Obama College Records Sealed (NOT IMPORTANT)

[PLAYER57832]

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law.

I must stridently disagree. In fact, I cannot disagree enough. Those who are part of the law are the ones who MUST be as perfect as possible regarding the law and CANNOT be seen as being above the law.

It depends on the context. In the big sense, I agree. The issue with the president is that he can change the law. This is the case when it comes to withholding information. Mostly, we only find out long after the fact whether his actions were appropriate or not. Even then, there is always disagreement depending on various goals and outcomes. (some people dislike Obama because he did not do enough xyz, others because he did too much xyz) Also, he is constantly subject to attacks by partisan opponents, more even than other politicians, to the extent that some basic protection is needed so he can actually run the country instead of fighting traffic tickets and such every day.

[Timminz]

How does one get their college records sealed anyways?

Mine are sealed. No one other than me is allowed to get a copy of my transcript from my University. And I didn't have to be special for them to "seal" them for me. In fact, they do it for all their students. Mostly due to something about expectable levels of privacy, or something.

[Woodruff]

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law.

I must stridently disagree. In fact, I cannot disagree enough. Those who are part of the law are the ones who MUST be as perfect as possible regarding the law and CANNOT be seen as being above the law.

It depends on the context. In the big sense, I agree.

I cannot think of a single context in which I would find it acceptable that the President (or anyone else within the framework of "part of the law") would be held above the law.

The issue with the president is that he can change the law.

He does? I always thought he signed off on laws that were passed by Congress. The President should not be changing laws.

This is the case when it comes to withholding information. Mostly, we only find out long after the fact whether his actions were appropriate or not. Even then, there is always disagreement depending on various goals and outcomes. (some people dislike Obama because he did not do enough xyz, others because he did too much xyz) Also, he is constantly subject to attacks by partisan opponents, more even than other politicians, to the extent that some basic protection is needed so he can actually run the country instead of fighting traffic tickets and such every day.

I still disagree. You see, we have laws against harassment...and if ANYONE can get action taken in regards to actual, real harassment, it's the President. As for "fighting traffic tickets and such every day", he doesn't need to...if someone's "saying something bad about you that's not true"...ignore it...you're the freaking PRESIDENT...you got better things to do.

[PLAYER57832]

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law.

I must stridently disagree. In fact, I cannot disagree enough. Those who are part of the law are the ones who MUST be as perfect as possible regarding the law and CANNOT be seen as being above the law.

It depends on the context. In the big sense, I agree.

I cannot think of a single context in which I would find it acceptable that the President (or anyone else within the framework of "part of the law") would be held above the law.

Well, any emergency personnel is allowed to disobey certain traffic laws in some circumstances. A president has responsibilities and liberties beyond that of an average citizen.

In a fire, my husband has the absolute authority to cross boundaries, violate not just "no tresspassing" signs, but encroach upon federal and state regulated lands, etc. In that sense, he is "above the law". But, he also operates within the law. The same applies for the president in many other circumstances. Whether you like the circumstances, agree it is appropriate has to do with your view of the overall politics.

The issue with the president is that he can change the law.

He does? I always thought he signed off on laws that were passed by Congress. The President should not be changing laws.[/quote]
They work in concert, but the president has a great deal of power in how laws are implemented. Case in point, Bush telling EPA, etc to ignore certain water quality laws he did not agree with.

The issue is not that he has that power, the issue is whether you like the outcome. Those who like it cheer and say he was "operating within his legal authority". Those who don't say "he exceeded his authority.

Now, whether Obama or Bush or any other president has stepped beyoond what is appropriate is a different argument. (mostly, they do) However, that they have that basic right is not really an argument, only the situations under which it might apply.

This is the case when it comes to withholding information. Mostly, we only find out long after the fact whether his actions were appropriate or not. Even then, there is always disagreement depending on various goals and outcomes. (some people dislike Obama because he did not do enough xyz, others because he did too much xyz) Also, he is constantly subject to attacks by partisan opponents, more even than other politicians, to the extent that some basic protection is needed so he can actually run the country instead of fighting traffic tickets and such every day.

I still disagree. You see, we have laws against harassment...and if ANYONE can get action taken in regards to actual, real harassment, it's the President. As for "fighting traffic tickets and such every day", he doesn't need to...if someone's "saying something bad about you that's not true"...ignore it...you're the freaking PRESIDENT...you got better things to do.[/quote]
Well.. he doesn't need to "fight traffic tickets" because it is firmly established that he is not subject to certain such laws. Now, we take it as a matter of course, but each of these things had to be fought for individually. I am not going to get into the whole deal because I am not an attorney (have a general knowledge, but not specific) and it gets VERY bogged down, but basically the Mayor of DC or any other city has almost no power over the president. They do have power over the rest of us. Now, most presidents, will try to honor local laws out of respect and because local ordinances generally come about for real reasons, but it is usually not a legal requirement.

As for the first... I actually agree that what you are saying is how it probably should be. I am just saying it is not. Also, you are thinking a bit narrower than I am. Again, you are thinking of specific circumstances that you dislike.

To get back to the emergency situation, in ordinary times, our privacy rights are pretty firm. However, in wartime.. we pretty almost automatically lose some of those rights. This is, not ironically, why Bush made this a "war" on terror. Because therein, he tried to pull in all sorts of powers only afforded a president in time of war. The battle we have right now is over whether that is true or not... both whether restrictions considered normal or warranted 100 years ago still apply today, in the internet age, etc. AND, whether this truly is a "war", etc. (I don't feel it truly is, not in the sense of our constitution).

But here is the thing.. anybody has whatever power they take until it is challenged. This is true if you decide to build a fence on your neighbor's property or if the President decides he has (or needs) other powers. Then you bring the issue to court and the courts decide. Recent presidents have been very sneaky about taking liberties. Then by placing "sympathetic" justices, they ensure that the courts will allow them to keep these powers, if not by affirmation, then simply by refusing to consider or rule on challenges to them.

[PLAYER57832]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course he is "hiding something". I have yet to meet or hear of a person on Earth who is not. As president, it is inherent that he hide more than most.

Why is it inherent that he do so? What right does he have in preventing the American public from clearly understanding who their president/upcoming candidate is?

Wrong question. The correct question is how would knowing his college record.. a record some decades old... provide any real and true understanding of who our president is? Also, would it provide anything not available from other sources.

The answer to those questions is "no". Knowing his college grades is a matter of curiousity, not public interest. The public needs to judge him based upon his work record, his legislative record, not the classes his college felt pertinent to giving him a degree.

Privacy is innate unles there is an overriding reason it should not be. That is precisely why this is "McCarthyism". Because you make the backwards assertion that a person needs to prove why something should be private... or even worse, that someone not revealing private information is automatically reason for suspicion, if not outright guilt.

If, as Phattscotty did, you further tie in "communistic ties"
.. then it absolutely is the dictionary definition of McCarthyism.

What I mean by "SLIGHTLY Stalinist," is that he tries to control the media to suit his needs, especially when it's being negative about him. We've seen that with his attack on Fox News (which, sure, was understandable, but legal? ... Turns out it was just silly on his part). Also, I really don't care about Bush because I'm not talking about Bush.

Are you seriously trying to assert that Obama controls the media, attacks the opposition more than Bush? If so, then Fox must be your primary source of "news".

As for attacks on Fox being "silly". Well, I live in an EXTREMELY conservative area, and when even the little old ladies next door, who have barely even heard of NPR, (etc) tell me that Fox news is "lying"... Fox news has pretty far overstepped the bounds of reality.

Also, few people now truly get news from the TV media any longer.

[jonesthecurl]

I would dearly love to one day run for public office. But I fear my Conquer Club activity would come back to haunt me!

At least the information from CC is accessible to the public, and from this information people can make a more informed opinion about who you are. And that means a lot. There's much to be said about you (good and bad) judging from your posts.

If you think you can truly judge a person based on CC forum posts... that says a lot.

I don't know...I'm pretty much the same person here that I am in real life. Ok, one exception...I definitely don't swear nearly as much in real life. But honestly...that's pretty much it.

Yes, but that's not true of everyone. Some people deliberately put up false fronts, others are merely exaggerated versions of their real-life selves.

Me, I think you'd soon know me for "jonesey" if we had a conversation in real life. But I may be the exception, I dunno.

[BigBallinStalin]

What I mean by "SLIGHTLY Stalinist," is that he tries to control the media to suit his needs, especially when it's being negative about him. We've seen that with his attack on Fox News (which, sure, was understandable, but legal? ... Turns out it was just silly on his part). Also, I really don't care about Bush because I'm not talking about Bush.

Are you seriously trying to assert that Obama controls the media, attacks the opposition more than Bush? If so, then Fox must be your primary source of "news".

As for attacks on Fox being "silly". Well, I live in an EXTREMELY conservative area, and when even the little old ladies next door, who have barely even heard of NPR, (etc) tell me that Fox news is "lying"... Fox news has pretty far overstepped the bounds of reality.

Also, few people now truly get news from the TV media any longer.

There's a difference between "tries to control" and "controls." Therefore, most of your response is irrelevant.

As for his encouraged attack on Fox, I'm not really concerned with how embarrassing Fox makes themselves look. That's a given. I was talking about his handling the situation, which was silly. He should've let Fox make fools of themselves, instead of getting so personally involved (again he should've got his PR minions on the case and washed his hands clean of it).

Hopefully, this clears up that.

Of course he is "hiding something". I have yet to meet or hear of a person on Earth who is not. As president, it is inherent that he hide more than most.

Why is it inherent that he do so? What right does he have in preventing the American public from clearly understanding who their president/upcoming candidate is?

Wrong question. The correct question is how would knowing his college record.. a record some decades old... provide any real and true understanding of who our president is? Also, would it provide anything not available from other sources.

The answer to those questions is "no". Knowing his college grades is a matter of curiousity, not public interest. The public needs to judge him based upon his work record, his legislative record, not the classes his college felt pertinent to giving him a degree.

Privacy is innate unles there is an overriding reason it should not be. That is precisely why this is "McCarthyism". Because you make the backwards assertion that a person needs to prove why something should be private... or even worse, that someone not revealing private information is automatically reason for suspicion, if not outright guilt.

If, as Phattscotty did, you further tie in "communistic ties"
.. then it absolutely is the dictionary definition of McCarthyism.

That's a good point: How relevant are his decades-old college thesis? Not sure, haven't seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they resemble his current goals. So as you've hinted at, why even bother with that particular past while you can see what person he is while he's the president.

But I'll agree. The angle I've used can be labelled as "McCarthyistic."

Also, thank you, stahrgazer, for the information on the legalities of this issue.

[BigBallinStalin]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

[stahrgazer]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

You mean, like, having activity with an aide that is or is not sex, depending on what the definition of "is" is - or "not" committing perjury about it because some people are offended that a sitting president was even asked about his relationships first with a gubernatorial campaign groupie and later with some chick in a blue dress?

[BigBallinStalin]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

You mean, like, having activity with an aide that is or is not sex, depending on what the definition of "is" is - or "not" committing perjury about it because some people are offended that a sitting president was even asked about his relationships first with a gubernatorial campaign groupie and later with some chick in a blue dress?

Well, he tried his best, and got caught. But the number of such instances, I'd presume, don't account for the situations that the American public was made unaware of.

But that's all about transparency, oversight on the Executive Branch, and what powers the Executive branch can wield to avert certain oversight. I'd say, it's been a big problem--especially during the Dubya Years.

[Woodruff]

A president HAS to be above the law in some respects, because he is part of the law.

I must stridently disagree. In fact, I cannot disagree enough. Those who are part of the law are the ones who MUST be as perfect as possible regarding the law and CANNOT be seen as being above the law.

It depends on the context. In the big sense, I agree.

I cannot think of a single context in which I would find it acceptable that the President (or anyone else within the framework of "part of the law") would be held above the law.

Well, any emergency personnel is allowed to disobey certain traffic laws in some circumstances.

That is not in any way being held above the law - that is a legislated part of the law.

In a fire, my husband has the absolute authority to cross boundaries, violate not just "no tresspassing" signs, but encroach upon federal and state regulated lands, etc. In that sense, he is "above the law".

No, it absolutely is not - that is a recognized, legislated part of the law.

The issue is not that he has that power, the issue is whether you like the outcome. Those who like it cheer and say he was "operating within his legal authority". Those who don't say "he exceeded his authority.

This presumes that people are unable to think outside of their own sphere of desires. I can absolutely see something as having positive outcomes even if I am not in favor of it, and I certainly can see something having negative outcomes even if I am in favor of it.

This is the case when it comes to withholding information. Mostly, we only find out long after the fact whether his actions were appropriate or not. Even then, there is always disagreement depending on various goals and outcomes. (some people dislike Obama because he did not do enough xyz, others because he did too much xyz) Also, he is constantly subject to attacks by partisan opponents, more even than other politicians, to the extent that some basic protection is needed so he can actually run the country instead of fighting traffic tickets and such every day.

I still disagree. You see, we have laws against harassment...and if ANYONE can get action taken in regards to actual, real harassment, it's the President. As for "fighting traffic tickets and such every day", he doesn't need to...if someone's "saying something bad about you that's not true"...ignore it...you're the freaking PRESIDENT...you got better things to do.

Well.. he doesn't need to "fight traffic tickets" because it is firmly established that he is not subject to certain such laws.

You're the one that brought it up - why did you bring it up then? Did your straw man catch on fire or something?

As for the first... I actually agree that what you are saying is how it probably should be. I am just saying it is not. Also, you are thinking a bit narrower than I am. Again, you are thinking of specific circumstances that you dislike.

That's quite a presumption. Just because your view is so colored by your likes and dislikes does not mean mine is.

To get back to the emergency situation, in ordinary times, our privacy rights are pretty firm. However, in wartime.. we pretty almost automatically lose some of those rights. This is, not ironically, why Bush made this a "war" on terror. Because therein, he tried to pull in all sorts of powers only afforded a president in time of war. The battle we have right now is over whether that is true or not... both whether restrictions considered normal or warranted 100 years ago still apply today, in the internet age, etc. AND, whether this truly is a "war", etc. (I don't feel it truly is, not in the sense of our constitution).

That battle was lost when President Obama continued with the same status.

[Phatscotty]

I would bet money that W did better than Obama in college. Yet, pointing to Bushes college records has been a liberal talking point for 10 years as proof of how dumb he is.

[PLAYER57832]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

Yes.

[PLAYER57832]

That battle was lost when President Obama continued with the same status.

On that, I agree.

However, if we look at this as a warfield (the state of the US, not this terrorism bit), then Obama came into a minefield of exploding bombs. In such a situation, you have to start by defusing the ones immediately around you, the ones most likely to explode in the next few seconds.

For Obama, the economy, of which health care and the banking reform were a big part, took precedence.. not so much in the sense of importance, but in the sense that these were things he could tackle. Dealing with the broader "is terrorism really a battlefield" bit is more subtle, takes more time. That said, I think that despite this bit about the Patriot act, etc, we have seem a change in the way our country views these things.

Also... as I say over and over. Obama is not the best president we could possible hope to have. He was just better than his opponents..and he is the one we have now.

I admit he has failings, but given the massive chaos he inherited, I just think we need to look at what he has actually done. When your house is burned down and you rebuild, its good to be thankful that you have a nice house and roof, rather than throw a fit and say it might as well have stayed burnt because the shutters are painted the wrong color. .. or even that you had to build a slightly smaller house because you didn't have full insurance.

[BigBallinStalin]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

Yes.

So why should he be above the law?

Obviously, it's pretty detrimental to us--sure, the faith in our executive branch would be rocked if that branch was more transparent, but isn't that what the judicial branch should be doing? Why allow the president such power to coverup things, or prevent or make his chances higher of avoiding judicial review?

[PLAYER57832]

The short form-- basically, I understand and agree. Mostly, its a matter of semantics. Since a president can alter the law, he has to be above it in some manner. Not absolutely, but in some ways.

Doesn't that leave room for the president to get away with certain scandals and illegal activities?

Yes.

So why should he be above the law?

Obviously, it's pretty detrimental to us--sure, the faith in our executive branch would be rocked if that branch was more transparent, but isn't that what the judicial branch should be doing? Why allow the president such power to coverup things, or prevent or make his chances higher of avoiding judicial review?

You said "certain scandals and illegal activities", which includes just about anything. We don't elect perfect people to be president. The issue is whether he serves the country well, does his job.

A classic example is extra marital affairs. I certainly don't approve of them (and do NOT believe Obama is in one or has been! Nor do I believe Bush had one, while in office), but if its kept quiet (unlike the Lewinski bit), does it matter to me? No. To his wife, his family, but not me.

I am not going to get into a catalogue of what is and is not OK. As to more transparency "rocking the faith in the executive branch". I don't have particular faith in the branch. I expect our leaders to be human, but to get their jobs done despite their failings. Sometimes, because of them.

Kennedy is lauded too much. But, look at Jefferson. He had children with his slave. Yet, our country would not be what it is today, would (I feel) be far lessor without him.

Today everybody has to live in a glass bowl. But, no one is truly able to withstand that kind of scrutiny, not pop stars, not sports figures, not politicians.. not even many clergy, not for their entire lives.

[Woodruff]

Also... as I say over and over. Obama is not the best president we could possible hope to have. He was just better than his opponents..and he is the one we have now.

You keep coming back to this over and over again, but it's thoroughly irrelevant. I don't CARE who he's better than...I just know that he's a hell of a lot worse than he advertised himself as being.

I admit he has failings, but given the massive chaos he inherited, I just think we need to look at what he has actually done. When your house is burned down and you rebuild, its good to be thankful that you have a nice house and roof, rather than throw a fit and say it might as well have stayed burnt because the shutters are painted the wrong color. .. or even that you had to build a slightly smaller house because you didn't have full insurance.

Or that you've lost your right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers.

[PLAYER57832]

Also... as I say over and over. Obama is not the best president we could possible hope to have. He was just better than his opponents..and he is the one we have now.

You keep coming back to this over and over again, but it's thoroughly irrelevant. I don't CARE who he's better than...I just know that he's a hell of a lot worse than he advertised himself as being.

What politician isn't.
And, as long as we are limited to those who run in elections, it will come down to the better choice, not the ultimately best choice.

I admit he has failings, but given the massive chaos he inherited, I just think we need to look at what he has actually done. When your house is burned down and you rebuild, its good to be thankful that you have a nice house and roof, rather than throw a fit and say it might as well have stayed burnt because the shutters are painted the wrong color. .. or even that you had to build a slightly smaller house because you didn't have full insurance.

Or that you've lost your right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers.[/quote]
I don't see that this has happened under Obama, but if so, it is disturbing.
(in truth, it has happened, but more on a local level .. and I don't really want to get into all that right now).

The real problem, the real power, right now is in money. You and I, according to the "powers that be" no longer truly have a right to our money, no longer truly have a right to expect reasonable payment for reasonable work done. We barely have the right to reasonably safe working conditions and certainly don't seem to have the right to health care and medical treatment, except for kids (and then not in every state uniformly).

Political freedoms are absolutely critical and important, but when people are struggling to put food on the table, they really could care less about such political ideals ... and THAT is why they are being threatened now, Obama or no Obama. Obama is just a player. He is not the owner of the game.

[Night Strike]

The real problem, the real power, right now is in money. You and I, according to the "powers that be" no longer truly have a right to our money, no longer truly have a right to expect reasonable payment for reasonable work done. We barely have the right to reasonably safe working conditions and certainly don't seem to have the right to health care and medical treatment, except for kids (and then not in every state uniformly).

Then why can't we keep more of our money by paying less taxes? Raising wages is not the only solution. In fact, cutting taxes will create more jobs than forcing higher, non-market wages. We don't have the right to our own money because the government decrees they have to take a large percentage of it. No one ever said you had no right to health care or treatment: you don't have a right to insurance. No one ever said those rights had to be free of charge either.

[Timminz]

No one ever said those rights had to be free of charge either.

A right that you have to pay for is called a privilege.

[Night Strike]

No one ever said those rights had to be free of charge either.

A right that you have to pay for is called a privilege.

You have the right for the pursuit of happiness. Depending on your definition of happiness, that may take lots of money or no money. You have the right to be treated for illnesses and emergencies, but it's impossible to provide those free of charge.

[Timminz]

If you will be denied something unless you pay for it, it is not a right.

[Woodruff]

Also... as I say over and over. Obama is not the best president we could possible hope to have. He was just better than his opponents..and he is the one we have now.

You keep coming back to this over and over again, but it's thoroughly irrelevant. I don't CARE who he's better than...I just know that he's a hell of a lot worse than he advertised himself as being.

What politician isn't.
And, as long as we are limited to those who run in elections, it will come down to the better choice, not the ultimately best choice.

I admit he has failings, but given the massive chaos he inherited, I just think we need to look at what he has actually done. When your house is burned down and you rebuild, its good to be thankful that you have a nice house and roof, rather than throw a fit and say it might as well have stayed burnt because the shutters are painted the wrong color. .. or even that you had to build a slightly smaller house because you didn't have full insurance.

Or that you've lost your right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers.

I don't see that this has happened under Obama, but if so, it is disturbing.
(in truth, it has happened, but more on a local level .. and I don't really want to get into all that right now).

Trials are now a matter of convenience for our government.

[Woodruff]

No one ever said those rights had to be free of charge either.

Ummm...huh. That's a very odd thought and one that I would disagree with wholeheartedly.