Cool

Post #348,427 by beepster 9/30/11 2:33:02 PM Reply	Cool so in retraction the IG office admits it auditors suck. Now we can't trust either side. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,429 by drook 9/30/11 2:34:43 PM Reply	Lots of people believe that ... do you? -- Drew
Post #348,432 by beepster 9/30/11 2:37:37 PM Reply	Re: Lots of people believe that ... do you? I suppose I would need you to clarify "that" before I would answer. Or maybe you could ask Barry, since he apparently has no issue with making up positions for me. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,437 by drook 9/30/11 2:54:00 PM 9/30/11 4:02:38 PM Reply	That this example proves anything A report comes out saying that government spending is out of control. Everyone gets their panties in a twist. A followup comes out saying no, the previous report was incomplete. Now you're saying both spending and auditing "can't be trusted". An auditor's role is to find things that seem wrong and ask about them. Sometimes there are good reasons for things to be exactly as they are. This was one of those cases. Both procurement and auditing worked exactly as they're supposed to. Well ... except that someone took a line from an audit and turned it into a manufactured scandal. This incident doesn't prove anything about procurement or auditing practices. PS: The bottom line: A mountain of treats can get pricey. In 2008-2009, the Justice Dept. alone held 1,832 conferences costing a total of $121 million. That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we just spent a few days arguing about a manufactured scandal relating to 0.000000000011% of the federal budget. -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 30, 2011, 04:02:38 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,505 by Ashton 10/1/11 3:08:43 PM Reply	Â¡PrecÃsamÃ©nte..! Those who tiresomely parse inane 'media-spawned incidents' seeking YAN red herring to immolate.. perpetually beg The Fundamental Question (IMO): Just what IS IT??? that-- 'Conservatives-'11==includes all the Radical Reactionaries who daily hide behind that more innocuous name of this brain disease --they imagine they are "conserving"? (and.. for Whom?) ==amidst the cacophony of [n+1] warring-sects, all sanctimoniously pissing on the same banner: as if Each represented TheMuricanPeepulÂ ... or any similar meaningless/lying grouping of cha cha chas

Welcome to IWETHEY!