Yes she was, Zeifman wrote actual articles in later years confirming his own actions which neither Snopes or the WP referenced.
I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by her authorized biographer as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.
Yes she was, Zeifman wrote actual articles in later years confirming his own actions which neither Snopes or the WP referenced.
I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by her authorized biographer as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.
It's rather amazing how interwovern Hillary is with current social issue's and America's past, which the media doesn't seem to highlight.
For example given today's focus on female abuse by powers in authority, Hillary's attacks on Bill's accusers, and the more unflattering depiction of her more predatory actions against them are remarkable in how little it is brought up.
it wouldn't be advisable for her to come back into the limelight for the mid-terms as some sources claim she wants to.
Nancy Pelosi's awkward defense of Conyers, Al Franken and the intertwining of the DNC and Hollywood has irrevocably harmed the Democrat party's 'moral high ground' that they oft lay claim too.
Also not talked about much is that Al Franken is gone today.
Zeifman did not, and the documentation provided by @Joluv not only establishes this, but shows that Clinton continued to draw salary until the committee disbanded when Nixon resigned.
You have provided nothing to counter this, and drew upon interviews which are contradicted by things Zeifman himself spoke or wrote earlier. If this is the hill you wish the last shreds of your credibility to die upon, you have chosen poorly.
Ironic considering you have posted no evidence in your rebuttal, per your own argument your credibility is gone, those articles are in fact considered evidence.
It seems the Hollywood/DNC sex scandal is becoming a viral social phenomenon, these things are popping up around more and more.
Ironic considering you have posted no evidence in your rebuttal, per your own argument your credibility is gone, those articles are in fact considered evidence
You're trying to weigh an interview from Zeifman against the documentation from the committee itself and Zeifman's own, previous writings and interviews. There's nothing there that hasn't already been addressed by the WaPo and Snopes.
You're trying to weigh an interview from Zeifman against the documentation from the committee itself and Zeifman's own, previous writings and interviews. There's nothing there that hasn't already been addressed by the WaPo and Snopes.
The citation which you rely on, cites Zeifman as Chief Counsel.
Chief Counsel, or more accurately Chief Legal Officer is essentially an overarching position responsible for legality, it is well within his domain.
In business for example, CS is under the CEO for legal matters and oversee's the entire business for this domain, comparatively for example CTO would oversee technology in general for the company.
It is an extraordinarily high position, just under the CEO in a way.
So your claim that he doesn't have the authority, is wrong, the position even from your own source you rely on which i am being generous to you, reflects that.
You're trying to weigh an interview from Zeifman against the documentation from the committee itself and Zeifman's own, previous writings and interviews. There's nothing there that hasn't already been addressed by the WaPo and Snopes.
The citation which you rely on, cites Zeifman as Chief Counsel.
Chief Counsel, or more accurately Chief Legal Officer is essentially an overarching position responsible for legality, it is well within his domain.
In business for example, CS is under the CEO for legal matters and oversee's the entire business, a CTO would oversee technology in general for the company.
A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary’s supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for “unethical, dishonest” conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn’t have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as “unethical” and “dishonest” is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the “facts” on which he based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.
Emphasis mine. Clinton could only be terminated by Special Counsel Doar or the chairman of the judiciary committee, Rep. Rodino, and she continued to draw salary until the committee was disbanded with Nixon's resignation. Documentation remains in @Joluv's links.
Sorry to say, but this really just shows the incredible ignorance of the articles and anyone not even bothering to understand what a Cheif Counsel is.
Insofar as the domain is legality and ethics, everything falls into that person's domain, they have authority. They're basically like a CEO of legal matters in an entire company.
This isn't a business, or a law firm. He does not have the role of CLO.
Thats the role your citation is saying he has, your contradicting your own sources.
A general counsel, chief counsel or chief legal officer (CLO) is the chief lawyer of a legal department, usually in a company or a governmental department.
In a company, the person holding the position typically reports directly to the CEO, and their duties involve overseeing and identifying the legal issues in all departments and their interrelation, including engineering, design, marketing, sales, distribution, credit, finance, human resources, production, as well as corporate governance and business policy. This would naturally require in most cases reporting directly to the owner or CEO overseeing the very business on which the CLO is expected to be familiar with and advise on the most confidential level. This requires the CLO/general counsel to work closely with each of the other officers, and their departments, to appropriately be aware and advise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_counsel
They are titles meaning the same thing.
its pretty evident you don't know this stuff, please read my citations on these roles it is ridiculously clear.
This isn't a business, or a law firm. He does not have the role of CLO.
Thats the role your citation is saying he has.
A general counsel, chief counsel or chief legal officer (CLO) is the chief lawyer of a legal department, usually in a company or a governmental department.
Zeifman was general counsel for the judiciary committee. The impeachment investigation was headed by special counsel Doar, who reported to the head of the judiciary committee, Rep. Rodino, directly. Zeifman did not have the power to fire her, and is on the record stating as such.
Your first citation backs that Zeifman felt that Clinton was unethical--Ziefman is welcome to his opinion, and I have no interest in disputing the facts he cites that leads him to his conclusion. Your second is where Zeifman asserts that he fired Clinton, which is contradicted by pretty much all the documentation we have.
Clinton drew salary until the committee was disbanded. Fired employees, especially fired with cause as Zeifman asserts, do not draw salaries. Zeifman himself contradicts his own claim in an earlier interview in 1998:
Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 … does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,” he said.
I don't see the point in you discussing over something when you get some of the basic details wrong so flagrantly.
Your assertions were wrong, your sources know his title but sure don't know what it means, they have no idea what they are talking about let alone their logic in their conclusion doesn't make sense, and quite frankly is the work of amateurs.
I'll explain.
Your source says Zeifman is Chief Counsel, that means he is Chief Legal Officer (which you didn't even understand).
A Chief Legal Officer oversee's all legality matters in a department, they are essentially under a CEO.
Your article states that Zeifman was not Hillary's supervisor hence he didn't have the power, they are half-right and totally wrong in their conclusion.
A CEO for example, Is not a lowly employee's supervisor but they have the authority to terminate them, a CLO is generally not considered an immediate supervisor to someone of Hillary's position because they are higher up, but they have the authority in this regard to terminate her over their domain, legality.
Understand? the entire premise of your articles logic and yours simply rests on this flaw. You don't know what a Chief Counsel is.
As to Zeifman's comments, he penned articles and books literally explaining his termination of Hillary, they were written by him.
Most bridges are maintained by State budgets, not the Federal one. Some money does go from Dept. of Transportation to State Depts. of Transportation but not a majority of their operational budget. I worked for TxDOT for a couple of years in the materials testing lab.
That one probably is somewhat impacted by the Federal budget. Women in lower income brackets might not be able to afford all the prenatal doctor's visits they need.
Federal money doesn't pay teachers; State and local money does that.
The problem with Federally-funded science is that some scientists will skew their results to satisfy the committee which oversees their funding. I am certain many grants are of the "you want to investigate x? here is some money" kind. Of course, scientists who are doing research via corporate grants also have to satisfy their pimps, so the problem is fairly widespread. On the other hand, the Space Program was Federally funded and gave us a lot of technological breakthroughs and the Internet was originally a DARPA project, so Federal money does do a lot of good in this regard. Yes, this should be funded.
Social Security isn't gone.
Certain execptions notwithstanding--we are looking at you, Flint--the water coming out of a random tap in the United States is already pretty clean. If you don't trust that water then get a filter like I have.
The natural parks are already intact.
If you want renewable energy then cover your roof with solar panels and put a turbine in the backyard. If you don't live in a house then you are out of luck--purchase your service from a provider who invests in renewable sources.
