Error: USAJobs.gov And you thought the stimulus didn't work. The Obama Administration is outputting job-creation proposals at Twitter-speed and ridiculing Republicans for not signing onto the whole package. Which brings us to an already up-and-running federal jobs program called USAJobs.gov. Well, up-and-running is an overstatement. Americans in search of federal employment can go to a website called USAJobs.gov, which matches openings with applicants. Since 2004, the feds have outsourced the site's operation to Monster.com. Good call by whoever was in charge in 2004. Monster.com is the private company that pioneered employment websites and is today the largest job search engine in the world. But 18 months ago the "smart" Obama Office of Personnel Management decided the federal government could do a better job of running USAJobs.gov. It spent some $6 million developing a new in-house version of the site, promising to improve the job-search experience. It unveiled its creation two weeks ago. It's a monster all right. The volume of requests instantly crushed government servers, slowed the system and locked out thousands of applicants. Naturally, the site has a Facebook page. Naturally, the comment queue is boiling over. Examples: "Why am I having to do the same search 3 times before anything shows up?" "Over one week now and I still haven't received my password reset email!!" "USAJOBS WEB SITE IS A DISASTER!" "I entered Delaware and got Germany jobs and all of the Forest Service." Director John Berry says job seekers will get an additional three weeks to meet application deadlines. Monster.com has graciously offered to host free job postings for federal agencies for 30 days, as the government reboots its "improved" website. Better yet, the Obama team could turn over fixing USAJobs to the folks at Occupy Wall Street. FAILSAUCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. nd yes it's true, the usajobs experience in the last few weeks is awful squared to the tenth degree. |
Before Euro : One says, "We have no monies!" Others say, "HAHA!"
After Euro: One says, "We have no monies!" Others say, "Faaaaaaawwwwwkkkkkk!" |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787982)
What's the offense budget?
not to mention the many other countries we simply occupy |
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 788402)
iraq for starters comes to mind
not to mention the many other countries we simply occupy Hindsights 20/20. Edit: This will be what it looks like when Braineack looses it, except bigger, and with big words |
The Soviets had 10,000 nukes with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And we're supposed to be afraid that one or two pipsqueak dictators *may* develop one? |
Nader is a first choice this year. Ron Paul is a beast!!
The picture........... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-66QryU9IJZ...dent2012-2.jpg Make it happen. |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 788489)
The Soviets had 10,000 nukes with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And we're supposed to be afraid that one or two pipsqueak dictators *may* develop one? If one of those pipsqueak dictators makes a nuclear device or radiological bomb, he may decide to sell it to some very bad dudes who would like to take it into a highly populated area of our country and kill as many of us as possible. Since so many of those pipsqueak dictators don't like us in the first place, I don't think they would have much trouble making such devices available to terrorist groups for the aforementioned purpose. |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 788452)
That's defense. Saddam was a very bad dude who was sympathetic to terrorists and at one point had a nuclear program which may or may not have yielded something dangerous. What other countries (Other then Afghanistan) are we currently occupying?
Hindsights 20/20 and we occupy much more than iraq and afgan. where have you been? iraq and iran are the two where we are involved in wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ry_deployments and iraq was defense? idk about you but me personally i define defense as defending yourself from an attack. when did iraq attack us? the operation was called iraqi freedom because we went over there to "free the people" from a bs dictator. in the link i provide joe liberman even says there is no evidence of a wmd program. "When we didn't find weapons I felt terrible about it, sick about it and still do, because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction," Bush. awww. poor poor bush. your excuse for invasion turned out to be false it doesn't matter how you justify it the fact of the matter is that it was an offensive move. there was nothing defensive about it and some of it was a "policing the world" act not to mention the fact that it is common knowledge that they had no wmd's http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_811509.html the senate even made a report on the false pre-war iraq intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_...igence_on_Iraq |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 788497)
:facepalm: @ coldwar thinking, just because it isn't a big powerful country doesn't mean it isn't a threat.
gaddafi comes to mind yeah ok let go and aid some racist rebels http://pjmedia.com/blog/funny-anti-g...anti-semitism/ these men lived ONLY because media was present and recording the rebel actions on film this bulshit is really sad man and we assisted? wtf. i am sincerely disgusted |
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 788512)
and we occupy much more than iraq and afgan. where have you been? iraq and iran are the two where we are involved in wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ry_deployments
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 788512)
and iraq was defense? idk about you but me personally i define defense as defending yourself from an attack. when did iraq attack us? the operation was called iraqi freedom because we went over there to "free the people" from a bs dictator. in the link i provide joe liberman even says there is no evidence of a wmd program. "When we didn't find weapons I felt terrible about it, sick about it and still do, because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction," Bush. awww. poor poor bush. your excuse for invasion turned out to be false
|
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 788533)
Iraq is/was a shitty situation, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
and austraila is one of the countries where we have a few hundred or less troops there are many more countries where we have over 1k it doesn't take 1k to guard an embassy
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 788533)
not to mention he didn't let weapons inspectors into the country for us to see that there where no WMD's ...A guy who is possibly actively developing nuclear weapons, has used WMD's in the past and might have more left over
just watch this video of bush claiming not to know the laws that govern the private contractors WE hire for iragi duties. if he is serious about not knowing the laws that is rather pitiful for our Commander in Chief to not know that during a time of war. It seems he even try's to make humor of the situation. Man oh man I would be fawkin pissed if I were an iraqi citizen who is trying to live an honest life and make an honest living. that is the hard part right there is determining how to bring terrorists to justice and not harm the citizens. personally i dont think it is ok to blow up a bank and killing the hostages as a side effect. like i said before the ends do not justify the means i wouldn't let weapons inspectors from those who have proven unfriendly to me come to my country eithor most nations want to be sovereign right? does a sovereign nation make its weapons stash public information? boy with words like possibly and past all i can say is i sure am glad that our current judicial system doesn't judge our citizens in the same manor i sincerely do not expect the two of us to ever come to an agreement on this particular topic that being said i dont wish to discuss it anymore i dont have any more points i would like to make though i am open to hear what you have to say in response to what i have just said |
|
Brain - Are you saying more unemployment would make you less grumpy?
|
No, I want to see private sector jobs increasing and public decreasing.
Why doesn't the government just employ everyone? derp derp. Why isn't minimum wage $200 an hour? derp derp. I'll quote the video I just posted: No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 788579)
No, I want to see private sector jobs increasing and public decreasing.
It will likely take a while to transition some public sector employees in specialized positions (i.e. teachers, firefighters, police, transit, etc) to roles in the private sector since they don't always have direct substitutions. The best way to increase hiring in the private sector in a balance sheet recession is to increase demand for the goods and services provided by the private sector. That should happen once the private sector debt deleveraging process repairs household balance sheets. |
first line in the video scares me. last statement is winsauce. 2:15 - ha |
It's funny how dumb those people sound. They just regurgitate the same stupid BS over and over.
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands