Political funny picture thread, part 3

[BugI02]

That's not 100% true.

IBTC

I never would have guessed you were a shill account. I thought you were real, man!

 

[Leadeye]

Good question.

What does Narcan cost if you had to purchase it like insulin?

 

[BugI02]

Too many Grasshoppers, not enough Ants?

 

[Route 45]

 

[actaeon277]

Neither is "free".

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, but they're using that guy's ass for table stakes. If that's the gamble, they don't have enough (any) skin in that game

If that is the case, it is pretty sad.

 

[Jerchap2]

I really do not understand why security clearances are not revoked once people leave government. When I leave a company, I no longer have access to their networks; my access is revoked. To me that makes sense. Why should it be any different in the public sector than in the private sector?

 

[2A_Tom]

If you are a Peon they do

We used to sing the MI song.

Please debrief me let me go,
'cause I don't have the need to go.

Actually when I went from one unit to another they only read me off my SCI access. I retained my TS clearance. When I got to a new unit, if they had an open slot I would be read in there.

 

[nonobaddog]

If you are a Peon they do

We used to sing the MI song.

Please debrief me let me go,
'cause I don't have the need to go.

Actually when I went from one unit to another they only read me off my SCI access. I retained my TS clearance. When I got to a new unit, if they had an open slot I would be read in there.

Don't you mean...

Please debrief me let me go,
'cause I don't have the need to know.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I really do not understand why security clearances are not revoked once people leave government. When I leave a company, I no longer have access to their networks; my access is revoked. To me that makes sense. Why should it be any different in the public sector than in the private sector?

That's not how it works. Just because you have a security clearance doesn't mean you have access willy-nilly to sensitive information at will. It means that sensitive information can potentially be discussed with you (i.e. advising a president/director/department). So the revocation of such, lacking legal/criminal wrongdoing, is more punitive than anything.

 

[printcraft]

Right!? So sensitive information can be leaked without the fear of legal issues from his moles who still have access to that information.

 

[HoughMade]

Good question.

What does Narcan cost if you had to purchase it like insulin?

So we're thinking that people who are treated by EMTs, paramedics and in the ER don't get bills?

Interesting perspective.

 

[indiucky]

These two now not only look alike...But they have the same security clearance....

 

[JettaKnight]

I really do not understand why security clearances are not revoked once people leave government. When I leave a company, I no longer have access to their networks; my access is revoked. To me that makes sense. Why should it be any different in the public sector than in the private sector?

Like others have said, just because you have a clearance that doesn't just give you access to the information - it's not like network access.

Plus, adding you to a company network takes minutes, get clearance takes weeks (months?).

And, you can't use your Acme network credentials at a different job, clearance is clearance no matter who the employer is.

Lots of folks who don't work directly for the govt. have clearance.

 

[HoughMade]

Like others have said, just because you have a clearance that doesn't just give you access to the information - it's not like network access.

Plus, adding you to a company network takes minutes, get clearance takes weeks (months?).

And, you can't use your Acme network credentials at a different job, clearance is clearance no matter who the employer is.

Lots of folks who don't work directly for the govt. have clearance.

[video=youtube;MQ9iPTu_FMA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ9iPTu_FMA[/video]

 

[indiucky]

 

[2A_Tom]

Don't you mean...

Please debrief me let me go,
'cause I don't have the need to know.

I don't go how I made that mistake, but it was realy late.

 

[JTScribe]

Savage.

 

[2A_Tom]

That's not how it works. Just because you have a security clearance doesn't mean you have access willy-nilly to sensitive information at will. It means that sensitive information can potentially be discussed with you (i.e. advising a president/director/department). So the revocation of such, lacking legal/criminal wrongdoing, is more punitive than anything.

This is mostly correct cut. Access is the key. Any clearance can be suspended or revoked at will by the granting authority. When I was young I drank too much one night. I almost got my clearance revoked and lost my job. I stopped drinking completely and all was good. If a person has any of a multitude of character flaws, has any specific vulnerability or if the issuing authority just doesn't like you or your attitude, bye, bye clearance.