Back in 2012. So if her story is that she still doesn't remember things in 2016 when she was interviewed by the FBI, then is she the least bit fit to be President?
I'm not really sure where the truth lies in this mess, but I have no doubt that her dishonesty is woven all through this story. I wouldn't doubt that Hillary has no clue what the truth is at this point. Actually, not knowing the truth might be part of why she lies so consistently. This really should be a huge story, if she is really going with the effects of concussion story. She is literally brain damaged, if we are to believe her. I have no doubt that the Press will do their best to sweep this under the rug though.
How in the hell can anyone support a brain damaged person for POTUS? Seriously, I would like to hear an answer. I know supporters are out there. Speak the hell up.
Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2016 - 08:30 am:
She's a lawyer, and a "good" one (In the same way Anikin Skywalker was a "good" Jedi Knight). She knows how to be incomplete effectively and in ways that will be difficult to prosecute her for.
Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2016 - 08:41 am:
She's a lawyer, and a "good" one (In the same way Anikin Skywalker was a "good" Jedi Knight). She knows how to be incomplete effectively and in ways that will be difficult to prosecute her for.
Sure, but she's the first Presidential candidate to be claiming to be drain bamaged. Can that really be overlooked? Especially given the evidence that it's true, going back to the incident back in 2012?
-When she received security clearance -Being briefed on how to handle classified material -How many times she used her authority to designate items classified -Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material -How to select a target for a drone strike -How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices -The number of times her staff was given a secure phone -Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry -Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system -Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account -Getting guidance from state on email policy -Who had access to her Blackberry account -The process for deleting her emails -Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full -Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server -Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked -Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts -Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server -Using an iPad mini -An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal -Jacob Sullivan using personal email -State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports -Every briefing she received after suffering concussions -Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012 -Being read out of her clearance -Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account
Liar, or senile old lady who has no business being head of anything, particularly the US government?
Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 05:05 pm:
While I agree about ITT, I don't think they are alone in their practices. I think that many many colleges have similar practices, and some are even worse.
So it's down to a Government picks losers and winners question, which is a problem when the playing field is level, and is a freaking train wreck when there is a clear pay to play game being played at the highest levels of government.
I know at least one person who wanted a quick degree, and went to ITT. He said that you could have skated through it doing nothing, but that if you did want to take it seriously there were a LOT of resources. He wanted to take it seriously, he learned a lot, and it lead to a very successful career in mechanical engineering.
So again, I won't defend ITT as being above board, but I will defend them as being in a REALLY big crowd of people below board, but they are being singled out.
Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 06:46 pm:
Airbozo, you may indeed be right that ITT was.... suicidal.
But I would love to see a list of people who got big government handouts ( in the tens or hundreds of millions ) who did NOT contribute to Obama's campaign, or the Bill & Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Money Laundering Foundation.
Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 07:02 pm:
I agree ITT is not alone. California has shut down a couple of similar colleges just in the last year, mainly for exaggerating the job placement claims. I also agree ITT was giving value, IF you dove in fully committed. I have interviewed folks from ITT and most were knowledgeable and ready to work hard.
I think just shutting down was the wrong way to go without refunds and or alternate placement. Time wasted for many of their students.
Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 07:28 pm:
And really, who really ever gets a job with a "romance literature" or "french impressionists" degree? So if they want to play that game, fine, I'm all for it. They should stop giving loans for degrees that have less than a 70% chance of leading to a job that can support two people and make the loan payments. Which pretty much makes every liberal arts major "pay as you go".
...Which I would agree with... For as free a people as we are, we sure are quick to sell our kids into economic slavery with national debts and college loans.
Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 07:50 pm:
Funny that the SO and I never got any sort of loans. We both held jobs while going to school to pay for school.
I am a strong believer in the idea that things you get for free, or that someone else pays for is less valuable to you than if you had to work hard for it.
I saw this a lot in school. Those who worked while putting themselves through college got better grades and paid more attention, usually ending up with better jobs and careers. They also tended to be the ones up studying, not partying.