:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 5821 - 5840 of total 10774 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

May 10, 2016 - 01:33pm PT

He's a Pants on Fire LIAR

John M

climber

May 10, 2016 - 01:37pm PT

JohnE.. I do agree that we need to be able to fire teachers and principles. Easier is subjective. But there should be a better/easier process. Which is why I believe a state fund for schools to apply to would be a good idea. Once the unions have had to fight some expensive battles, and can see that the state will not give up, then they will have to institute some of their own guidelines for who they will and will not protect. Right now as it is, local school districts have to go up against a statewide union, and that is what is out of balance.

I guess my problem with you is that you fail to see that the school system is a form of power and a monopoly, and if teachers have nothing to protect them, such as a union, then they will be abused and will have to fall on their own resources to fight that abuse. Your children have enjoyed protections that they don't seem to even be aware of. If your child got a bad review from one local school principal, do you really believe that they could just up and go to a different school in that same district and get a job? My guess is that would be very unlikely, making that one principle have enormous power over your child. Without a union to stand up for them, then its not that hard to see the abuses possible.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

May 10, 2016 - 01:37pm PT

Waiting for mb's response is kinda like one of those text bubbles with the rolling dots...you see it, know it's coming, but in mb's case, it takes fooorrr-eeeevvvveerrr to show up.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

May 10, 2016 - 01:45pm PT

Serious question tho. When did Hillary "earn" this despicable character award from a good portion of our population? What events earned this reputation, which has only been "strengthened" by Bengazi! and the email thingy? I personally cannot think back to "that" moment in time. Was there a moment? It seems like it was either a slowly building thing, or during the Clinton years.

I think it's the latter, but gossip from the White House press corps during the Clinton (about to be the first Clinton?) administration made her sound like a real jerk. She also has an unfortunate ability to say memorably alienating things, such as "I'm not staying at home baking cookies," which almost every stay-at-home mother found insulting, or "What difference does it make now?" when asked why she gave the public false information about the nature of the Benghazi attack, or her claim to be virtually penniless after leaving the White House.

The "lost" Rose Law Firm billing records ending up in her White House office, and the "email protocol doesn't apply to me" attitude she continues to exhibit, will have no more effect on her supporters than Trump's misstatements (to be charitable), boorish behavior, and lack of coherant or intelligent policy have on Trump supporters. Those who don't support her already, however, won't like any of that.

When you couple all this with her seeming desire to be on the winning side, and failure to acknowledge any shortcomings, it paints a rather unflattering picture. She was a strong supporter of going to war in Iraq. Her changing her story now doesn't go over well with those not already inclined to support her. The less-than-subtle message that women who fail to vote for her are disloyal, and her questionable explanations for her behavior ("every Secretary of State did it" when Colin Powell had 12 messages total, and she had over 2,000 that were classified) all help lend the feeling that she makes up her own rules for her. Even SNL has been moved to spoof her attitude as "It's my turn!"

All of this works together to cause people to have a negative attitude toward her. Fortunately for her, the Republicans managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by going for someone with way more negative traits as their nominee. That's why so many of us long-term Republicans don't trust Trump. His candidacy seems designed to elect Hillary.

John

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

May 10, 2016 - 01:51pm PT

criminal is someone convicted of a crime

therefore, Madbolter is a liar, is he not?

When OJ got away with killing two people, was he any less of a criminal just because of jury nullification?

Getting away with it doesn't mean you didn't commit criminal acts.

Am I really a "liar" to note the obvious fact?

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

May 10, 2016 - 01:53pm PT

"That's why so many of us long-term Republicans don't trust Trump. His candidacy seems designed to elect Hillary."

You just can't blame it on republicans and their dysfunctional system.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

May 10, 2016 - 01:54pm PT

failure to acknowledge any shortcomings

All good points, John, except that I don't think this one is quite right.

Her MO instead is to quickly and dismissively claim "mistake" and think that makes it all good.

So, she "acknowledges" her "mistakes" in as dismissive a fashion as possible, and those of us that actually pay attention to things like the layers of illegality of her private email server have a big problem with her dismissing it all as "a mistake."

dirtbag

climber

May 10, 2016 - 01:55pm PT

I just read the subpoena from 2015 and her response, while once again I think her instinct to clam up probably does not serve her well here, it is a huge stretch to say deleting the emails constitute a criminal act. She stated the deleted emails were spam/personal communications, which is certainly plausible, and as such were not covered by the subpoena. Obviously, this is a self serving, cya statement to explain why she might have deleted something incriminating, but it is obvious, too, why she should resist whatever broad Clinton-bashing fishing expedition that committee undertakes. Why make it easy for them? Let's not forget, the chief GOP Hillary investigators are a bunch of rotting d#@&%ebags.

Deleting the server also looks suspicious, but as the FBI has shown, info on it is recoverable. Clintons team must have known this.

Also, the subpoena says that it's the committees "preference" to receive electronic documents. Unless I missed something, It doesn't say the documents (i.e., emails) have to provided in electronic format. It's a loophole, but providing hard copies instead of electronic documents is not a violation. Yes, it allows for selective editing by Clinton. But, again, why do anything more than the bare minimum to comply with these pukes' request?

Recent leaked FBI info suggest she will not be prosecuted. Perhaps it's because they think she did something but can't quite connect the dots, perhaps someone isn't 100% credible, or perhaps they have nothing. We might never know.

The subpoena can be found here.

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

May 10, 2016 - 01:57pm PT

She was a strong supporter of going to war in Iraq.

WRONG

Pants on Fire WRONG

What false information did she give on Benghazi
It was the video after all, that was proven to be true

but if you would make a big deal about it, What difference does it make if it was the video or not, they caught the perpetrators and put them in jail, like any other criminal

I don't trust YOUR opinions

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

May 10, 2016 - 02:01pm PT

She stated the deleted emails were spam/personal communications, which is certainly plausible, and as such were not covered by the subpoena.

Problem with that theory is that the second she mingled personal and private emails on the same server, she legally gave up the distinction between public and private records.

She instead had her "staff" write and deploy a highly superficial search algorithm to make that distinction (which she no longer had the right to do) and auto-delete emails that didn't contain about 100 "trigger words."

Since that time, many emails in and out of her server recorded on other systems have surfaced that were deleted by her algorithm for not containing the "trigger words," yet that were about the "trigger subjects" anyway. This means that we simply can't know how many of the deleted (and the wiped) emails really were public record by any accounting.

She gave up the unilateral right to distinguish when she melded everything together. And the statute requires her to maintain, safeguard, and release (as required by law) all State Department records, which we now know for certain her algorithm could not in principle (and didn't in practice) get done.

skcreidc

Social climber

SD, CA

May 10, 2016 - 02:05pm PT

Hey all. Thank you, including John E., on the responses to my question which I moved to the Ready for Hillary thread. Should have put it there in the first place.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

May 10, 2016 - 02:09pm PT

I guess my problem with you is that you fail to see that the school system is a form of power and a monopoly, and if teachers have nothing to protect them, such as a union, then they will be abused and will have to fall on their own resources to fight that abuse

I'm painfully aware of that monopoly, as are my daughter and son-in-law. We should ask why the teachers' unions fight so hard to maintain that monopoly.

John

pyro

Big Wall climber

Calabasas

May 10, 2016 - 02:14pm PT

I disagree. The concept of a Union, or rather a Worker's Guild is an excellent, awesome, accelerant to raw capitalism. The sight of a specialized, self-governing, talented labor pool is quite impressive.

Worker's guilds are places that prospective employers can go to get specific talent they need and the guild is only as strong as its members, their apprentice programs, work ethic and self policing members allow it to be.

A highly skilled and available labor pool is critical.

Where unions fall down is when employers are required by law to hire from that specific union or labor pool. As a result, there is no incentive for the union members to police the deadbeats, improve the training, or for that matter even work hard. Then we get over-priced, under-trained, and lazy employees because they know they are the only game in town.

It is the antithesis of a free market and it's a huge contributing factor in the large gaps of our economy and labor needs.

thanks Escopeta! Goblues..

John M

climber

May 10, 2016 - 02:18pm PT

If you are aware, then I just can't see how you can support doing away with the union.. or saying that there is no need for them. unless you also want to defund public schools and go to a private school system. Were you for the voucher system?

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

May 10, 2016 - 02:29pm PT

mb, the subpoena was not for all emails, but only those that related to four topics, all involving Libya and Benghazi. If an email were truly spam, it would be amusing to see what she got, but it would be unresponsive to the subpoena.

WRONG

Pants on Fire WRONG

What false information did she give on Benghazi
It was the video after all, that was proven to be true

but if you would make a big deal about it, What difference does it make if it was the video or not, they caught the perpetrators and put them in jail, like any other criminal

I don't trust YOUR opinions

Oh. I guess we never should have asked why Chelsea and the Egyptians got one story, and the American people - including the families of the victims - got a different one. Our bad. Those victims' families are all liars anyway, since they contradict Hillarys story. Since they caught the perps (?) Congress and the American people had no business asking why we were treated like mushrooms.

How hard would it have been to say that national security reasons preventing disclosing the terrorist connection at that time, assuming that was true? In fact, if they knew the attack was one from terrorists, and did not want to disclose that, why not just say we don't know? Instead we get this "fog of war" nonsense that does not explain the rather systematic way in which the government fed different information to different groups. I would have preferred to do what Bullwinkle the Moose did in a cartoon, when he was called to Washington:

Press: "Why are you here?"

Bullwinkle: "I can't say."

Press: "Where are you going?"

Bullwinkle: "I can't say."

Press: "Who told you to come?"

Bullwinkle: "I can't say."

Press: "Why can't you say?"

Bullwinkle: "Because I don't know."

John

John M

climber

May 10, 2016 - 02:32pm PT

the "fog of war" is basically saying.." we did not know".. why can't you accept that? You sound pissy when you go after that. And I am a person who doesn't really like Hillary.

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

May 10, 2016 - 02:52pm PT

What a crock of sh#t John

she told the story that she heard from investigators
the story changed as new info was revealed

so what

She wasn't there to know exactly what happened

how do you get your info, what if it changes, does that make you a liar for first believing one thing and then believing the new info

Read it and weep

Initially, top U.S. officials and the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.[24] Captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was indeed in retaliation for the video Innocence of Muslims.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

May 10, 2016 - 02:54pm PT

she told the story that she heard from investigators
the story changed as new info was revealed

so what

The problem is that she told others the truth before she told the American people a falsehood. I have yet to hear a plausible reason for that.

John

dirtbag

climber

May 10, 2016 - 02:56pm PT

Mb, I always thought that the optics of operating a private server looked bad. However, as pointed out above she is not the first Secretary of State to use one, yet she is the only one receiving criticism.

If you ever wonder why Clinton is reluctant to turn over anything she doesn't have to, remember that this entire "scandal" over the emails emerged from a dead end Benghazi investigation, much like how Bill Clinton's perjury impeachment proceeding involving Monica lewinsky had started a few years earlier with an investigation into the whitewater deal: that investigation was going nowhere, too.