Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) One could argue that since Bush is the one who is actually in charge of this adminstration...I.E. he appoints the Secretary of State.....it is a character flaw of Bush, and all he appoints. One could argue that....doesn't make it correct. I guess it just seems there is a culture of no respect for privacy in this administration....could just be my perception...who knows. One could also argue that Bush, who appoints the Secretary of Education, is the one responsible for filling our public schools with socialist teachers in an attempt to destroy capitalism. Then again, one would sound like a complete moran in saying so. Edited March 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 One could also argue that Bush is the one responsible for filling our public schools with socialist teachers and professors in an attempt to destroy capitalism. Then again, one would sound like a complete moran in saying so. Yeah...like you...since the Secretary of State is a Federal one. Teachers are hired and paid by individual states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Yeah...like you...since the Secretary of State is a Federal one. Teachers are hired and paid by individual states. powned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Nope. Some people collect baseball cards, others collect rifles... stay out of my closet. ok david... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Yeah...like you...since the Secretary of State is a Federal one. Teachers are hired and paid by individual states. Just as these idiots who illegally accessed records at the State Department weren't hired by George W. Bush, either. Thanks for proving my point. The hiring process likely went several layers down from Condoleeza Rice as well. Blaming Bush for a couple of idiots illegally accessing records at the State Department makes about as much sense as blaming him for Abu Ghraib. Edited March 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 powned Holy crap, you can't even spell "pwned" correctly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Holy crap, you can't even spell "pwned" correctly! u r retertdd bill u dont know a joke when it hits you in the arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 u r retertdd bill u dont know a joke when it hits you in the arse u rr eresk ruu l jsdflks;dlf osdjfslkdfj lsakfjl;askjflxzc32049u5345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Public schools and their teachers are also subject to the authority of the Department of Education (e.g., No Child Left Behind). Blaming Bush for a couple of idiots illegally accessing records at the State Department makes about as much sense as blaming him for Abu Ghraib. Nice reach....school districts funding from the Federal Government are dependent on the conditions of the No child Being Taught Anything Act....ooops...No child left behind. School districts could decide to be self sufficient if they chose...therefore they are not under the direct purview of the DOE. I guess for you the buck never stops with this President. He appoints people to run the agencies the way they are supposed to be run....where does the buck stop then. I didn't say it was a correct answer...just an argument. You took an absolutist position...like you always do...it is your way or no way...and got stuck...really not my fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I guess for you the buck never stops with this President. He appoints people to run the agencies the way they are supposed to be run....where does the buck stop then. How many freaking layers do you want to go down in the chain of command? If a co-worker were to stab you in the neck with a pencil, would you blame your CEO? I didn't say it was a correct answer...just an argument. And a massively retarded one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 u rr eresk ruu l jsdflks;dlf osdjfslkdfj lsakfjl;askjflxzc32049u5345 c, 2 tightly wound to relax... having sex humans can help that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 c, 2 tightly wound to relax... having sex humans can help that . Once again, the voice of reason takes over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 These days it's contractors. Civil servants did better work. The whole privatization ideology has gone too far. Depending on the area of expertice. Contractors can be easily fired and it practically takes an act of God to fire a Federal Employee. Contractors in the technical fields tend to be better prepared and keep more up to date on the subject matter (IT support, communications, data base design & integration, programming), that the guy that gets employed and ten years later has coasted to the point where the technology has passed their ability. The contractors work harder and for less money to keep their jobs (saving the tax payer buku $) and the contracts are evaluated and renewed on a regular basis. The contractors are hired by companies that in turn respond to the needs of the agency their contract is for. They go through intense back ground investigations and are often provded less access to systems. Some of the experts that have been brought in on contracts have been some of the people I have learned the most from over the years. Contractors can also be brought in much faster than the hiring process of the G, which when man power is needed in an area NOW, the need can be responded to more quickly. I don't see how any of this would be politically motivated at the upper level of Govmnt. There is too much of a backstop and records created by EVERYTHING queried or accessed by specif individuals sign-ons. In other words, too easy to get caught. There are always instances of knuckle heads that get in trouble for checking Opra, their daughters new boyfriend with the eybrow ring or their local mayor in the system. The real issue is to whether or not it was done on a need to know basis. If you don't need to know, you can't access, even if you have the ability. The biggest breach is usually related to someone providing system information to the person who is in the system (read target of investigation, or financial inforamtion related to their dealings with the government released to competitors, often regarding "blind bids"). This is PROBABLY, and I don't know for a fact, just somebody being too curious and getting caught. Certain files as a safeguard, are flagged for when they are queried so the query is reported to an internal security component. Presidential candidate records would maked sence to flag in this manner... No ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 How many freaking layers do you want to go down in the chain of command? If a co-worker were to stab you in the neck with a pencil, would you blame your CEO? How many layers is this? I am not blaming the President....but if the President where to put forth an Aura of respecting American's privacy, then maybe there would have been more zealous protection at the lower levels of government. Again....leadership starts from the top down. And a massively retarded one at that. LOL...must be...cause you said so. For someone who is as correct as you are....you should be really wealthy!!! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) How many layers is this? I am not blaming the President....but if the President where to put forth an Aura of respecting American's privacy, then maybe there would have been more zealous protection at the lower levels of government. Again....leadership starts from the top down. So, it's Bush's lack of respect for people's privacy that caused a couple of low-level idiots at the State Department to illegally snoop through people's records? Was it Bill Clinton's lack of personal ethics that triggered a massive wave of corporate crime in the '90s? Was it Ronald Reagan's arms race and hostile attitude towards the Soviets that triggered an explosion of gang warfare in our inner cities in the '80s? Seriously, you do understand that events that occur at the same time aren't necessarily connected, right? Edited March 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) So, it's Bush's lack of respect for people's privacy that caused a couple of low-level idiots at the State Department to illegally snoop through people's records? Was it Bill Clinton's lack of personal ethics that triggered a massive wave of corporate crime in the '90s? Was it Ronald Reagan's arms race and hostile attitude towards the Soviets that triggered an explosion of gang warfare in our inner cities in the '80s? Seriously, you do understand that events that occur at the same time aren't necessarily connected, right? Bill......were those who committed corporate crime in the 1990's part of Bill Clinton's administration? Were the gangs of the inner city part of Reagan's administration? But thanks for making my argument for why Wright's comments have no bearing on Obama...couldn't have said it better myself. The people of the State Department take orders from Condoleeza....who takes orders from the President. If this administration felt privacy was a central concern, this would have been addressed. As it were, all these contractors had to do to access info they had no business seeing was to hit a button on a warning message. That is pretty easy to fix...don't you think. If the administration had a priority to protect privacy...this would have been done already. Edited March 21, 2008 by TheShiznit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Bill......were those who committed corporate crime in the 1990's part of Bill Clinton's administration? Were the gangs of the inner city part of Reagan's administration? Was JFK only addressing Executive Branch employees when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country"? You said that "leadership starts from the top down." And while that's very true, it's equally true that the President's leadership transcends Federal employment. The people of the State Department take orders from Condoleeza....who takes orders from the President. Do you think that she personally hires everybody in the State Department? How large and complex do you think that the chain of command - and the resulting hiring process - is in such a large bureaucracy? I'll be the first to admit that Bush deserves a lot of blame for a number of different things. But personally blaming him for this would be like blaming him for Abu Ghraib. Edited March 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Obama is whiter than you. Only from the waist down, honkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Was JFK only addressing Executive Branch employees when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country"? You said that "leadership starts from the top down." And while that's very true, it's equally true that the President's leadership transcends Federal employment. Was JFK giving that speech to the public or to his administration? Was Bill Clinton making speeches to the public about endorsing bad ethics? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You failed forensics...woefully. Do you think that she personally hires everybody in the State Department? I'll be the first to admit that Bush deserves a lot of blame for a number of different things. But personally blaming him for this would be like blaming him for Abu Ghraib. I don't personally blame him....I framed the argument for why. Seems like it could hold some water....but I personally don't think Bush is responsible. As far as Abu Ghraib? I really couldn't say. There are different levels of accountability there.....starting with the events themselves....leading to the non-reporting of it...leading to the coverup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Was JFK giving that speech to the public or to his administration? Was Bill Clinton making speeches to the public about endorsing bad ethics? When you're considered the leader of the free world, does it matter? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You failed forensics...woefully. Given that your big claim to intellectual fame is being on a debate team in college, you'll have to forgive me for not feeling shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 The fact you cannot make a coherent argument and try to relate one thing to another...which are not related at all...to prove a point...make you a moran...idiot...retarded...you know...all the love words you call everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 The fact you cannot make a coherent argument and try to relate one thing to another...which are not related at all...to prove a point...make you a moran...idiot...retarded...you know...all the love words you call everyone else. The fact that several people here in the Tailgate (not just me) have been ripping your retarded arguments all week strongly suggests that you're the one who is intellectually-challenged. No wonder you never went to law school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 The fact that several people here in the Tailgate (not just me) have been ripping your retarded arguments all week strongly suggests that you're the one who is intellectually-challenged. No wonder you never went to law school. That is a mere opinion. I really wish I was as cool as Bill. I never went to law school because I got sick of school. I now advise more money than you will see in your whole entire pitiful life. Poser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 That is a mere opinion. I really wish I was as cool as Bill. I never went to law school because I got sick of school. I now advise more money than you will see in your whole entire pitiful life. Poser. And they pay you $3 an hour to do it. Big money for a guy in India... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 That is a mere opinion. I really wish I was as cool as Bill. I never went to law school because I got sick of school. Yeah, that four-year stint at your "directional" state school must've been brutal. I now advise more money than you will see in your whole entire pitiful life. Poser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts