Teachable Moment - Part 4

I've got some time, so I'd like to make some counter-points.

#14 - This is simply special pleading. When the left goes after Bush with vitriol it's because they hate him and would rather America fail than he succeed. But when the right goes after Obama with a vengance, it's just because they disagree with him and that they just love their country so much.

I do agree that some people on the left went after Bush out of pure spite and hatred. They had 'Bush derangement syndrome'. I also never liked those people, because the right used them to mask any LEGITIMATE criticism of the president. "You're criticizing the president? You're just one of those people who hate him no matter what!"

But I also would say that many people on the right have 'Obama derangement syndrome' today. It's not a symptom of just the left. Each side has it.

#15 - "There should be no room for a clown like Franken in our Senate" Regardless of think of him Sam, it's not up to YOU to decide who represents the people of Minnesota. The simple fact is that the election results have been certified by the election board after many challenges from both sides, and Franken received more votes. The majority of Minnesotans have chosen him as their representative. I respect the right of the other candidate to challenge, but after so many challenges and so much scrutiny, it's time to let the people of Minnesota have their second senator. Let's not forget that they currently are represented by one less senator than everyone else in the US.

#16 - You say that we should all come together and act in the best interest of the country. Sounds good. But then you qualify that by describing 'come together' as everyone coming around to your way of thinking. That's not how it works. The will of the people IS democracy, regardless of what that will is, and regardless of whether or not you like it.

#17 - I agree that we need to focus on clean energy. Nuclear energy is also OK, but it's not where our emphasis should be. Why? We can't export it. Exporting nuclear tech is touchy for security reasons. Also, other countries (Japan, France) do it better than we do. The clean energy industry has alot of growing room, and I'd like to see the US fill that up. Additionally, Nuclear plants and oil rigs are long term solutions. Our long term emphasis should be on cleaner and freer technologies.

As for your stance on global warming.. There is much ongoing debate and research in the scientific community as to the causes and effects of global warming. But what the majority of scientists agree on is that humans are in some way causing/contributing to it.

Most national and international scientific institutions/academies have studied global warming. They have mostly agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose position is:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Yes, it is pushed by politicians who might have a hidden agenda. But that doesn't make it less true.

#18 - Obama released a certification of live birth that was examined by multiple organizations which found it to be valid. A short form is a legally valid document to prove citizenship. Additionally, the director of Hawaii Dept. of Health has certified that the original certificate is filed at their offices. The records have not been 'sealed'. It is Hawaii state policy to not release records unless requested by the individual or their family.

#19 - I don't think Mike was actually questioning McCain's citizenship, but pointing out the irony his citizenship is about as questionable as Obama's (that is, not very questionable).

The naturalization act of 1795 would make McCain a citizen upon birth. However, some have argued that there were other cases that overruled that act in McCain's case, and that he could have only been made a citizen retroactively. There actually has not been any definitive court rulings on what constitutes a 'Natural' born citizen. And there have been differing legal opinions. The US Foreign Affair Manual states that no court has ever decided if people born abroad are 'natural' born.

But I'm not questioning his citizenship. Simply pointing out the irony that there seems to be more of an actual legal quandary about McCain's birth than Obama's. But both of them are citizens.

So hang on just one minute sam. Are you saying right here and now that you support the efforts of Coleman to keep Franken, who was democratically and fairly elected, from taken his seat in the Senate solely because you don't like Al Franken?

How can you sit there and claim (and yes it is nothing more than a claim as you have no proof) that Obama is trying to stifle dissent (as if the Bush Administration didn't do the exact same thing but there is proof, for instance, having CIA agents infiltrate a church (non-Christian of course)) and then champion one of your own as he tries to stifle the voice of the Minnesota people.

G5

"The paper produced in Hawaii is not an actual birth certificate, and shows several signs of forgery."

It is a certificate of live birth, legally equivalent to a birth certificate and all that is required for him to prove natural born citizenship. It has been verified as authentic by first hand inspection by multiple organizations.

-Background Check-

Historically and Legally the president (as well as other elected officials) does not require a background check. It has historically been the media's job to probe into their lives and dig skeletons out of the closet.

Instituting a required background check carries several problems.

1) Which agency's check? A federal background check is not done by a single organization, each department has it's own background check procedures. The procedures between department's vary greatly.

2) Fairness. If the outgoing administration (and thus department heads) are of one party, there might be fairness issues with the background checks. For instance, if the FBI check is used, and the head of the FBI was appointed by a Democratic president, might there not be accusations of bias in the check of the republican candidate? In our election process, the tiniest bit of information, even unsubstantiated information, can become a huge political liability.

3) Independent panel? One might suggest an 'independent panel' perform the background check. But could there really be such a thing? Presidential policy is broad and affects everyone in different ways. There is no way to enforce impartiality on the part of the panel (even if they were not affiliated with either party). All it would take is a single offhanded comment from one of the panel members to entirely derail a presidential campaign.

The claim that Obama would not pass a background check is dubious. After all, which check? He would NOT pass the DEA background check, as he's admitted to doing drugs. But if that was the case, almost NONE of our presidents would pass. (The DEA has a zero tolerance policy for ANY drug w/o prescription. So even a prescription painkiller after your prescription is up disqualifies you)

He would be very likely to pass an FBI check. They have a less strict drug policy. I know you'll clamor about his 'associations', but in fact he would not even be required to acknowledge them on the initial paperwork. The check focuses primarily on the actions of the individual, not on the actions of his associates. (Now if Obama had been a MEMBER of the Weather Underground, he would not pass).

His records have been about as open as most presidential candidates. His financial records were made public. His health records were made public. Etc.

-Minnesota-

I think the Minnesota senate election last year was a perfect example of how our voting systems need to be overhauled. We can put a man on the moon and split atoms, but we somehow can't manage to count.

There have always been a few lost votes in elections (as well as other voting problems). But typically elections aren't close enough for it to matter. This one was.

But that's why an extensive system exists to deal with it. Coleman had a narrow victory after the election, an automatic recount was triggered, and Franken took the lead. After many challenges from both candidates, Franken has kept the lead (in fact it has grown). The results have been certified by the state election board (3 republicans, 1 democrat, 1 independent), as well as reviewed by their court system. And it is HIGHLY improbable that any more challenges will get Coleman the required number of votes to overtake Franken.

It's NOT a perfect system (and I do think we can do better), but this wait has simply become ridiculous for the people of Minnesota. Their populace is not being properly represented at a time when much major legislation is being passed.

It would be nice to hold another election. But it's not just Franken's campaign that's against it. The state law and policy is to not hold another election unless a gross misconduct has been discovered. So far, no misconduct has been discovered, just simple mistakes made by election volunteers.

Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting.

Regarding Al Franken. I think if Al Franken won the election, then by all means, he should be seated.

I am concerned about voter fraud, ACORN, etc. I wonder how MORE votes for Franken kept mysteriously showing up at every recount. It smells.

Guillermo -

I know that the 2000 election, has been a sore spot, for me also.

My perspective, of course, is that Gore tried to steal the election.

But let's put the actual facts of both of these elections, Franken/Coleman and Bush/Gore, aside for just a minute.

In this country, in my Utopia, I would think that we should be able to have honest elections! We want to be an example to the world, and yet, we each cry about phony election results.

I have confidence that you and I agree we need honest elections.

I am concerned about ACORN, about possible upcoming census tomfoolery, etc.

Could I get you to agree that ACORN should be shut down?

Would you stand against the White House taking control of the census process?

Cross that aisle GI, you can do it.