Should every office holder, applicant, aide, Intern, or page have been "properly" vetted, and if they have not, then should vetting begin immediately regardless of who they are, the position they hold, or the people they know.
 
No accusations - Just a proper vetting as required by Law?
 

Federal Elected office holders should be cleared to the level of a TS Clearance - minimum  (Top secret)

What law?

You must be talking about the vetting law written into the Constitution.

 
OK, I will remove the "by LAW" statement.  Does that change anything?
 

Who gets to decide what a proper vetting is?  Does it include cavity searches or what?

Who will pay for it?   Republicans want to pay for nothing to save lives but this ...Oh!  Yes!  lets waste money

 
I was not necessarily taking about the President, but YES, he would be included in that as well..
 
 

Mud....how Mud got by the interview with a Psychiatrist.

His hatred for Blacks is way over the TOP!  He needs help

the treasoncrat party - the people who don't care for ID from the people they elect, or the people who vote
 
 
probably why the only thing they have ever been good at " fixin'  " is elections.

(( have been "properly" vetted,  ))

Define "properly" vetted... 

Define "properly" vetted... 
 
You define it.  You're the one who doesn't care.
 

(( You define it.  You're the one who doesn't care. ))

Just what  I figured you would say.  So your baited Poll was just a ploy to draw in the left winger, so you could rag on them and call them names, even more so  than you already do.. 

I got it... (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/grin.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/grin.gif)

Liberals dont care,as long as it's a person they agree with,he/she could be a child molester or a cold blooded killer as long as the politics agree with the liberal point of view.

SIMPLE UNCOMPLICATED ANSWER: YES FOR SECURITY REASONS AND EVEN THOSE ON THE LEFT WOULD BE SCREAMING IF OBAMA WAS ASSASSINATED BECAUSE SOMEONE WASN'T VETTED!!! AND YOU KNOW THAT'S TRUE. SO HOW THE HELL DOES A COUPLE OF ATTENTION whoreS GET TO WALK RIGHT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE DURING A STATE FUNCTION AND WHAT IF THEY HAD GUNS?? PLUS THE FACT THAT EVEN AIDES CAN OVERHEAR CONVERSATIONS INVOLVING SECURE INFO, SO IF YOU CAN'T PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY CAPACITY!

 
So your baited Poll was just a ploy to draw in the left winger,
 
You think the Poll was baited?  It was a Yes or No question.   How was it baited?
 
 
 
so you could rag on them and call them names,
 
What name did I call you?
 
 
 
even more so  than you already do.. 

Give an example..
 



I got it...

Yep, you got "something", I won't argue that point!
 

The DOJ (FBI) vets for the Administration's Top Secret Clearance.

But, who is running the DOJ?  0bama wouldn't dismiss Holder because Holder knows 0bama's secret. Isn't it funny how the 0bama Administration dismiss, transferred, demoted the FBI, CIS NSA... department heads and replaced them with liberals and  _ _ _ _ _ _ ?

Funny, Bush fires a dozen DOJ attorneys and the whole world knows.

Jim you should know by now any question that you ask that involves a liberal will be seen as baited.

 I have no desire to indulge in pissing contests with you right wing idiots.  When they learn to have civil discussions then maybe a discussion can be done. 

When i said "YOU" I meant all of you right wingers.

I made a statement.   You can take it or leave it.  If I'm wrong prove I'm wrong... 

I have no desire to indulge in pissing contests with you right wing idiots.  When they learn to have civil discussions then maybe a discussion can be done. 

This entire Topic "was" a civil discussion until your post.    And if you had no desire to indulge in a pissing contest then why did you unzip in the first place?
 
 
I asked a simply Yes or No question.  All it asked for was a simply Yes or No answer.  Is that what you did?
 
Again: Yes or No ?
 
 
 

President and Vice President...  not wanting to pay for other Idiots that stupid people vote for

I voted "NO" because I believe that President Obama was already properly vetted before the 2008 presidential election and so there's really no need to do so today!
 
http://www.MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/) ........ http://www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/)

President and Vice President...  not wanting to pay for other Idiots that stupid people vote for
 
How much does it cost to insure our secrets remain secret?  You don't want "anyone" else investigated?
 
 

(( I asked a simply Yes or No question. ))

I too asked a simple question.  A question you obviously couldn't answer.  But instead tried to turn the question around.  Had you answered my question, I would have answered yours...

 
Actually, you asked four questions, meant as a deflection. Unless you are implying you are the only one not knowing the answer to those questions.
 

yes. Proof of citizenship and they should also be required to pass mental/criminal checks for concealed carry.

Jim,
 
You never defined "properly vetted." Until you do, your poll is pointless.
 

(( Actually, you asked four questions, ))

How do you get four questions out of one question and three statements (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/huh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/huh.gif)




(( Jim,   You never defined "properly vetted." Until you do, your poll is pointless. ))

Apparently Jim can't answer that question of  "properly vetted.".  All he can do is deflect...   

You never defined "properly vetted." Until you do, your poll is pointless.

I will tell you what I told etc. You define it. 
 
Meaning: I am open to what is considered "Proper."  Run "Proper" through a commitee, not through me..
 
Why are you stuck on the inane while dodging the substance?
 

I say YES!
 
The vetting MUST include submission of a Certified Copy of their actual Birth Certificate.
 
This would be in addition to whatever is required when applying for a Civil Service position, plus an FBI Background Check.
 

 
How refreshing that "some" among us can actually answer the question, then if necessary, specify what they mean by it. Instead of this Dodging BS."
 

Jim,

Your "poll" has a serious defect--the logical fallacy of ambiguity. You asked, "Should every office holder (sic), applicant, aide, Intern (sic), or page have been 'properly' vetted, ...."  But the term properly is ambiguous--it can be reasonably interpreted in two or more ways, and you've obstinately refused to define it for us. So that leads to the obvious question: How can you determine the accuracy of a poll that asks an ambiguous question? The answer to that question, of course, is you can't. The results of your so-called poll will be meaningless, because nobody--and,evidently, that includes even you--can say with certainty what "properly vetted" really means. And your suggestion that the poll's respondants define "properly vetted" is obviosly ludicrous, to say the least.

No, Jim. It's not refreshing; it's illogical. No one can respond logically to your poll, because it asks an ambiguous question. I can easily look up the definition of the word vetted, but you've never defined exactly what you mean by someone being "properly" vetted. Your poll is based on the logical fallacy of ambiguity. And notice, Jim, that 1-Term-BHO didn't actually respond to the poll--whether someone should be properly vetted. The response was an example of how a person could be vetted. Your "poll" is flawed and it's results will be inaccurate until you define exactly what "properly" vetted means.
 
 

Your "poll" has a serious defect--the logical fallacy of ambiguity. You asked, "Should every office holder (sic), applicant, aide, Intern (sic), or page have been 'properly' vetted, ...."  But the term properly is ambiguous--it can be reasonably interpreted in two or more ways, and you've obstinately refused to define it for us. So that leads to the obvious question: How can you determine the accuracy of a poll that asks an ambiguous question? The answer to that question, of course, is you can't. The results of your so-called poll will be meaningless, because nobody--and,evidently, that includes even you--can say with certainty what "properly vetted" really means. And your suggestion that the poll's respondants(sic) define "properly vetted" is obviosly(sic) ludicrous, to say the least.
 
 
I also said to leave the word "Properly" to be defined by a committee. All you are doing is searching for ways not to answer a simple Yes or No question. So allow me to make it easier for you:
 
Remove the word "Properly."
 
Question:
Should every Office holder, Applicant, Aide, Intern, or Page have been vetted, and if they have not been, then should vetting begin immediately regardless of who they are, the position they hold, or the people they know?
 
Y/N



I'm betting you'll still come up with a reason to avoid it.

Obviously, 1965hawks does not believe in vetting.

Not when it is ambiguous.

 
"Ambiguous" is just another way of saying you don't understand a plain english word, or concept.
 

Properly Vetted?

Honestly, how could a high level official, who'll have access to national security, not have a back-round check by the FBI?

The are some civil servant applicants who are investigated thoroughly before getting hired... an NYC cop's neighbors are questioned along with verified documents. That's why so many of us are stunned that 0bama successfully shelled out $millions to keep his records private. And the ONLY ones claiming 0bama's status are his mouthpieces and the Dems in congress (and we all know how they lie).

think they should go through TSA screening first.....

(( I'm betting you'll still come up with a reason to avoid it. ))

Just like you're doing ~ Right Jim?? 

Just like you're doing ~ Right Jim??
 
Sorry, I had no fear in answering the question, just as 23 others had no fear in answering.  You have a fear of the question. That's your problem, not mine..    :- )
 
 

What kind of person would answer NO to this question?
 
Would these same people not want to know if their children could be cared-for by a pedophile, either?

Jim,
 
 I understand plain English. Asking if someone should be vetted is plain English. But asking if someone should be "properly" vetted is ambiguous if there is no definition for being "properly vetted." Since the question is illogical; the answer will be meaningless. And allowing the respondant to use his or her own defintion for the ambiguous term makes the answer to the question--and the results of the poll-- even more meaningless. No. I don't understand your "plain english." I undestand plain English.
 
Question for Jim: If "properly vetted" is plain English, then why can't you define it?
 
 

You won your bet, Jim.
 
