Major Stefan Cook

#2
The plot thickens. However, interesting as this case is, Obama still seems to be massively popular in the US. If this changes, and I think it will, then this story will be raised by his oponents to a more receptive public. Possibly the right will want to wait untill he has less of a following and is up for re-election.
 
F

Format09

Guest
#3
Major Cook was recently issued with orders to deploy to Afghanistan. He wasn’t filled with glee at the prospect
:D Maybe he should leave the army in that case.
 
#4
To Maj Cook through his surrogate Republican AnnaRacoon site: Shut up, grab your kit and do as you are ordered.

The military "should" be depoliticised rather than blatantly taking the side of the whining losers.

Edit: because my brain freezes when I'm eating... ex-gunners tend to be unable to do more than one thing at a time, trying to eat, type and think is nigh on impossible.
 
#5
Barak Obama was elected to the office of POTUS.

If you don't think he should be, then I suggest you are either an ignorant racist or questionning the very essence of US democracy.

If it's the former, you can just eff orf.

If it's the latter, then I suggest you rethink the US' role of trying to export democracy to everyone by military means when you can't even get the very fundamentals of your own democracy in order!

As regards to Major Stefan Frederick Cook. Someone should tell him to go and draw a backbone and some courage from stores. What is the point of pulling on the uniform if you're going to go to these lengths to avoid service?

You like to use the phrase 'red herring' annaracoon to dismiss what you consider to be superfluous information. May I suggest that all this "natural born citizen" is the biggest "red herring" of the whole story. The story is far simpler, Major Cook is a walt who actually managed to get into uniform.
 
#6
At the end of the day this w anker is just trying to get out of his duty on a technicality. If he does not like it he should hand his kit and wages back then do one!
 
#7
Hmmmm!

With a bit of a google, there is some evidence to suggest that Major Cook initially volunteered to go to Afghanistan and only when his deployment papers arrived did he object. Why don't you mention this in your agenda driven drivel annaracoon?

In other words, the Major is pulling a deliberate and pre-planned media/political stunt.

Time to ferret out that red herring again. :x

Major Stefan Cook spells his name wrong. It should be Major Stupid Cock.
 
#8
whitecity said:
Hmmmm!

With a bit of a google, there is some evidence to suggest that Major Cook initially volunteered to go to Afghanistan and only when his deployment papers arrived did he object. Why don't you mention this in your agenda driven drivel annaracoon?

In other words, the Major is pulling a deliberate and pre-planned media/political stunt.

Time to ferret out that red herring again. :x

Major Stefan Cook spells his name wrong. It should be Major Stupid Cock.

I said that Whitecity 8O And Anna is just a shite stirring cvnt :x
I as a British soldier don't give a f uck that this waste of skin is claiming that POTUS does not have the right to send Yanks to Afgan. In fact I do not care if our own 'non-elected one-eyed leader' does or does not have the right to send me.......... I'm just mad for it :twisted:

NB. I'm quite old and only a desk-jockey so sending me anywhere would be nice and I take nothing away from 'fighting' soldiers who have more than a dodgy hole-punch to contend with! :wink:
 
#9
This argument came up just after Obama was elected . Apparently somewhat started to complain that Obama was technically British because of his father's background even though the American consitutution states that anyone born in American is guarenteed American citizenship

Sounds like a case of a redneck getting upset that they've got a president who isn't " one of us "
 
#10
There seems to be an off switch in my brain that always gets triggered everytime I read/hear somebody talk about the 'Main Stream Media' like the professional journalists are all in the pocket of the jewish / republican / [insert other evil/invisible group as appropriate] worldwide conspiracy and all bloggers regurgitating 2nd/3rd/4th hand accounts from their bedrooms/starbucks are the only truthful crusaders. Give me a John Simpson type everyday reporting from the ground rather than over a frappachino on a different continent. Alternative media has its limitations.

-Jockass, reporting from his desk for ARRSE while he really should be doing something more useful
 
#11
annaraccoon said:
Heard of him? No, neither had I, but what a fascinating tale that is likely to rumble on for a long time.

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/major-stefan-frederick-cooks-america/

Your comments are welcome.
Major Cook should grow some backbone. Accept the responsibility that comes with the rank and quit trying to deflect his avoidance of the battlefield with wasteless obsfucation.


Heard of him? Nope.
Care to meet him? Nope
Think he has a point? Nope
Should he go to Afghanistan? Yes
 
#12
He's objecting to the current incumbent ordering his personal involvement in a war which was started by the previous one, whose legitimacy of office he's not questioning. This attempt to avoid active service smacks of LMF rather than democratic principle.
 
#13
Spanny said:
This argument came up just after Obama was elected . Apparently somewhat started to complain that Obama was technically British because of his father's background even though the American constitution states that anyone born in American is guaranteed American citizenship

Sounds like a case of a redneck getting upset that they've got a president who isn't " one of us "
I don't disagree that the good Major is out of line and should obey orders or resign.

I do take issue, however, with this post and others like it that indicate any critic of the president is somehow a racist, redneck etc. I am neither but I do differ with the president on many things. To dismiss critics of Obama with such ad hominem attacks rather than to discuss the substance of the criticisms is to put it bluntly, cowardly. Interestingly, it is the same tactic used by the Obama administration to avoid dealing with difficult issues.

As I have said in posts elsewhere, the issues about Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president can be readily resolved with the actual records that the government refuses to produce. What cannot be denied if one examines the facts is that it is unprecedented that someone is elected president with such little information about him being known.
 
#14
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said in posts elsewhere, the issues about Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president can be readily resolved with the actual records that the government refuses to produce. What cannot be denied if one examines the facts is that it is unprecedented that someone is elected president with such little information about him being known.
Surely his background was picked through in minutae by the appropriate authorities before he became a candidate. If it was good enough then, why isn't it now?

