Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
I believe it 'did' have a higher risk, because of the reasons above, they had that 'sexual identity' hidden in the closet and, as a whole, it was not acceptable.

Today, those things are not kept hidden, there is no stigma to them like there used to be, so no, I dont think that there is an increased security risk with a homosexual just because they are homosexual. Not any longer.....


And now that you have admitted it is a riskier behavior, I have provided links that document, child prostitute rings run by CIA, MOSSAD, Turkey, and China as well as intelligence agencies of other nations. This IS illegal behavior, and one that can be used for blackmail.
quote:
Originally posted by Just_:
.......Kirk, buddy, I couldn't stand by and let betternuthin do it! hehe, You're one of my favorite posters!!! Big Grin


My wife drug me out of the house for dinner with friends, I had to step away.

You know, when I posted that, I was reading it and it didnt look right, but the spell check said it was right and I left it as is.

And thank you for the compliment, it is appreciated, seems like here lately all I hear is how far my head is up my rear. Roll Eyes

BTW - I love Flashbridges tag line! Hilarious

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
haha is on YOU! Your knowledge of government is evidently incomplete. The Commerce Departm
The haent has a very important role in review and approval (or disapproval) of the export of security-sensitive technology and materials, including chemicals and weapons, both nuclear and conventional. A person with the technical competence of Amanda Simpson, who has risen to the rank of "Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development" at a major defense contracting firm, has important qualifications for this important work.




No, I'm not privy to the workings in Washington. I thought I had read somewhere that after 9/11 the sale of technology was to be the province of one of the other myriad of government agencies. Perhaps it's not. Perhaps it should be. It would seem the Commerce Dept. either gets bad advice or doesn't listen to it, but I'm sure this time it will be different.
I'm afraid the last laugh will be on anyone naive enough to think appointments, especially to such apparently meaningless jobs, are more about qualifications than politics.

Which is most likely ? They tabbed the best person and that person just happened to be transgendered and a former Clinton delegate, or, they tabbed a transgendered, former Clinton delegate whose qualifications would not be questioned.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by midknightrider:
It would seem the Commerce Dept. either gets bad advice or doesn't listen to it, but I'm sure this time it will be different.[QUOTE]

The information I posted on Commerce Department bungling refers to activities by the Commerce Department in the period 1985-90, during the Bush I and Reagan administrations. Your sweeping characterization of that department does not take into account that the described breakdown in control of traffic in armaments was a phenomenon of those MALadministrations. It is not fair to extrapolate the failures of the Reaganite and Bush I crowd to future years and future administrations.

As to the person selected for this job, I can not say that she was the "best" candidate. The absolute "best" persons for presidential appointments probably are never selected. The question is not whether she is "best," but whether she is qualified, which she seems to be. The knee-jerk critics of all that is Obama have made no valid case against this nominee and until they can, they would do the country a service by shutting down the silly sniping.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×