White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets 208
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that Jofi Joseph, a senior National Security Council staffer who was a key member of the White House team negotiating on Iran's nuclear weapons program, has been fired ... after a months-long probe into a barrage of tweets that included caustic criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top NSC officials, especially Ben Rhodes – whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi. Joseph, who posted under the now defunct Twitter name @NatSecWonk, gave a lacerating commentary on anything from policy to personal appearance. 'Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner,' he tweeted, referring to the scandal-hit former New York mayoral candidate and his wife, a former aide of Hillary Clinton. He tweeted that Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East. He said Chelsea Clinton was 'assuming all of her parents' vices,' and targeted figures such as Republican commentator Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney's wife Ann for their looks and weight. Many in the foreign policy community reacted with shock to the revelation that Joseph was the mystery tweeter because Joseph was well known among policy wonks and his wife, Carolyn Leddy, is a well-respected professional staffer on the Republican side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'What started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments,' said Joseph in an apology. 'I bear complete responsibility for this affair and I sincerely apologize to everyone I insulted.'"
For an archive of his account (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For an archive of his account (Score:5, Funny)
Finally the NSA archive of "everything" has paid off ... and it only took them a few months to find out who it was. No wonder we're harvesting anything and everything our citizens do.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This proves that people who troll online are upstanding, well-adjusted individuals who release their negative energy in a healthy and creative manner, rather than beating their families or abusing their pets as many lesser-adjusted individuals do.
So the next time you see an online troll, shake his hand and pat him on the back - he is doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, saying the things you want to say so that you don't have to.
Nigger.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For an archive of his account (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For an archive of his account (Score:5, Funny)
Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure many corporations would have bothered to put the effort in, even so, most corporations have not taken the mantle unto themselves to be the model for freedom and justice in the world (I know; stop laughing, I am trying to make a point here) .
What others would do is immaterial, what they should have done is realized that part of their job is to set an example and that example includes respecting the right of people to freely assemble (even in new technological forms) and speak
Given that whoever it wa
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
~Loyal
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
~Loyal
They can, however, use all the powers of Pepsi to reveal who the tweeter was.
Actually, that may mean they can use all the powers of government.
Re: (Score:2)
he or she would be canned
What would they label the can?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story here isn't that he was fired. It's that the Whitehouse investigated him. He didn't accidentally leak his identity to some private sector reporter who put it in their article, and then the president saw it in a newspaper. They spent time and money on trying to figure out the identity of a totally irrelevant and unimportant Twitter user over a bunch of totally irrelevant and unimportant tweets. Like, this was important to them.
At least Pepsi would be able to somewhat justify such an expenditure, since their marketing really is so important, and all Pepsi stockholders would agree that marketing is a good use of funds. But what say America's "stockholders," about our new "marketing counter-intelligence" program?
They guy wasn't even saying stuff analogous to "USA sucks for tourists. Foreign tourists should take vacations somewhere else and spend their money there instead of in USA." or "You should buy used F-16s from Israel instead of from USA." He was just talking shit about shit. There's no legitimate reason for the government to have been working on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference.
An opinion is also a tangible quality. The opinion that all people are created equal is one that should never get someone fired, for example. Certainly a religion is an opinion and a preference as much as it is a preference to have a particular political POV. Just as it is unconscionable to fire someone from being, say, Republican, Democrat, independent or whatever, it should also be unconscionable to fire someone for choosing to profess a faith.
Horrendous crimes have been committed against people for exe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> What grounds would you fire such a person under?
Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?
Re: (Score:2)
> What grounds would you fire such a person under?
Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?
Not in At-Will states like mine* - there's no need to get that specific.
* Either party can terminate employment at any time, for (almost) any reason, and nobody ever has to explain why, outside an illegal discrimination charge.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.
Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that a normal employer would have no reasonable way of discovering the employee's identity. But with the NSA, Obama can find anyone in his staff who complains, and deal with them harshly, privacy be damned.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Informative)
Anonymity is just security through obscurity... it's nice when it works, but you really shouldn't count on it to do stupid shit.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get caught because you screwed up somehow, that's perfectly understandable. But if you get caught because the country is spying on all its citizens with a program that would make the Stasi proud, then there's much bigger problems, for everyone.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The government is acting as an employer in the decision to fire him. Any employer, public or private, should be allowed to fire an employee who is publicly criticizing it (with an exception for whistleblowing... which this wasn't). It's a giant conflict of interest, especially for a job with access to sensitive information. Punishment beyond firing him would be too far, of course, and then might run into First Amendment issues but just firing him seems like a reasonable response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
so it should never be allowed to fire employees who are critical of it.
When his insults extended to the wives and children of the politicians, he went from "criticizing the government" to "unacceptable behaviour for a political appointee". And if he was leaking insider information about diplomatic negotiations, then he deserves to lose his security clearance, and with that loss goes his cushy job.
The government is not a monopoly employer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all companies will fire people who make bad comments about their co-workers.
Case closed.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs grounds? Employment at will - you can fire anyone as long as you are not firing him for belonging to a protected category, like being over a certain age. And of course, you CAN fire someone for anything, just do not tell anyone why.
As for precedent, beer companies have fired their drivers for always drinking a competitor's brand, and that's a lot less damning in my book. And yeah, it was perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only real issue here is that Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we have leak after leak showing that it is the most opaque administration. Not to mention corrupt and surprisingly the one area the Administrator isn't incompetent in, is the prosecution of
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Informative)
If an employer fired an employee for something like this, I think the employee would have major grounds to sue, not for wrongful termination, but for spying and violation of privacy. Employers don't go to the kind of trouble the Obama Administration went to to discover this guy's identity. From the article: "After a probe that included an investigation into Joseph’s travel and shopping patterns – parsed from over 2,000 tweets..." So they spied on the guy's shopping habits? How'd they do that exactly? If an employer somehow got your bank or Visa/Mastercard to give them access to your shopping information, and also somehow tracked your travel patterns, there'd be hell to pay. But Obama does it and it's just fine apparently. It's highly disturbing that this guy was found out at all; obviously he wasn't intending to divulge his identity, so there had to be some kind of illegal or unethical breach of privacy protections in order to discover his identity.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up. This is something that doesn't get any attention at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're dumb enough to use your employer's equipment and network connection to communicate, then yes, they can discover you that way rightfully. If you use some other method to communicate (cellphone, internet connection at home), then no, they have no right. Presumably, this guy was not stupid enough to use government systems to make his tweets (otherwise he probably would have been found out much earlier).
And as someone else said, no, the identities behind twitter feeds are NOT public info. If they c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case here, then the guy would have been arrested. He hasn't been, ergo there was no "serious crime" involved. He just made unflattering remarks about people in the administration and other political people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dude has a high-level security clearance. you expect the government not to keep tabs on his behaviour?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I expect that everyone has an right to privacy in their personal lives, regardless of the job they do. Lots and lots of people have high-level security clearances; that doesn't mean their lives should be an open book for those in power to see, unless there's a valid suspicion of wrongdoing. Tweeting unflattering remarks about people is not a valid suspicion of wrongdoing, this was just a witch-hunt for someone who wasn't a yes-man.
Getting a Top Secret clearance is (or at least used to be, I don't kn
Re: (Score:3)
You just can't fire people for no reason
Unless you're in an at-will state. You know, most of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation. Of course I don't think such a law applies to telling the actual truth though. Certainly it's one for the lawyers and the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation
Criticism and respect are not diametrically opposed.
Hell, some of the criticisms I have for companies are because I respect them, and want them to do better.
But no, at least in the US there is no law that says people cannot criticize their employers.
Re: (Score:2)
To STFU or not to STFU..that is the question. Its simply a risk/reward analysis to be made by the employee. The reward being able to say "My company makes and eats dog poo" on twitter and keep your job. The risk not getting a paycheck for awhile and possibly having to be in close proximity with lawyers for length amounts of time, side effects include delusions and skin rashes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
Definitely. Most employment in the US (outside of union contracts) is at will - your employer can fire you for any reason they want, EXCEPT for some specific exclusions (race/ethnicity, sex, age, family status/pregnancy, and (in some states) political opinions or sexual orientation).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the real reasons are on the books. Where they cannot legally fie you for something, they just document your every mistake and use the culumative of that to find a reason. Very few people can refrain from violating some rules when they are being specifically targeted for enforcement.
There is also something called constructive discharge that is extreamely hard to prove. This is where the rmployee makes an employee so uncomfortable working for them, they end up quitting instead of being fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
Most private-sector jobs in the U.S. are "employment at will". That means employees can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not for a reason specifically prohibited by federal law (race, gender, etc.) I don't think this is good policy, but it is how things currently work in most places (pretty much all non-union shops). And one reason that it hasn't changed is that most Americans don't realize how bad it actually is: that as workers they essentially have no rights.
Federal civil service jobs are different. A rank-and-file Federal employee can pretty much say anything he/she wants about the government, as long as it's not on the clock. But the most high-ranking staff members at government agencies don't have civil service protections; they are political appointees and are expected to support the administration's goals and objectives. A random clerk processing Social Security claims can tweet all he/she wants about politics, but if the Secretary of State shoots his/her mouth off against the President's wishes, they will soon be "asked to resign".
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
It is not against the law for an employer to fire an employee for criticizing him/her/it. Freedom of speech is not required to be defended within the premises of a private entity, nor does it give you ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from the consequences of your actions. If you cannot make that distinction, you are an ignorant fool.
Consider this, if you work for an employer, and you tweet "my employer sucks", do you honestly believe you are immune from getting fired (even if indeed your employer sucks)?
The only things you cannot get fired for are already stipulated in federal and state laws. The typical protections against labor discrimination regarding gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation, retaliation over obeying the law, sexual harassment, and other protected statuses that emanate from them.
The list sorely misses some important ones (say, sexual orientation), but that is not to say that bad mouthing or publicly criticizing your employee (or doing anything that gives a "bad" image, something that will most likely be in the employment agreement that you willing signed) should be protected against getting fired for it. That is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.)
depends on the State, I believe in VA it's quite easy to say "Hey it's Thursday, you're fired"
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
In a "right to work" state, pretty sure OP is correct. Sure, unless it can be shown the person was fired "for cause", he/she will probably be eligible for unemployment pay, but it's unlikely that person would win in court as their termination was not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently there are repercussions for criticizing the "most transparent administration ever" cover ups.
For months, White House and State department officials searched for @NatSecWonk, a hunt that intensified after he repeatedly expressed doubts about the official administration accounts about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.
So, why did they force survivors to sign secrecy agreements?
BenghaziGate: At Least 5 CIA Employees Forced to Sign Nondisclosure Agreements [breitbart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It must be said (Score:2)
Was Carolyn Leddy wearing beer goggles the night she met Jofi Joseph?
Re: (Score:2)
They both must have been, and in a low lit room at that.
That, and I wonder which one has the larger penis.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? I debated whether to check the Post Anonymously box.
But then I figured, what the hell, the NSA knows who it is anyway. Why shouldn't all my fans on Slashdot?
Insults? (Score:2, Funny)
Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East.
to:
Mrs Clinton was policy goal challenged.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting.
You're right, it shouldn't be.
However, remember the words of the great Robert Heinlein: "Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
Unfortunately the next administration will make this one's efforts seem like child's play.
Re: (Score:2)
the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
Unfortunately the next administration will make this one's efforts seem like child's play.
Yea, it's a cascading failure. I weep for future generations who will live their entire lives under the boot of authoritarian fascism.
I can't believe ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can't believe ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not able to attribute the quote but it goes something like this- "you see a person's true face when they are wearing a mask..."
Inside the Bubble (Score:2)
Re:Inside the Bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and thanks to ubiquitous NSA spying, they were able to catch this dastardly man and put a stop to his treacherous activities. Aren't you glad Obama has the NSA to find out anyone who criticizes him?
Re:Inside the Bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Just curious: how? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was he tweeting from work?
I finally figured out what this "twerking" thing is all the kids talk about these days!
Re: (Score:2)
randomly found out
Seriously, in a post Snowden whistelblower world, you think he was 'randomly' found out?
Speaking of dodging questions. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it amusing people focusing on an event which transpired over a few hours when absolutely no investigation or questions were raised about the two DAY refusal by the Bush administration to send in more troops to block the escape of Bin Laden.
For those that don't know, officers on the ground, both U.S. and British, made repeated requests over a two day period to have more troops dropped in to block escape routes for Bin Laden when they had him pinned down in Tora Bora. They could hear him over the radio telling his people the end looked near and he had failed them. According to one British source, they estimated the troops were within 2 kilometers of Bin Laden [bbc.co.uk].
However, for those two days the Bush administration refused all requests for more troops, claiming the Afghan forces could be used instead of allied troops (which was a complete failure). As a result, Bin Laden ran free for another decade until the Obama administration was able to track him down.
Funny how not one person ever jumped up and said, "We need to investigate why Bin Laden, the man who planned the worst terrorist attack on American soil, was allowed to escape!", yet people are hellbent on talking about mistakes made over a few hours which somehow ranks higher in importance.
Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama Administration Shill Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time Benghazi comes up, it's imperative for shills to employee "but-but-but-Bush!"
Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike Benghazi, there was no drumbeat, from any source, on how Bin Laden was allowed to escape, no daily update from Fox on how the most wanted criminal in modern times was allowed to escape, no daily demands for Congressional hearings on the matter. None.
There are no rose colored glasses on this event. There were no investigations, no cries of indignation or threats of impeachment. Instead, there was silence and when pressed, Bush refused to answer any questions. The same way he did when pressed to turn over documents on the 9/11 attack.
You do know Bush turned over 1, ONE, document for the entire 9/11 Commission report. Both he and Cheney refused to appear before any Congressional hearing or provide information to any Congressional member without a lawyer being present and with no documentation of what took place.
Imagine if this administration had done the same thing over Benghazi. The South most certainly would have risen, and the lynchings would have been fierce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:malarchy...thats nothin. (Score:5, Funny)
Back in my day we'd track down, invite them to a duck-hunting outing, and SHOOT the bastard ourselves.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Penny Arcade (Score:4, Funny)
It does lend credence to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ [penny-arcade.com]
He got fired, not imprisoned (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno about you, but if I were to make comments like that where I work, I expect the boss to say something like 'I see you're really unhappy here, so why don't you take this box and clean out your desk'. Why is this a big deal? It's not like he got jail time out of it.
Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat (Score:5, Insightful)
While firing the unprofessional jerk after he was outed is perfectly defensible (I have no problem with it at all), the government did get caught working against America's interests again:
Why THE FUCK was the government spending time investigating this? And why the fuck is this not a big secret?
The BushBama whitehouse is seriously confused about what the country needs from its government, and over the last 12 years they have just gotten repeatedly more brazen and open about it. Is it simply that really, nobody cares?
I pay taxes in order for you to funnel them to obscurely-overbilling contractors for substandard work, so that they can then divert a portion of their obscene profits to the re-election campaigns of the people in congress and administration, who make the funneling happen. That is why we have government: to give crooks a non-violent outlet for their greed and need to victimize society. A few billion dollars here, a few billion dollars there .. we have a strong economy and can sustain that.
But I don't pay taxes for you people to spend it tracking tweets. That's not what government is for! All these crooks need to get out of the surveillance game and back into mainstream profitable corruption. And we voters should insist upon it. Please, everyone: stop voting Republicrat.
Priorities (Score:2)
Why is Hillary above criticism? Gov cover up? (Score:2)
I think his remarks about are probably accurate.
This is nothing but censorship. The government does not want us tax paying peons to know the truth about our exalted leaders.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
We fire a guy for insulting tweets, but....
- We don't fire people for the Fast & Furious illegal gun running op.
- We don't fire people for the IRS scandal.
- We don't fire for the lies to the public regarding Benghazi
- We don't fire for the absolute disaster that is the Obamacare implementation
It's nice to see that our priorities are in order. It's also obvious that this administration is extremely thin skinned and cannot take any amount of criticism. They view their political enemies as a first priority and everything else be dammed.
Re: (Score:3)
We fire a guy for insulting tweets, but....
- We don't fire people for the Fast & Furious illegal gun running op.
- We don't fire people for the IRS scandal.
- We don't fire for the lies to the public regarding Benghazi
- We don't fire for the absolute disaster that is the Obamacare implementation
It's nice to see that our priorities are in order. It's also obvious that this administration is extremely thin skinned and cannot take any amount of criticism. They view their political enemies as a first priority and everything else be dammed.
Those are called resume enhancers to Democrats. The more they fuck up the higher up the chain they go. Liberals protect their own at all costs with the help of their liberal media cronies.
So what did it cost to find him? (Score:4, Insightful)
"After a probe that included an investigation into Joseph’s travel and shopping patterns – parsed from over 2,000 tweets - lawyers from the White House counsel’s office confronted Joseph and ordered him to leave the executive complex, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
There's your tax dollars at work. Money well spent, I'd say. /sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Penny Arcade's thoughts on Internet anonymity [penny-arcade.com] come to mind...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Read his posts. He's another left-wing obama bot who's been partially disillusioned, but still believes the same lies. He'll be on MSNBC in two years.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans call for Rep. Ryan Winkler to resign following "Uncle Thomas" tweet [citypages.com]
but it's both parties:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/gop_campaign_manager_resigns_after_fake_hurricane_sandy_tweets_20121031 [truthdig.com]