Or are you saying that your system is so flawed that anybody can pass the entrance criteria illegitimately and unnoticed?

Moreover, because of who he is, Obama had his background examined publically in FAR greater detail than any other candidate in the modern era. To say that "such little information about him being known" is complete dross. Or do you expect him to bow to far greater public intrusion/scutiny than everybody else? Did you asked to see McCain's documents before you accepted his bona fides? Methinks double standards are being applied here.
 
#15
whitecity said:
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said in posts elsewhere, the issues about Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president can be readily resolved with the actual records that the government refuses to produce. What cannot be denied if one examines the facts is that it is unprecedented that someone is elected president with such little information about him being known.
Surely his background was picked through in minutae by the appropriate authorities before he became a candidate. If it was good enough then, why isn't it now?

Or are you saying that your system is so flawed that anybody can pass the entrance criteria illegitimately and unnoticed?

Moreover, because of who he is, Obama had his background examined publically in FAR greater detail than any other candidate in the modern era. To say that "such little information about him being known" is complete dross. Or do you expect him to bow to far greater public intrusion/scutiny than everybody else? Did you asked to see McCain's documents before you accepted his bona fides? Methinks double standards are being applied here.
Actually, if you will research this issue you will find that there is much less in the public record about his background than for any other president. His background as a candidate was never fully vetted in the same way McCain and others were. Of course, part of the difficulty is that he was relatively unknown until he made his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. In previous elections the candidates had much more extensive public records than Obama. That is part of the problem I believe. I am very apolitical-never have belonged to a party and resent anyone trying to sway me to any "party line."

What I am saying is that compared to previous successful candidates for the presidency, the extent of factual (as opposed to propaganda from the left and right) information about Obama pales in comparison. Presumably, he had a background investigation done as Commander in Chief like that any of us have for TS clearance. It would be a simple matter to release those documents as they have done for other presidents.

Furthermore, as a number of surveys and studies have shown, Obama has not been given the objective scrutiny by the media like that given to previous presidents or candidates for that office. This is problematic since it implicates one of the key underpinnings of our Constitutional system in that the 1st Amendment is not there because the founders were just being open minded. They recognized the vital role of a free and questioning press to the legitimate operation of our government. When the media fails to that that our entire constitutional system is weakened. A number of media outlets' own ombudsmen, journalism schools etc. have already criticized much of the US reporting and editorial content as not having done this with respect to Obama.
 
#16
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said in posts elsewhere, the issues about Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president can be readily resolved with the actual records that the government refuses to produce.
If you're on about the birth certificate then it has been released, and confirmed by Hawaii and checked (and double checked) by the opposition. Everyone is satisfied apart from those who never will be.
 
#17
jumpinjarhead said:
Actually, if you will research this issue you will find that there is much less in the public record about his background than for any other president. His background as a candidate was never fully vetted in the same way McCain and others were. Of course, part of the difficulty is that he was relatively unknown until he made his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. In previous elections the candidates had much more extensive public records than Obama. That is part of the problem I believe. I am very apolitical-never have belonged to a party and resent anyone trying to sway me to any "party line."

What I am saying is that compared to previous successful candidates for the presidency, the extent of factual (as opposed to propaganda from the left and right) information about Obama pales in comparison.
I would argue that the level of 'factual' information on Obama is equal - if not greater - than other candidates. The ? only exists in your mind and others because of all the scurrilous non-facts put about by those with an agenda.

jumpinjarhead said:
Presumably, he had a background investigation done as Commander in Chief like that any of us have for TS clearance. It would be a simple matter to release documents as they have done for other presidents.
If you trusted the results of theose background checks for previous personalities, why don't you trust them now? Why do you expect Obama to have to do MORE to prove himself? Why do you think he is different and has to live to even greater standards of public scrutiny?

jumpinjarhead said:
Furthermore, as a number of surveys and studies have shown, Obama has not been given the objective scrutiny by the media like that given to previous presidents or candidates for that office. This is problematic since it implicates one of the key underpinnings of our Constitutional system in that the 1st Amendment is not there because the founders were just being open minded. They recognized the vital role of a free and questioning press to the legitimate operation of our government. When the media fails to that that our entire constitutional system is weakened. A number of media outlets' own ombudsmen, journalism schools etc. have already criticized much of the US reporting and editorial content as not having done this with respect to Obama.
So, either you have a 'free' press or you don't. Again you're questionning your own basic democratic principles.

Either Obama won by fair means or foul. If it was fair, put up and shut up. If it was foul, then start looking at how it happened not the product.

How do you think this looks to all those countries that the US wags their finger at and accuses of being anti-democratic when a debate rages about whether your own president has got in illegitimately?
 
#18
Happy to draw the pay, happy to wear the uniform, but unhappy to deploy? Didn't stop him from drawing reservist pay from the Commander in Chief - think he should do the right thing and hand it all back, uniform, id card, and back pay to Obama's inauguration if he feels that strongly!

Mag to Grid
 
#19
A quick Google search reveals that he actually volunteered for service before pulling out and making a huge fuss in the process. It seems he has a problem with Obama and decided to let people know about it.
 
#20
Admittedly this came from a conservative online news outlet, but it outlines some of the questions being asked regarding missing documentation. John McCAIN provided everything from his actual birth certificate to his medical records. Even though I know this is a Republican leaning publication, it does make me ask why hasn't he provided any of the information. Is it just to piss off Republicans or what???

'According to published reports, Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
Passport files
University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
Harvard Law Review articles
Harvard Law School records
Columbia University records
Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
Illinois State Bar Association records
Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released.

WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate?'[/i]
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S The Intelligence Cell 4
S The Intelligence Cell 24
msr The Intelligence Cell 29

Similar threads

Latest Threads