POLL: Simple Question

[Etc-ctE]

(( 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...

[Jim]

 
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.
 

[Local5th]

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

[1965hawks]

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

[Etc-ctE]

(( Actually, you asked four questions, ))

How do you get four questions out of one question and three statements




(( 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...   

[Jim]

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?
 

[1-Term-BHO]

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.
 

[Jim]

 
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."
 

[1965hawks]

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?

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.

[1965hawks]

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."

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.
 
 

[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(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.

[duke_john]

Obviously, 1965hawks does not believe in vetting.