POLL: Simple Question

[wehunglow]

Not when it is ambiguous.

[Jim]

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

[wxzyw]

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).

[natalukjoe]

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

[Etc-ctE]

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

Just like you're doing ~ Right Jim?? 

[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..    :- )
 
 

[1-Term-BHO]

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?

[1965hawks]

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

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?
 
 

[1965hawks]

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.

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."

[1965hawks]

Obviously, 1965hawks does not believe in vetting.

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."
 
 
 

[duke_john]

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

[1965hawks]

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."

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