B-Man Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Then.........why don't they just say that Tom, instead of "we're still looking" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yes. So? Cabinet secretaries aren't "hired," they're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They're neither SES nor GS. They're no more employees of their departments than the Speaker of the House is an employee of Congress. So she's offered a job by the President or the United States. The US Senate agrees with the job offer. She accepts the job offer. She gets paid to do her job with taxpayer dollars. But she's not an employee of the government. Yep. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Then.........why don't they just say that Tom, instead of "we're still looking". Because they're complete idiots. Odds are they'll "find" one, too, in that they'll whip one up quick in a misbegotten attempt to save face. Because they're complete idiots. So she's offered a job by the President or the United States. The US Senate agrees with the job offer. She accepts the job offer. She gets paid to do her job with taxpayer dollars. But she's not an employee of the government. Yep. Makes sense. Elected officials and their appointees represent the people directly (in theory - we all know works in practice). As such, they are not "employees" of the government. More accurately, the ARE the government, as employed by the people (again, in theory). Making them government employees would represent a conflict of interest, since they're not supposed to work for "the government," but for "the people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Because they're complete idiots. Odds are they'll "find" one, too, in that they'll whip one up quick in a misbegotten attempt to save face. Because they're complete idiots. Elected officials and their appointees represent the people directly (in theory - we all know works in practice). As such, they are not "employees" of the government. More accurately, the ARE the government, as employed by the people (again, in theory). Making them government employees would represent a conflict of interest, since they're not supposed to work for "the government," but for "the people." How do they pay income tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 How do they pay income tax? Like they pay income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Like they pay income tax. Who sends them a W-2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Who sends them a W-2? They get a 1099. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They get a 1099. Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 ... And a free ride wherever they want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Who sends them a W-2? Who sends the President's? Hell, they may not even get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Didn't think that it could get worse ? Hillary Clinton's E-Mail Was Vulnerable to 'Spoofing' Hillary Clinton didn't take a basic precaution with her personal e-mail system to prevent hackers from impersonating or "spoofing" her identity in messages to close associates, according to former U.S. officials familiar with her e-mail system and other cyber-security experts. This vulnerability put anyone who was in communication with her clintonemail.com account while she was secretary of state at risk of being hacked. Clinton said at the United Nations last week that there were no security breaches of her personal e-mail server, which she used to send and receive more than 60,000 professional and personal e-mails. But former cyber-security officials and experts told us that there were gaps in the system. According to publicly available information, whoever administrated the system didn't enable what’s called a Sender Policy Framework, or SPF, a simple setting that would prevent hackers sending e-mails that appear to be from clintonemail.com. SPF is a basic and highly recommended security precaution for people who set up their own servers. Experts told us that oversight was just one flaw of a security system that would have been relatively easy for foreign intelligence services and others to exploit. "I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on,” said Bob Gourley, the chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2005 to 2008 and the founder of Cognitio, a cybersecurity consultancy. More at the link:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-18/hillary-clinton-s-e-mail-was-vulnerable-to-spoofing- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Didn't think that it could get worse ? Hillary Clinton's E-Mail Was Vulnerable to 'Spoofing' Hillary Clinton didn't take a basic precaution with her personal e-mail system to prevent hackers from impersonating or "spoofing" her identity in messages to close associates, according to former U.S. officials familiar with her e-mail system and other cyber-security experts. This vulnerability put anyone who was in communication with her clintonemail.com account while she was secretary of state at risk of being hacked. Clinton said at the United Nations last week that there were no security breaches of her personal e-mail server, which she used to send and receive more than 60,000 professional and personal e-mails. But former cyber-security officials and experts told us that there were gaps in the system. According to publicly available information, whoever administrated the system didn't enable what’s called a Sender Policy Framework, or SPF, a simple setting that would prevent hackers sending e-mails that appear to be from clintonemail.com. SPF is a basic and highly recommended security precaution for people who set up their own servers. Experts told us that oversight was just one flaw of a security system that would have been relatively easy for foreign intelligence services and others to exploit. "I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on,” said Bob Gourley, the chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2005 to 2008 and the founder of Cognitio, a cybersecurity consultancy. More at the link:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-18/hillary-clinton-s-e-mail-was-vulnerable-to-spoofing- "Relatively easy" doesn't even begin to describe it. I can and have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 "Relatively easy" doesn't even begin to describe it. I can and have done it. Are you admitting to a federal crime here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Right wing circle jerk here! Tom's the pivot man and I'm not sure who the guy is thats serving the crap sandwiches, but they are going fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Are you admitting to a federal crime here? Not the first time. Did you forget that I support terrorism, !@#$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Not the first time. Did you forget that I support terrorism, !@#$? With actual dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 With actual dollars? No, it's enough that I believe Muslims might actually be people. Remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 No, it's enough that I believe Muslims might actually be people. Remember? You felt the need to clarify the fact that Muslims are people? And what in the blue hell does that have to do with terrorism or hacking Hillary Clinton's private email server? Are you drunk? You're acting drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 You felt the need to clarify the fact that Muslims are people? And what in the blue hell does that have to do with terrorism or hacking Hillary Clinton's private email server? Are you drunk? You're acting drunk. Yes, given that you and others consistently characterize them as a single, monolithic bloc of vehemently dogmatic slavering savages. And do so with such single-minded dogmatic vehemence that to disagree with you equates to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Which has nothing to do with terrorism or hacking Clinton's email server...but answers your question "Have I admitted to violating any other federal laws?" From your bull **** point of view, I'm an enemy of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Yes, given that you and others consistently characterize them as a single, monolithic bloc of vehemently dogmatic slavering savages. And do so with such single-minded dogmatic vehemence that to disagree with you equates to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Which has nothing to do with terrorism or hacking Clinton's email server...but answers your question "Have I admitted to violating any other federal laws?" From your bull **** point of view, I'm an enemy of the state. Listen, you stupid sonofabitch, if you're going to reference a posting history, you should try to do it well, or at least marginally accurately. Here's my position of the issue: You apparently understand absolutely nothing about the Muslim world, and view them as a monolith.... ...and have tasked Westernized non-denominational, Ahmadiyya, Nation of Islam, Quranist, Sunni, Shia, and Sufi with snuffing out extremist Salafism and Wahhabism; which is akin to blaming Southern Lutherans for the sex abuses perpetrated by the Catholic Church, or demanding Episcopals take a unified stance to snuff out abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by fringe quasi-baptists groups. It's idiocy. The thread I expressed this sentiment in in not only still on the first page, but at last glance was only the seventh topic down, and is being actively responded to, most recently by you. You're becoming ham-handed and lazy, and the quality of your contributions is in great decline. So much so, in fact, that I speculate that you're becoming a day-time drunk. Edited March 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts