Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT ~ Restaurant Considering Adding A 5% ObamaCare Surcharge....
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Jan Orme
Nov 15, 2012, 11:44:21 AM11/15/12
to
....and/or Cut Employee Hours. Or just start closing restaurants.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html
...Or.....suggests another option is for customers to reduce their
tips.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.html
What's a POTUS to do as his hair turns gray trying to create JOBS for
the next 4 years?
More regulations about the existing regulations? Will we get a
Regulations Czar?
More "Horns of the ObamaDilema!"
Jan Eric Orme
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html
...Or.....suggests another option is for customers to reduce their
tips.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.html
What's a POTUS to do as his hair turns gray trying to create JOBS for
the next 4 years?
More regulations about the existing regulations? Will we get a
Regulations Czar?
More "Horns of the ObamaDilema!"
Jan Eric Orme
Message has been deleted
Jan Orme
Nov 15, 2012, 5:25:48 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 8:44 am, Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
> ....and/or Cut Employee Hours. Or just start closing restaurants.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obama...
Remember that this video is 9 months old.
US Debt Crisis - Perfectly Explained (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6VGCB8f_c
Jan Eric Orme
> ....and/or Cut Employee Hours. Or just start closing restaurants.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obama...
>
> ...Or.....suggests another option is for customers to reduce their
> tips.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wi...
> ...Or.....suggests another option is for customers to reduce their
>
> What's a POTUS to do as his hair turns gray trying to create JOBS for
> the next 4 years?
>
> More regulations about the existing regulations? Will we get a
> Regulations Czar?
>
> More "Horns of the ObamaDilema!"
>
> Jan Eric Orme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What's a POTUS to do as his hair turns gray trying to create JOBS for
> the next 4 years?
>
> More regulations about the existing regulations? Will we get a
> Regulations Czar?
>
> More "Horns of the ObamaDilema!"
>
> Jan Eric Orme
Remember that this video is 9 months old.
US Debt Crisis - Perfectly Explained (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6VGCB8f_c
Jan Eric Orme
Message has been deleted
Jan Orme
Nov 16, 2012, 2:40:12 AM11/16/12
to
Silencing General Petraeus
No keen observer could believe the government's Pollyanna version of
these events.
By Andrew Napalitano November 15, 2012
The evidence that Gen. David Petraeus, formerly the commander of U.S.
troops in Afghanistan, the author of the current Army field manual,
Princeton Ph.D. and, until last week, the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign from the CIA to silence him
is far stronger than is the version of events that the Obama
administration has given us.
The government would have us believe that because the FBI confronted
Petraeus with his emails showing a pattern of inappropriate personal
private behavior, he voluntarily departed his job as the country's
chief spy to avoid embarrassment. The government would also have us
believe that the existence of the general's relationship with Paula
Broadwell, an unknown military scholar who wrote a book about him last
year, was recently and inadvertently discovered by the FBI while it
was conducting an investigation into an alleged threat made by
Broadwell to another woman. And the government would as well have us
believe that the president learned of all this at 5 p.m. on Election
Day.
We now know that the existence of a personal relationship between
Broadwell and Petraeus had been suspected and whispered about by his
senior-level colleagues and by his personal staff in the military, who
worried that it might become publicly known, since before the time
that he came to run the CIA.
We also know that when he was nominated to run the CIA, that
nomination was preceded by a two-month FBI-conducted background check
that likely would have revealed the existence of his relationship with
Broadwell. The FBI agents conducting that background check surely
would have seen his visitor logs while he commanded our troops and
would have interviewed his military colleagues and regular visitors
and those colleagues who knew him well and worked with him every day,
and thus learned about his personal life. That's their job.
And that information would have been reported immediately to President
Obama and to the Senate Intelligence Committee, prior to Petraeus'
formal nomination and prior to his Senate confirmation hearing.
In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not
resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal,
consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR,
Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is
Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him.
Petraeus told the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on
September 14, 2012, that the mob attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, was a spontaneous reaction of
Libyans angered over a YouTube clip some believed insulted the prophet
Muhammad. He even referred to that assault—which resulted in the
murders of four Americans, now all thought to have been CIA agents—as
a "flash mob." His scheduled secret testimony this week before the
same congressional committees will produce a chastened, diminished
Petraeus who will be confronted with a mountain of evidence
contradicting his September testimony, perhaps exposing him to charges
of perjury or lying to Congress and causing substantial embarrassment
to the president.
It's obvious that someone was out to silence Petraeus. Who could
believe the government version of all this? The same government that
wants us to believe that FBI agents innocently and accidentally
discovered the Petraeus/Broadwell affair a few months ago and
confronted Petraeus with his emails a few weeks ago is a cauldron of
petty jealousies. From the time of its creation in 1947, the CIA has
been a bitter rival of the FBI. The two agencies are both equipped
with lethal force, they both often operate outside the law, and they
are each seriously potent entities. Their rivalry was tempered by
federal laws that until 2001 kept the CIA from operating in the U.S.
and the FBI from operating outside the U.S.
In one of his many overreactions to the events of 9/11, however,
President George W. Bush changed all that with an ill-conceived
executive order that unlawfully unleashed the CIA inside the U.S. and
the FBI into foreign countries. Rather than facilitating a cooperative
spirit in defense of individual freedom and national security, this
reignited their rivalry. FBI agents, for example, publicly exposed CIA
agents whom they caught torturing detainees at Gitmo, and Bush was
forced to restrain the CIA.
Isn't it odd that FBI agents would be reading the emails of the CIA
director to his mistress and that the director of the FBI, who briefs
the president weekly, did not make the president aware of this? The
FBI could only lawfully spy on Petraeus by the use of a search
warrant, and it could only get a search warrant if its agents
persuaded a federal judge that Petraeus himself—not his mistress—was
involved in criminal behavior under federal law.
The agents also could have bypassed the federal courts and written
their own search warrant under the Patriot Act, but only if they could
satisfy themselves (a curious and unconstitutional standard) that the
general was involved in terror-related activity. Both preconditions
for a search warrant are irrelevant and would be absurd in this case.
All this—the FBI spying on the CIA—constitutes the government
attacking itself. Anyone who did this when neither federal criminal
law nor national security has been implicated and kept the president
in the dark has violated about four federal statutes and should be
fired and indicted. The general may be a cad and a bad husband, but he
has the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.
No keen observer could believe the government's Pollyanna version of
these events. When did the CIA become a paragon of honesty? When did
the FBI become a paragon of transparency? When did the government
become a paragon of telling the truth?
Message has been deleted
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 7:55:48 AM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:40:12 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:
Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
rules he works under.
wrote:
out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
rules he works under.
Larry
Nov 16, 2012, 9:08:43 AM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:55:48 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>
>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>rules he works under.
You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
found out?
Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
has been throw out the window.
wrote:
>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>
>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>rules he works under.
don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
found out?
Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
has been throw out the window.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Nov 16, 2012, 9:15:58 AM11/16/12
to
Jan, that is certainly an interesting read.
HOWEVER, over the past 6 to 8-months you have posted myriad articles
attempting to besmirch Obama. To date all, repeat all have been
false. At the time they all sounded soooooo good to the ultra
right-wing wing-nuts. But aIl have proved to be false.
So, what are the chances that the link you are posting today is going
to be FALSE?
Well, from your track record........... I would say somewhere around
99.9%.
Possibly you can locate that Las Vegas odds maker that you liberally
quoted during the past few months and get him to give you "good" odds
on this article being accurate. Of course that Las Vegas dude's
predictions aren't looking so good today. Possibly you can get FOX to
run a poll for you....... they always seem to get things right, don't
they?
While I wonder about what happened I don't think it is going to matter
to anyone other than the ultra rightd-wing wind nuts.
Just asking....
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
MaxD
Nov 16, 2012, 10:46:35 AM11/16/12
to
I opened the thread about restaurants after skipping it for a couple
days and as usual it had changed topics.
However, my reaction to the restaurant "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my
tips and tell the food server that the other 5% of his/her tip is in the
surcharge. No problem.
JerryD(upstateNY)
Nov 16, 2012, 11:25:45 AM11/16/12
to
MaxD" wrote in message However, my reaction to the
his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
on the waitress, who did nothing.
That's REAL GOOD thinking.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
restaurant "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my tips and
tell the food server that the other 5% of his/her tip is in the
surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
Obama made the cost of doing business higher so the owner raises
tell the food server that the other 5% of his/her tip is in the
surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
on the waitress, who did nothing.