Your poll should simply ask, "Should candidates for office, and applicants for certain positions associated with officeholders, be vetted, yes or no?" (How's that for plain English, Jim?)
 
You require respondants to your so-called poll to answer answer "yes" or "no." But as stated above, your poll asks several question and, thus, cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no."

No, duke_john. It's not that I don't believe in vetting. What's obvious here is that you've proven again that you're neither a critical reader nor a critical thinker. That explains why you didn't spot the logical fallacy of Jim's "poll."
 
 
 

Obviously, 1965hawks does not believe in vetting.  1965hawks does not believe a shady past should ever see the light of day.

You're neither a critical reader nor a critical thinker. That's why you were easily fooled by Jim's "poll."
 
 

You're a typical, cowardly liberal, 1965Hawks, too afraid to take a stand when the dnc doesn't tell you what to think.

Calling me a cowardly liberal doesn't change the fact that you're too stupid to spot the fallacy in Jivin' Jim's phoney poll.

Calling me a cowardly liberal doesn't change the fact that you're too stupid to spot the fallacy in Jivin' Jim's phoney poll.
 
If you think my poll is incorrect then why don't you reword it for me?
 

Jim,
 
I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in the wording of your question--your use of an undefined term--and someone else pointed out the logical fallacy of demanding a single yes or no response to a question with more than one possible answer. And if (or when) you rephrase your question, make sure it isn't an argumentative question, like it is now.
 
 

Come on, Hawks, find something from Mad magazine to prove how Jim's simple question, to which you can qualify your answer, is a bad one.

Mad Magazine, huh?
 
Since you couldn't spot the logic fallacy of ambiguity in Jivin' Jim's survey question, it's not surprising that you're using another logic fallacy here--the Appeal to Ridicule, in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence. But, needless to say, your mockery doesn't provide any evidence to refute my argument that Jivin' Jim's use of the ambiguous term "properly vetted" in the survey question makes the results of his so-called poll meaningless.
 
Go back and try again, dj.
 
 
 
 
 
 

You call the board's moderator "Jivin' Jim" and accuse me of appealing to ridicule?

Hell, no, I'm just telling the truth about the way you operate.

And I'm telling the truth about the way this board's "moderator" acts--just like when I call you DUMBO_john.

I'm telling the truth about you when I call you 666ChickenShit.

You can answer a simple question posed by Jim and add any qualifier you wish, or just look like the chicken shit moron you are.

Jim,
 
I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in the wording of your question--your use of an undefined term--and someone else pointed out the logical fallacy of demanding a single yes or no response to a question with more than one possible answer. And if (or when) you rephrase your question, make sure it isn't an argumentative question, like it is now.

 
The question is straight forward as it stands.  "Should "Anyone" in (or applying for) a High Level Position - Be Vetted? "

You can vote Yes or No, or you can vote Yes or No and add a qualifyer.  Its that simple. 

OR you can do as I asked.  YOU reword it. Why are you afraid to even do that?
 
 

You know that answer: he is too chickenshit to do otherwise.

Jivin' Jim,
 
The "straightf forward question" you just asked is not your original question. The original question asked if someone should be properly vetted. But when I asked what you meant by being "properly" vetted, you could not define "properly vetted." Thus, the obvious question was this: How could the results of your so-called poll be accurate if the survey question included an ambiguous term? I argued that the result of your "poll" would be meaningless, because the survey question was meaningless. Your illogical reply was that the poll's respondants could use their own definition for "properly vetted." I pointed out that allowing respondents to define the ambiguous term as they saw fit would make the result of your "poll" even more inaccurate and even more meaningless. (The logical fallacy of ambiguity)
 
Respondants to your original question could only answer "yes" or "no." But I (and another discussant) pointed out that the survey question itself was a compilation of several questions, and, therefore, could not be answered with a simple yes or no. (The logical fallcy of the false choice)
 
I (and others) pointed out that your original survey question is based on logical fallacies. But rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, your response (of course) was to invent ways to cling to your debunked belief that your original survey question is logically sound. So you moved the goalposts (attempting to rephrase the original survey question every time it was shown to be a fallacy of logic) and made up an exception (discussants can use their own definition of "properly vetted") when the premiss of your original survey question was shown to be false. (The logical fallacy of special pleading)
 
Now you've presented yet another attempt to rewrite your original survey question. You think you've corrected it by omitting the ambiguous term "properly," but your lack of communication skills (reading comprehension and clear, concise writing) has failed you again. Your latest revision moves the goalposts again. Go back and try again.
 
 
 
 

Now, aren't you the just the perfect hyper-intellectual buffoon?

Proud that you can't answer a simple question when you could add your own qualifier?

in re: Reply #54
 
dumb_john: You call the board's moderator "Jivin' Jim" and accuse me of appealing to ridicule?
 
