150 to 1
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Shocking! (was Re: Another unruly player
Next: Fatty
From: William Clark on 25 May 2010 07:51 In article <9rdmv51nk1bj1dcf38ekce4frdjb4r1l92(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:06:48 -0400, William Clark > <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > >> >You mean you don't know? But yet you are presuming that Obama was not > >> >vetted. Brilliant. Do you suppose that he would be allowed access to > >> >military intelligence and secrets without clearance? Then you are nuts. > >> > >> By definition, the president is allowed such access. > > > >But would never have been allowed to get so far as to run for nomination > >or President unless his background was clean. > > Someone would have seen an opportunity for political gain by > publicizing such unfitness, but the legal requirements to run are > explicit. Those may be the minimal legal requirements, but you can be sure that extensive background checks are also run.
From: John B. on 25 May 2010 11:20 On May 25, 7:51 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article <9rdmv51nk1bj1dcf38ekce4frdjb4r1...(a)4ax.com>, > Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:06:48 -0400, William Clark > > <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > >> >You mean you don't know? But yet you are presuming that Obama was not > > >> >vetted. Brilliant. Do you suppose that he would be allowed access to > > >> >military intelligence and secrets without clearance? Then you are nuts. > > > >> By definition, the president is allowed such access. > > > >But would never have been allowed to get so far as to run for nomination > > >or President unless his background was clean. > > > Someone would have seen an opportunity for political gain by > > publicizing such unfitness, but the legal requirements to run are > > explicit. > > Those may be the minimal legal requirements, but you can be sure that > extensive background checks are also run. I'm sure they are, but I don't think the FBI, or whoever does them, has the authority to terminate a presidential campaign because of something it has dug up in a candidate's past.
From: William Clark on 25 May 2010 13:40 In article <ba12d307-9a80-4074-8a7e-41ab70aad54a(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 7:51�am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article <9rdmv51nk1bj1dcf38ekce4frdjb4r1...(a)4ax.com>, > > �Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:06:48 -0400, William Clark > > > <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >You mean you don't know? But yet you are presuming that Obama was not > > > >> >vetted. Brilliant. Do you suppose that he would be allowed access to > > > >> >military intelligence and secrets without clearance? Then you are > > > >> >nuts. > > > > > >> By definition, the president is allowed such access. > > > > > >But would never have been allowed to get so far as to run for nomination > > > >or President unless his background was clean. > > > > > Someone would have seen an opportunity for political gain by > > > publicizing such unfitness, but the legal requirements to run are > > > explicit. > > > > Those may be the minimal legal requirements, but you can be sure that > > extensive background checks are also run. > > I'm sure they are, but I don't think the FBI, or whoever does them, > has the authority to terminate a presidential campaign because of > something it has dug up in a candidate's past. Perhaps, but you can be sure a "leak" would hit the press at the earliest opportunity. Remember Sergeant Schriver?
From: John B. on 25 May 2010 17:23 On May 25, 1:40 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article > <ba12d307-9a80-4074-8a7e-41ab70aad...(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 7:51 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > state.edu> wrote: > > > In article <9rdmv51nk1bj1dcf38ekce4frdjb4r1...(a)4ax.com>, > > > Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:06:48 -0400, William Clark > > > > <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >You mean you don't know? But yet you are presuming that Obama was not > > > > >> >vetted. Brilliant. Do you suppose that he would be allowed access to > > > > >> >military intelligence and secrets without clearance? Then you are > > > > >> >nuts. > > > > > >> By definition, the president is allowed such access. > > > > > >But would never have been allowed to get so far as to run for nomination > > > > >or President unless his background was clean. > > > > > Someone would have seen an opportunity for political gain by > > > > publicizing such unfitness, but the legal requirements to run are > > > > explicit. > > > > Those may be the minimal legal requirements, but you can be sure that > > > extensive background checks are also run. > > > I'm sure they are, but I don't think the FBI, or whoever does them, > > has the authority to terminate a presidential campaign because of > > something it has dug up in a candidate's past. > > Perhaps, but you can be sure a "leak" would hit the press at the > earliest opportunity. Remember Sergeant Schriver? I think you mean Tom Eagleton, yes? Shriver replaced him.
From: William Clark on 26 May 2010 07:57
In article <b1bb6508-0e02-47e2-b754-c41c5579ec7c(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 1:40�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article > > <ba12d307-9a80-4074-8a7e-41ab70aad...(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, > > �"John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 7:51�am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > In article <9rdmv51nk1bj1dcf38ekce4frdjb4r1...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > �Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:06:48 -0400, William Clark > > > > > <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >You mean you don't know? But yet you are presuming that Obama was > > > > > >> >not > > > > > >> >vetted. Brilliant. Do you suppose that he would be allowed access > > > > > >> >to > > > > > >> >military intelligence and secrets without clearance? Then you are > > > > > >> >nuts. > > > > > > > >> By definition, the president is allowed such access. > > > > > > > >But would never have been allowed to get so far as to run for > > > > > >nomination > > > > > >or President unless his background was clean. > > > > > > > Someone would have seen an opportunity for political gain by > > > > > publicizing such unfitness, but the legal requirements to run are > > > > > explicit. > > > > > > Those may be the minimal legal requirements, but you can be sure that > > > > extensive background checks are also run. > > > > > I'm sure they are, but I don't think the FBI, or whoever does them, > > > has the authority to terminate a presidential campaign because of > > > something it has dug up in a candidate's past. > > > > Perhaps, but you can be sure a "leak" would hit the press at the > > earliest opportunity. Remember Sergeant Schriver? > > I think you mean Tom Eagleton, yes? Shriver replaced him. I stand corrected. It's a long time ago :-) |