erynthered Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The application link (pdf) is in the article. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...u-have-eve.html This artice goes with the whole thingy....... http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU_9bO...I6vVuURc6wfODag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Believe it or not this is standard background check crap except the addition of the email and blog stuff. Depending on how they screen it is going to rule out a lot of folks, especially those young people working on his campaign. Ah, that rules me out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 Believe it or not this is standard background check crap except the addition of the email and blog stuff. Depending on how they screen it is going to rule out a lot of folks, especially those young people working on his campaign. Ah, that rules me out... Its the first I've seen something like that, I thought it interesting. Also, there's no freakin way I'd pass that litmus test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 The application link (pdf) is in the article. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...u-have-eve.html This artice goes with the whole thingy....... http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU_9bO...I6vVuURc6wfODag Obama should fill one out for an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Yep, I figured that one was coming from you you wingnuts. Sighhh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 If only McCain has made the Gov fill one of these out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 If only McCain has made the Gov fill one of these out... Old news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 membership in clubs which bar members due to race or gender A Jewish friend of mine mentioned this one to me. He said that would rule him out, since membership in his Synagogue requires that members be Jewish I wonder if this bars members of NOW? They must also list every cohabitant for the last 10 years and say whether they have ever owned a gun. Applicants need to state whether they chose to exercise a constitutional right? "If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but, not limited to an email, text message or instant message that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect if it were made public, please describe." Guess that rules out everyone here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Ah so now setting a high standard for the people who work for us is a bad thing? I disagree. Considering that you people who are questioning it are the same people who would gladly have pilloried Obama BEFORE the election for being in the same room with a person of questionable repute (amid 599 other people), I would think you'd be happy that there is due diligence taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 membership in clubs which bar members due to race or genderA Jewish friend of mine mentioned this one to me. He said that would rule him out, since membership in his Synagogue requires that members be Jewish I wonder if this bars members of NOW? I think you may be reading that wrong. They aren't saying that they refuse to hire someone who has membership in a club that bars members due to race or gender. They're simply asking if they have or not. There's nothing there to suggest that such an affiliation would keep you from getting the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Did you notice the section about relationships and affiliations? Apparently, those are now relevant after the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Did you notice the section about relationships and affiliations? Apparently, those are now relevant after the election. It's pretty easy to merge databases these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Also, there's no freakin way I'd pass that litmus test. How so? Do they have an issue with you being a fag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Believe it or not this is standard background check crap except the addition of the email and blog stuff. Depending on how they screen it is going to rule out a lot of folks, especially those young people working on his campaign. Ah, that rules me out... Really? I've done four of these (three background checks, one clearance)...and some of these questions I know I've never seen. However, I also wasn't under consideration for a position in the White House. For that, these questions don't seem all that out of line, even if they're a little unusual (e.g. Congressional testimony, or "affiliation with AIG"). Did anyone notice question 31: "Are there any categories of personal finance records (e.g. individual, partnership, or sole proprietorship tax returns, mortgage documents, loan agreements) that you (or your spouse) will not release publicly if necessary? If so, please identify these records and state the reasons for withholding them." More specifically, did anyone notice the handwriting that says "Clinton" next to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 Maybe they should of checked out this guy a little more closely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1303973_pf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 Here's another piece of work. http://gawker.com/5082120/hero-jersey-pol-pisses-off-dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Would I pass?... No influence to be had here! Aides say the questionnaire, first reported by The New York Times, is in keeping with the president-elect's campaign promise to purge Washington of seamy influence peddling. Obama should come through the lock, maybe I would pass muster? There is no way he is jumping the priority lockage chain unless he is coming through on a Gov't owned vessel! If he is on a private pleasure craft, sorry Prez... No influence here, even if he was Jesus Christ the Messiah! If he gets stuck behind a petrol/chem tanker, he will even be more SOL... Sorry boss... I follow the strict priority as laid out in USC 33 CFR 207.300: (d) Precedence at locks. (1) The vessel arriving first at a lock shall normally be first to lock through, but precedence shall be given to vessels belonging to the United States. Licensed commercial passenger vessels operating on a published schedule or regularly operating in the ``for hire'' trade shall have precedence over cargo tows and like craft. Commercial cargo tows shall have precedence over recreational craft, except as described in paragraph (f) of this section. (2) Arrival posts or markers may be established ashore above and/or below the locks. Vessels arriving at or opposite such posts or markers will be considered as having arrived at the locks within the meaning of this paragraph. Precedence may be established visually or by radio communication. The lockmaster may prescribe such departure from the normal order of precedence as in his judgment is warranted to achieve best lock utilization. (e) Unnecessary delay at locks. Masters and pilots must use every precaution to prevent unnecessary delay in entering or leaving locks. Vessels failing to enter locks with reasonable promptness when signalled to do so shall lose their turn. Rearranging or switching of barges in the locks or in approaches is prohibited unless approved or directed by the lockmaster. This is not meant to curtail ``jackknifing'' or set- overs where normally practiced. (f) Lockage of recreational craft. In order to fully utilize the capacity of the lock, the lockage of recreational craft shall be expedited by locking them through with commercial craft: Provided, That both parties agree to joint use of the chamber. When recreational craft are locked simultaneously with commercial tows, the lockmaster will direct, whenever practicable, that the recreational craft enter the lock and depart while the tow is secured in the lock. Recreational craft will not be locked through with vessels carrying volatile cargoes or other substances likely to emit toxic or explosive vapors. If the lockage of recreational craft cannot be accomplished within the time required for three other lockages, a separate lockage of recreational craft shall be made. Recreational craft operators are advised that many locks have a pull chain located at each end of the lock which signals the lockmaster that lockage is desired. Furthermore, many Mississippi River locks utilize a strobe light at the lock to signal recreational type vessels that the lock is ready for entry. Such lights are used exclusively to signal recreational craft. (g) Simultaneous lockage of tows with dangerous cargoes. Simultaneous lockage of other tows with tows carrying dangerous cargoes or containing flammable vapors normally will only be permitted when there is agreement between the lockmaster and both vessel masters that the simultaneous lockage can be executed safely. He shall make a separate decision each time such action seems safe and appropriate, provided: (1) The first vessel or tow in and the last vessel or tow out are secured before the other enters or leaves. (2) Any vessel or tow carrying dangerous cargoes is not leaking. (3) All masters involved have agreed to the joint use of the lock chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Who cares? I think its a good idea, although not really needed. If President Obama wants to know this stuff about people, I'm sure he could get the info on his own. I do like the comment about him filling it out...he'll have to hold others to the standards he holds himself to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts