Time to Cull The Government

[dmallord]

The problem is the vast majority of the labor force needs to be supervised to assure productivity. Federal workers are no different. So I think the wise course is to tell them to report or be fired.

Could you be speaking from personal experiences requiring motivation to work rather than management 'encouraged efforts?'

You may need some guidance or updated research to help you think about this matter: the 2024 study by Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom.

The idea that government workers must be physically present and supervised to be productive isn't supported by evidence collected on the subject matter post-Covid. Numerous studies, including research from Stanford, show that remote workers can be just as productive, if not more so, than those in traditional office settings. Productivity depends on clear goals, accountability, and effective management, not physical presence. This stereotype you parrot unfairly undermines the professionalism of government employees and ignores the proven benefits of flexible work arrangements. Let's focus on results, not outdated assumptions.

In summary, your 'thinking' and belief that government workers must be physically present and closely supervised to be productive needs to be updated. Embracing flexible work models can and does increase job satisfaction and retention without sacrificing performance.

 

[SubzeroGirl]

There is no good reason to.

More people who think like me believe it to be true and as a Democrat, you believe in power to the people. So keep an open mind, but always be skeptical. We need crazies on both sides to keep balance.

 

[Politruk]

More people who think like me believe it to be true and as a Democrat, you believe in power to the people. So keep an open mind, but always be skeptical. We need crazies on both sides to keep balance.

Nobody in this thread has come up with any good reason to shrink the government. It just seems to be some kind of reflexive ideological commitment.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's been demonstrated to be false.

Repeatedly.



No but cold case files and openly unprosecuted crimes do.

Better luck next time champ.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that.

 

[UltraChad]

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that.

You've quoted me doing so more than once now.

Ignoring cold cases doesn't make them go away.

You're wrong and "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime." is one of the dumbest of dumb fuck things ever posted on this site.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You've quoted me doing so more than once now.

Ignoring cold cases doesn't make them go away.

You're wrong and "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime." is one of the dumbest of dumb fuck things ever posted on this site.

Nope. You’ve shown nothing that a “find” is the same as a conviction.

No one is talking about cold cases.

 

[UltraChad]

Nope. You’ve shown nothing that a “find” is the same as a conviction.

I'm not arguing that. Put the goal post down.

You claimed "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime.", I'm arguing the government finds all sorts of crimes that never get convictions.

Rather successfully considering the bullshit you're bullshitting with here. You're clearly not mature enough to admit you were wrong despite that being the objective reality.

No one is talking about cold cases.

I am.

Their existence, like FBI director Comey's statement that violations were found but they are not recommending prosecution, shit all over your assertion that "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime." literally one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has posted much less tried to defend.

Many crimes are found that never get prosecuted much less a conviction. You are wrong.

 

[Politruk]

What matters is that both Hillary and Biden are remarkably clean and honest as pols go.

And Trump is . . . not.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm not arguing that. Put the goal post down.

You claimed "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime.", I'm arguing the government finds all sorts of crimes that never get convictions.

Rather successfully considering the bullshit you're bullshitting with here. You're clearly not mature enough to admit you were wrong despite that being the objective reality.



I am.

Their existence, like FBI director Comey's statement that violations were found but they are not recommending prosecution, shit all over your assertion that "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime." literally one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has posted much less tried to defend.

Many crimes are found that never get prosecuted much less a conviction. You are wrong.

So again, you’re still wrong. Without the conviction, the government didn’t find anything.

You’re not talking about cold cases, you’re talking about cases that were fully investigated by the executive branch where witnesses gave hours long testimony and that executive branch, which you said knew more than you, decided they couldn’t find enough to allege a crime had even taken place.

As always, I’m going to wish you better luck on your next attempt.

 

[UltraChad]

So again, you’re still wrong.

No I'm not.

Without the conviction, the government didn’t find anything.

This fuckin' retarded statement is still Incorrect, and still fuckin' retarded as fuck.

The government finds all sorts of crimes it never charges much less convicts anyone of. Your statement is stupid as fuck on it's face AND demonstrated to be totally false both by the FBI directors own statements and the existence of all those crimes that have been found by the government and never got so much as a whiff of info on.

You’re not talking about cold cases, you’re talking about cases that were fully investigated by the executive branch where witnesses gave hours long testimony and that executive branch, which you said knew more than you, decided they couldn’t find enough to allege a crime had even taken place.

Again, that's not what the FBI director at the time said, and that's a long fucking ways off from "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime."

You lost bud. No amount of running around with the goalpost now is going to change that.

As always, I’m going to wish you better luck on your next attempt.

Why?? You got fuckin' roasted son....I would wish you luck but not being an idiot who says dumb shit would be more productive.

Anyhow.... better luck saying fucktard level stupid shit next time.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Y'all are silly. Ever heard of John Gotti???

 

[UltraChad]

Y'all are silly. Ever heard of John Gotti???

I'm more of a Carlo Gambino fan....

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No I'm not.


This fuckin' retarded statement is still Incorrect, and still fuckin' retarded as fuck.

The government finds all sorts of crimes it never charges much less convicts anyone of. Your statement is stupid as fuck on it's face AND demonstrated to be totally false both by the FBI directors own statements and the existence of all those crimes that have been found by the government and never got so much as a whiff of info on.



Again, that's not what the FBI director at the time said, and that's a long fucking ways off from "If there’s no conviction, the government didn’t find a crime."

You lost bud. No amount of running around with the goalpost now is going to change that.




Why?? You got fuckin' roasted son....I would wish you luck but not being an idiot who says dumb shit would be more productive.

Anyhow.... better luck saying fucktard level stupid shit next time.

Again, all I can do is point out your ignorance and wish you better luck next time.

 

[ll74]

So again, you’re still wrong. Without the conviction, the government didn’t find anything.

Prosecutors find crimes all the time that they know can't be successfully argued in court.

Simply put - if someone mishandled classified information, they broke the law. Not being prosecuted or convicted as such, is irrelevant.

Let's give a simple example - when I was 8 or 9, I took a pack of gum from a grocery store. I committed a crime. Not being prosecuted just means that within the government,.my crime was not considered. It doesn't negate the fact that I committed a crime....it just means I wasn't prosecuted for said crime.

 

[UltraChad]

Again, all I can do is point out your ignorance and wish you better luck next time.

I wasn't ignorant.

You said something dumb that was demonstrably wrong at every point.

I brought receipts and a sound argument pointing out all the unsolved crimes that exist.

You then proceeded to run around with the goalpost and declare victory.

You're the one who needs better luck next time.

 

[UltraChad]

Prosecutors find crimes all the time that they know can't be successfully argued in court.

Simply put - if someone mishandled classified information, they broke the law. Not being prosecuted or convicted as such, is irrelevant.

Let's give a simple example - when I was 8 or 9, I took a pack of gum from a grocery store. I committed a crime. Not being prosecuted just means that within the government,.my crime was not considered. It doesn't negate the fact that I committed a crime....it just means I wasn't prosecuted for said crime.

This is correct.

 

[ll74]

Prosecutors find crimes all the time that they know can't be successfully argued in court.

Simply put - if someone mishandled classified information, they broke the law. Not being prosecuted or convicted as such, is irrelevant.

Let's give a simple example - when I was 8 or 9, I took a pack of gum from a grocery store. I committed a crime. Not being prosecuted just means that within the government,.my crime was not considered. It doesn't negate the fact that I committed a crime....it just means I wasn't prosecuted for said crime.

Funny enough, when you write a book admitting to a crime that is still within the statute of limitations, you are probably more likely to be prosecuted for said crime. (But I digress)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I wasn't ignorant.

You said something dumb that was demonstrably wrong at every point.

I brought receipts and a sound argument pointing out all the unsolved crimes that exist.

You then proceeded to run around with the goalpost and declare victory.

You're the one who needs better luck next time.

Again, all I can do is point out your ignorance and wish you better luck next time.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Prosecutors find crimes all the time that they know can't be successfully argued in court.

Simply put - if someone mishandled classified information, they broke the law. Not being prosecuted or convicted as such, is irrelevant.

Let's give a simple example - when I was 8 or 9, I took a pack of gum from a grocery store. I committed a crime. Not being prosecuted just means that within the government,.my crime was not considered. It doesn't negate the fact that I committed a crime....it just means I wasn't prosecuted for said crime.

When you were a kid did someone investigate this and interview you for hours and then determine there was not enough there to allege you committed the crime?

 

[ll74]

When you were a kid did someone investigate this and interview you for hours and then determine there was not enough there to allege you committed the crime?

Lol....at all levels of prosecution, success of indictment is considered. No matter how long you may be interrogated for.

If you commit a crime, you commit a crime. Nobody needs to see or convict or prosecute you for that to be true. Nobody needs to investigate you either....and even when they do, if THEY don't find evidence of your crime, you still committed one....

Certainly you can not admit to said crime.and claim innocence.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lol....at all levels of prosecution, success of indictment is considered. No matter how long you may be interrogated for.

If you commit a crime, you commit a crime. Nobody needs to see or convict or prosecute you for that to be true. Nobody needs to investigate you either....and even when they do, if THEY don't find evidence of your crime, you still committed one....

Certainly you can not admit to said crime.and claim innocence.

And in your case did the government said you committed a crime?

That’s the difference here. A person saying a crime has been committed versus the government saying it.

 

[RoryN]

I read the thread title as "Time to call the government".

Because Deplorables are clearly now in love with governmental control.

 

[ll74]

And in your case did the government said you committed a crime?

Do you understand what a crime is?

That’s the difference here. A person saying a crime has been committed versus the government saying it.

It's not. Either you commit a crime or you don't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Do you understand what a crime is?


It's not. Either you commit a crime or you don't.

Yes.

It is. The example you have shows it. The government did not allege you committed a crime.

 

[Lazaran]

Yes.

It is. The example you have shows it. The government did not allege you committed a crime.

I also didn’t see Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden admitting to committing a crime, like in the fuckwit’s example.





Even Comey’s statement on Hillary’s e-mail use indicates that there was little evidence that a “crime” was even committed (the same goes with Hur’s report on Joe Biden.)

Per Comey:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”