http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27690267/

Didn't Obama also vote for the second PATRIOT Act as well? It's good to see big brother will be watching over us for the next 4 years.

This isn't about "big brother" watching us. It's about a job application. Granted, that's the craziest job application I've ever heardof. Day-um.



My favorites:

Some of the questions are just ridiculous, so I feel it is an example of big brother. Would George Washington have asked questions like that? I don't think so. The government got much bigger under the Roosevelt administration, so you can say it started there and obviously it's not just Obama you would talk about, but it looks like he'll continue similar policies.

If I was applying for a position in such a sensitive location, I would expect nothing less than a full inquiry.

Let's say your father owns a gun. Why would that be important? I assume you're okay with the PATRIOT Act as well?

You know you aren't applying to work at Wal Mart, you are applying to work with the President. Yes if I was applying I know and expect the type of questions that were asked. This is not something Barack Obama thought of on his own. Applications to work for the President are very long and do include some of the questions Obama asked. Also the government is going to do an intense background check anyway.



The whole own a gun thing was just part of the question, they asked if they were licensed legally to own it, as well as if they were involved in criminal activity or caused harm to people using a gun. He just doesn't want anything to bite him in the butt later because so much attention is paid on him. That and he is trying to weed out lobbyists. You know the anti Obama crowd will be on anything they perceive negative regarding anyone working for him. Even if they have to stretch the truth to smear him. Like how taking an intense application to work in the White House as a confirmation of him supporting the Patriot Act!!!



I'm sure Clinton and Bush had similar types of applications as well. It may not have been as thorough but Obama doesn't mess around. It didn't mean they won't get hired he just likes to be one step ahead and know if there is anything people could use against him. He rather know now than have it sprung on him by Sean Hannity and Faux News. You know President Obama's secretary had a uncle that shot and killed someone with an illegal sawed off shot gun. You know they would do it to.



Besides isn't Obama against the Patriot act and wants to get rid of it?

Im sure if George Washington knew about Myspace or Facebook he would have!

this is a job application for a sensitive position not the survellience of ordinary American citizens. there is simply no analogy to 'Big Brother' possible under these facts. get a grip. what a load.

I don't see a problem with the big brother aspect of it. Doesn't seem like a privacy issue - rather a what have you done in public issue.



Seems like it's overly stringent though. Who the hell can pass that thing? I'd have failed it before puberty. Hell, anybody who ever posted on this veg*n board would more than likely fail under some guilt by association guidelines.



Pleasantville.

Its was on the local news the other day that many companies are now using Facebook and MySpace as another means of background checks on potential employees. So why would it be odd for a government employee to be asked these questions?

Yea, they're used by college admission boards too.

I hate it when I type a post then the page refreshes losing the entire thing....



But to make my nice (oh 500 word or so) post shorter.........

• People who couldn't pass their own application shouldn't be expecting others to fill it out.
  
• People expecting others to fill out such a thing should also be willing to provide their (and everyone else involved in their office's) current answers -- after all, it's not just the employer who could be embarrassed and have their political career ruined!
  
• Wanting to know about the people being human (all text messages, instant messages, private messages, and other electronic message things) sent need be reported if they could be "embarrassing"... looks more like someone's seeing if people are lieing or just looking for some cheap porn
  
• What's "embarrassing?" Robbing a bank in the nude? Visiting a country to see the ruins of an ancient civilization? Telling your loved ones to wear the sexy outfit for your jungle sex tonight?
  
• Do the dairies of a 8 year old telling about the "crush" on the person in front of them in class really apply now?
  

It sounds like they're even checking what sites a person goes on, so to me that is big brother. Next you'll claim the PATRIOT Act doesn't support big brother either. According to the article, I'm far from being the only one who feels this way.

From what I have read, he was against the original PATRIOT Act but in favor of the reauthorized version. It still has a bad reputation.

the Patriot Act is one thing, the job application is something entirely different. one more time, the job application has absolutely nothing to do with the surveillance of ordinary American citizens and nothing to do with 'Big Brother'. you are mixing apples and oranges. when one applies for a job, one voluntarily submits oneself for review. one can submit to the review being requested or refuse to answer the questions. there is choice involved. on the other hand, surreptitious surveillance of citizens is something not agreed to and done without the person's knowledge by the government. that is "Big Brother".



this is also a cabinet level position that the person is being vetted for. there is a tradition of asking for personal data under such circumstances. your point is not well made.

So, Obama voting for the PATRIOT Act, does that bother you? I never would have posted this, but seeing that he voted for it I figured I'd say something. The document is supposed to be over 900 pages. It makes me wonder whether any of the people who voted for it even read it.

i didn't agree with the Patriot Act, but that is not what your original post was really about. you were focusing on the job application which made no sense.

is it really about anything specific?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon






lets say one of the requests was questions like

1. have you have associated with someone that has advocated or taken actions with the goal of the violent overthrow of the United States government.



2. have you ever attended a church or spiritual movement expressing sentiments along the lines of "goddamn america"?



3. are you comfortable wearing a flag lapel win or other overt symbols of american patriotism?



obama says it's irrelevant stuff but would be willing to back that stance and extend it onto all of his supporters?

oh look who is still fighting the last election even though its OVER Rev. Wright is sooo April, 2008 dude.



move on and get over it even though your guy bombed and Sarah Palin imploded lol.

sigh, you're missing the point, getting distracted by a few specifics. my grandfather pals around with a former terrorist, I guess I can't work in the Obama administration.



If Wright and Ayres are really irrelevant tangential background details then why subject your applicants to the same in these 63 questions and refuse qualified applicants like our own Obama just because of a few details that could be made to seem scary by partisan media?

when you tell me how Wright would disqualify someone perhaps i will take your post seriously. your focus on the distortion of Wright's sermon is also kind of amusing. you're smarter than that.



when you tell me how Obama's having known Bill Ayers on a superficial level would disqualify perhaps u will have a point. because, merely asking the question does not mean that it would be determined to disqualify, comprende? Obama never said he didn't know Wright or Ayers, so what are you talking about? are you really talking about anything???

really? you want me to explain yet again? wright and ayers are irrelevant background details that can sound scary but aren't anything, though I wish I knew more about Obama as a thinker (published nothing other than some biographies). So why can't they focus on the relevant details rather than focus on the bull****. Are they going to value image over competence?




once they ask you don't know how it's going to be used. you don't know how many qualified applicants are going to be rejected because they don't have "cleaner" backgrounds than president-elect Obama himself.