FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2209
Appaholic wrote:If W or Bubba can get it, I'm not too worried about Obama getting it.......if a THE CITADEL grad can get clearance, Obama's ok as well.....
That's what you baby-killers would have us think.....truth is, you're protecting Ahmed in Iraq so he can start a McDonald's franchise while at the same time this country's perimeter is being compromised daily.......enjoy your falafal burger....citdog wrote:Appaholic wrote:If W or Bubba can get it, I'm not too worried about Obama getting it.......if a THE CITADEL grad can get clearance, Obama's ok as well.....
GRADUATES OF THE CITADEL ARE PROTECTING YOUR FAT, BLOATED, BIGGER MAN TITTIES THAN CAP'N CAT HAVING, WALKING AND TALKING PIECE OF HUMEN EXCREMENT ASS RIGHT NOW.
Two observations.Col Hogan wrote:Like it or not, the Prez automatically gets a provisional TS clearance...
And simple association with someone...Ayers, for example...is not a disqualifier...
(...I guess military, government, and law enforcement personnel don't count as real "...people...")AYERS: Well, you know, again, I think you have to read this as a memoir, not as a manifesto, not even as a history. But the reason that I undertook it actually was because- and, remember, I wrote it- it was published in 2001, so I wrote it in the two years leading up to it. But, I had enough distance from it that I felt that I could say something about it. But I wrote it as a memoir, as a way of, kind of, understanding a ten year period in our history. And I thought it was relevant then. I think it's more relevant now and the reason it is, is because we are once again bogged down in two wars. And if you add Israel/Palestine, that's a third major conflict. And, and we don't seem to as a democracy-we don't seem to be able to figure out how to assert the public will and bring these things to an end. I think people want these wars to end. And I think they should.
CUOMO: Isn't that all the more reason for you to take a look back and reject what the Weather Underground is?
AYERS: Well, there's nothing in there that's- there's an attempt to understand the things we did. You know, here we were in a situation where, really, a violent terrorist war was being waged against an entire population. We objected. We tried to end that war. And in trying to end it, we did cross lines of propriety, of legality, maybe even of common sense. But we never committed terror.
CUOMO: Why not? I really- I have a tough time understanding this. How is what you did there, blowing up, detonating a bomb in the Pentagon, the New York Police Department headquarters, trying to target the Capitol. How is that not terrorism?
AYERS: It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people. It doesn't target people to either kill or injure. What it does is- You could call it-
CUOMO: How can a sophisticated academic like yourself believe that the inherent recklessness of exploding bombs that you know too well killed three of your own- you know the potential for deadliness there.
haven't been called a "baby killer" since the Princeton band left Charleston........thanks Appa!Appaholic wrote:That's what you baby-killers would have us think.....truth is, you're protecting Ahmed in Iraq so he can start a McDonald's franchise while at the same time this country's perimeter is being compromised daily.......enjoy your falafal burger....citdog wrote:
GRADUATES OF THE CITADEL ARE PROTECTING YOUR FAT, BLOATED, BIGGER MAN TITTIES THAN CAP'N CAT HAVING, WALKING AND TALKING PIECE OF HUMEN EXCREMENT ASS RIGHT NOW.
Appaholic wrote:"That's what you baby-killers would have us think. Now stop inneruping our famly ho down. Sis's gettin drunk, we're gonna have fun tonite. WOOOHAW! HOT DAMN!"
You're so awesome T-Man....thank you for gracing us on this site so you can show us the err of our ways.....I pray every night that Obama will replace Paulson with yourself so you can get this economy back on track....travelinman67 wrote:Appaholic wrote:"That's what you baby-killers would have us think. Now stop inneruping our famly ho down. Sis's gettin drunk, we're gonna have fun tonite. WOOOHAW! HOT DAMN!"
And I'm sure that the West Point folks appreciate you carrying their luggage and repairing their mess kits.citdog wrote:Appaholic wrote:If W or Bubba can get it, I'm not too worried about Obama getting it.......if a THE CITADEL grad can get clearance, Obama's ok as well.....
GRADUATES OF THE CITADEL ARE PROTECTING YOUR FAT, BLOATED, BIGGER MAN TITTIES THAN CAP'N CAT HAVING, WALKING AND TALKING PIECE OF HUMEN EXCREMENT ASS RIGHT NOW.
you forgot the SIR.......YOU ENLISTED SCUM SURE HAVE TO BE TOLD THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN..........WITHOUT OFFICERS TO LEAD YOU AN ARMY IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ARMED MOB.houndawg wrote:And I'm sure that the West Point folks appreciate you carrying their luggage and repairing their mess kits.citdog wrote:
GRADUATES OF THE CITADEL ARE PROTECTING YOUR FAT, BLOATED, BIGGER MAN TITTIES THAN CAP'N CAT HAVING, WALKING AND TALKING PIECE OF HUMEN EXCREMENT ASS RIGHT NOW.
i see the predictable comments about past drug use with Clinton and Bush. I can tell who has and hasn't had security clearances before. Prior drug use does NOT preclude someone from gaining Top Secret security clearances. Past (and present) associations with known domestic terrorists (particularly ones who are non-apologetic) as well as other convicted felons would definitely keep someone from getting a TS clearance.citdog wrote:all of us who have served must have questions about this topic..........because of his past assoc could obama be an FBI Agent.......or a CIA Operative? i do not think he could.........i believe he would be denied a security clearance..........thoughts gentlemen.....
