• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress demands EPA’s secret email accounts

j-mac said:
Just a little update of the "most transparent administration in history".... What a joke, these Chicago thugs are probably the most corrupt administration in history. This President, and these progressives don't give a damn about the Constitution, or what anyone of opposition has to say about it...They are liars, and tin pot authoritarians....
Click to expand...

If a person is in the employ of government, I think every single email they send should be sent through their government account. If authorities find a government employee is using an "outside email address," they should be subject to a hefty fine, suspension or both.
 
MaggieD said:
If a person is in the employ of government, I think every single email they send should be sent through their government account. If authorities find a government employee is using an "outside email address," they should be subject to a hefty fine, suspension or both.
Click to expand...

Every single e-mail they send, or every single e-mail they send while at work?
 
j-mac said:
What's that? Advocating that the corruption be exposed? Excuse me.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Your OP didn't merely advocate the exposure of corruption:

j-mac said:
Just a little update of the "most transparent administration in history".... What a joke, these Chicago thugs are probably the most corrupt administration in history. This President, and these progressives don't give a damn about the Constitution, or what anyone of opposition has to say about it...They are liars, and tin pot authoritarians....
Click to expand...

Same goes for most of your posts in this thread.
 
MaggieD said:
Every single email they send. Think it's an invasion of privacy? Don't take the job.
Click to expand...

Um. Yeah. No. I think that any job which tries to regulate your private life is violating your basic civil rights. It's not a question of not taking the job -- I think that trying to compel someone to use only their work account to send e-mail at all times should be illegal.

ETA: Let me just add, before anybody loses their **** -- it's okay for an employer to expect you to not humiliate them in public, or to not engage in behaviors which could prove dangerous to them or your fellow employees, or to not break the law.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Um. Yeah. No. I think that any job which tries to regulate your private life is violating your basic civil rights. It's not a question of not taking the job -- I think that trying to compel someone to use only their work account to send e-mail at all times should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Jobs require we give up "basic civil rights" all the time, Dan. Plenty of jobs restrict one's rights off the job.

Really. How easy is it to circumvent ethical and legal implications by setting up an account at ImaCheater@gmail.com and send emails to the other guy at SoamI@gmail.com?
 
Hairytic said:
What proof do you have that this story is true?
Click to expand...

Yes, the first move of someone defending their guy, "It's not true!", "what proof do you have". A totally different response than you see from them when the same thing is said of the 'other guy'.

TacticalEvilDan said:
No. I most often see excuses being made, attention being misdirected, or the integrity of the investigators being attacked -- "If this was one of your guys, you wouldn't be doing this!"
Click to expand...

Then you should try a bit harder to pay attention. Just look at the other one quoted above. It's the typical response seen more often from the left than the right...
 
MaggieD said:
Jobs require we give up "basic civil rights" all the time, Dan. Plenty of jobs restrict one's rights off the job.

Really. How easy is it to circumvent ethical and legal implications by setting up an account at ImaCheater@gmail.com and send emails to the other guy at SoamI@gmail.com?
Click to expand...

I edited my post, as you will see, to include certain basic things an employer should be able to expect from an employee.

Aside from that, the ease someone has with breaking the law is not an excuse for violating their civil rights.
 
I don't really think history requires that we preserve a joke sent to a government official's email to which they reply "LOL". The records preservation laws are a little insane IMO. Wanting to have an electronic conversation not subject to political scrutiny is so very, I don't know, human perhaps.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I edited my post, as you will see, to include certain basic things an employer should be able to expect from an employee.

Aside from that, the ease someone has with breaking the law is not an excuse for violating their civil rights.
Click to expand...

It is not violating someone's civil rights if they agree to certain behaviors as a condition of employment. They don't have to agree if they don't want to...where's the violation?
 
Arbo said:
Then you should try a bit harder to pay attention. Just look at the other one quoted above. It's the typical response seen more often from the left than the right...
Click to expand...

I do not care who does what typically. I am addressing your behavior in this thread.
 
MaggieD said:
It is not violating someone's civil rights if they agree to certain behaviors as a condition of employment. They don't have to agree if they don't want to...where's the violation?
Click to expand...

It is a violation of their civil rights to demand things beyond reasonable basics -- especially in this economy.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It is a violation of their civil rights to demand things beyond reasonable basics -- especially in this economy.
Click to expand...

Come on. "Especially in this economy." It's either a violation or it's not.

Is it a violation that an employer can extort $75 out of my pay to join a club? And that, if I don't agree, they won't hire me?
 
MaggieD said:
Come on. "Especially in this economy." It's either a violation or it's not.

Is it a violation that an employer can extort $75 out of my pay to join a club? And that, if I don't agree, they won't hire me?
Click to expand...

My point is that "if you don't like it, don't take the job" only goes so far, and in a situation where people can't afford to not take a job it's even worse. In both situations it is a violation, but in one of the situations it's even more egregious. In criminal law it would be referred to as "an aggravating factor" or "a special circumstance" when it comes to sentencing -- rather than arguing that it is legal or less illegal in one circumstance versus the other, it is simply an argument that in one circumstance or the other the offense is worse than it would ordinarily be.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
My point is that "if you don't like it, don't take the job" only goes so far, and in a situation where people can't afford to not take a job it's even worse. In both situations it is a violation, but in one of the situations it's even more egregious. In criminal law it would be referred to as "an aggravating factor" or "a special circumstance" when it comes to sentencing -- rather than arguing that it is legal or less illegal in one circumstance versus the other, it is simply an argument that in one circumstance or the other the offense is worse than it would ordinarily be.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.

