PDA

View Full Version : A SIXFOLD INCREASE under dearest leader's regime!



LWW
04-24-2010, 11:24 AM
And it was selflessly done to help poor women overseas.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Employee misconduct investigations, often involving workers accessing pornography from their government computers, grew sixfold last year inside the taxpayer-funded foundation that doles out billions of dollars of scientific research grants, according to budget documents and other records obtained by The Washington Times.

The problems at the National Science Foundation (NSF) were so pervasive they swamped the agency's inspector general and forced the internal watchdog to cut back on its primary mission of investigating grant fraud and recovering misspent tax dollars. ...

For instance, one senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women without being detected, the records show.

When finally caught, the NSF official retired. He even offered, among other explanations, a humanitarian defense, suggesting tha<span style='font-size: 14pt'>t he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women.</span> Investigators put the cost to taxpayers of the senior official's porn surfing at between $13,800 and about $58,000.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"He explained that these young women are from poor countries and need to make money to help their parents and this site helps them do that,"</span> investigators wrote in a memo. ...

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste, called the situation "inexcusable."

"What kind of oversight is there when they have to shift people from looking at grant fraud to watch for people looking at pornography?" she said. ...

The newly obtained documents provide fresh evidence that the problem wasn't just an embarrassment: It was expensive and often went undetected for long periods of time.

The names of all of the employees targeted in the pornography cases were redacted from the more than 120 pages of investigative documents released to The Times. Names were withheld because none of the employees was subject to criminal prosecution, recent civil court action or debarment.

The documents don't include cases that the foundation examined internally without the inspector general's involvement. ...

As for the unnamed "senior executive" who spent at least 331 days looking at pornography at work, investigators said his proclivity for pornography was common knowledge among several co-workers.

"At the same time, employees were generally reluctant to make any official report or complaint because the misconduct involved a senior staff member and employees feared that they would suffer in some form of complaining," the investigators later wrote in a summary of the case.

Another employee in a different case was caught with hundreds of pictures, videos and even PowerPoint slide shows containing pornography. Asked by an investigator whether he had completed any government work on a day when a significant amount of pornography was downloaded, the employee responded, "Um, I can't remember," according to records. ...</div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;AT LEAST WE NOW KNOW WHY THEY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/29/workers-porn-surfing-rampant-at-federal-agency/)

Under the evil Bush regime these poor women were left at risk, under dearest leader's progressive regime they are now safe.

LWW

pooltchr
04-24-2010, 11:46 AM
Change you can believe it!!!!

Steve

hondo
05-27-2010, 08:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORVSpe-Ogkc

pooltchr
05-27-2010, 08:53 PM
You must really be bored tonight, Hondo!

Must you bore the rest of us??


Steve

hondo
05-27-2010, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You must really be bored tonight, Hondo!

Must you bore the rest of us??


Steve </div></div>

Why do you hate country music, Steve?
It seems, well, unpatriotic.

LWW
05-28-2010, 06:00 AM
I'm guessing he's been out to the still again. In any event, his ultimate goal is to troll all threads which do not have B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! as the topic.

LWW

Qtec
05-28-2010, 07:09 AM
Where is the link to these 'documents'?

Q

LWW
05-28-2010, 07:22 AM
This whole internet thingie is still confusing to you I see.

LWW

eg8r
05-28-2010, 09:17 AM
Are you blaming Obama for allowing this or just throwing him into the fray because you wish to be controversial? This type of BS activity is what qtip liked to do with Bush and you could not stand it yet here you are acting the same way with Obama.

eg8r

Qtec
05-28-2010, 09:20 AM
This whole internet forum/debate thingie is still confusing to you I see.
When you make a claim, you are supposed to back it up with some kind of proof. Not a link to God's paper <span style='font-size: 14pt'>claiming</span> something, ie The Wash times.

Got a link or is this just gossip?

Isn't this a GOP spin to take attention from the fact that under Bush, oil regulation was a joke?

Q

Q

eg8r
05-28-2010, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you make a claim, you are supposed to back it up with some kind of proof. Not a link to God's paper claiming something, ie The Wash times.</div></div>Hypocrite. This is exactly what you are doing with your spouse abuser coming out stating he had affairs with a woman running for election.

eg8r

Qtec
05-28-2010, 09:38 AM
LOL Check my last post.

What you got?

link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=308102#Post308102)

Q

eg8r
05-28-2010, 10:23 AM
You still don't have anything. As the author of your quote clearly states, "On its own, the massive volume of calls doesn’t prove that an affair took place – ". Again, after that it states that he posted text but again, if I post texts that you sent me about you having sex with sheep does that mean you really have sex with sheep?

Do you actually know what a "fact" really is? Just to help you out, it is NOT something that you agree with so it must be a fact. Until there is some real proof I will choose to not believe the spouse abuser.

eg8r

LWW
05-28-2010, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This whole internet forum/debate thingie is still confusing to you I see.
When you make a claim, you are supposed to back it up with some kind of proof. Not a link to God's paper <span style='font-size: 14pt'>claiming</span> something, ie The Wash times.

Got a link or is this just gossip?

Isn't this a GOP spin to take attention from the fact that under Bush, oil regulation was a joke?

Q

Q </div></div>

The link is in the OP ... can you read?

LWW

LWW
05-28-2010, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you blaming Obama for allowing this or just throwing him into the fray because you wish to be controversial? This type of BS activity is what qtip liked to do with Bush and you could not stand it yet here you are acting the same way with Obama.

eg8r </div></div>

I am merely reporting what happened.

Do I myself blame Obama for this? No, I don't. That would be ridiculous.

OTOH, for those who have incessantly blamed the POTUS for 8 years because the county road kill crew missed a raccoon, well I will admit that I enjoy tweaking them and watch them squirm trying to establish a double standard.

IOW ... I'm giving them the opportunity to live up to the standards which they set. Oddly, they don't seem to enjoy doing that.

LWW