Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Hillary Clinton's disappointing claim.


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:53 AM

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 September 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

^. Sorry, bollocks and misogynistic rectal spew as far as I'm concerned. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Though I would be interested to know how one ends homelessness by sleeping in a tent? Or how missing a meal saves a starving child when you can just feed them or fund a program that does. BTW, how many starving homeless kids have you saved this week by missing meals and sleeping in a tent? Just curious.

You're talking to someone who spent years as a volunteer youth counsellor (i.v.-drug-using prostitutes, male and female, ages 9-14), donated endless hours of time and labour to various organisations in Vancouver's DTES, slept in tents as we tried to stop the city from illegally demolishing heritage buildings, and buildings sheltering homeless people with no place else to go, spent endless hours feeding the poor and eating exactly what they ate, raised money for too many anti-poverty organisations to mention.

I've seen endless rich hypocrites play at helping the poor, including that stunt by Emory Barnes several years ago, where he "tried" to live on Welfare (which involved eating steak, and everything else he was "used to").

Billary has never done anything that hasn't profited Billary in some way. Like most rich politicians, she uses the poor as a photo op to pad a resume that is more about herself than the people she's "helped".

Wanna talk about how one gathers food for a soup kitchen, processes, and then distributes it? Bring it on.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#42 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 06:07 AM

Just in case anyone has forgotten:

“That speech” was a 1996 address at New Hampshire’s Keene State College in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, otherwise known as the crime bill. In her remarks, then-first lady Clinton said, “They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Clinton today says she "shouldn't have said those words", but she did, she meant them, and she said them at the time because it was socially acceptable to do so. Has she changed? I seriously doubt it. She's still cut from the same bourgeois cloth, and much of the reason she lost the election is that people can sense she's a phony.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#43 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:19 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 20 September 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 September 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

^. Sorry, bollocks and misogynistic rectal spew as far as I'm concerned. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Though I would be interested to know how one ends homelessness by sleeping in a tent? Or how missing a meal saves a starving child when you can just feed them or fund a program that does. BTW, how many starving homeless kids have you saved this week by missing meals and sleeping in a tent? Just curious.

You're talking to someone who spent years as a volunteer youth counsellor (i.v.-drug-using prostitutes, male and female, ages 9-14), donated endless hours of time and labour to various organisations in Vancouver's DTES, slept in tents as we tried to stop the city from illegally demolishing heritage buildings, and buildings sheltering homeless people with no place else to go, spent endless hours feeding the poor and eating exactly what they ate, raised money for too many anti-poverty organisations to mention.

I've seen endless rich hypocrites play at helping the poor, including that stunt by Emory Barnes several years ago, where he "tried" to live on Welfare (which involved eating steak, and everything else he was "used to").

Billary has never done anything that hasn't profited Billary in some way. Like most rich politicians, she uses the poor as a photo op to pad a resume that is more about herself than the people she's "helped".

Wanna talk about how one gathers food for a soup kitchen, processes, and then distributes it? Bring it on.

I didn't realize any of that which you've done and contributed. You have my respect and appreciation. It's far more than I have ever done. Thank you.

#44 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:33 AM

The problem is that so very few people make any effort to help the poor and disenfranchised. People love to talk about how badly they want to help the poor and disenfranchised, but go on a volunteer-drive sometime and you'll soon find out how committed people really are.

Here's something about Emery Barne's little stunt:

"Karen
October 27, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Really glad you are looking into the people that parks are named after. I admired how Emery Barnes he took up a challenge for two months to see how people lived on social assistance at a time when it was $350 a month. This is what he said about the experience:
A group of community organisations known as the ELP (End Legislated Poverty) issued a challenge to the Premier and Leader of the Opposition to designate a member to experience first hand life restricted to income available under BC social assistance.
After seriously considering a number of factors including the political motives of the organisers and potential damage to the party from media comments we decided to take up the challenge.
The rules laid down by the ELP were fairly simple. I would have to live on $350 for 30 days. Of this no more than $200 could be spent on rent. I was also required to purchase a bus pass for S40 in order to look for employment. The rest could be used for food, drink, entertainment or whatever I wanted. I agreed to accept no handouts or freebees although many were offered.
I was supposed to respect the rule whereby any income of $50 or more had to be reported to my social worker and deducted from my cheque. This rule discourages people from seeking help and punishes them if they get work. The possibility of fraud is really not significant. I found most welfare recipients instinctively struggling for survival. There can be no fraud in trying to survive.
Many people are able to exist on welfare only because of what they receive in donations from others and what they can scrounge in the back alleys. My experience led me to conclude that it would take at least $700 a month to live even at a subsistence level.
As a public figure some would say my experience was not typical. It is true that at first I generated a lot of media coverage. That is why I extended my stint the extra twenty-three days to the end of February."

While he did demonstrate how corrupt-minded the powers that be are towards the poor, he wasn't exactly honest about his efforts to survive on the allotted amount. CBC and CTV cameras followed him into grocery stores where he purchased- amongst other things- steak, blowing his food allowance almost right away. Real poor people survive on rice, mac & cheese, wieners, bologna, the cheapest bread they can find, etc.

I must also point out that he did nothing for the poor himself, except complain about their plight, adding that complaint to his political resume, and moving on. Beyond talking about it, he never actually did anything for the poor and disenfranchised, except the usual showing up at a soup kitchen for fifteen minutes, camera crew in tow, donning a white apron, and having himself filmed as he did his photo-op thing and slowed the soup-line down to a crawl. About on a par with politicians who show up at pancake breakfasts, flip a few pancakes, and pretend they did an everyman's day of work.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#45 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:34 AM

dubble poast

Edited by gsmonks, 20 September 2017 - 11:35 AM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#46 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 02 November 2017 - 05:37 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 20 September 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

You're talking to someone who spent years as a volunteer youth counsellor (i.v.-drug-using prostitutes, male and female, ages 9-14), donated endless hours of time and labour to various organisations in Vancouver's DTES, slept in tents as we tried to stop the city from illegally demolishing heritage buildings, and buildings sheltering homeless people with no place else to go, spent endless hours feeding the poor and eating exactly what they ate, raised money for too many anti-poverty organisations to mention.

I meant to say this before, and apparently I ended up neglecting to do so: Thank you.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#47 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 02 November 2017 - 05:38 PM

I thought about bumping the thread How did the Democrats lose, and where do they go from here? [post elec


But I figured, even if I still think she was the better candidate, that you, gsmonks, deserved a "you were right". Your first post in this thread:

View Postgsmonks, on 07 September 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

Hillary Clinton is blaming Bernie Sanders for costing her the election.

Really? Is she surreal?

It's the other way around. The Electoral College gerrymandered things so that Hillary could win, yet Bernie was able to give her a run for her money, nevertheless. The election was stolen from Sanders, not Hillary.

People didn't vote for Hillary primarily because they didn't like her.

Sour grapes, petty, small-minded . . . the list of reasons to not like her is growing.

Has anyone seen the news story that came out from Donna Brazile? I know we don't have much reason to trust her on some matters (and her positioning of herself in her article is really nauseating), you might remember that she is the one that gave Hillary's campaign one of the questions to one of the debates leading her to get fired from CNN. But presumably her accusations can be collaborated.

The main thrusts of her article:
- After she took the helm as the interim chair of the DNC after Clinton secured the nomination.
- Near right away she found out the DNC was broke and nearly 2 million in debt, so she followed the money.
- Also, she ended up trying to find out whether or not the primary, now over, was rigged for Hillary.
- Obama had left the DNC in terrible shape, financially (other ways as well), and the plan was for the DNC was to pay this debt slowly off by 2016.
- Previous chair, installed by Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schults, had not winnowed staff between elections as is normal, keeping on unneeded consultants. And some of Obama's consultants were on the DNC payroll too.
- Aug 2015, 4 months after Clinton announced she was running, there was an funding agreement that was signed by DNC former CEO Amy Dacey, and Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook. Because of the horrible financial position that the DNC was in, it was allowed and specified in the agreement that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC that Clinton would control the party's finances, staffing, and all the money raised.
- Normally the party/DNC only comes under the control of a candidate after they have secured the nomination (unless they are an incumbent), not some 11 months before.
- This kind of arrangement is not illegal. But it is unethical and corrupt.

I *have* read another article which says No, Hillary Didn't "Rig" the Primary Against Bernie by Signing The Fundraising Agreement.
I will agree with one small part of it:

Quote

Nowhere in the piece does Brazile mention … that the Sanders campaign also signeda joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. Bernie could have raised more money through that agreement, which would have helped the DNC financially and also arguably helped down-ballot Democrats, but he chose to raise money through small donations.

While I understand what they are saying, in no way does the different way they go about funding their campaigns should allow a candidate to have control over the DNC's finances, staffing, strategy and all the money raised for the DNC (including the monies the other candidates raised for the DNC???). I doubt that such an agreement was on the table for Sanders….

As I said above, her accusations should be verifiable. And when I add it to that already sorry state I knew about the DNC due to Obama's influence, as mentioned in the Democrats Lose thread. I have also heard reporting over the last while that the DNC was being very secretive about their finances, even with other DNC officials who are suppose to have a right to that information. This could help explain why.

The best that someone could say about this is that this is what the sausage looks like being made, and that yes, it is rather unsavoury…. It also appears most of this was known, to various degrees, before the election, it just wasn't widely reported.

But yeah, the idea that Sanders and his supporters *stole* the election from Clinton? Well, I guess Clinton did think she bought, paid for, and owned it….

Edited by sierraleone, 02 November 2017 - 05:39 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#48 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:54 AM

It doesn't help that I was right. Being right doesn't address or fix things.

First off, the information has been out there for years re Dem corruption and gerrymandering.

Have any of you guys participated in politics? Had any experience on, say, the floor of a convention, or anything?

It helps to have been involved, because only then do you get a peek behind the scenes, and the view isn't pretty. In fact, it's enlightening in a sickening sort of way.

My first experience with the so-called "democratic" process was as a delegate at a convention. I went there to have a voice (like everyone else who is new to politics). I quickly learned that joining a political party is like working for a company- you check anything smacking of democracy at the front door.

I went up against trolls like the Clintons many times. The Clintons are political animals. Most people haven't the first clue what a political animal is. A political animal is an unreasoning troll who works from a script, in a game where reading from the script is what the inner cadre does.

Union meetings are like this, as are meetings between the public and politicians. The public is there to have their voice, and run up against trolls reading from a script.

It's the same within each political party.

If you've ever attended a convention, you've seen petitioners trying to get back into the party. The petitioners in question are usually "troublemakers" who tried to reform the "democratic process". Such people are generally ousted and blacklisted, and blocked at every turn from rejoining.

Hillary Clinton was a troll towards Bernie Sanders in the election. She had inside influence, backing, and information. Had he not been a party outsider, she would never have gotten away with it. His situation was little different from that of a delegate at a convention, where the controls kept away from him, yet handed behind the scenes to Clinton.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#49 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:13 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 03 November 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

Hillary Clinton was a troll towards Bernie Sanders in the election. She had inside influence, backing, and information. Had he not been a party outsider, she would never have gotten away with it. His situation was little different from that of a delegate at a convention, where the controls kept away from him, yet handed behind the scenes to Clinton.

Are you sure about that? She did have two other opponents.
What other insider candidate could have given the DNC what they needed at that time, the cold hard cash to keep them afloat?
And therefor leverage themselves for making decisions for the DNC, from strategy to hiring, etc?
In some ways I am not even sure I entirely blame the DNC for doing what they needed to keep funded and keep the lights on, and I understand why some blame Obama and former DNC chair for putting the DNC in the position where they felt they had to accept Clinton's terms.

Thanks for the other insights on participating in democracy. One understands that rules are needed to keep a modicum of order for very large groups. But certainly those who make/enforce the rules, or even just know them inside and out (or hires someone that does), are at a clear advantage over the "rabble-rousers" just trying to get real problems heard and addressed, problems that rarely affect the well-to-do that end up in the position of making or enforcing the rules.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#50 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:55 PM

Let's clear up a couple of things. Donna Brazile did not claim that the DNC robbed Sanders of the nomination. She was not surprised by the fundraising agreement, since it was public for around 2 years.
And really? A favorite candidate being helped by the party? *I'm shocked, just so shocked.
Let's also note, this doesn't mean that HRC would have lost the nomination and Sanders would have won it. It does point out the problems with the spending and fundraising, probably in both parties.

Now then, are we to trust the word of Donna Brazile? This is the same woman who gave HRC some of the debate questions. Is all of this just to make money on a book? The time is certainly right for a "tell all" book. Millions are made with the juiciest, often times made up stories. Look at the rags that sell with headlines making all kinds of crazy claims. Or is it to suck up to Sanders for a 2020 run he might consider? After all, she was close to the HRC campaign, maybe she likes being in that group. What better way to win his favor?

Are politics dirty? duh. Does the system need fixing? I'd go with "duh" again.

(*sarcasm)
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#51 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 04:25 AM

Is politics dirty. What are your politics.

We spent over a day on this grammar point years ago. It was vexing, to say the least.

Can't say my world was any better for knowing the ins and outs of the word politics.

The Electoral College gerrymandered things in HRC's favour from the outset. Without its interference,  the process and the outcome would have been very different.

It's not just the word of Donna Brazile. Several Dems, including one other candidate, are now speaking out.

I see your sarcasm and raise you 10 groans, 1 enormous pile of apathy, and 6 forehead-slaps.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#52 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM

Elara, I understood that the DNC is full of humans with regular human bias and that that is normal, unpreventable, and not even by default bad. I am fine with that.

I also understood that most people at the DNC would likely be biased in favour of Clinton, for a number of reason, on-going relationships, familiarity, her insider status, her history with DNC, even her name recognition (that is a good thing in elections). I am fine with that.

I *should* have understood, from how Clinton and Bernie fundraise (large bulk-size fundraising vs small dispersed fundraising), would also bias them. I knew about the different styles I just didn't think about the impact until now. I am more or less fine with that.

One thing they teach me in my job that a implied or perceived conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. It is mandatory we report them. If we don't we will face disclipinary action up to and including termination.

Clinton (a candidate) and her campaign being given control (or heavy influence) over the finances, strategy, staffing, etc, over an entity (the DNC) that is supposed to be as fair and impartial regarding all Dem candidates? No, I am not fine with that.

I understand each party was trying to make the best of a bad situation (the DNC being broke or bankrupt benefits neither the DNC or Dem candidates), but that doesn't at all lessen the actual or perceived conflict of interest based on the fundraising terms that gave Clinton's campaign control over the DNC.

Such terms might be understandable in the business world, but it is harder to square such behaviour with an institution/party that has been a part of the US democracy for a long long time. I know political parties can have their own internal rules that are largely not actually regulated by the constitution or even election laws (outside of fundraising limits, which are generally easy to find a way around). But their party members' perception of how democratic, fair, and responsive the party is to their members and candidates matter.


I am not even suggesting people leave the Democratics or not vote for Dem politicians. I just think people should be aware of this, in hopes that awareness and vigilance will make this less likely to happen again.

Edited by sierraleone, 04 November 2017 - 12:23 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#53 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:19 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 04 November 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

Is politics dirty. What are your politics.

Sorry, from that point on, your words were garbled from your once again, sudden need for everyone else to be precise, while your posts are filled with your so-called wit. You clean yours up to precision, I will do the same. Otherwise, tough. This is a message board, not a novel being written, not a class, and I am in no need of a teacher. If I find myself in desperate need for one, I will be sure to contact you.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#54 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I also understood that most people at the DNC would likely be biased in favour of Clinton, for a number of reason, on-going relationships, familiarity, her insider status, her history with DNC, even her name recognition (that is a good thing in elections). I am fine with that.

Truthfully, I am not fine with it. I have never been fine with it, but I know it happens. (And, I knew you understood. :) )

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I *should* have understood, from how Clinton and Bernie fundraiser (large bulk-size fundraising vs small dispersed fundraising), would also bias them. I knew about the different styles I just didn't think about the impact until know. I am more or less fine with that.

Not fine with it, never have been.

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

One thing they teach me in my job that a implied or perceived conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. It is mandatory we report them. If we don't we will face disclipinary action up to and including termination.

It's good to know that there is a company that works that way.

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

Clinton (a candidate) and her campaign being giving control (or heavy influence) over the finances, strategy, staffing, etc, over an entity (the DNC) that is supposed to be as fair and impartial regarding all Dem candidates? No, I am not fine with that.

I am not fine with it, either. Everything is designed to help those with power and money, get more power and money. This happens in both major parties and will, if not now, happen in the smaller parties.

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I understand each party was trying to make the best of a bad situation (the DNC being broke or bankrupt benefits neither the DNC or Dem candidates), but that doesn't at all lessen the actual or perceived conflict of interest based on the fundraising terms that gave Clinton's campaign control over the DNC.

I understand, I was just pointing out that Brazile's word should be considered suspicious. Not that she is definitely lying, just that, yes, these things need to be looked into. Truth needs to be found. People lie for power and money. Unfortunately, her timing kind of reeks of this, to me.

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

Such terms might be understandable in the business world, but it is harder to square such behaviour with an institution/party that has been a part of the US democracy for a long long time. I know political parties can have their own internal rules that are largely not actually regulated by the constitution or even election laws (outside of fundraising limits, which are generally easy to find a way around). But their party members' perception of how democratic, fair, and responsive the party is to their members and candidates matter.

I don't think it should be in the business world either, but I suppose that won't change. Or at least, for the next century or two. Unless the climate takes care of the problem.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#55 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:37 PM

View PostElara, on 04 November 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I also understood that most people at the DNC would likely be biased in favour of Clinton, for a number of reason, on-going relationships, familiarity, her insider status, her history with DNC, even her name recognition (that is a good thing in elections). I am fine with that.

Truthfully, I am not fine with it. I have never been fine with it, but I know it happens. (And, I knew you understood. :) )

Well as fine as I could be ;) It is hard to define and regulate common human bias and behaviour. Hard to imagine someone with absolutely no bias and no skin in the game (neither 'ally' 'opposition' or affected bystander) even caring enough to get involved and be the magical unbiased arbiter… And our standard arbitrating systems is not neutral either, it is based in/on a culture and set of rules which are also bias (per the recent Supreme Court decision thread. Which I haven't seen the new comments in yet).

I just think that it is easier to label, describe, delineate, and regulate the kind of conflict of interest once it has become as obvious as it has here.


Quote

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

One thing they teach me in my job that a implied or perceived conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. It is mandatory we report them. If we don't we will face disclipinary action up to and including termination.

It's good to know that there is a company that works that way.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not a company that I work for ;) I am a public servant. A Canadian one, and lowly one at that :)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#56 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:15 PM

View PostElara, on 04 November 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

View Postgsmonks, on 04 November 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

Is politics dirty. What are your politics.

Sorry, from that point on, your words were garbled from your once again, sudden need for everyone else to be precise, while your posts are filled with your so-called wit. You clean yours up to precision, I will do the same. Otherwise, tough. This is a message board, not a novel being written, not a class, and I am in no need of a teacher. If I find myself in desperate need for one, I will be sure to contact you.

You seem to have a hard time understanding humour. I went so far as to spell it out in my post and you still missed it.

Looking for things to be aggravated by, much?
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#57 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 01:48 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 04 November 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

You seem to have a hard time understanding humour. I went so far as to spell it out in my post and you still missed it.

Looking for things to be aggravated by, much?

Now that's funny! :lol:
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users