Is it a violation of my rights to have to pay $75 a month to join a club in order to be hired?
 
I think we are getting away from the crux of this particular event. The conversation was about this, and this is at the heart....

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

Now, what is she hiding? I think we have the right to know.
 
MaggieD said:
You didn't answer my question.

Is it a violation of my rights to have to pay $75 a month to join a club in order to be hired?
Click to expand...

I was ignoring the comment because I was addressing your previous one first, rather than letting you redirect my attention. Since you apparently take no issue with my explanation regarding aggravating factors I will now address this.

This one is trickier. If it is, then any requirement which results in you spending money could be as well -- and yet I think an employer has a right to expect you to dress professionally, which costs money. Obviously we're talking about unions, not wardrobes.

On the one hand, closed shops are formed when an employer enters into a contract. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to force someone to choose between paying a fine and being unemployed.

I suppose the compromise position is that an employer should be able to hire whoever they want, a union should be able to recruit whoever they want and organize its members without fear of reprisal, and if the union thinks management is in any way discouraging new hires from joining then they can go on strike. I also think it's reasonable for whatever contract the union works out with management to stipulate that non-members shall not receive pay in excess of a certain platform amount -- in other words, you're offered the job with two salary options, depending on whether or not you join the union. If you leave, your pay goes down.

Ultimately, financial incentive is what labor unions are all about. Employers use the threat of unemployment to control their subordinates, and the only legitimate hurt employees can threaten in return is the loss of their labor.
 
j-mac said:
I think we are getting away from the crux of this particular event. The conversation was about this, and this is at the heart....

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

Now, what is she hiding? I think we have the right to know.
Click to expand...



Let's try that again: "A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law."

Editing a quote to change its meaning is the same thing as telling a lie.

They're investigating, as is their job. There is no proof that there was any improper behavior. Please stop acting as if there was, in fact, improper behavior, because you don't know.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Let's try that again: "A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law."

Editing a quote to change its meaning is the same thing as telling a lie.

They're investigating, as is their job. There is no proof that there was any improper behavior. Please stop acting as if there was, in fact, improper behavior, because you don't know.
Click to expand...


Aw, Bull Hockey Dan....All I did was to quote the relevant part of the opening post to focus....This thread isn't about union dues, or anything other than Lisa Jackson at the EPA thwarting transparency and her own agency watchdogs for what one can only assume are nefarious purposes. Did you even read the article Dan?
 
j-mac said:
Aw, Bull Hockey Dan....All I did was to quote the relevant part of the opening post to focus....
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. There's a big difference between:

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

... and ...

A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

One says Jackson did something wrong, the other said that a House comittee will be investigating whether or not Jackson did something wrong. You are smart enough to know the difference, which means you edited that quote deliberately.

j-mac said:
This thread isn't about union dues, or anything other than Lisa Jackson at the EPA thwarting transparency and her own agency watchdogs for what one can only assume are nefarious purposes. Did you even read the article Dan?
Click to expand...

I've read several articles on the situation with Jackson and understand it quite well. You apparently didn't read your own thread, or else you would've understood why union dues came up.

Please stop being passive-aggressively dishonest.
 
MaggieD said:
If a person is in the employ of government, I think every single email they send should be sent through their government account. If authorities find a government employee is using an "outside email address," they should be subject to a hefty fine, suspension or both.
Click to expand...

I agree with this premise. And there is a law for the president to do this which is tied to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Something the slippery Bush administration snaked itself out of trouble with when over 5 million emails were lost or were deleted. They had also set up their own private email server to do political business which was illegal.


The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]​


But you are right, it should be expanded to all government employees IMO.
 
There are a lot of jobs that do not allow personal internet use on company computers. Jobs also monitor personal use and reserve the right to investigate what happens on their computers. Also, many jobs do not allow personal computers on company property. Using them on company property is a violation of security and you can be terminated. You take the job, you are subject to the company rules.

As far as these personal email accounts go, the government has complete rights to investigate their use. If they were used on company or personal computers, that's a whole different matter.

As far as the OP goes, it sounds like he has an issue with the government being able to investigate personal email use. If this was not his intention, then he needs to pay attention to how he words his posts, so they are not misconstrued.
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute here....Now there is supposed to be conclusive proof of wrongdoing, in this case the email accounts that fly under the wire of their own agency watchdog, without the benefit of being allowed to see these email accounts? Are you joking here?



Hey, I have an idea, lets not try murder cases anymore either, they can be expensive....What kind of crapola is that?



Maybe if the Obama crime organization would cease thwarting our laws, and constitution they wouldn't raise these suspicions...But if I read you right, and I think I do, because you are quite clear in a number of posts in this thread, that is your position seems to be that oversight is only a good thing when it is to oversee republicans.
Click to expand...

My point is, we don't even know if secret emails are being used to begin with. It sounds like a made up story designed to put suspision on Obama of wrong doing. It's just another made up scandal that will go no where.
 
Arbo said:
Yes, the first move of someone defending their guy, "It's not true!", "what proof do you have". A totally different response than you see from them when the same thing is said of the 'other guy'.



Then you should try a bit harder to pay attention. Just look at the other one quoted above. It's the typical response seen more often from the left than the right...
Click to expand...
So, you're saying you have no proof the story is true. Does this mean you're willing to accept it as fact without proof? Sounds to me like you hope it is true. Good luck with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom