If you would favor seeing all transcripts, then why did you choose to single out Obama?
I hope you'll understand why I struggle to believe that this singling-out is purely coincidental in the context of an election season where rhetoric about Obama being 'the least transparent in history' is abundant, on the same weekend as a new movie which claims to dig up sinister anti-American mysteries from Obama's past. It is just terribly convenient to bring up such issues as a topic change.
In any case I find it very irritating that almost any HN article tangentially touching on the government is co-opted for some kind of biased political propaganda, however subtle.
Do we really need every thread that mentions the keyword 'President' to contain this kind of partisan rubbish? I don't see you calling for Reagan's, Bush's or Romney's applications.
His comment doesn't really seem partisan in any way to me. It's just a statement that it would be interesting to see the current president's college applications too, as it would be interesting to see any president's college applications.
Now you're being disingenuous. It is quite simple:
People have many interests. Interest is not a binary term - One can be interested in varying degrees.
Perhaps he is interested in all presidents' admission records, but more interested in the current president because it is more relevant to his life than others. Just because there is relevance, does NOT imply partisanship.
By analogy I find operating system internals interesting. I am interested in how many of them do things. However I find discussions about Windows more interesting than those about multics. Not because I am a fan of windows (I am not) nor because I hate windows (I don't, it is a decent OS these days, I just prefer others), but because it is relevant to my life as a person living in the era where it is actually being used.
Note, this won't stop me from reading an interesting new article about the multics way, just that when offered a source with new (to me) insights on windows or multics, I would choose windows.
I'm not being disingenuous. The topic was of intellectual, historical interest - about JFK. Who did not release the documents. They are just documents about JFK.
Somehow it is changed to a demand for documents from the current President in the middle of an election season.
If you are interested in all admission records, there is no reason to single out Obama... say you think all Presidents should have their admission records released.
This is more like 'look at this interesting snippet of code from CP/M' resulting in yelling about binary blobs in some modern OS. Totally irrelevant and political.
No, the topic was presidential college admissions. This one, because it was JFK, was historical. It also was political, because we were talking about a politician, a fact that does not change whether it was a current or past politician.
And your analogy is wrong too: It is like saying here is code from CP/M, and someone saying "how do modern OSes handle that feature?". That question is not advocacy for new OSes, it is a question of comparison between eras.
You are trying to ascribe motive and sinister desires to a neutral statement.
The reason people don't seem to be calling for those applications is because of family ties and connections, there was certainly never speculation that any of those men attended college on a Foreign Exchange scholarship.
I am not a fan of all the political hogwash about Obama not being American etc. I have plenty of gripes with just about every president on their politics alone and he is certainly no different, so for me if I am going to complain it will not be about where he is from or speculation about his birthplace but about his Senate voting record or the fact that his healthcare bill has little to do with Healthcare for the majority of the 2,600+ pages.
But honestly there is no reason to get upset that people are asking. The entire time Bush was in office people were speculating he was a C student and wanting his transcripts, they talked about how he only got in because of being a Legacy etc.
The only real difference was that apparently it was ok to pick on Bush, just do not do it to Obama since that somehow is not fair?
When you take the highest office in the land you open yourself up to scrutiny if you or your supporters cannot handle that then simply do not run.
President Obama was one of the MOST critical people of Geroge W Bush as a sitting president, he of all people should understand people reserve the right to be critical of him as well.
The subject was JFK. I wasn't changing the subject to Bush's grades. That would have been a stupid, political thing to do and I would have complained. So I'm not sure why you are lecturing about a double standard with GWB? Nobody is picking on GWB here. And whatever your suppositions, I'm not affiliated with Obama in any way so I don't either understand why you are saying that Obama ought to understand such and such. Obama isn't here. I am irritated by topic changes which are very political and biased.
