What in the world is up with this new "Obama must release his college transcripts!" crap from the Repubs?

The first time it came up, they were trying to build a story about his success being entirely dependent on affirmative action. This time, they probably have the additional goal of finding out whether he took any classes on Marxism. Ultimately, it’s a fishing expedition: they just want to see if there’s anything there they can spin. If he did well, he’s an elite snob. If he did poorly, he’s unfit to run the country.

How many times did we hear Obama use the word “transparency” during his campaign?

Maybe they are hoping he was a bully or was involved in leading mobs of other students to beat up and cut the hair of the weak kids. You know, something truly horrible and character revealing.

@Crashsequence2012 Leaving aside the fact that what he talked about was transparency in government, the guy wrote an entire book confessing to things like drug use. We know a lot about the guy—much more than a list of grades can reveal.

Obama is in government.

Oh for fucks sake! Leave the poor man alone!
Jesus mercy, he is a HUMAN being, it’s not like he has little boy porn under his bed. see, this is what I get for breaking my own rule and diving into the brackish undertow of politics. lol

The same reason Obama’s campaign is calling for more tax records from Romney. They are both looking for more mud to sling at each other.

I don’t trust that Kenyan Muslim socialist (hmmm…like National Socialism…) who bows before the Emperor of Japan!

@WestRiverrat There is a HUGE difference between income tax records spanning 50 years of an adult’s life, including very recently, and a college transcript spanning 4 or 5 years of a kid’s life. There is no comparison.

Also, Romney is the only presidential candidate in 40 years that any one had to hassle to provide. It’s been a matter of course before him. The only ones he has disclosed are the ones he filed after he decided to run for president. Doesn’t that raise a red flag to you?

@Crashsequence2012 this is all recent. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if President Obama just laughs and releases his damn transcripts! The republicans are like a snake eating it’s own tail.

Handing over the transcripts is an opportunity for Obama to take the high road.

It will not be happening.

It probably will, @Crashsequence2012. Obama has been taking the high road for 4 years now.

@Dutchess_III If it happens I will make like Jeremy Clarkson and eat my own hair.

@Crashsequence2012 What are your thoughts over Romney refusing to reveal his tax records prior to 2010?

@Dutchess_III My opinion of Romney matters little as I will, like during the last election, be voting against a candidate instead of for one.

I’m supposed to worry more about how Romney spends his money than how Obama spends mine?

Well….until one walks a mile in anothers shoes is my mantra.
I doubt any of us here are even remotely qualified to govern this country, sooo, it’s easy to point fingers and be armchair experts when it’s not any of us actually in office.

That’s utterly ridiculous and brainless, @Crashsequence2012.

@Coloma It isn’t “armchair.” It’s really, really basic. Romney wants to hide his finances. No other presidential candidate in 40 years has tried to do so (that I know of,) Doesn’t that make you uncomfortable?

@Crashsequence2012 Transparency in government means making what government does transparent. We can talk all day about whether or not Obama has lived up to that particular promise—to be frank, I don’t think he has—but neither his nor Romney’s college transcripts have any bearing on that particular issue. Nor, for that matter, do Romney’s tax returns. If either of those are to be released, it must be for other reasons. Romney has made his business and financial history an issue by campaigning on it. That makes his returns relevant. If Obama starts campaigning on “I went to Columbia University,” then his transcripts would also be relevant.

@Crashsequence2012

I’m supposed to worry more about how Romney spends his money than how Obama spends mine?

How would Obama’s transcripts be relevant to that? Do you think he took a course titled, How To Cheat Taxpayers and Waste Their Money? ;-)

@SavoirFaire And @Brian1946… Nice. GA.

@Crashsequence2012 You are still blathering and wallowing in nonsense catch-phrases. You’re supposed to worry about whether the possible future president is a shifty, shady snake in the grass who feels the laws of the United States of America don’t apply to him. What other laws does he think don’t apply to him?

@Dutchess_III Yes and no. What else is new?
Why are we still surprised when we encounter rif raffy politicians?
There is no new news under the sun.
I thought we were still talking Obama. :-)

@Coloma Because this is the most blatantly rif-raffy politician who is getting rif-raffy before he even gets into office! Can you imagine what he’ll think he can get away with as the President of the United States?

@Dutchess_III I can only imagine. lol

What is up is… apparently people can be very easily distracted from all of the various ‘trappings’ of a campaign, and all of the ‘political theater’ raised by ‘both sides’ to distract voters from the fact that there is ‘no “there” there’ on either side.

The two-party binary nature of American politics is making government worse and worse, and all of the idiotic campaign theater mounted by both ‘sides’ (as if there’s really any major difference between them) should amply demonstrate to thinking people that 99% of all campaign rhetoric is pure nonsense. The parts that are not entertaining nonsense are lies (and most of them are nonsensical, too).

Judging by how often it ‘leads the news’ and how strongly people react to it all, it seems to be working. People seem not to be thinking, in order to believe that ‘my party has the answer’.

More and more as I age I am coming to see exactly what Mencken had in mind with his bitter comment that “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” We’re getting it good and hard, all right.

To answer more specifically, what the hell does it matter what either candidate says about the other? Really, what the hell does it matter? What is being done to this nation in the name of “winning”? Come to think of it, both candidates seem like kinder, gentler – and stupider – versions of Charlie Sheen.

@CWOTUS I agree that both sides are throwing red herrings into the pot. That’s expected and easily ignored. However, in this case Romney is his own worst red herring. HE’S throwing the red herring into his own campaign. You say “Really, what the hell does it matter?” Usually, it doesn’t. The American people aren’t stupid. But Romney’s refusal to expose his tax returns from the last 40 years DO matter. It IS a big deal.

People did this to Bush and Romney as well. It’s called “politics as usual”.

I beg to differ, @Dutchess_III. We have proven our stupidity over and over again. (I had been planning to say ‘proving exactly how stupid we are’, but that seems to be a moving – and accelerating – target. It’s not possible to show “how stupid we are”, because we keep getting stupider.) We prove it every day, in fact, regardless of political thought or belief or practice, and outside of all political campaigns.

We submit to idiotic “security theater” at airports, we pay Social Security taxes and support that stupid program (and look forward to “benefits” from it in our old age) and believe the most absurd marketing and advertising lies on a daily basis. We choose no-thought television as entertainment, we don’t read, we never write for effect and we still think that “We’re Number One!” for reasons that I can’t even imagine. I don’t want to go on, because I do love this country – the idea of it, anyway, and a lot of the people in it – but our general stupidity is beyond question.

We mouth the words “land of the free, home of the brave” at baseball games and other public events where those words are sung… and so many of us actually believe them! I don’t know what other proof is needed.

Aside from that, why care about Romney’s tax returns any more than anyone cares about Obama’s transcripts or whether Bill inhaled or W avoided the draft? Yes, there are clues to character in all of those events (and the lies surrounding all of them, too), but despite whatever anyone says about any of these ‘trappings’ (and despite whatever anyone believes, and further despite whatever the truth is), the fact is that we will elect or re-elect a new president who will proceed to make things worse than they already are. Hooray for us.

@CWOTUS earnestly, isn’t that exactly what those who support the current plutocracy are hoping that intelligent people will eventually come to believe?

If they have convinced you that all of democracy has been faulty up to this point, and you come to view the current crop of politicians as all equally corrupt, and refuse to draw distinction anymore, haven’t they been successful?

Perhaps you misunderstood me, or I was overly broad in my diatribe, @Imadethisupwithnoforethought.

I don’t believe that all politicians are corrupt, and while I do believe that all democracy is “faulty”, I agree with Churchill that it still beats all of the alternatives.

No, I think that it’s our two-party system that is corrupt on its face (and blatantly so, given the requirements that both major parties make for “ballot access” for minor parties, and which they themselves don’t have to live up to).

Other than that, I believe that voters who believe that they can – and should – “get something for free” from government, whether education for themselves or their children, parks and libraries, jobs, welfare (including “a retirement”) or medical care, to name just a few, are the stupid and corrupt ones.

@CWOTUS I agree with the Stupid American idea….You’ve heard of Evian Water? It was the first water to come out that comes in little plastic bottles that you pay money for at the store? Nivea spelled backward is “naive.” (I use my refill cup and get ice and water for $0.)

However, we can’t let people crying “wolf” detract from the fact that Romney refusing to release his tax returns is a BIG RED FLAG in regards to the morality and truthfulness of the man. Obama released his, as a matter of course. So has every other presidential candidate in the last 40 years.

