "citing" an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis.

But to me as long as McCain nor Palin lied about it ..... its much ado about nothing.

I do not hold Obama responsible for all his camps blunders.

[Danny White]

She's running for the Frickin second highest office in the land...If there isn't a need for the FBI to check her out, then why do it at all on any campaign.

Has the FBI done a background check on Obama?

[iceberg]

It's not the crime it's the cover up that will get you every time.

McCain's campaign being caught in a lie about this is so much better than the FBI just not checking her out.

why is it better? it's sad. it's only "better" if you're on one side fighting another. we all tend to get caught in that and yes, i do want to reach a bit higher if i can.

no i won't always get there and yes, i'm sure i'll fall down and do the things i hate, but hopefully i won't gloss over it when i'm called upon it.

if i want our government to stop mudslinging, then i need to do it first for my own sanity/logical order of things.

we still don't know the whole story about this "lie". maybe it's just a flat out lie and the guy should be spanked for doing so.

maybe he told someone else to do it and they didn't get it done and it looks like a lie.

none of us really know enough to slam that gavel down but so many are quick to do that just the same. not because we actually believe it but because we want *others* to believe it so we can get our way "politically" in the end.

i want my part in, so i must dog on your party.

i don't play that game. yes i'm conservative and yes lean that way on many, but not all, things. if someone comes after obama with stupid things, i stop what i view to be stupid, not rail on obama because traditionally i'm conservative.

there have been some damn good democrats in office in our time. republicans too. i want the best man for the job in office, not my "colors" so to speak.

so i'll do something odd for many in that i'll wait for more information to come out and sort through it myself.

i'm not in need of a quick-hit on the other side, so i don't take 'em.

[iceberg]

I would like to see the actual Quote from "McCains Camp"

Other than The Washington Post "citing" an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis.

But to me as long as McCain nor Palin lied about it ..... its much ado about nothing.

I do not hold Obama responsible for all his camps blunders.

me either. even hillary i'd wait it out and see where it went. i could predict it, but i'd be wrong as often as right.

like i said above, let's wait and see before we get the rope out. we really need:

republican
democrat
reactionary

most on both sides would suddenly find themselves on the same side.

[vta]

My God, how some will stretch.
If the last few days are any indication of just how bad the Republican ticket might be, if we are to judge on a scale of moral equivalency, they are squeaky clean, and their dealings are much less questionable than the accusations thrown at Obama.

[ConcordCowboy]

Has the FBI done a background check on Obama?


Good question.

I'm sure we'll find out now. ;)

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm disagreeing that VP of the US is the 2nd most powerful position on the planet. Which was a point he was making just a week or so ago. Now suddenly it is? Why? Because she got the GOP nod? I don't agree. For the most part the VP is a figurehead, not powerful.

I think this race, more than any other in my lifetime, the VP is the second most powerful position on the planet and I will tell you why.

Because in this race we could very well see the VP become the President if EITHER ticket gets elected.

We have Obama and you know there are some racist nut jobs out there who would just love to take a shot at him.

We also have McCain who is in his 70's already and has had bouts with cancer in the past.

Normally VPs mean nothing in the grand scheme of political races other than to get some extra votes. I think they could mean a great deal more this time around because of the Skin color of one Presidential Candidate and the age of another.

Now...as far as your argument with the other poster...I was unaware of what he, or you two, argued about in the past concerning the VP which is probably why you had me confused.

[ConcordCowboy]

why is it better? it's sad. it's only "better" if you're on one side fighting another.


You just answered your own question.

[iceberg]

Good question.

I'm sure we'll find out now. ;)

i'm sure i don't care. as long as he went through whatever the process is, i'm cool with it. if we have a problem with the process take it up with the process, not the people going through it.

unless you lie about it. different problem.

[Hostile]

She is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart...this is the second most powerful position in the WORLD. Dont you think it might be an important consideration? To maybe do a thorough investigation on a person prior to them assuming a position? Its not like they are gonna tell her to hit the road after the vote.
WOW...oh my god...great foresight...Republican?

I think you misread..."she is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart"

I am belittling the security importance of THAT position..not VPNo, I didn't misread. If you go back and look at my post, I bolded the part I was responding to just like I did above.

VP is NOT the 2nd most powerful position in the World.

[iceberg]

You just answered your own question.

and most would know that i knew i did that. i just find that the wrong way to come together and keep moving our country forward. i think it deserves more than constant internal bickering like inlaws on energy drinks.

when someone comes out to attack the other side for no other reason than they're the other side, it's all i really need to know about them.

[ConcordCowboy]

i'm sure i don't care. as long as he went through whatever the process is, i'm cool with it. if we have a problem with the process take it up with the process, not the people going through it.

unless you lie about it. different problem.

Well all Obama has to worry about here is did they lie and say he was...because as we know there really is no reason at all for the FBI to check him out. ;)

[Danny White]

I don't want to parse this story too much, and I don't know all of the exact quotes that were made, but based on what's here, there isn't necessarily a conflict.

Davis said that an FBI check had been done on her. He didn't say that the McCain camp had commissioned it or that they knew the results. (Again, I may be missing a quote here, but that is my understanding.)

The FBI, when contacted and asked if they did a background check on behalf of the McCain campaign, says that "generally" they don't engage in the vetting of candidates. Additionally, they say that if they had ever done a background check on her (again, they don't say if they ever have or haven't) that they wouldn't share it with the McCain campaign.

So unless I'm missing something here, there are several scenarios out there where everyone could be telling the truth.

If all that were the case, then you still have to wonder why Rick Davis was bringing it up to defend the vetting process.

But it's possible that Palin had undergone an FBI screen in the past, and made the campaign aware of that fact when they were interviewing her. I don't know all the reasons that might cause someone to be screened by the FBI, but maybe she had to undergo one due to a commission she was on or something like that.

My hunch is that Davis was talking out of his arse... but based on the quotes available, other scenarios are possible.

[iceberg]

Well all Obama has to worry about here is did they lie and say he was...because as we know there really is no reason at all for the FBI to check him out. ;)

well, like i have said - if there is no real check to these candidates unless asked or for some "security clearance" (not sure what could need more clearance than this) then i'd be surprised and would want this changed.

i'd like to know what circumstances would warrant a check of simply being on the ticket wasn't enough. i can't make up my mind on things till i know the rules of the game and as much background as i can get. maybe this is stupid or maybe it's based off things that happened in the past that need to be re-evaluated.

but there must not be a policy in place to dig deep on candidates or whoever is supposed to carry that out is the one who dropped the ball, lie or otherwise.

i'll also be watching to see if this was in fact a lie and if so, yea, bad camp. but much like obama can't stop his camp or followers from what they do, mccain can't either. but if a man lied to me about something that important, he'd be an unemployed man by the end of that conversation.

[ConcordCowboy]

and most would know that i knew i did that. i just find that the wrong way to come together and keep moving our country forward. i think it deserves more than constant internal bickering like inlaws on energy drinks.

when someone comes out to attack the other side for no other reason than they're the other side, it's all i really need to know about them.


Ice...you are living in a Political Dream World.

[iceberg]

I don't want to parse this story too much, and I don't know all of the exact quotes that were made, but based on what's here, there isn't necessarily a conflict.

Davis said that an FBI check had been done on her. He didn't say that the McCain camp had commissioned it or that they knew the results. (Again, I may be missing a quote here, but that is my understanding.)

The FBI, when contacted and asked if they did a background check on behalf of the McCain campaign, says that "generally" they don't engage in the vetting of candidates. Additionally, they say that if they had ever done a background check on her (again, they don't say if they ever have or haven't) that they wouldn't share it with the McCain campaign.

So unless I'm missing something here, there are several scenarios out there where everyone could be telling the truth.

If all that were the case, then you still have to wonder why Rick Davis was bringing it up to defend the vetting process.

But it's possible that Palin had undergone an FBI screen in the past, and made the campaign aware of that fact when they were interviewing her. I don't know all the reasons that might cause someone to be screened by the FBI, but maybe she had to undergo one due to a commission she was on or something like that.

My hunch is that Davis was talking out of his arse... but based on the quotes available, other scenarios are possible.

wow. good info man. are you saying that even if the mccain camp asked for and got the screening, the fbi would not have given that information to mccain?

like you i strongly believe there's a lot more to the story. we just have to get past all the reactionaries first to get there.

[iceberg]

Ice...you are living in a Political Dream World.

how else you gonna get there?

you can get mad life sucks, or you can get off your hiney and do something different. yes i'm idealistic but since i see no good come out of the constant trash talk and attacking, i don't go there and yes, whine at those who fall there a lot.

i could say you're living in a political never-gonna-get-anywhere nightmare and who's right?

both of us.

[Hostile]

Ice...you are living in a Political Dream World.I must be missing your point. Isn't that the whole idea behind Obama's dreams of Change? That Politics clean up its act?

[peplaw06]

My God, how some will stretch.
If the last few days are any indication of just how bad the Republican ticket might be, if we are to judge on a scale of moral equivalency, they are squeaky clean, and their dealings are much less questionable than the accusations thrown at Obama.They're grasping at straws while drowning.

[vta]

I don't want to parse this story too much, and I don't know all of the exact quotes that were made, but based on what's here, there isn't necessarily a conflict.

Davis said that an FBI check had been done on her. He didn't say that the McCain camp had commissioned it or that they knew the results. (Again, I may be missing a quote here, but that is my understanding.)

The FBI, when contacted and asked if they did a background check on behalf of the McCain campaign, says that "generally" they don't engage in the vetting of candidates. Additionally, they say that if they had ever done a background check on her (again, they don't say if they ever have or haven't) that they wouldn't share it with the McCain campaign.

So unless I'm missing something here, there are several scenarios out there where everyone could be telling the truth.

If all that were the case, then you still have to wonder why Rick Davis was bringing it up to defend the vetting process.

But it's possible that Palin had undergone an FBI screen in the past, and made the campaign aware of that fact when they were interviewing her. I don't know all the reasons that might cause someone to be screened by the FBI, but maybe she had to undergo one due to a commission she was on or something like that.

My hunch is that Davis was talking out of his arse... but based on the quotes available, other scenarios are possible.

It's called stretching. ;)

[ConcordCowboy]

well, like i have said - if there is no real check to these candidates unless asked or for some "security clearance" (not sure what could need more clearance than this) then i'd be surprised and would want this changed.

i'd like to know what circumstances would warrant a check of simply being on the ticket wasn't enough. i can't make up my mind on things till i know the rules of the game and as much background as i can get. maybe this is stupid or maybe it's based off things that happened in the past that need to be re-evaluated.

but there must not be a policy in place to dig deep on candidates or whoever is supposed to carry that out is the one who dropped the ball, lie or otherwise.

i'll also be watching to see if this was in fact a lie and if so, yea, bad camp. but much like obama can't stop his camp or followers from what they do, mccain can't either. but if a man lied to me about something that important, he'd be an unemployed man by the end of that conversation.

OK here's my question.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

Since she would be the VP and would be the President if McCain dies...and WOULD have security clearance issues at that point...

When are they going to check her out...AFTER she becomes President?

That seems just a little late to me.

[Bonecrusher#31]

Has the FBI done a background check on Obama?
You better beleive it Bubba.....

[ConcordCowboy]

how else you gonna get there?

you can get mad life sucks, or you can get off your hiney and do something different. yes i'm idealistic but since i see no good come out of the constant trash talk and attacking, i don't go there and yes, whine at those who fall there a lot.

i could say you're living in a political never-gonna-get-anywhere nightmare and who's right?

both of us.

I've been there for the last eight years. :D

[sacase]

Has the FBI done a background check on Obama?

Funny thing is, if Obama was the average Joe his history of drug use would prevent him from getting a clearence.

[ConcordCowboy]

I must be missing your point. Isn't that the whole idea behind Obama's dreams of Change? That Politics clean up its act?

He wants all people...not just Obama supporters to clean up their act, which I can't say that I disagree with...It's just a pipe dream.

Obama wants change and he's trying to make it...like with coming out and saying that Palin's kids should be off limits...but alas...he can't control how millions of people are going to react.

[vta]

Obama wants change and he's trying to make it...like with coming out and saying that Palin's kids should be off limits...but alas...he can't control how millions of people are going to react.

That's not change, that's shrewd business. He know's once the word is there, it's there and will spread and all those pretending it's a bad thing will use it to try to influence others. In effect doing his dirty work.

[ConcordCowboy]

Funny thing is, if Obama was the average Joe his history of drug use would prevent him from getting a clearence.

Bush too.

[Doomsday101]

He wants all people...not just Obama supporters to clean up their act, which I can't say that I disagree with...It's just a pipe dream.

Obama wants change and he's trying to make it...like with coming out and saying that Palin's kids should be off limits...but alas...he can't control how millions of people are going to react.

True, million may just see her as a human just like themselves dealing with real problems that take place in a family. I think Obama is smart enough to understand that an attack on a family matter like this could easily backfire.

[Bonecrusher#31]

Funny thing is, if Obama was the average Joe his history of drug use would prevent him from getting a clearence.

Wrong.....

Disclosure is what they are looking for ...

and if you only have what they term recreational use you can get a clearance...

I've been through the process...

I had a Top Secret Clearance in the military and I had a few friends that had them and they admitted to drug use while in High School

[ConcordCowboy]

That's not change, that's shrewd business. He know's once the word is there, it's there and will spread and all those pretending it's a bad thing will use it to try to influence others. In effect doing his dirty work.

He did what he had to do.

He does what people around here wanted and says lay off the kids and you're still complaining about it.

[ConcordCowboy]

True, million may just see her as a human just like themselves dealing with real problems that take place in a family. I think Obama is smart enough to understand that an attack on a family matter like this could easily backfire.

Plus I'm sure he wouldn't want his kids put through that.

[Bonecrusher#31]

Bush too.


I almost Bush was a alcoholic/booger sugar fiend

[sacase]

Wrong.....

Disclosure is what they are looking for ...

and if you only have what they term recreational use you can get a clearance...

I've been through the process...

I had a Top Secret Clearance in the military and I had a few friends that had them and they admitted to drug use while in High School

Wrong, I currently HAVE a TS/SCI with CI Scope polygraph, I know what the process is, hell I even have done some of the interviews for people. Cocaine use of will get you disqualified for a clearence. MJ will not as long as it was experiemental. There are certain drugs that even one time use will cause a denial of clearence.

[Bonecrusher#31]

Wrong, I currently HAVE a TS/SCI with CI Scope polygraph, I know what the process is, hell I even have done some of the interviews for people. Cocaine use of will get you disqualified for a clearence. MJ will not as long as it was experiemental. There are certain drugs that even one time use will cause a denial of clearence.

True is weed on the list ?

[Danny White]

LINK (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/palin_and_the_fbi_background_c.php)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not participate in the vetting of Gov. Sarah Palin and did not conduct a background check as part of the process, an FBI spokesman said today.

The Washington Post reported Sunday, citing an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis, that the vetting process "included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers nvolved in the deliberations.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

The FBI did not participate in a vet, nor did it run a background check of Gov. Palin as part of the process.

Palin might already have a clearance that relates to her duties as governor. But the FBI can't speak to that, and in any event, those investigations wouldn't be accessible to the McCain campaign anyway.

I just realized that you got this story from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic.

Ambinder isn't biased, IMO, but he is a very shoddy journalist.

In his haste to get information out quickly, he often jumps to assumptions that are only partially-established... and this story would seem to be a prime candidate for such hasty assumptions.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we hear more later on that suggests that Ambinder mis-interpreted something or didn't have all the facts and made it seem like he knew a lot more than he really did.


I speak of this from experience as Ambinder once wrote a article on my company that was based on facts, but at it's center had a blatant error that he stated as fact. He didn't two-source his information, and as a result, he ran with information that was provided to him by one of our business competitors and cited it as fact.

We went back and forth with him for almost a week before he finally printed a retraction. It took forever for him to realize his "source" had mislead him, even though the proof we gave him was rock-solid.


I'm now waiting for the other shoe to drop on this Palin/FBI check story.

[peplaw06]

True is weed on the list ?He said MJ is not as long as it was experimental use

[ConcordCowboy]

Wrong, I currently HAVE a TS/SCI with CI Scope polygraph, I know what the process is, hell I even have done some of the interviews for people. Cocaine use of will get you disqualified for a clearence. MJ will not as long as it was experiemental. There are certain drugs that even one time use will cause a denial of clearence.

True is weed on the list ?

It was experimental, I swear!

:D

[Doomsday101]

Plus I'm sure he wouldn't want his kids put through that.

I'm sure he wouldn't but don't expect him to tell other liberals to stop doing it either. He will have deniability but he is not going to stop liberal groups from continuing the attack. This is why I say we will see what Palin is made of, she is entering a new play ground in Washington DC where the other kids do not play nice and she with either be able to stand up to them or she will fold.

[Bonecrusher#31]

He said MJ is not as long as it was experimental use

my bad, didn't see that :o:

thats all I was saying.....

[Hostile]

He wants all people...not just Obama supporters to clean up their act, which I can't say that I disagree with...It's just a pipe dream.

Obama wants change and he's trying to make it...like with coming out and saying that Palin's kids should be off limits...but alas...he can't control how millions of people are going to react.I must have missed the part where iceberg is an Obama supporter.

One of the things I truly admire about the man is that he is an idealist. We need more of them. Not sure what it says when those who are most ardent for his message don't care to live his message.

At least make an effort.

Off my soapbox.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm sure he wouldn't but don't expect him to tell other liberals to stop doing it either. He will have deniability but he is not going to stop liberal groups from continuing the attack. This is why I say we will see what Palin is made of, she is entering a new play ground in Washington DC where the other kids do not play nice and she with either be able to stand up to them or she will fold.

He did.

But that's not going to stop them.

[ConcordCowboy]

I must have missed the part where iceberg is an Obama supporter.

One of the things I truly admire about the man is that he is an idealist. We need more of them. Not sure what it says when those who are most ardent for his message don't care to live his message.

At least make an effort.

Off my soapbox.

He's an idealist, I'm just being realist about it.

[Doomsday101]

He did.

But that's not going to stop them.

Of course it will not stop it and he knows that as well. Both sides do it knowing full well outside groups will attack and in doing so they will benefit without getting their hands dirty. Lets don't play stupid here, I have lived long enough to understand how politics are played. In the end what this will come down to as far as effectiveness is how Palin handles the situation.

[ZB9]

Not hard to grasp here.

The McCain spokesman said that part of the vetting process for Palin was a FBI background check. The FBI comes out later and says...we did not do a back ground check.

In other words...it would appear that Rick, for McCain, was lying.

It also seems to further go along with the idea that McCain wanted Joe or Tom and got pushed into taking Palin instead and they did it with a quick process instead of really looking into everything.

actually, it was the WRITER of the Post story that said a McCain spokesman said that.

[Hostile]

He's an idealist, I'm just being realist about it.So you want him to fail?

Interesting.

[bbgun]

I'm not totally convinced McCain knew about the teen pregnancy. For most candidates, that would be a disqualifier in a running mate.

[ZB9]

I'm not totally convinced McCain knew about the teen pregnancy. For most candidates, that would be a disqualifier in a running mate.

are you serious? A granddaughter would disqualify a candidate for you?

that is beyond ridiculous

neoliberals arent too accepting these days. Look at how the dems cast John Edwards out of their party like a lepar, even though he has one of the best health care and economic platforms in their party.

[vta]

He did what he had to do.

He does what people around here wanted and says lay off the kids and you're still complaining about it.

I have no complaints, only observations and the understanding that a double standard exists; what's right for them and what's right for me, yet they're supposed to be representative of me. Isn't that why you vote for someone?

Obama did his part as a shrewd businessman, nothing more or less.

[ConcordCowboy]

Of course it will not stop it and he knows that as well. Both sides do it knowing full well outside groups will attack and in doing so they will benefit without getting their hands dirty. Lets don't play stupid here, I have lived long enough to understand how politics are played. In the end what this will come down to as far as effectiveness is how Palin handles the situation.

I don't disagree...but Obama did what he had to do...after that it's out of his hands.

[Doomsday101]

I don't disagree...but Obama did what he had to do...after that it's out of his hands.

I agree it will be groups like moveon.org and others who try and use this to help Obama. Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Obama this is just how politics work and how the person who is being attacked deals with it will determine a lot.

[yeahyeah]

No, I didn't misread. If you go back and look at my post, I bolded the part I was responding to just like I did above.

VP is NOT the 2nd most powerful position in the World.

OH ok...i understand what you are saying...thats cool man

[ConcordCowboy]

So you want him to fail?

Interesting.

I want McCain to fail in winning this election...I really don't think I've been secret about that.

As far as Ice failing...it would be nice if he was right one of these days...but not likely.

[ConcordCowboy]

I have no complaints, only observations and the understanding that a double standard exists; what's right for them and what's right for me, yet they're supposed to be representative of me. Isn't that why you vote for someone?

Obama did his part as a shrewd businessman, nothing more or less.

I've never denied that.

[bbgun]

are you serious? A granddaughter would disqualify a candidate for you?

that is beyond ridiculous



A granddaughter born to a married woman in her twenties or thirties? No. A granddaughter born to a knocked-up teen out of wedlock? That would give me reason to pause. They couldn't even get through one week before the first bomb fell. They had to know that the press, Daily Show, and late night comics would jump all over this. If they rushed the vetting process, you have to wonder what else is lurking out there.

[Hostile]

I want McCain to fail in winning this election...I really don't think I've been secret about that.

As far as Ice failing...it would be nice if he was right one of these days...but not likely.I was talking about wanting Obama to fail.

Think of it this way. What good would it have done for Ghandhi to preach non-violence if people didn't adopt the message?

[iceberg]

I must be missing your point. Isn't that the whole idea behind Obama's dreams of Change? That Politics clean up its act?

since when have the followers listened to the leader. same crap different day rules for them. change is good to talk about but don't do anything. therein lies the crime.

obama said for people to lay off family attacks and did they? some maybe, but not all. it *is* a hard habit to change but sooner or later is has to or someone more disciplined will come along and take it away from us.

in this regard i hope obama is not all talk if he wins the office. i'll support him because he's the president, not slander him because he's democrat.

[ZB9]

A granddaughter born to a married woman in her twenties or thirties? No. A granddaughter born to a knocked-up teen out of wedlock? That would give me reason to pause. They couldn't even get through one week before the first bomb fell. They had to know that the press, Daily Show, and late night comics would jump all over this. If they rushed the vetting process, you have to wonder what else is lurking out there.

wow you must not be in reality. Are you even old enough to vote?

btw, Barack Obama's mother was 17 when she got pregnant with him, just fyi

[iceberg]

OK here's my question.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

Since she would be the VP and would be the President if McCain dies...and WOULD have security clearance issues at that point...

When are they going to check her out...AFTER she becomes President?

That seems just a little late to me.

great. then go talk to the FBI and our goverment about current policy and work to change it. i'll dive in with you.

but i won't rail on someone following current policy in this matter. that's self-serving and bullet-hunting. now if they lied about doing that type of a review, another matter.

then again, from what danny white said even if they did they can't share it with mccain.

there's a lot to understand about this policy, yes.
we need to understand if mccains camp lied, yes.
we don't need to get all upset palin didn't get this check esp. if we have NO IDEA about the policy around it or if it's not been done for any other candidate.

again, self-serving and bullet-hunting.

[iceberg]

He wants all people...not just Obama supporters to clean up their act, which I can't say that I disagree with...It's just a pipe dream.

Obama wants change and he's trying to make it...like with coming out and saying that Palin's kids should be off limits...but alas...he can't control how millions of people are going to react.

so where do we start concord? are you happy with the system and behavior as it is now?

i'm not. my choices are ignore it and the world, accept it and participate in it, or speak out against it and hope others join in and they're not all talk as well about wanting "change".

i'm not gonna refuse to take on a challenge because it's hard, concord. yes it's a dream but that's how many realities start. how hard was it to form this country to begin with and where would we be if we were initially led by a bunch of defeatists willing to go along with whatever was out there?

we'd never have left europe.

i can't controll millions of people. only me.

[iceberg]

He did what he had to do.

He does what people around here wanted and says lay off the kids and you're still complaining about it.

and if mccain said what people wanted to hear, would you find fault in it and complain or would you stand up for whats right and cross over that line of "teams"?

from what i've seen you'd quip about it in a negative joke and move on. obama could well be playing the people but he's saying the right thing. stop the attacks.

where else are you going to start or are you willing for this to be as good as it's ever going to be?

[bbgun]

wow you must not be in reality. Are you even old enough to vote?

Yep, I'm old enough to recognize a political liability when I see one.

btw, Barack Obama's mother was 17 when she got pregnant with him, just fyi

I noted that yesterday. But she's not in the public eye. Unlike Palin, Obama is not an "abstinence only" candidate, so his mother's meanderings can't be used as a cudgel against him.

[Doomsday101]

so where do we start concord? are you happy with the system and behavior as it is now?

i'm not. my choices are ignore it and the world, accept it and participate in it, or speak out against it and hope others join in and they're not all talk as well about wanting "change".

i'm not gonna refuse to take on a challenge because it's hard, concord. yes it's a dream but that's how many realities start. how hard was it to form this country to begin with and where would we be if we were initially led by a bunch of defeatists willing to go along with whatever was out there?

we'd never have left europe.

i can't controll millions of people. only me.


Thing is you can go back to the election in the late 1700 when our founding fathers ran for office and find many dirty political mudslinging and character assassinations. This is nothing new to politics I think we just like to believe things are worse now

[iceberg]

It was experimental, I swear!

:D

i was seeing how many years i could smoke it before i became addicted - that's all!

[iceberg]

Thing is you can go back to the election in the late 1700 when our founding fathers ran for office and find many dirty political mudslinging and character assassinations. This is nothing new to politics I think we just like to believe things are worse now

you are right there. this is nothing new and yes, it is human nature at work. nothing more or less. once i came to understand that is when it actually frustrated me more.

it does seem we grow in spite of, not because of, ourselves.

[ZB9]

I noted that yesterday. But she's not in the public eye. Unlike Palin, Obama is not an "abstinence only" candidate, so his mother's meanderings can't be used as a cudgel against him.

encouraging and teaching abstinence has nothing to do with it, and doesnt mean she's a hypocrite for chrisssake.

I guess she should have encouraged her daughter to get an abortion? I guess she would be more "qualified for politics" then? Are you serious?

[iceberg]

I must have missed the part where iceberg is an Obama supporter.

One of the things I truly admire about the man is that he is an idealist. We need more of them. Not sure what it says when those who are most ardent for his message don't care to live his message.

At least make an effort.

Off my soapbox.

that's why i like obama. i don't think concord said i was an obama supporter but so far, i am. so far i don't have a disdain for either side and i like both sides running. it's been awhile since i could say that and it feels great.

obama has the potential to be a modern day kennedy, good or bad. he's not the same old same old and that makes people question him even more, it would seem. we finally get a candidate we've asked for and we do the same things to him we do to ones we don't like.

it's a bad habit.

i need to know more about palin and will listen closely as both sides go after it into november. i don't know which way i'll vote but i'll keep my mind open to both sides and not discredit one side or the other because i want my side to win.

i want america to win and that's not always going to fall into my own political beliefs.

[Doomsday101]

you are right there. this is nothing new and yes, it is human nature at work. nothing more or less. once i came to understand that is when it actually frustrated me more.

it does seem we grow in spite of, not because of, ourselves.

I think the majority of us just learn what to tune out and what is important to us. Many of the arguments that take place seem to be more democrats trying to convince other democrats how bad this person or ideal is or Republicans trying to convince other Republicans the same. I sometime have fun in here with the debates but at the end of the day I vote based on my believes and not rhetoric coming from the parties. I could care less if Obama wears a flag pin or is Muslim I just do not agree with his views on many of the issues. Same with Palin, I could care less if her 17 year old daughter got knocked up or not it has nothing to do with me or how I view issues.

[ConcordCowboy]

I was talking about wanting Obama to fail.

Think of it this way. What good would it have done for Ghandhi to preach non-violence if people didn't adopt the message?

Oh...gotch ya.

I'll be honest...I really don't care about Obama changing how people get elected...as in the mud slinging (it's not nice but we all know how politics are)...I want him to change Washington once he gets there.

[iceberg]

I want McCain to fail in winning this election...I really don't think I've been secret about that.

As far as Ice failing...it would be nice if he was right one of these days...but not likely.

so what am i wrong about? let's talk about it. i've never said i'm always right but i have said i'm not always wrong. you feel to feel the latter is proof.

so, what am i wrong about in this thread? be specific and don't blow it off with a haha funny joke and emote.

i want to push for something hire, you're happy, or at least accept, being a pig in the mud.

waiting.

[iceberg]

Oh...gotch ya.

I'll be honest...I really don't care about Obama changing how people get elected...as in the mud slinging (it's not nice but we all know how politics are)...I want him to change Washington once he gets there.

so do i. but i'm always wrong. so when we agree you must be wrong too.

am i following your "logic" yet?

[ConcordCowboy]

great. then go talk to the FBI and our goverment about current policy and work to change it. i'll dive in with you.

but i won't rail on someone following current policy in this matter. that's self-serving and bullet-hunting. now if they lied about doing that type of a review, another matter.

then again, from what danny white said even if they did they can't share it with mccain.

there's a lot to understand about this policy, yes.
we need to understand if mccains camp lied, yes.
we don't need to get all upset palin didn't get this check esp. if we have NO IDEA about the policy around it or if it's not been done for any other candidate.

again, self-serving and bullet-hunting.

It was just a question.

I'm serious, not just about Palin but anyone in her position.

Anyone?

[bbgun]

I guess she should have encouraged her daughter to get an abortion? I guess she would be more "qualified" for politics then? Are you serious?

I'm very happy that she's keeping the child, just as her mother kept her special needs child. This is one family that walks the walk when it comes to abortion. But it doesn't excuse everything that preceded it, and it doesn't excuse rushing this child into marriage. The bottom line is that we're spending most of our time talking about a pregnant teen and not what her mother can do for the country. In that respect, Palin is a liability.

[ConcordCowboy]

so where do we start concord? are you happy with the system and behavior as it is now?

i'm not. my choices are ignore it and the world, accept it and participate in it, or speak out against it and hope others join in and they're not all talk as well about wanting "change".

i'm not gonna refuse to take on a challenge because it's hard, concord. yes it's a dream but that's how many realities start. how hard was it to form this country to begin with and where would we be if we were initially led by a bunch of defeatists willing to go along with whatever was out there?

we'd never have left europe.

i can't controll millions of people. only me.

Good Luck.

[iceberg]

I think the majority of us just learn what to tune out and what is important to us. Many of the arguments that take place seem to be more democrats trying to convince other democrats how bad this person or ideal is or Republicans trying to convince other Republicans the same. I sometime have fun in here with the debates but at the end of the day I vote based on my believes and not rhetoric coming from the parties. I could care less if Obama wears a flag pin or is Muslim I just do not agree with his views on many of the issues. Same with Palin, I could care less if her 17 year old daughter got knocked up or not it has nothing to do with me or how I view issues.

btw - i REALLY FREAKING HATE the feature of this newsgroup when i go to highlight something and bold it, it covers up the B with it's popup crap of looking for stock quotes and crap. anyone else see that?

anyway - agreed here. people like yeahyeah that just do the chinese "spots on the wall by who flung doo" are frustrating cause of their insistance on being what i view to be stupid. in time you just tune them out because having a good debate is not on their agenda, flinging crap around is.

[ConcordCowboy]

and if mccain said what people wanted to hear, would you find fault in it and complain or would you stand up for whats right and cross over that line of "teams"?

from what i've seen you'd quip about it in a negative joke and move on. obama could well be playing the people but he's saying the right thing. stop the attacks.

where else are you going to start or are you willing for this to be as good as it's ever going to be?

I'd cross over. ;)

[iceberg]

It was just a question.

I'm serious, not just about Palin but anyone in her position.

Anyone?

mine were questions in return to ask before going off on how evil some people are for not following policy.

esp if that policy doesn't exist.

i have no idea so i'm waiting to get more info before i shout out how bad people are.

[ZB9]

I'm very happy that she's keeping the child, just as her mother kept her special needs child. This is one family that walks the walk when it comes to abortion. But it doesn't excuse everything that preceded it, and it doesn't excuse rushing this child into marriage. The bottom line is that we're spending most of our time talking about a pregnant teen and not what her mother can do for the country. In that respect, Palin is a liability.

1. How do you know that they are "rushing their child into marriage"?...you dont

2. I guess she wouldnt have been such a "political liability" to you if she would have had an abortion. That is a very neoliberal view.

[iceberg]

Good Luck.

you too. seems like you're already defeated by life and now just roll with it and let "pop culture" ok it for you.

[ConcordCowboy]

so what am i wrong about? let's talk about it. i've never said i'm always right but i have said i'm not always wrong. you feel to feel the latter is proof.

so, what am i wrong about in this thread? be specific and don't blow it off with a haha funny joke and emote.

i want to push for something hire, you're happy, or at least accept, being a pig in the mud.

waiting.

I meant to say that it would be nice if you were right one of these days about things changing as in mud slinging.

I worded it wrong, sorry.

[Hostile]

that's why i like obama. i don't think concord said i was an obama supporter but so far, i am. so far i don't have a disdain for either side and i like both sides running. it's been awhile since i could say that and it feels great.

obama has the potential to be a modern day kennedy, good or bad. he's not the same old same old and that makes people question him even more, it would seem. we finally get a candidate we've asked for and we do the same things to him we do to ones we don't like.

it's a bad habit.

i need to know more about palin and will listen closely as both sides go after it into november. i don't know which way i'll vote but i'll keep my mind open to both sides and not discredit one side or the other because i want my side to win.

i want america to win and that's not always going to fall into my own political beliefs.I feel exactly the same way but so many people feel the exact opposite. I think that means we're weird.

[iceberg]

I'd cross over. ;)

so you'll wait till all the work is done and a side wins before trying to help make that change you'd cross over too?

[iceberg]

I feel exactly the same way but so many people feel the exact opposite. I think that means we're weird.

well i happen to think it's their way of thinking that's shortsighted for any given reason, so that makes them weird even if only to me.

i take people as they come, not how they "label" themselves. beating up someone for being repub or dem is the same as beating them up for being a minority to me.

mindless drivel that's only being done for shelfish reasons.

[ZeroClub]

She's got a uterus and that's why McCain picked her. No need for a background check ....

[Hostile]

Oh...gotch ya.

I'll be honest...I really don't care about Obama changing how people get elected...as in the mud slinging (it's not nice but we all know how politics are)...I want him to change Washington once he gets there.It has to change before he gets there or it will never work. He will fail horribly.

It's like a girl marrying a guy thinking he will change once they are married, and then is pissed when he doesn't. It just doesn't work that way.

[ConcordCowboy]

so do i. but i'm always wrong. so when we agree you must be wrong too.

am i following your "logic" yet?

You're not wrong all the time...just a little weak on being right.

I'm KIDDING!

[ConcordCowboy]

you too. seems like you're already defeated by life and now just roll with it and let "pop culture" ok it for you.

Oh Ice cool off.

I didn't say you were wrong all the time.

[iceberg]

I meant to say that it would be nice if you were right one of these days about things changing as in mud slinging.

I worded it wrong, sorry.

well that's why i wanted to clarify what you were talking about before i got too upset. : ) in that case i would agree with you. i am wrong a lot because it is hard to change. it is a lot of work and you're the lonely dude out a lot.

i'm ok with all of that because i strongly feel this is the right way to do things. maybe those who blindly bash feel the same way but i have to believe i *am* right in my views because i look at more of the picture before i get upset or give my allegience, so to speak.

but i do realize these are things you learn in time and only experience can fully teach. but to learn you also have to admit it when you do it (blind reaction) then teach yourself to do more and work to understand more.

i'm not wrong because what i believe in is wrong. like you i really can't think of a better way to say it right now but i do view conversations like this as a GOOD WAY to get to know the other better vs. taking a snapshot and judging for life. i *do* get into these conversations cause i think we may all look at things a little differently in the end.

the huge silverbear, cajun, me and whoever else fight for example. that one was N - A - S - T - Y deluxe but in the end i think we all understood the mind behind the words a little more. that made it all worthwhile to me and i know better how to talk to these people moving forward.

i won't disagree i'm an idealist and i won't disagree this is one huge stream to swim against, but that is who i am, right or wrong.