The *real* problem with Mr. McGlynn's tweet is that he doesn't understand how Federal taxes work vis-a-vis Federal spending. The Federal Government is not limited to spending only the money it collects via taxes--if it wants to spend $1 billion on comet research it will authorize the spending and print the money for it. The taxes it collects on the back end serve to restrict the money supply as a hedge against currency devaluation and inflation. He needs to quit viewing that situation as if it were 1917 because this is 2017.
***************
Hillary who? Clinton? Why is she even a topic of conversation? She is a has-been and yesterday's news--boring.
The *real* problem with Mr. McGlynn's tweet is that he doesn't understand how Federal taxes work vis-a-vis Federal spending. The Federal Government is not limited to spending only the money it collects via taxes--if it wants to spend $1 billion on comet research it will authorize the spending and print the money for it. The taxes it collects on the back end serve to restrict the money supply as a hedge against currency devaluation and inflation. He needs to quit viewing that situation as if it were 1917 because this is 2017.
This is correct, in some sense taxes is just re-using existing money in the economy while the Government can always create new money for themselves to use, and they do so repeatedly.
The reason why there needs to be a balance is because over-use from borrowing, or creating new money injected into the Money Supply, causes inflation.
A 'flaw' that Zeifman confirmed was accurate and is backed by documentation from the committee itself.
Zeifman and your articles always cite him as Chief Counsel, so im glad you realize this now.
Bank of America have joined the Bandwagon.
"In the spirit of shared success, we intend to pass some of those benefits along immediately. U.S. employees making up to $150,000 per year in total compensation–around 145,000 teammates–will receive a one-time bonus of $1,000 by year-end"
Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 … does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,” he said.
Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.
This does not suggest a firing. If you have a different citation from the book which does, I'm all ears.
This is a quote from Zeifman, given to Scripps in 1998:
Two problems here, Zeifman has clarified what he meant and that the 'reporter' was wrong, and we have his literal written articles sourced and not what a reporter said he said.
Your articles logic, which isn't sound, seems to imply that they can confer judgement on it being false, by ignoring his literal explanations and clarifications on her firing, and then a supposed lack of it in one of his books (actually another of his books it was all about it).
Not sound logic at all, even if i extend leniency towards Snopes, at best they can claim there's evidence but not conclusive, they certainly cannot claim it didn't happen.
Which kind of highlights the bias of snope in a way.
Nice to see someone else take on the Sisyphus role for an evening....I went and saw Star Wars and now I'm going to bed. God speed.
Given that its nearly Christmas, probably high time i explained a few things.
One of the purposes of my discussions is actually to show you my criticism of your postings is true, because in fact your arguing the same thing.
It escaped your notice, but my claim that your voluminous and intentional posting of anti-trump articles isn't particularly good for the health of the thread, in echoing that criticism when i merely reply to you on the Democrat party alot, you actually proved my point, and continue to do so whenever you whine and complain about it lol.
Also strangely, i saw firsthand in this thread that many of you democrat supporters are in fact no different to the Republicans that you do not like. I saw first-hand the defense of Obama destroying Libya, even though criticism of Bush's war is rampant. I saw first-hand the defense of Hillary's support of DOMA, federal legislation against gay marriage, even though the criticism of the Republican party and their individuals over homosexuality is rampant. I saw (and see) first-hand, the way accusations of Trump is taken on face-level, but on Hillary there is every attempt to discredit it.
In this is shown that really your not that much different from the other side.
Finally as a final observation, that you publicly called for 'assistance' from others in the thread to handle me, and the obvious intentional agree/like tribalism, shows an inescapable fact.
You don't want any discussion with an alternative opinion, in no way can you defend mob pressure behavior displayed here as encouraging discussion.
You've validated every one of the issue's i raised for all to see.
Merry Christmas, I wish you well in your future discussions haha.
So like 99% of the previous post is misrepresentation.
While I won't go so far as to say he's outright twisting what those of us who argued with him said, what he's saying we said has very little resemblance to what we actually said. This isn't the first time he's done this, either.
This isn't an invitation to debate, really. Just a statement of fact.
@vanatos, you've just exchanged a long series of posts with someone who is generally supportive to your desire to push this thread "right" and welcomed you to your efforts. I even tried to give you a bit of wiggle room to see what you would do with it.
Despite tonight's boredom-fueled outburst, I generally don't post much here. When I do it's generally because I found something interesting I wished to share, a desire to learn more about an espoused view that I find intriguing, or a wish to correct some of the more egregious lies* that get posted (hence, tonight). I found it engaging to a point--it's been a while since I've been called ignorant, something I particularly relish--but to ultimately discover that it's also a bad faith effort on your behalf is, at the least, disappointing.
I hope we attract more thoughtful, intelligent posters to the ones we already have--and certainly, I would like more diversity than present. Politics is a passion of mine and I'm constantly reading articles, particularly trying to question my own positions and beliefs. In my view the best posters are ones that make you question your own beliefs and, whether your position changes or not, make you understand your own thoughts better. I generally don't share my political views**; I'm generally here to try and learn more about my own views by questioning others or playing devil's advocate.
Echo chambers are dangerous, but breaking through requires knowledge, facts, logic ... and good faith.
* Non-egregious lies, however, are just dandy. ** I will admit a little curiosity as to how fellow posters would characterize my political views. A check to see how much I've tipped my hand, as it were.
You've validated every one of the issue's i raised for all to see.
This post seems odd given the preceding series of posts on Hillary I've just caught up with. I have no particular knowledge about or interest in Hillary's past, but it is very clear from reading both sides which is better grounded in evidence.
@vanatos you have constantly repeated that @CamDawg's view is wrong because he misunderstands the position of Chief Counsel. I'm afraid yours is the misunderstanding: - Chief Legal Officer is a technical term used in law and, as far as I'm aware, is never used for appointments that don't accord to that technical term. - Chief Counsel is more widely used as a description. While it may be synonymous with Chief Legal Officer, that is not necessarily the case. It can mean very different things (just like Secretary can be an extremely powerful position or Director a very junior one). - Even if someone were Chief Legal Officer they would almost certainly not have the direct power to fire staff, though as they would be very influential I accept they would be likely to be able to get a junior member of their staff fired. - In the Zeifman case it's important to note that he was Chief Counsel to the permanent staff of the Judiciary Committee. That is not the equivalent of a corporate position and it seems clear to me that in fact his position was not that of Chief Legal Officer (who is part of management), but one of legal adviser, i.e. chief counsel in the everyday sense of the word.
Hillary was on a separate staff set up specifically for the impeachment. Even if Zeifman did have both the powers of a Chief Legal Officer and staff authority (which as I noted above would be extremely unusual) he therefore still would not have been able to fire her. He might potentially have been able to get her fired through using indirect influence, but given that he disagreed with both the head of the Judiciary Committee (Peter Rodino) and the head of the impeachment staff (John Doar) about the conduct of the investigation it is unlikely he had any significant indirect influence. In the light of those disagreements it is apparent that Zeifman was the one out of step with everyone else, not Hillary, and his later statements (which contradict his earlier ones) need to be interpreted in that light.
I am aware by the way that he qualified his earlier statements. For instance saying that when he said "If I had the power to fire her I would have fired her" that referred to being unable to fire her during the investigation due to the impact on the public's view of the investigation firing her would have had. All I can say is that Zeifman's position on this is not credible. As noted earlier he clearly never had the power to fire her in any circumstances. I suspect that what in fact underlies his 2008 book is that he told Hillary not to quote him as a reference (and I also suspect that she would never have had any intention to do so anyway).
@vanatos, you've just exchanged a long series of posts with someone who is generally supportive to your desire to push this thread "right" and welcomed you to your efforts. I even tried to give you a bit of wiggle room to see what you would do with it.
Despite tonight's boredom-fueled outburst, I generally don't post much here. When I do it's generally because I found something interesting I wished to share, a desire to learn more about an espoused view that I find intriguing, or a wish to correct some of the more egregious lies* that get posted (hence, tonight). I found it engaging to a point--it's been a while since I've been called ignorant, something I particularly relish--but to ultimately discover that it's also a bad faith effort on your behalf is, at the least, disappointing.
I hope we attract more thoughtful, intelligent posters to the ones we already have--and certainly, I would like more diversity than present. Politics is a passion of mine and I'm constantly reading articles, particularly trying to question my own positions and beliefs. In my view the best posters are ones that make you question your own beliefs and, whether your position changes or not, make you understand your own thoughts better. I generally don't share my political views**; I'm generally here to try and learn more about my own views by questioning others or playing devil's advocate.
Echo chambers are dangerous, but breaking through requires knowledge, facts, logic ... and good faith.
* Non-egregious lies, however, are just dandy. ** I will admit a little curiosity as to how fellow posters would characterize my political views. A check to see how much I've tipped my hand, as it were.
I'd put you slightly to the right of @jjstraka34 who is slightly to the right of @smeagolheart who is about a mile to the right of @Stormvessel. For reference purposes I'd say @Mathsorcerer is pretty close to center and he's a few strides to the right of you. If you keep sliding to the right you'll bump into me first, then @WarChiefZeke then eventually @vanatos (who apparently is a Bernie supporter who slid so far to the left he's on the right now).
Edit: forgot @semiticgod who I'd put between you and @Mathsorcerer. It's hard to exactly though since as a moderator he may be trying to stay closer to center than he/she actually is. For some reason I don't get the vibe that @BelleSorciere is as far left as she'd like to appear. I don't know why I think that and could be mistaken but I'd put her only slightly left of Mathsorcerer (except about LGBT issues).
Comments
I made a
personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now
Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had
gathered for our impeachment inquiry on
President Richard Nixon. I decided that I
could not recommend her for any future
position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has
been described by her authorized biographer
as "establishing the legal procedures to be
followed in the course of the inquiry and
impeachment." A number of the procedures
she recommended were ethically flawed.
And I also concluded that she had violated
House and committee rules by disclosing
confidential information to unauthorized
persons.
https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg20964.html
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
-https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=opedne_jerry_ze_080325_1974_3a_hillary_lost_j.htm
It's rather amazing how interwovern Hillary is with current social issue's and America's past, which the media doesn't seem to highlight.
For example given today's focus on female abuse by powers in authority, Hillary's attacks on Bill's accusers, and the more unflattering depiction of her more predatory actions against them are remarkable in how little it is brought up.
it wouldn't be advisable for her to come back into the limelight for the mid-terms as some sources claim she wants to.
Nancy Pelosi's awkward defense of Conyers, Al Franken and the intertwining of the DNC and Hollywood has irrevocably harmed the Democrat party's 'moral high ground' that they oft lay claim too.
Also not talked about much is that Al Franken is gone today.
You have provided nothing to counter this, and drew upon interviews which are contradicted by things Zeifman himself spoke or wrote earlier. If this is the hill you wish the last shreds of your credibility to die upon, you have chosen poorly.
It seems the Hollywood/DNC sex scandal is becoming a viral social phenomenon, these things are popping up around more and more.
-http://www.businessinsider.com/powerful-photos-from-the-metoo-march-in-hollywood-2017-11?IR=T
Chief Counsel, or more accurately Chief Legal Officer is essentially an overarching position responsible for legality, it is well within his domain.
In business for example, CS is under the CEO for legal matters and oversee's the entire business for this domain, comparatively for example CTO would oversee technology in general for the company.
It is an extraordinarily high position, just under the CEO in a way.
So your claim that he doesn't have the authority, is wrong, the position even from your own source you rely on which i am being generous to you, reflects that.
Here to understand it.
Chief legal officers (or general counsels) are chief lawyers and have the responsibility of overseeing every legal aspect of a business or law firm
http://legalcareerpath.com/what-is-a-chief-legal-officer/
The very role of Chief Counsel, Chief Legal Officer gives him that power.
Let me repeat a citation.
Chief legal officers (or general counsels) are chief lawyers and have the responsibility of overseeing every legal aspect of a business or law firm
http://legalcareerpath.com/what-is-a-chief-legal-officer/
Sorry to say, but this really just shows the incredible ignorance of the articles and anyone not even bothering to understand what a Cheif Counsel is.
Insofar as the domain is legality and ethics, everything falls into that person's domain, they have authority.
They're basically like a CEO of legal matters in an entire company.
A general counsel, chief counsel or chief legal officer (CLO) is the chief lawyer of a legal department, usually in a company or a governmental department.
In a company, the person holding the position typically reports directly to the CEO, and their duties involve overseeing and identifying the legal issues in all departments and their interrelation, including engineering, design, marketing, sales, distribution, credit, finance, human resources, production, as well as corporate governance and business policy. This would naturally require in most cases reporting directly to the owner or CEO overseeing the very business on which the CLO is expected to be familiar with and advise on the most confidential level. This requires the CLO/general counsel to work closely with each of the other officers, and their departments, to appropriately be aware and advise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_counsel
They are titles meaning the same thing.
its pretty evident you don't know this stuff, please read my citations on these roles it is ridiculously clear.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2017/12/22/billionaire-bob-parsons-is-giving-employees-1-3-million-in-bonuses-thanks-to-gop-tax-bill/#589a1a1f44df
Sinclair announces bonuses for employees as a result of tax reform
https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2017/12/22/sinclair-announces-bonuses-for-employees-as-a.html
More companies doing this, may turn into a social phenomenon.
Your first citation backs that Zeifman felt that Clinton was unethical--Ziefman is welcome to his opinion, and I have no interest in disputing the facts he cites that leads him to his conclusion. Your second is where Zeifman asserts that he fired Clinton, which is contradicted by pretty much all the documentation we have.
Clinton drew salary until the committee was disbanded. Fired employees, especially fired with cause as Zeifman asserts, do not draw salaries. Zeifman himself contradicts his own claim in an earlier interview in 1998: Was Zeifman lying then, or now?
Your assertions were wrong, your sources know his title but sure don't know what it means, they have no idea what they are talking about let alone their logic in their conclusion doesn't make sense, and quite frankly is the work of amateurs.
I'll explain.
Your source says Zeifman is Chief Counsel, that means he is Chief Legal Officer (which you didn't even understand).
A Chief Legal Officer oversee's all legality matters in a department, they are essentially under a CEO.
Your article states that Zeifman was not Hillary's supervisor hence he didn't have the power, they are half-right and totally wrong in their conclusion.
A CEO for example, Is not a lowly employee's supervisor but they have the authority to terminate them, a CLO is generally not considered an immediate supervisor to someone of Hillary's position because they are higher up, but they have the authority in this regard to terminate her over their domain, legality.
Understand? the entire premise of your articles logic and yours simply rests on this flaw.
You don't know what a Chief Counsel is.
As to Zeifman's comments, he penned articles and books literally explaining his termination of Hillary, they were written by him.
That one probably is somewhat impacted by the Federal budget. Women in lower income brackets might not be able to afford all the prenatal doctor's visits they need.
Federal money doesn't pay teachers; State and local money does that.
The problem with Federally-funded science is that some scientists will skew their results to satisfy the committee which oversees their funding. I am certain many grants are of the "you want to investigate x? here is some money" kind. Of course, scientists who are doing research via corporate grants also have to satisfy their pimps, so the problem is fairly widespread. On the other hand, the Space Program was Federally funded and gave us a lot of technological breakthroughs and the Internet was originally a DARPA project, so Federal money does do a lot of good in this regard. Yes, this should be funded.
Social Security isn't gone.
Certain execptions notwithstanding--we are looking at you, Flint--the water coming out of a random tap in the United States is already pretty clean. If you don't trust that water then get a filter like I have.
The natural parks are already intact.
If you want renewable energy then cover your roof with solar panels and put a turbine in the backyard. If you don't live in a house then you are out of luck--purchase your service from a provider who invests in renewable sources.
The *real* problem with Mr. McGlynn's tweet is that he doesn't understand how Federal taxes work vis-a-vis Federal spending. The Federal Government is not limited to spending only the money it collects via taxes--if it wants to spend $1 billion on comet research it will authorize the spending and print the money for it. The taxes it collects on the back end serve to restrict the money supply as a hedge against currency devaluation and inflation. He needs to quit viewing that situation as if it were 1917 because this is 2017.
***************
Hillary who? Clinton? Why is she even a topic of conversation? She is a has-been and yesterday's news--boring.
So of course the economy and tax cuts is very important to Americans, it is the one issue that virtually all Americans feel most strongly about. This is correct, in some sense taxes is just re-using existing money in the economy while the Government can always create new money for themselves to use, and they do so repeatedly.
The reason why there needs to be a balance is because over-use from borrowing, or creating new money injected into the Money Supply, causes inflation.
OK, fine, it's really just that I'm bored.
Bank of America have joined the Bandwagon.
"In the spirit of shared success, we intend to pass some of those benefits along immediately. U.S. employees making up to $150,000 per year in total compensation–around 145,000 teammates–will receive a one-time bonus of $1,000 by year-end"
You didn't understand what a Chief Counsel was and kept arguing with me about it, till i had to provide you with simple definition citations.
Also you might want to read Zeifman's book anyway, or interviews, because the last argument your clinging to is also not really correct.
Given that, i don't really hold your sources logic to be sound but i'll be courteous to you. Two problems here, Zeifman has clarified what he meant and that the 'reporter' was wrong, and we have his literal written articles sourced and not what a reporter said he said. Flimsy, but you ignored my citations so here.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
-https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=opedne_jerry_ze_080325_1974_3a_hillary_lost_j.htm
Your articles logic, which isn't sound, seems to imply that they can confer judgement on it being false, by ignoring his literal explanations and clarifications on her firing, and then a supposed lack of it in one of his books (actually another of his books it was all about it).
Not sound logic at all, even if i extend leniency towards Snopes, at best they can claim there's evidence but not conclusive, they certainly cannot claim it didn't happen.
Which kind of highlights the bias of snope in a way.
One of the purposes of my discussions is actually to show you my criticism of your postings is true, because in fact your arguing the same thing.
It escaped your notice, but my claim that your voluminous and intentional posting of anti-trump articles isn't particularly good for the health of the thread, in echoing that criticism when i merely reply to you on the Democrat party alot, you actually proved my point, and continue to do so whenever you whine and complain about it lol.
Also strangely, i saw firsthand in this thread that many of you democrat supporters are in fact no different to the Republicans that you do not like.
I saw first-hand the defense of Obama destroying Libya, even though criticism of Bush's war is rampant.
I saw first-hand the defense of Hillary's support of DOMA, federal legislation against gay marriage, even though the criticism of the Republican party and their individuals over homosexuality is rampant.
I saw (and see) first-hand, the way accusations of Trump is taken on face-level, but on Hillary there is every attempt to discredit it.
In this is shown that really your not that much different from the other side.
Finally as a final observation, that you publicly called for 'assistance' from others in the thread to handle me, and the obvious intentional agree/like tribalism, shows an inescapable fact.
You don't want any discussion with an alternative opinion, in no way can you defend mob pressure behavior displayed here as encouraging discussion.
You've validated every one of the issue's i raised for all to see.
Merry Christmas, I wish you well in your future discussions haha.
While I won't go so far as to say he's outright twisting what those of us who argued with him said, what he's saying we said has very little resemblance to what we actually said. This isn't the first time he's done this, either.
This isn't an invitation to debate, really. Just a statement of fact.
Despite tonight's boredom-fueled outburst, I generally don't post much here. When I do it's generally because I found something interesting I wished to share, a desire to learn more about an espoused view that I find intriguing, or a wish to correct some of the more egregious lies* that get posted (hence, tonight). I found it engaging to a point--it's been a while since I've been called ignorant, something I particularly relish--but to ultimately discover that it's also a bad faith effort on your behalf is, at the least, disappointing.
I hope we attract more thoughtful, intelligent posters to the ones we already have--and certainly, I would like more diversity than present. Politics is a passion of mine and I'm constantly reading articles, particularly trying to question my own positions and beliefs. In my view the best posters are ones that make you question your own beliefs and, whether your position changes or not, make you understand your own thoughts better. I generally don't share my political views**; I'm generally here to try and learn more about my own views by questioning others or playing devil's advocate.
Echo chambers are dangerous, but breaking through requires knowledge, facts, logic ... and good faith.
* Non-egregious lies, however, are just dandy.
** I will admit a little curiosity as to how fellow posters would characterize my political views. A check to see how much I've tipped my hand, as it were.
@vanatos you have constantly repeated that @CamDawg's view is wrong because he misunderstands the position of Chief Counsel. I'm afraid yours is the misunderstanding:
- Chief Legal Officer is a technical term used in law and, as far as I'm aware, is never used for appointments that don't accord to that technical term.
- Chief Counsel is more widely used as a description. While it may be synonymous with Chief Legal Officer, that is not necessarily the case. It can mean very different things (just like Secretary can be an extremely powerful position or Director a very junior one).
- Even if someone were Chief Legal Officer they would almost certainly not have the direct power to fire staff, though as they would be very influential I accept they would be likely to be able to get a junior member of their staff fired.
- In the Zeifman case it's important to note that he was Chief Counsel to the permanent staff of the Judiciary Committee. That is not the equivalent of a corporate position and it seems clear to me that in fact his position was not that of Chief Legal Officer (who is part of management), but one of legal adviser, i.e. chief counsel in the everyday sense of the word.
Hillary was on a separate staff set up specifically for the impeachment. Even if Zeifman did have both the powers of a Chief Legal Officer and staff authority (which as I noted above would be extremely unusual) he therefore still would not have been able to fire her. He might potentially have been able to get her fired through using indirect influence, but given that he disagreed with both the head of the Judiciary Committee (Peter Rodino) and the head of the impeachment staff (John Doar) about the conduct of the investigation it is unlikely he had any significant indirect influence. In the light of those disagreements it is apparent that Zeifman was the one out of step with everyone else, not Hillary, and his later statements (which contradict his earlier ones) need to be interpreted in that light.
I am aware by the way that he qualified his earlier statements. For instance saying that when he said "If I had the power to fire her I would have fired her" that referred to being unable to fire her during the investigation due to the impact on the public's view of the investigation firing her would have had. All I can say is that Zeifman's position on this is not credible. As noted earlier he clearly never had the power to fire her in any circumstances. I suspect that what in fact underlies his 2008 book is that he told Hillary not to quote him as a reference (and I also suspect that she would never have had any intention to do so anyway).
I'd put you slightly to the right of @jjstraka34 who is slightly to the right of @smeagolheart who is about a mile to the right of @Stormvessel. For reference purposes I'd say @Mathsorcerer is pretty close to center and he's a few strides to the right of you. If you keep sliding to the right you'll bump into me first, then @WarChiefZeke then eventually @vanatos (who apparently is a Bernie supporter who slid so far to the left he's on the right now).
Edit: forgot @semiticgod who I'd put between you and @Mathsorcerer. It's hard to exactly though since as a moderator he may be trying to stay closer to center than he/she actually is. For some reason I don't get the vibe that @BelleSorciere is as far left as she'd like to appear. I don't know why I think that and could be mistaken but I'd put her only slightly left of Mathsorcerer (except about LGBT issues).