I've always presumed that "Jivin' Jim" is this website's administrator (webmaster?), but I've never considered him to be this forum's moderator. In argumentation and debate, a moderator is unbiased (impartial, disinterested). But I'm sure you've noticed that Jim is often an active discussant in this forum, and is always a vociferous and staunch right-winger. No. "Jivin' Jim" is obviously not this forum's moderator.
 
 
in re: Reply #52
 
dumb_john: Come on, Hawks, find something from Mad magazine to prove how Jim's simple question, to which you can qualify your answer, is a bad one.
 
 
Suggesting that I refer to Mad (an American humour magazine) to substantiate my argument is a fallacy of logic called an appeal to ridicule. Notice that the statement above conveniently avoids providing evidence to refute my assertions. Instead, it attempts to refute my claims by simply ridiculing them. Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule is substituted for evidence in an "argument." That sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it's false.
 
So now, dumbo, you should understand why "Jivin' Jim" is not this forum's moderator, and what "appeal to ridicule" really means.
 
 
 

You're such a buffoon, 666ChickenShit. 

This is Jim's board to do with as he pleases.  He owns it, he pays for it.  I sent in a contribution to defray costs.  Did you?  Fuck you parsing over whether he's an admin or moderator.  It's his board.  Fuck you, boy.  Get it?

Your sources are suspect, at best.  That's more proof that you're just a buffoon.  I was almost serious that you use Mad magazine.

 
dumb_john,
 
Your defense of "Jivin' Jim" is laughable.
 
DUMBO_john: This is Jim's board to do with as he pleases. He owns it, he pays for it.
 
But that doesn't mean he's immune to criticism when he posts a poll based on a fallacy of logic.
 
DUPED_john: I sent in a contribution to defray costs. Did you?
 
Nope. And your boasting that you sent "Jivin' Jim" a contribution doesn't change the fact that his ambiguosly worded survey question is logically unsound, making the results of his so-called poll inaccurate and, therefore, meaningless.
 
DOOFAS_john: Fuck you for parsing over whether he's an admin or moderator. It's his board. Fuck you, boy. Gft it?
 
I wasn't parsing over whether "Jivin' Jim" is an administator or moderator. I was explaining to your DOOFAS ass why I believe he is this website's administrator (or webmaster) rather than this forum's moderator (as you erroneously believe). And, yeah. I get it. I understand that you're still a fucking idiot. (Did you get that, you shit-for-brains, wiseacre, asshole?)
 
DEBUNKED_john: Your sources are suspect at best.
 
Why, because you disagree with them?
 
... That's proof that you're just a buffoon.
 
Really? Proof? What proof? Where's your proof that my souces are suspect. The only thing you've proven (again) is that you're nothing more than a loud-mouth, know-nothing, windbag who can't support his arguments with facts.
 
And I was almost serious that you used Mad magazine.
 
And I'm almost 100 per cent certain that you're nuttier than a squirrel turd and that you're competing with Dumb2Doofas for the title of "Most Idiotic" in this forum. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

666ChickenShit: you are a pedantic hypocrite!

666ChickenShit: you are a loser!

666ChickenShit: you are an idiot!

666ChickenShit: you are an asshole!

Of course I can continue this.  Your posts have provided enough evidence that even a blind man can see you are all of the above.

 
1965hawks (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=262)  You are such a fucking coward.  I am amazed Duke is spending so much time on you.
 

It's an obsessive-compulsive thing, Jim. I know he's an asshole.

Understand now, dumb_john? That's why Jivin" Jim isn't the moderator of this forum.
 
 
Jivin' Jim,
 
Fucking coward, huh? Don't insuult me for exposing you as a bombastic, know-nothing, windbag and dumb-fuck charlatan. Is it my fault that you and dumb_john couldn't spot the fallacy of logic in your survey question?
 
And you're absolutely correct, Jivin' Jim. I've spent a lot of my time with the retarded DUMBO_john. It was obvious from the first post he submitted in this thread that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. And the same goes for you. Both of you are clueless. But I must admit: I enjoy making fools of you. But it's all about free speech. Right, Jim? After all, you're not a tyrant like Peisistratus who was againast free speech.
 

Calling me an asshole is easy for you to do, but substantiating your arguments with facts is, evidently, something you still haven't learned to. Right, dumb_john?
 
 
 

You've provided all the proof needed that you're an asshole, 666ChickenShit.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

You're confused again, dumbeddown_john. I've provided more than enough evidence to expose you and "Jivin' Jim" as nothing more than bombastic windbags who can't ask a logical question, because you (a) lack basic commmunication skills and (b) your reasoning is flawed.
 
 

You've provided even more proof that you're an asshole, 666ChickenShit.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)