Hmmm...how active in your TS...mine is good for two more years...BigApp wrote:i see the predictable comments about past drug use with Clinton and Bush. I can tell who has and hasn't had security clearances before. Prior drug use does NOT preclude someone from gaining Top Secret security clearances. Past (and present) associations with known domestic terrorists (particularly ones who are non-apologetic) as well as other convicted felons would definitely keep someone from getting a TS clearance.citdog wrote:all of us who have served must have questions about this topic..........because of his past assoc could obama be an FBI Agent.......or a CIA Operative? i do not think he could.........i believe he would be denied a security clearance..........thoughts gentlemen.....
Matter of fact, he couldn't even get enough of a clearance to be a friggin' secretary at the FBI.
Yeah, Oppenheimer you're doin a great job with those soldiers, most of whom end up homeless and addicted to drugs and alcohol the minute they're discharged.citdog wrote:
you forgot the SIR.......YOU ENLISTED SCUM SURE HAVE TO BE TOLD THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN..........WITHOUT OFFICERS TO LEAD YOU AN ARMY IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ARMED MOB.
Maybe it should have?Col Hogan wrote:Like it or not, the Prez automatically gets a provisional TS clearance...
There was stuff in Clinton's and Bush's past (drug specifically) that could have kept you or I from getting our clearance...didn't prevent them...
Maybe...but imagine the political uproar if a security agency could refuse the President a clearance...and then the country gets blindsided by something BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW...AZGrizFan wrote:Maybe it should have?Col Hogan wrote:Like it or not, the Prez automatically gets a provisional TS clearance...
There was stuff in Clinton's and Bush's past (drug specifically) that could have kept you or I from getting our clearance...didn't prevent them...
yes, you ARE asked about drug usage. Answering "Yes" does not eliminate you from gaining the clearance. If you've been through this process, then you should know they're looking for full disclosure and honesty from YOU the applicant.Col Hogan wrote:
There are no questions on my form for domestic terrorists...maybe there should be, but there isn't...
and I have never been asked about knowing or associating with a know felon...again, maybe there should be, but there isn't...I do know a convicted felon and see him everytime I go back to MA...not an issue...
I have been asked about drug usage...if yes, how much and when...and alcohol usage...excessive or not...
I've been asked about foreign associations...my finances...my travel for personal reasons overseas...
If he's completing Form 86, then he's got problems. First question: Have you ever held multiple citizenships? His next set of issues will come from the part asking about his "Relatives" and "Foreign Contacts".a--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to terrorism, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end...
b--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the US government, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end...
c--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization that unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their rights under the US constitution or any state of the US with the specific intent to further such unlawful activities?
d--Have you EVER advocated any acts of terrorism or activities designed to overthrow the US government by force with specific intent to incite others to unlawful action in furtherance of such aims?
I'm not going to argue the citizenship issue...that's been beaten to death, and the lawyers seem to agree he's quailfied to be prez...BigApp wrote:yes, you ARE asked about drug usage. Answering "Yes" does not eliminate you from gaining the clearance. If you've been through this process, then you should know they're looking for full disclosure and honesty from YOU the applicant.Col Hogan wrote:
There are no questions on my form for domestic terrorists...maybe there should be, but there isn't...
and I have never been asked about knowing or associating with a know felon...again, maybe there should be, but there isn't...I do know a convicted felon and see him everytime I go back to MA...not an issue...
I have been asked about drug usage...if yes, how much and when...and alcohol usage...excessive or not...
I've been asked about foreign associations...my finances...my travel for personal reasons overseas...
yes, you ARE asked about associations with known terrorists and terrorism groups. HINT: It's the BIG HUGE SECTION right before you sign the form. Maybe you glossed over that part and said "NO" to all the subsections. Here's the first 4 questions:
If he's completing Form 86, then he's got problems. First question: Have you ever held multiple citizenships? His next set of issues will come from the part asking about his "Relatives" and "Foreign Contacts".a--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to terrorism, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end...
b--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the US government, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end...
c--Have you EVER been an officer or member of, or made a contribution to, an organization that unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their rights under the US constitution or any state of the US with the specific intent to further such unlawful activities?
d--Have you EVER advocated any acts of terrorism or activities designed to overthrow the US government by force with specific intent to incite others to unlawful action in furtherance of such aims?
as for the association part, it appears I've struck a nerve with you. When you were completing your form, were you asked for a list of names of "People Who Know You Well?"
Next time, READ before you sign your form.
djonback wrote:To think the United States voters gave Barack Obama all the Security Clearance needed is otherwise just plain stupid.
You misunderstand me. I was implyng maybe it should have prevented them from being president.Col Hogan wrote:Maybe...but imagine the political uproar if a security agency could refuse the President a clearance...and then the country gets blindsided by something BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW...AZGrizFan wrote: Maybe it should have?
Bush and Clinton are accused of ignoring signs that OBL was going to strike us...they had the info because they received the security clearance...but apprently ignored it (depending on who you listen to)...that's one thing...
To deny the President info is another...