[iceberg]

Oh Ice cool off.

I didn't say you were wrong all the time.

gotcha now. like i said, i kinda did what i say don't do and had to get my own jabs in. appreciate your explanation but no apology necessary. this is how we find out who the people are we take the time to talk to.

apologies on my part for jumping the gun.

[iceberg]

She's got a uterus and that's why McCain picked her. No need for a background check ....

so how about hillary - how did she get as far as she did?

[Doomsday101]

so how about hillary - how did she get as far as she did?

She was a 1st lady once. :laugh2:

[Hostile]

well i happen to think it's their way of thinking that's shortsighted for any given reason, so that makes them weird even if only to me.

i take people as they come, not how they "label" themselves. beating up someone for being repub or dem is the same as beating them up for being a minority to me.

mindless drivel that's only being done for shelfish reasons.Couldn't agree more.

I have a friend who is a staunch Republican. He can't stand our Governor because she is a seriously Liberal Democrat. I think she is the greatest politician in the world. That pisses him off, so he assumes I am a Liberal Democrat. So I tell him I'm voting for McCain but mostly because he's an Arizonan. It just totally fouls him up.

It's like a burning desire to dislike and in some cases even hate is imbedded in some people and they don't feel complete without it. I can't understand wanting to dislike and hate. Especially over something as trivial as politics.

The only person who has ever amused me who holds these kinds of feelings towards the other party is my Mom's best friend, Patsy. She is a Liberal Democrat. She was raised by a staunch Liberal Democrat. She once told me, "I was 16 before I didn't think it was the Democrats and them other sons of *****es."

I admit it, that's dang funny.

It is also that exact mindset that makes it so that nothing is ever accomplsihed in this country. You've heard me say it over and over on this forum. Nothing will be different than it is right now if Obama wins. Nothing will be different if McCain wins. It will still be politics as usual and in 4 years we will hear the same campaign promises we are hearing right now. And 8 years, 12, years, 16 years...

[iceberg]

She was a 1st lady once. :laugh2:

so as odd as this is to say, the urterus is still intact...

[ConcordCowboy]

so you'll wait till all the work is done and a side wins before trying to help make that change you'd cross over too?

Now you don't REALLY think I would cross over do you?

[iceberg]

Couldn't agree more.

I have a friend who is a staunch Republican. He can't stand our Governor because she is a seriously Liberal Democrat. I think she is the greatest politician in the world. That pisses him off, so he assumes I am a Liberal Democrat. So I tell him I'm voting for McCain but mostly because he's an Arizonan. It just totally fouls him up.

It's like a burning desire to dislike and in some cases even hate is imbedded in some people and they don't feel complete without it. I can't understand wanting to dislike and hate. Especially over something as trivial as politics.

The only person who has ever amused me who holds these kinds of feelings towards the other party is my Mom's best friend, Patsy. She is a Liberal Democrat. She was raised by a staunch Liberal Democrat. She once told me, "I was 16 before I didn't think it was the Democrats and them other sons of *****es."

I admit it, that's dang funny.

It is also that exact mindset that makes it so that nothing is ever accomplsihed in this country. You've heard me say it over and over on this forum. Nothing will be different than it is right now if Obama wins. Nothing will be different if McCain wins. It will still be politics as usual and in 4 years we will hear the same campaign promises we are hearing right now. And 8 years, 12, years, 16 years...

the 2 smartest words i've heard on this board came from a pats fan. the cowboys fans were up in arms, as usual, and worried about this and that and getting all into it over points they simply cannot control.

emotional insurance.

i've learned to apply that theory to more than just a game.

why do people get all upset about another way of thinking? are they that insecure in their own? since the battle of repubs vs dems has been ongoing since our country started, it ain't going anywhere, so why intentionally feel like someone in power is a SOB who hates the world?

if i ever get to that point i'm going to move behind a waterfall in iceland and ya'll will hear from me a lot less.

quit celebrating concord. et al. : )

[ConcordCowboy]

It has to change before he gets there or it will never work. He will fail horribly.

It's like a girl marrying a guy thinking he will change once they are married, and then is pissed when he doesn't. It just doesn't work that way.

He's going to have a VERY hard time changing Washington even IF he would get his side to stop the mud slinging.

He's going to run into considerable Republican opposition as we already know.

[iceberg]

Now you don't REALLY think I would cross over do you?

if it were the right thing to do, yes.

unlike you though, i don't put party affiliation as a line to never cross over and put all those who disagree with me on *that* side for safe keeping.

as much as we disagree and as much as we bicker, i *do fully 100% believe* if there were a threat to this country we'd all put this aside and deal with it.

together.

then when over, go back to this crap cause it's a good time killer in the inbetween.

[iceberg]

He's going to have a VERY hard time changing Washington even IF he would get his side to stop the mud slinging.

He's going to run into considerable Republican opposition as we already know.

he won't change it, no. that's going to take a string of politicians doing that and as much of an idealist as i can be and am, that's not likely to happen. but he can make a start and set an example. this is the most i can hope for. a start.

getting past human nature is a pretty hard thing to do. it's what makes us human, i suppose.

[ConcordCowboy]

well that's why i wanted to clarify what you were talking about before i got too upset. : ) in that case i would agree with you. i am wrong a lot because it is hard to change. it is a lot of work and you're the lonely dude out a lot.

i'm ok with all of that because i strongly feel this is the right way to do things. maybe those who blindly bash feel the same way but i have to believe i *am* right in my views because i look at more of the picture before i get upset or give my allegience, so to speak.

but i do realize these are things you learn in time and only experience can fully teach. but to learn you also have to admit it when you do it (blind reaction) then teach yourself to do more and work to understand more.

i'm not wrong because what i believe in is wrong. like you i really can't think of a better way to say it right now but i do view conversations like this as a GOOD WAY to get to know the other better vs. taking a snapshot and judging for life. i *do* get into these conversations cause i think we may all look at things a little differently in the end.

the huge silverbear, cajun, me and whoever else fight for example. that one was N - A - S - T - Y deluxe but in the end i think we all understood the mind behind the words a little more. that made it all worthwhile to me and i know better how to talk to these people moving forward.

i won't disagree i'm an idealist and i won't disagree this is one huge stream to swim against, but that is who i am, right or wrong.

Hey Bear's never recovered from that one. :D

[heavyg]

Not hard to grasp here.

The McCain spokesman said that part of the vetting process for Palin was a FBI background check. The FBI comes out later and says...we did not do a back ground check.

In other words...it would appear that Rick, for McCain, was lying.

It also seems to further go along with the idea that McCain wanted Joe or Tom and got pushed into taking Palin instead and they did it with a quick process instead of really looking into everything.

The article also said she could have had a check for clearance due to her Gov status. The F.B.I. said they could not comment on that. It could be the McCain camp used that report

[heavyg]

She is not applying to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart...this is the second most powerful position in the WORLD. Dont you think it might be an important consideration? To maybe do a thorough investigation on a person prior to them assuming a position? Its not like they are gonna tell her to hit the road after the vote.
WOW...oh my god...great foresight...Republican?

Kind of like should be done with Obama? Seems like alot of skeletons are coming out of his closet as well

[ConcordCowboy]

if it were the right thing to do, yes.

unlike you though, i don't put party affiliation as a line to never cross over and put all those who disagree with me on *that* side for safe keeping.

as much as we disagree and as much as we bicker, i *do fully 100% believe* if there were a threat to this country we'd all put this aside and deal with it.

together.

then when over, go back to this crap cause it's a good time killer in the inbetween.

Thank you for your confidence in me. :D

[ConcordCowboy]

he won't change it, no. that's going to take a string of politicians doing that and as much of an idealist as i can be and am, that's not likely to happen. but he can make a start and set an example. this is the most i can hope for. a start.

getting past human nature is a pretty hard thing to do. it's what makes us human, i suppose.

Hey what can I say...I'm an Uber idealist when it comes to Obama changing Washington.

:D

[iceberg]

Hey what can I say...I'm an Uber idealist when it comes to Obama changing Washington.

:D

way to take that 1st step! also, bear and i get along very well now and i thought he'd come back by now. maybe he was waiting for the 1st game of the season?

love the bear. very strong willed and i think through it all we got a better understanding of each other. that's the positive that can come out of bad arguments. but both sides have to want to get there vs. be right about it.

[braw]

To really look at what happened in the VP candidate selection you need to change the word vetting to due diligence. Was the McCain camp deligent enough about all the potential candidates. Lets face it this is McCain's only chance at the presidency.

Because the Dems really can't challenge McCain's character, ethics, morality, and/or experience. His biggest fault is his connection with the Republican party, the last 8 years, and a perception of Bush part 3.

It sounds like the McCain camp didn't do enough research.

[heavyg]

It's not the crime it's the cover up that will get you every time.

McCain's campaign being caught in a lie about this is so much better than the FBI just not checking her out.

Wow didn't Bill Clinton lie to a certain grand jury?

[braw]

Kind of like should be done with Obama? Seems like alot of skeletons are coming out of his closet as well

Well thats politics If you cant have better ideas then beat them with their mistakes.

[vta]

I've never denied that.

Actually you did, by characterizing it as change.
There's nothing different about business as usual.

[Dallas]

You people are so funny. Look at the length of this thread.

Do you think for a second a person can be a governor of a state w/o a full background check on them being done? SERIOUSLY?

She runs Corrections and Public Safety/Oil and Gas/Mining Land and Water/Habitat/Fish and Game/Revenue/Veterans and Military Affairs not to mention the other plethera of departments we have here in Alaska.

She is the HEAD HONCHO at the end of the day for Alaska. She has more access to anything and anybody in the state than ANYONE. She is the leader of the states national guard for crying out loud.

Yeah...she's never had a background check. :confused:


You can't even apply for most jobs w/o security clearance because of all the systems that we use that are tied into each other here in the state.

Do you folks even realize how long it takes to get an full FBI background check? The kind a VP would need?

They go and have interviews w/ your friends and your friends friends and your family and friends of your family. They go to your work and interview your boss (ive actually been interviewed once) and co-workers.

I just find it funny that you guys are blowing this completly out of proportion.

This isn't news at all.

Some idiot obviously messed up in saying that she did, when an FBI one hasn't been done. There could be all kinds of scenarios w/ this, but leave it to you lefts to go BALLS out on any spec of dirt coming from Sarah.

She has you running scared or you wouldn't have half the teeth you do regarding her. :D

[zrinkill]

She has you running scared or you wouldn't have half the teeth you do regarding her. :D

Same thing I have been saying.

[braw]

Same thing I have been saying.

Just because information gets out about a candidate does not mean people are scared about that candidate. Did she get vetted or an FBI background check, or did someone lie about getting a background check is all BS.

Because Bush has low approval ratings that means its the Dems race to lose and that is why the Dems have made a strategy of connecting McCains and Bushs ideals together.

This is a McCain problem not a Palin problem.

[Jarv]

LINK (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/palin_and_the_fbi_background_c.php)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not participate in the vetting of Gov. Sarah Palin and did not conduct a background check as part of the process, an FBI spokesman said today.

The Washington Post reported Sunday, citing an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis, that the vetting process "included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers nvolved in the deliberations.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

The FBI did not participate in a vet, nor did it run a background check of Gov. Palin as part of the process.

Palin might already have a clearance that relates to her duties as governor. But the FBI can't speak to that, and in any event, those investigations wouldn't be accessible to the McCain campaign anyway.

Your funny and pretty biased these days old man...lol.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Your funny and pretty biased these days old man...lol.

Funny and Bitter...I am going to go get my guns however I just can't bring myself to clinch religion.:D

[Jarv]

Funny and Bitter...I am going to go get my guns however I just can't bring myself to clinch religion.:D

That reminds me, my pistol permit just expired after 5 years. The sad thing was I didn't buy a pistol during that 5 years, which was the whole idea of getting it in the 1st place...

[BrAinPaiNt]

That reminds me, my pistol permit just expired after 5 years. The sad thing was I didn't buy a pistol during that 5 years, which was the whole idea of getting it in the 1st place...

Slacker and Procrastinator eh? ;)

[zrinkill]

Just because information gets out about a candidate does not mean people are scared about that candidate. Did she get vetted or an FBI background check, or did someone lie about getting a background check is all BS.

Because Bush has low approval ratings that means its the Dems race to lose and that is why the Dems have made a strategy of connecting McCains and Bushs ideals together.

This is a McCain problem not a Palin problem.

Sorry I do not agree ..... I always think it is the Conservative candidates election to lose.

Now in the past McCain has been anything but conservative ..... but if he can rally conservatives to his cause by picking a real conservative running mate ..... then I think he has a very good chance.

[ConcordCowboy]

Wow didn't Bill Clinton lie to a certain grand jury?

Same goes for him...it was the cover up that nailed him...Nixon too.

[Dallas]

ADN.COM

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/513335.html

PHILADELPHIA — Republican John McCain said Tuesday he's satisfied that Sarah Palin's background was properly checked out before the Alaska governor joined the Republican ticket.

Bristol Palin, 17, holds her brother, Trig, during a rally where her mother, Gov. Sarah Palin, was announced as the GOP vice presidential candidate.

"The vetting process was completely thorough and I'm grateful for the results," McCain told reporters as he toured a Philadelphia fire house.
Questions about the review came up after news surfaced that Palin's unmarried teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, and that the Alaska governor has retained a private attorney to represent her in an investigation into the firing of the state public safety commissioner.

The lawyer who conducted the background review said Palin voluntarily told McCain's campaign about Bristol's' pregnancy, and about her husband's 2-decade-old DUI arrest during questioning as part of the vice presidential search process.

The Alaska governor also greatly detailed the dismissal of the state's public safety commissioner that has touched off a legislative investigation, Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. told The Associated Press in an interview Monday.

Palin underwent a "full and complete" background examination before McCain chose her as his running mate, Culvahouse said. Asked whether everything that came up as a possible red flag during the review already has been made public, he said: "I think so. Yeah, I think so. Correct."

McCain's campaign has been trying to tamp down questions about whether the Arizona senator's team adequately researched his surprise vice presidential selection.

Since McCain publicly disclosed his running mate on Friday, the notion of a shoddy, rushed review has been stoked repeatedly.

First, a campaign-issued timeline said McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met with her a second time and offered her the job Then came the campaign's disclosure that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is pregnant. The father is Levi Johnston, who has been a hockey player at Bristol's high school, The New York Post and The New York Daily News reported in their Tuesday editions.


In addition, the campaign also disclosed that Palin's husband, Todd, then age 22, was arrested in 1986 in Alaska for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Shortly after Palin was named to the ticket, McCain's campaign dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska.

That fueled speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's record and past was incomplete and being done only after she was placed on the ticket.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said no matter who the nominee was, the campaign was ready to send a "jump team" to the No. 2's home state to work with the nominee's staff, work with the local media and help handle requests from the national media for information, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review.

At several points throughout the process, McCain's team warned Palin that the scrutiny into her private life would be intense and that there was nothing she could do to prepare for it.

Culvahouse disclosed details of his examination in a half-hour interview with the AP.

First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed.

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state's largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn't request paper archives for Palin's hometown newspaper. "I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy," Culvahouse said.

Reports, 40-some pages and single-spaced, on each candidate then were reviewed by McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black.

Among the details McCain's campaign found: Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.

Palin, like others on the short list, then was sent a personal data questionnaire with 70 "very intrusive" questions, Culvahouse said. She also was asked to submit a number of years of federal and state tax returns, as well as any controversial articles she had written or interviews she had done. The campaign also checked her credit.

Then, Culvahouse conducted a nearly three-hour-long interview.

[WoodysGirl]

Sorry I do not agree ..... I always think it is the Conservative candidates election to lose.

Now in the past McCain has been anything but conservative ..... but if he can rally conservatives to his cause by picking a real conservative running mate ..... then I think he has a very good chance.Now that's an interesting position to take. Because if we focus on McCain, can you really be sure he'll push the primary conversative causes? As VP, we know what choices Palin would make. Not sure on McCain now. And can you count on Palin to go against McCain should they get elected?

I believe Danny White is focusing on the 2012 elections, but you still gotta get there and I think there are some legitimate questions as to what agenda McCain will push.

[zrinkill]

Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.

This will be yeayea's next thread.

[iceberg]

Just because information gets out about a candidate does not mean people are scared about that candidate. Did she get vetted or an FBI background check, or did someone lie about getting a background check is all BS.

Because Bush has low approval ratings that means its the Dems race to lose and that is why the Dems have made a strategy of connecting McCains and Bushs ideals together.

This is a McCain problem not a Palin problem.

misinformation isn't the same as information getting out.

it's also not the same when you go looking for specific information because you're mind is already made up. "those damn xyz candidates...anyone they throw is bad, look i'll prove it!"

you're proving nothing then but your own narrow mind.

[braw]

Sorry I do not agree ..... I always think it is the Conservative candidates election to lose.

Now in the past McCain has been anything but conservative ..... but if he can rally conservatives to his cause by picking a real conservative running mate ..... then I think he has a very good chance.

Well first you need to define conservative( in what he preaches or in what he does). Now also you need to define conservative( in his policies and also the interests that support him)

[zrinkill]

Now that's an interesting position to take. Because if we focus on McCain, can you really be sure he'll push the primary conversative causes?

No ..... but I think there is a better chance he will than his opponent.

Besides defending this Country, I do not see a big difference between McCain and Obama.

Which is why I was very unsatisfied with this elections choices....... until a true Conservative with morals and decency was put on the ticket.

That is just my honest opinion .....

I have stated in the past that if Obama won I would support him.

It is hard to not get excited about the guy ..... but I feel the same way about Palin and what she may be able to accomplish.

This is exciting times ...... either a fellow "minority" or the first woman will be in the White House next year.

Exciting stuff.

[braw]

misinformation isn't the same as information getting out.

it's also not the same when you go looking for specific information because you're mind is already made up. "those damn xyz candidates...anyone they throw is bad, look i'll prove it!"

you're proving nothing then but your own narrow mind.- needs to be changed to narrow agenda and interests.

The information I was refering was 17 yr old daughter. McCain needs to know these things because this is his race and his only shot. I'm looking from a candidate's point of view not the party's point of view.

[zrinkill]

Well first you need to define conservative( in what he preaches or in what he does). Now also you need to define conservative( in his policies and also the interests that support him)

I do not need to define anything ...... I understand that McCain has not been a conservative for most of his career.

But Palin is ...... and that makes this the most Conservative ticket.

[iceberg]

- needs to be changed to narrow agenda and interests.

The information I was refering was 17 yr old daughter. McCain needs to know these things because this is his race and his only shot. I'm looking from a candidate's point of view not the party's point of view.

fair enough. but i still say if you go looking for bad information that's not the same as looking for valid information. now valid may be bad, yes. but with so much crap flying about it only makes it harder to filter through - in the end a likely goal of both sides. who can scare who the most?

it is a bit surprising this didn't come up - or maybe it did and we just don't know. all we can do on our end is assume for the most part.

people just assume to their own pre-determined beliefs more often than not.

[ConcordCowboy]

This will be yeayea's next thread.

:laugh2:

[WoodysGirl]

No ..... but I think there is a better chance he will than his opponent.

Besides defending this Country, I do not see a big difference between McCain and Obama.

Which is why I was very unsatisfied with this elections choices....... until a true Conservative with morals and decency was put on the ticket.

That is just my honest opinion .....

I have stated in the past that if Obama won I would support him.

It is hard to not get excited about the guy ..... but I feel the same way about Palin and what she may be able to accomplish.

This is exciting times ...... either a fellow "minority" or the first woman will be in the White House next year.

Exciting stuff. I completely understand that. It may seem like I defend Obama, but it's more to provide an alternative view than to really show support. I honestly don't care for either choices. I have to really think about which of their agendas I can stomach the most.

And of course supporting the new President is a given until you see how he performs in office.

[zrinkill]

And of course supporting the new President is a given until you see how he performs in office.

Unfortunately I do not think that will be the case ....

Which is probably the saddest part of this whole thing.

[Danny White]

Now that's an interesting position to take. Because if we focus on McCain, can you really be sure he'll push the primary conversative causes? As VP, we know what choices Palin would make. Not sure on McCain now. And can you count on Palin to go against McCain should they get elected?

I believe Danny White is focusing on the 2012 elections, but you still gotta get there and I think there are some legitimate questions as to what agenda McCain will push.
That's a very valid question.

Just because she ended up rallying the base, that doesn't mean that was McCain's primary reason for picking her... his main concern may have been the Hillary voters. And apparently he came a hair's breadth from picking the worse possible person in Lieberman.

So while I'm encouraged to a degree about McCain since this pick, I'm still not 100% sold on his motivations. Who's to say what he'll do if elected when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, etc.

For the time being, I'll be cautiously optimistic that he'll lean conservative, as he did with this pick. But I know enough about McCain not to get too comfortable.

But like Zrin, I'm mostly happy to finally have a candidate in this election that I can be excited about. Even if I'd have to wait 4-8 years for her to have any real decision-making ability. I can be patient. :D

[Angus]

Can you explain why someone from McCain's Campaign lied about the FBI background check?
Lying is a strong word. Maybe Sarah Palin told them she had passed an FBI check as governor.

But assume that it was a lie or a mistake, if the FBI wouldn't do it for the Republicans, why would it do it for the Democrats?

If she has not been FBI cleared, neither has he, as far as we know.

:)