Why is Romney hiding?

@CWOTUS I just posted ^^^. Then read your post. Wow. So, as president, you would do away with K-12 public schools, libraries and parks and government jobs? Which would include mine, as I’m a teacher. Is that what you’re saying.

@CWOTUS Oh. I am a little younger than you, and perhaps not so wise.

I read these history books and read of Roosevelt committing outrageous sums in debt to building a middle class, and the Louisiana Purchase, bought with borrowed funds, and the interstate Highway System, investments made when Americans still thought it was their responsibility to invest in the future of America. The Eerie Canal, the Panama Canal. Such wonderful investments in the future.

I then am reminded that the generation prior to me, who benefited most from these investments, is the generation most likely to think that everyone else is trying to get something for free at their expense.

Obviously, @Dutchess_III, I couldn’t be President. Aside from my heretical stance in favor of the actual intent of “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution, and my clear understanding and support of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and my generally jaded view of the benefits of government, I’m an atheist / agnostic, which is a non-starter for a presidential candidate who won’t lie about that.

Otherwise… I would absolutely do away with (if I could) ALL federal funding of schools, libraries and parks. Schools, libraries and parks are fine things, and I think we should have more of each, but not funded at a federal level.

I would completely support the elimination of, oh, I suppose around 85% to 90% of all federal government jobs, including “the military”. (Not that I would abolish the DoD or any of the armed services, but they would be a whole lot smaller than they are.)

Since I’m not running for President, I’m not going to lay out a platform here, but I suppose you can see where I’m headed.

I find it quite ludicrous, for example, that “homicide” is a state-level crime, defined and prosecuted state-by-state, yet regulations applying to the grading of cauliflower to name just one example among millions, is a federal matter.

This ain’t Sparta; this is lunacy!

Well, @CWOTUS Thank goodness you won’t be in charge of this country any time soon! Further, Ima thinking “schools, libraries and parks” are funded at the state level. Could be wrong, though.

I’m reading your answer again, @Imadethisupwithnoforethought, and trying it from several angles to see if you’re pulling my leg or giving a sly smile with your opening statement, but I’ll take it as it reads literally (and not with the sly smile).

First of all, if I’ve got any wisdom it’s because I’ve managed to learn from my mistakes – a lot of mistakes; way more mistakes than a wise person should lay claim to. I’m just old and opinionated and right about enough things to believe that my opinions about “policy”, even when I don’t know all of the facts about a thing, are still the right opinions to have. A lot of people claim that to be ideology; I just think of it as a stable place from which to begin thinking, since we can never know “all of the facts” (and some of the facts that we think we know are wrong, anyway).

So that’s where I want to start in a discussion with you on these topics. “The facts that we know.”

Roosevelt didn’t “make a middle class”, and the money he committed to Social Security was mine and yours, not anyone’s who was alive at the time. Had he come up instead with IRAs, as a way to enable people to build wealth independently of government largesse, then I might have a different opinion about him. It’s easy to spend money that your grandchildren will have to earn.

Aside from that example, I don’t believe that it’s always a mistake to incur debt, though. The Louisiana Purchase (at least the basics of it: you give us continuous territory on our own continent, and we’ll give you cash) was genius. Ditto the Alaska Purchase. I also don’t have a problem with some capital investment in war machines (ships, fortresses and the navies and armies to man them – and an air force) to defend the nation. I have a problem with spending, what?, something like twice the amount that the next 20 countries combined spend on “defense”? That’s ridiculous.

I don’t know enough about the details of how the canals came to be, or the Transcontinental Railway or Interstate Highway System, for that matter. I understand engineering and construction; I don’t understand back room politicking. (What we hear in the public speeches is not the truth; that much is certain.)

So I understand, for example, that federal mandates are or have been required for interstate building projects such as the rail and highway systems. The feds use their powers of eminent domain to establish routes. No state or private agency in the US could manage to create the Panama Canal, which isn’t even “American” in terms of ownership. The feds foment revolution in Colombia to set up an easily managed government in Panama. I don’t like it, but I understand it. Aside from that, to the extent that these things are made for commerce, I still say, always say, “let those who will benefit build, own and manage the thing”.

Funny. @Crashsequence2012 has left the discusson!

I’m also leaving it.

I have a social life.

My apologies.

Also, you argue that my points of view don’t have teeth.

I suggest that that is actually true of you.

You don’t seem to understand that at this point this coming election is not complicated for me.

It’s going to take a very, very bad republican candidate to convince me to vote Obama.

Who knows what the future holds.

Has Romney released his college transcripts? If not, Obama should say “let’s all release our college transcripts and let’s all release our previous years’ tax returns.” That way, everything’s out on the table!

@jca So simple. So logical. Ain’t gonna happen.

@Crashsequence2012 A very, very bad Republican candidate, you say? What luck! That’s exactly how a large portion of the country would describe Mitt Romney. You could always vote third party, by the way. You might like Gary Johnson.

@jca That would be a good response. Probably a bit too sensible for Washington.

@Dutchess_III Jinx!

Where’s my coke? Diet please!

I’ll see if I can get Dr. J to deliver it for me.

@SavoirFaire Indeed.

If a large enough sector of Obama supporters were to be honest with themselves they would admit that any flaws of Romney’s isn’t the problem.

“It doesn’t matter”, they would say, “Mitt’s only important flaw is that he isn’t Obama.”

LOL! I wouldn’t say that at all! McCain might have gotten me thinking if he’d run again this year. Romney is an ass hat, any way you slice it.

@Dutchess_III You mean the way MSNBC slices up coverage of Romney?

Show please @Crashsequence2012. Link. Proof.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are intelligent enough to not dismiss this proof out of hand because of the source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn9lzEpDdDQ

Please, PLEASE, don’t be a cliche’.

OMG! Rush Limbaugh! I’m rolling before I even start! OK. Goin in!

Look. I don’t want to sit through 7 minutes of his blathering. I don’t want to spend my Friday night wading through the fat and the bullshit. Cut to the chase. Tell me exactly what they doctored. Was a video they cut and spliced? Can you send me directly to that video? And send me to the original?

Sorry, no.

If you’re invested in this debate, you’re invested in this debate.

If you aren’t, you aren’t.

You can’t even provide the original transcript then show what was edited? You can’t even give me the gist in a few sentences? Do you even know what it was? Ok. Then I will assume you have no proof.

So this thread is under a social post.

I respectfully submit that you are trolling.

Besides. Friday night??

O! Sorry! I just recently got a raise along with the bonus of only having to work 4 days a week. It is Thursday, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s my Friday. Wheee!

OK. Here’s what I’m looking for from you, as an example. This is titled Fox Pushes Blog Fabrication Into Mainstream Press. <<<<That red underlined means it’s a link you can click on to verify what I’m saying. “On the April 19 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: “Speaking of rhetoric, [President Obama] had some fiery rhetoric pointed at you yesterday. He said unlike some people, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth.”

However, the truth is, in his speech he said, “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Neither was Michelle….” Fox’s Steve Doocy took the quote and added the words, “Unlike some people,” As in suggesting that Obama said “Unlike some people, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth.” However, Obama did not use the words “Unlike some people…”* in his speech.

Doocy apologized.

Can you debate with that kind of backup, @Crashsequence2012 ? If not, you won’t last long. I’m a light-weight compared to ETPro and a bunch of others you don’t want to go up against if you have no proof, no back up. Rush Limbaugh does not count!! You’ll be laughed off the stage if you try to get Rush to talk for you!

Oh Darling….

Rush does not speak for me, I speak for me.

You wanted proof, I did a little searching, I found it.

The Romney footage was diced until it’s perceived meaning was very significantly altered. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty will acknowledge this.

Mr. Limbaugh isn’t the issue. I had hoped you’d be bigger than to try to make him such but I was disappointed. These things happen.

You obviously have strong feelings about Limbaugh yet I WILL BET THE BANK you don’t really know what he’s saying because you don’t listen to him. How on earth does that work?

I don’t have an opinion of him. One of the reasons why is because I don’t tune in…

Your getting bent out of shape because the soundbites came from Limbaugh is like refusing a peach because it was delivered on a Ford truck.

Correction…you said ”Your getting bent out of shape because…. ” that should be “You’re…” Contraction of “You are”.

No, I’m asking you to provide me with your own personal research. Not Rush Limbaugh’s crazy spin on it. So, how did NBC “slice up coverage of Romney?” What topic was he talking about, and how did NBC take it out of context?

When Romney was talking about how a Cstore was better run than Washington, they made it look like Romney was amazed by how the scanner worked at WaWa, when in fact Romney was making the point that if WaWa could track a sandwich, why couldn’t the people running the country be more efficient.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303246/msnbc-edited-romney-wawa-video-katrina-trinko

@Dutchess_III I used the possessive form to describe the act of getting out of shape as a thing associated with you.

There is no grammatical error here.

Your a pro- union educator aren’t you?

How hard would it be for you to ignore what Limbaugh is saying (what you call spin) and simply listen to the edited and unedited footage and draw your own conclusion?

[Sequence ends]

@WestRiverrat GA and thank you for your contribution.

The Dutchess asked for proof. I hope she feels she found it.

@Crashsequence2012 To be fair, that story was covered everywhere. If you are sufficiently aware of how bad a source Rush Limbaugh is to make a prefatory comment about it, you should be sufficiently motivated to find a better source. Limbaugh’s fact-checking ability has been tried and found wanting so many times that his show now counts as historical fiction. You might as well be citing Slaughterhouse-Five to support an account of the Battle of the Bulge.

Regardless, the MSNBC comment was a non sequitur. It uses a single instance to make a sweeping generalization, it has no bearing on the overall conversation, and it pretends that the validity of @Dutchess_III‘s opinion can somehow be validated or refuted by the actions of people wholly unrelated to her or her argument. You’re not arguing with liberals on this thread. Acting like a conservative caricature really isn’t going to get you anywhere.

^^^^^ :)

Now we’re talking @WestRiverrat. Thank you. I have yet to get through the whole original speech, but one aside caught my attention. According to Romney, a change of address form from the Fed. Government was 33 pages long? According to this source it’s only 2 pages long. ”....But Mediate points out that the relevant form, which allows Medicaid fee for service providers to change their addresses, is actually two pages long.” (Actually it’s 4 altogether. It’s 2 pages of instructions and 2 pages to be filled out)

Going back to watch the the rest of the video and the comparison.

Well, watched both versions. I think the long version is more incriminating than the “excerpt,” because, IMO, he’s telling a fairy tale about the Doctor and the Change of Address Form. I don’t think it happened, and I don’t think it’s true.

As for the other, only a fool would believe that Romney is in awe of a scanner. Nobody said he’s stupid.

Furthermore, I would hope that the allocation of our tax money wouldn’t be run as relatively casually as selling onions, or what ever it is that WaWa sells.

@Dutchess_III We actually had a discussion about the clipped section of the speech about a month ago. I came to the same conclusion as you: the MSNBC editing was underhanded, but the full version is actually worse for Romney overall.

I’ll go read the discussion, but in a nutshell was MSN was responsible for the editing? If so, I’m very disappointed. They’re stooping to Fox National Enquirer levels.

@Dutchess_III Yes, someone at MSNBC edited the speech. It was first shown on one of the early shows as part of a joke segment poking fun at Romney for mispronouncing “Wawa” as “Wawa’s.” In that context, it was very clear that the speech had been edited down just to show each time that Romney said “Wawa’s” instead of “Wawa.” To their credit, conservatives have not complained about that segment. They obviously understand that early morning shows focus on soft news and that everyone is subject to this kind of thing.

The controversy started when Andrea Mitchell reused part of the clip and tried to make it into more than a lighthearted story. She took a particular line of the speech and used it as a way of criticizing Romney. It is possible that Mitchell was unaware of the fact that she was taking the line out of context, but that’s not a particularly good excuse for someone whose job is supposed to involve research. If she just saw the clip on the early show and failed to watch the whole speech, then it doesn’t matter much whether her story was ignorant or malicious.

But again, the whole thing is just a smokescreen relative to the topic of this thread. While the issue itself is legitimate, it seems to me that @Crashsequence2012 only brought it up so that he could move from the actual topic (“in what way are Obama’s transcripts relevant?”) to something wholly unrelated (“Republicans—the party that always tells people to stop acting like victims—are so oppressed by a television station that no one watches; therefore, stop saying negative things about Mitt Romney”).

@SavoirFaire There is a difference between acting oppressed and being irked.

I’m the latter.

Sure you are.

@SavoirFaire You got the last word in.

Yay!

Says the one who keeps responding with inane comments that in no way address the actual issues. Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you just here to be a political shill?