That's REAL GOOD thinking.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 12:08:26 PM11/16/12
to
channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>
>>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>>
>>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>>rules he works under.
>
>You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>found out?
think the FBI should have completed their investigation and then told
the President if there was anything worth telling and after they had
the full story. As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
with.
>
>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>has been throw out the window.
Bruce S
Nov 16, 2012, 1:05:45 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 9:08 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
> I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
> mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
> Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
> understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
> left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
> seen or heard worrying about violating military regs.
Did you miss the part about his staff (when he was still the Commanding
>
> I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
> mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
> Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
> understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
> left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
> seen or heard worrying about violating military regs.
General in Afghanistan) knowing about the affair? This had been an
ongoing affair before he left the Army for the CIA. The FBI has known
about it since they investigated him before he was appointed to head the
CIA. It only came out now in an effort to shut him up about Benghazi.
--
Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
Hank
Nov 16, 2012, 1:22:03 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>
> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>
> found out?
I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>
> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>
> found out?
I remember when I was in the service during bootcamp, they pounded in our brain to not put ourselves in a position that some woman could get government secrets from us. I had no special clearance.
Hank <~~~~ thinks Presidents need a bootcamp too :-)
Bruce S
Nov 16, 2012, 1:26:38 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>
>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>
>> found out?
>
> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
You were listening to the wrong news.
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>
>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>
>> found out?
>
> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
Larry
Nov 16, 2012, 1:41:26 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:08:26 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
snip
>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>
>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>
>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>
I have never listened to Rush or Town Hall. But I still think you do
not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
the Petraeus testimony today?????
>>>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>>>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>>>
>>>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>>>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>>>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>>>rules he works under.
>>
>>You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>found out?
>
>Don't care and don't want public exposure are two different things. I
>think the FBI should have completed their investigation and then told
>the President if there was anything worth telling and after they had
>the full story.
So you are saying the President does not have the need to know when a
cabinet minister is in a compromising situation. You want him to
wait until the full investigation is over. I am glad you are not in
a position to make that rule.
> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
>
I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
>understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
>with.
>
Irrelevant.
wrote:
snip
>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>
>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>
>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>
not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
the Petraeus testimony today?????
>>>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>>>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>>>
>>>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>>>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>>>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>>>rules he works under.
>>
>>You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>found out?
>
>Don't care and don't want public exposure are two different things. I
>think the FBI should have completed their investigation and then told
>the President if there was anything worth telling and after they had
>the full story.
cabinet minister is in a compromising situation. You want him to
wait until the full investigation is over. I am glad you are not in
a position to make that rule.
> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
>
Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
>understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
>with.
>
>
>>
>>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>>has been throw out the window.
>
>Did I miss a change in governments?
No, I would bet you eve voted for this one, TWICE.
>>
>>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>>has been throw out the window.
>
>Did I miss a change in governments?
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 2:10:11 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:05:45 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/16/2012 9:08 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>> mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>> Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>> understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>> left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>> seen or heard worrying about violating military regs.
>
>Did you miss the part about his staff (when he was still the Commanding
>General in Afghanistan) knowing about the affair? This had been an
>ongoing affair before he left the Army for the CIA. The FBI has known
>about it since they investigated him before he was appointed to head the
>CIA. It only came out now in an effort to shut him up about Benghazi.
And any relationship between your story and what seems to be the facts
is purely coincidental. ;-)
wrote:
>On 11/16/2012 9:08 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>> mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>> Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>> understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>> left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>> seen or heard worrying about violating military regs.
>
>Did you miss the part about his staff (when he was still the Commanding
>General in Afghanistan) knowing about the affair? This had been an
>ongoing affair before he left the Army for the CIA. The FBI has known
>about it since they investigated him before he was appointed to head the
>CIA. It only came out now in an effort to shut him up about Benghazi.
is purely coincidental. ;-)
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 2:17:28 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:38 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>>
>>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>>
>>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>>
>>> found out?
>>
>> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>
>You were listening to the wrong news.
Yeah, the one's with facts instead of fairy stories.
As far as I am concerned I still do not care if they engaged in some
adult acivities. As I said before. If you are not part of the
picture it is none of your business.
I will add that there would not be a problem if folks minded their own
business instead of trying to mind other folks for them.
wrote:
>On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>>
>>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>>
>>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>>
>>> found out?
>>
>> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>
>You were listening to the wrong news.
As far as I am concerned I still do not care if they engaged in some
adult acivities. As I said before. If you are not part of the
picture it is none of your business.
I will add that there would not be a problem if folks minded their own
business instead of trying to mind other folks for them.
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 3:19:18 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:08:26 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>snip
>
>>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>>
>>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>>
>>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>>
>I have never listened to Rush or Town Hall. But I still think you do
>not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
>the Petraeus testimony today?????
It would have been hard to misconstrue what I heard the way I heard
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:08:26 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>snip
>
>>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>>
>>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>>
>>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>>
>I have never listened to Rush or Town Hall. But I still think you do
>not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
>the Petraeus testimony today?????
it.
I don't have sufficient clearance or a need to know to have been at
the Petraeus testimony. OTOH I did hear the news. This pretty well
sums it up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/
Found a better source with quote:
"Petraeus believes, according to the official, confusion has emerged
over two separate intelligence questions: Who was responsible, and
what was the motivation of the attack?
According to the official, Petraeus says the stream of intelligence
from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the
group was behind the attack.
But a separate stream of intelligence also emerged at the same time
indicating the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in
Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced
in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the
Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.
There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the
film may be to blame, the official said."
Read more:
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/david-petraeus-hearing-scandal-update-video-former-cia-director-to-testify-about-benghazi-attack#ixzz2CPs63Wf2
It is also worth noting that of the two major streams of information
the one that said it was a planned attack was from classified sources
and not to be released to the public. That left the movie stream as
the one given out.
>
>>>>About all they got correct was his affair with Broadwell was after he
>>>>was sworn in as CIA chief and was over a while ago.
>>>>
>>>>The whole problem comes down to an overly self important socialite and
>>>>an FBI agent who should be fired for cause because he opened his mouth
>>>>about an ongoing investigation to a Congressman thus violating the
>>>>rules he works under.
>>>
>>>You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>>don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>>found out?
>>
>>Don't care and don't want public exposure are two different things. I
>>think the FBI should have completed their investigation and then told
>>the President if there was anything worth telling and after they had
>>the full story.
>
>So you are saying the President does not have the need to know when a
>cabinet minister is in a compromising situation. You want him to
>wait until the full investigation is over. I am glad you are not in
>a position to make that rule.
the cute 14 year old down the road when do you want them to tell your
wife?
That is the point. The protocol for the FBI is to wait until they
have the whole story or at least most of it. That avoids the crank
calls and most of the close but not quite there call stories like Gen
Allen who probably will suffer for the crime of knowing Jill Kelley.
While I was looking for something else I found this timeline:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Given that the "affair" started sometime in October/November 2011 and
was reported to be over before the emails in May 2012. Given his
schedule it would not seem they had a lot of time to get together. I'd
peg it as more an "incident" than an "affair".
>
>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
>>
>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
Why do the American people need to know the intimate personal life of
everyone who works for them?
>
>>I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>>mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>>Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>>understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>>left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>>seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
>>understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
>>with.
>>
>Irrelevant.
>>
>>>
>>>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>>>has been throw out the window.
>>
>>Did I miss a change in governments?
>
>No, I would bet you eve voted for this one, TWICE.
Bruce S
Nov 16, 2012, 3:45:52 PM11/16/12
to
nothermark
Nov 16, 2012, 4:13:44 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:45:52 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/16/2012 11:17 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:38 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>>>>
>>>>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>>>>
>>>>> found out?
>>>>
>>>> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>>>
>>> You were listening to the wrong news.
>>
>> Yeah, the one's with facts instead of fairy stories.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned I still do not care if they engaged in some
>> adult acivities. As I said before. If you are not part of the
>> picture it is none of your business.
>>
>> I will add that there would not be a problem if folks minded their own
>> business instead of trying to mind other folks for them.
>
>Did you read the post I responded to? You certainly didn't understand it.
OOPs. You are correct - I missed Hank in there. Sorry.
>On 11/16/2012 11:17 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:26:38 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>>>>
>>>>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>>>>
>>>>> found out?
>>>>
>>>> I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>>>
>>> You were listening to the wrong news.
>>
>> Yeah, the one's with facts instead of fairy stories.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned I still do not care if they engaged in some
>> adult acivities. As I said before. If you are not part of the
>> picture it is none of your business.
>>
>> I will add that there would not be a problem if folks minded their own
>> business instead of trying to mind other folks for them.
>
>Did you read the post I responded to? You certainly didn't understand it.
MaxD
Nov 16, 2012, 4:27:19 PM11/16/12
to
underpaid servers are *glad* that Obama required businesses to provide
the insurance so they would be covered. If that's the case I want them
to know that I already paid.
If they are from the F..k 'em crowd they'll just have to live with it.
bill horne
Nov 16, 2012, 4:34:58 PM11/16/12
to
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Hank
Nov 16, 2012, 5:38:09 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:26:31 PM UTC-5, bruce wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>
> >>
>
> >> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>
> >>
>
> >> found out?
>
> >
>
> > I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>
>
>
> You were listening to the wrong news.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce
Unlike you, I didn't listen to much of the news. I had a life back then. :-)
> On 11/16/2012 10:22 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>
> >>
>
> >> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>
> >>
>
> >> found out?
>
> >
>
> > I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
>
>
>
> You were listening to the wrong news.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce
Hank
Bruce S
Nov 16, 2012, 6:04:12 PM11/16/12
to
Frank Howell
Nov 16, 2012, 7:26:53 PM11/16/12
to
employee is full time. If those qualifications aren't meet, then the
employee must get health insurance or pay the fine and now adding to injury
you want to insult them too?
--
Frank Howell
MaxD
Nov 16, 2012, 8:09:16 PM11/16/12
to
The restaurants that I frequent on a recurring basis have wait staff
whom I try to impress with my lofty financial status. Even if it's BS.
MaxD
Nov 16, 2012, 8:24:18 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 5:26 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
> MaxD wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 9:25 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>>> MaxD" wrote in message However, my reaction to the restaurant
>>> "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my tips and tell the food server that
>>> the other 5% of his/her tip is in the surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama made the cost of doing business higher so the owner raises
>>> his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
>>> on the waitress, who did nothing.
I have had that kind of service on a number of occasions. But I still
> MaxD wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 9:25 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>>> MaxD" wrote in message However, my reaction to the restaurant
>>> "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my tips and tell the food server that
>>> the other 5% of his/her tip is in the surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama made the cost of doing business higher so the owner raises
>>> his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
>>> on the waitress, who did nothing.
tipped.
>>>
>>> That's REAL GOOD thinking.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I probably don't think like a wingnut. *My* thinking is that
>> those underpaid servers are *glad* that Obama required businesses to
>> provide the insurance so they would be covered. If that's the case I
>> want them to know that I already paid.
>> If they are from the F..k 'em crowd they'll just have to live with it.
>
> Ah, only if the businesses have 50 or more employees and only if the
> employee is full time. If those qualifications aren't meet, then the
> employee must get health insurance or pay the fine and now adding to injury
> you want to insult them too?
>
>
the wait staff at restaurants I patronize are part-time. And, of course,
underpaid. So I guess it's back to the old practice of trying to impress
with generous tips... sigh.
And I still have to pay "Hospital District" taxes for University Medical
Center. $592.53 for the coming year. Due by Jan 31. Sigh...
gregz
Nov 16, 2012, 8:44:50 PM11/16/12
to
MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 5:26 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>> MaxD wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2012 9:25 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>>>> MaxD" wrote in message However, my reaction to the restaurant
>>>> "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my tips and tell the food server that
>>>> the other 5% of his/her tip is in the surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama made the cost of doing business higher so the owner raises
>>>> his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
>>>> on the waitress, who did nothing.
>
> I have had that kind of service on a number of occasions. But I still tipped.
>
Not tipping the staff enough results in business requiring to pay offset
> On 11/16/2012 5:26 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
>> MaxD wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2012 9:25 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>>>> MaxD" wrote in message However, my reaction to the restaurant
>>>> "surcharge" is to cut 5% from my tips and tell the food server that
>>>> the other 5% of his/her tip is in the surcharge. No problem.<<<<<<<
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama made the cost of doing business higher so the owner raises
>>>> his prices to cover the extra cost and you are going to take it out
>>>> on the waitress, who did nothing.
>
> I have had that kind of service on a number of occasions. But I still tipped.
>
for their minimum earnings. Then, might as well charge more than 5% to make
up for not tipping.
Greg
MaxD
Nov 16, 2012, 9:40:05 PM11/16/12
to
>>>> On 11/16/2012 9:25 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
the waitress, who did nothing.
>>
>> I have had that kind of service on a number of occasions. But I still tipped.
>>
>
> Not tipping the staff enough results in business requiring to pay offset
> for their minimum earnings. Then, might as well charge more than 5% to make
> up for not tipping.
>
> Greg
>
If I had *my* way there would be no tipping. Most restaurant's tipping
the waitress, who did nothing.
>>
>> I have had that kind of service on a number of occasions. But I still tipped.
>>
>
> Not tipping the staff enough results in business requiring to pay offset
> for their minimum earnings. Then, might as well charge more than 5% to make
> up for not tipping.
>
> Greg
>
arrangements, with which I'm familiar, distribute tip money evenly among
the employees. Why not just raise prices to cover it.
D-R
Nov 16, 2012, 11:25:04 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 7:40 PM, MaxD wrote:
> If I had *my* way there would be no tipping. Most restaurant's tipping
> arrangements, with which I'm familiar, distribute tip money evenly among
> the employees. Why not just raise prices to cover it.
If we get service deserving of a large tip we usually ask if they
> If I had *my* way there would be no tipping. Most restaurant's tipping
> arrangements, with which I'm familiar, distribute tip money evenly among
> the employees. Why not just raise prices to cover it.
share tips... if so we usually tell them that they were better than
average and sorta leave it at that.
--
AJ
bill horne
Nov 16, 2012, 11:40:52 PM11/16/12
to
own tips. While I pay my bill with a credit card, I usually leave cash
for tips. The waiter/ess can make his/her own decision as to what to
do with it.
Larry
Nov 17, 2012, 10:02:43 AM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:22:03 -0800 (PST), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>
>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>
>> found out?
>
>I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
The lame stream media has been in the democrats pocket since long
before anklepants. But that avoids answering the above queastions
"don't you care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed"?
should keep secrets from the president and put the country in
jeopardy?
compromised and the President should not be told immediately.
wrote:
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:08:42 AM UTC-5, Larry wrote:
>
>> You don't care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed? You
>>
>> don't think the President should have been told as soon as the FBI
>>
>> found out?
>
>I have always felt Clinton should have been removed IMMEDIATLEY after he admitted to the affair with Lewinsky. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed also. But I didn't hear any of that on the news at the time.
before anklepants. But that avoids answering the above queastions
"don't you care that Petraeus was in a position to be blackmailed"?
"You don't think the President should have been told as soon as the
FBI found out?
Will you actually answer those questions? Or do you think the FBI
FBI found out?
should keep secrets from the president and put the country in
jeopardy?
>
>I remember when I was in the service during bootcamp, they pounded in our brain to not put ourselves in a position that some woman could get government secrets from us. I had no special clearance.
Yet it is OK with you that the FBI found Petraeus in a position to be
>I remember when I was in the service during bootcamp, they pounded in our brain to not put ourselves in a position that some woman could get government secrets from us. I had no special clearance.
compromised and the President should not be told immediately.
Larry
Nov 17, 2012, 10:38:56 AM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
talking points the CIA released said it was a terrorist attack. Yet
Rice and 0weBama both told a different story many times.
It seems Rice received an altered set of talking points from the white
house.
outhouse. Every news show I have heard lately says it was a
"Terrorist Attack" and that they knew within 24 hours. You are the
only person saying it was unknown when Rice and 0weBama lied to the
public.
I am not a government appointed official in a very sensative position.
What I do is none of their business. If I was in that kind of
position, I would expect notification be made as soon as they found me
in a position to be compromised.
before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
knew it.
personal life of everyone who works for them. Take out the word
"everyone" and replace it with "people that can compromise national
security". Then you can answer your own question. Or post some
more BS that tries to mislead, misconstrue, twist, turn and avoid the
questions.
>
>>>I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>>>mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>>>Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>>>understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>>>left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>>>seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
>>>understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
>>>with.
>>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>>>>has been throw out the window.
>>>
>>>Did I miss a change in governments?
>>
>>No, I would bet you eve voted for this one, TWICE.
>
>You would be wrong.
You sure post like you did.
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:08:26 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>>>
>>>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>>>
>>>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>>>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>>>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>>>
>>I have never listened to Rush or Town Hall. But I still think you do
>>not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
>>the Petraeus testimony today?????
>
>It would have been hard to misconstrue what I heard the way I heard
>it.
>
>I don't have sufficient clearance or a need to know to have been at
>the Petraeus testimony. OTOH I did hear the news. This pretty well
>sums it up:
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/
Your link shows he knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours. The
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:08:26 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>>Anybody following the case in the public media would quickly figure
>>>>>out this is a pile of fertilizer so far off the facts is is not funny.
>>>>
>>>>Some proof? Or is this your opinion?
>>>
>>>Pick any drive by media source and check it out. It was on every news
>>>channel I watched yesterday. I did not tune in Rush or look at
>>>TownhHall so I am not sure what the Conservative spin is.
>>>
>>I have never listened to Rush or Town Hall. But I still think you do
>>not understand what you read and/or hear. Did you pay attention to
>>the Petraeus testimony today?????
>
>It would have been hard to misconstrue what I heard the way I heard
>it.
>
>I don't have sufficient clearance or a need to know to have been at
>the Petraeus testimony. OTOH I did hear the news. This pretty well
>sums it up:
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/
talking points the CIA released said it was a terrorist attack. Yet
Rice and 0weBama both told a different story many times.
It seems Rice received an altered set of talking points from the white
house.
>
>Found a better source with quote:
>
>"Petraeus believes, according to the official, confusion has emerged
>over two separate intelligence questions: Who was responsible, and
>what was the motivation of the attack?
>
>According to the official, Petraeus says the stream of intelligence
>from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the
>group was behind the attack.
>
>But a separate stream of intelligence also emerged at the same time
>indicating the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in
>Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced
>in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the
>Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.
>
>There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the
>film may be to blame, the official said."
>
Bob and weave, point to anything to try to keep 0weBama out of the
>Found a better source with quote:
>
>"Petraeus believes, according to the official, confusion has emerged
>over two separate intelligence questions: Who was responsible, and
>what was the motivation of the attack?
>
>According to the official, Petraeus says the stream of intelligence
>from multiple sources, including video at the scene, indicated the
>group was behind the attack.
>
>But a separate stream of intelligence also emerged at the same time
>indicating the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in
>Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced
>in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the
>Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.
>
>There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the
>film may be to blame, the official said."
>
outhouse. Every news show I have heard lately says it was a
"Terrorist Attack" and that they knew within 24 hours. You are the
only person saying it was unknown when Rice and 0weBama lied to the
public.
What I do is none of their business. If I was in that kind of
position, I would expect notification be made as soon as they found me
in a position to be compromised.
>
>That is the point. The protocol for the FBI is to wait until they
>have the whole story or at least most of it. That avoids the crank
>calls and most of the close but not quite there call stories like Gen
>Allen who probably will suffer for the crime of knowing Jill Kelley.
>
>While I was looking for something else I found this timeline:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
>
>Given that the "affair" started sometime in October/November 2011 and
>was reported to be over before the emails in May 2012. Given his
>schedule it would not seem they had a lot of time to get together. I'd
>peg it as more an "incident" than an "affair".
>
Call it whatever you choose, he was in a position to be blackmailed.
>That is the point. The protocol for the FBI is to wait until they
>have the whole story or at least most of it. That avoids the crank
>calls and most of the close but not quite there call stories like Gen
>Allen who probably will suffer for the crime of knowing Jill Kelley.
>
>While I was looking for something else I found this timeline:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
>
>Given that the "affair" started sometime in October/November 2011 and
>was reported to be over before the emails in May 2012. Given his
>schedule it would not seem they had a lot of time to get together. I'd
>peg it as more an "incident" than an "affair".
>
>
>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
You may find it disgusting but the President should have been told
>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
>>>
>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>
>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
I believe he knew at least as much as Holder knew as soon as Holder
>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>
>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
knew it.
>
>Why do the American people need to know the intimate personal life of
>everyone who works for them?
You are kidding, right? No one said they need to know the intimate
>Why do the American people need to know the intimate personal life of
>everyone who works for them?
personal life of everyone who works for them. Take out the word
"everyone" and replace it with "people that can compromise national
security". Then you can answer your own question. Or post some
more BS that tries to mislead, misconstrue, twist, turn and avoid the
questions.
>
>>>I learned a long time back that the only bedroom I worry about is
>>>mine. It is not my business and not of any significant interest if
>>>Petraeus wanted to have an adult interaction with somebody. I
>>>understand the military has an issue and that it happened after he
>>>left the military. That puts me ahead of most of the tolks I have
>>>seen or heard worrying about violating military regs. I also
>>>understand it was over. That leaves it as something for him to deal
>>>with.
>>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Under the socialist regime that is in power today national security
>>>>has been throw out the window.
>>>
>>>Did I miss a change in governments?
>>
>>No, I would bet you eve voted for this one, TWICE.
>
>You would be wrong.
Larry
Nov 17, 2012, 11:09:42 AM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:27:19 -0700, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
>Well, I probably don't think like a wingnut. *My* thinking is that those
>underpaid servers are *glad* that Obama required businesses to provide
>the insurance so they would be covered. If that's the case I want them
>to know that I already paid.
>If they are from the F..k 'em crowd they'll just have to live with it.
Max, I doubt that many of them are underpaid. If I take my wife out
>Well, I probably don't think like a wingnut. *My* thinking is that those
>underpaid servers are *glad* that Obama required businesses to provide
>the insurance so they would be covered. If that's the case I want them
>to know that I already paid.
>If they are from the F..k 'em crowd they'll just have to live with it.
to dinner I leave a tip of between 15 and 20% depending on the
service. If they only serve 5 tables per hour (I think 5 per hour ia
a low number) they make as much or more that I did when I was
working. Dinner for us usually costs $30 to $75 depending on the
restaurant. Call it $50 X 5 tables = $250. The tips on that in my
area of Florida would average around $40. Add what the restaurant
pays and they are not underpaid, IMHO.
As an aside, may years ago (1960's) when I lived in NY a waiter friend
told me hae was knocking down over $35,000 a year. And paying tax on a
lot less. He was next in line and couldn't wait until the Maitre D
retired. He claimed that position made 2 or three times what the
waiters did. And the waiters had to buy their way into the good hotel
restaurant jobs.
MaxD
Nov 17, 2012, 11:42:41 AM11/17/12
to
waiters/waitresses (who prefer to be called "servers" here)
is pretty much limited to the El Paso area. (don't really have time to
befriend servers when we're on the road)
I generally tip "well" when we eat at local places where we know the
staff. We make it a point to befriend those folks who "do us well".
In our experience, only the (few) nice restaurants here have servers who
make a decent living.
nothermark
Nov 17, 2012, 1:29:51 PM11/17/12
to
last night. Read it. TWO themes. One about a preplanned attack but
mostly classified sources. A second one not classified sources but
the movie. So they avoided the classified sources thus protecting
them.
I really do not see a need for real time reporting unless it is
critical to the overall health and safety of the country. If the
ambassador had been in an automobile accident they would have withheld
his name until the family was notified and the details until they had
sorted them out if they reported them at all. I find that acceptable.
time necessary to figure out whether the information is valid or not.
I think the FBI agent that called his buddy the Congressman should be
filing for unemployment. I also think the whole thing has been blown
way out of proportion.
>>That is the point. The protocol for the FBI is to wait until they
>>have the whole story or at least most of it. That avoids the crank
>>calls and most of the close but not quite there call stories like Gen
>>Allen who probably will suffer for the crime of knowing Jill Kelley.
>>
>>While I was looking for something else I found this timeline:
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
>>
>>Given that the "affair" started sometime in October/November 2011 and
>>was reported to be over before the emails in May 2012. Given his
>>schedule it would not seem they had a lot of time to get together. I'd
>>peg it as more an "incident" than an "affair".
>>
>Call it whatever you choose, he was in a position to be blackmailed.
Given his actions all a blackmail attempt would get was a public
admission and resignation.
>>
>>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
>
>You may find it disgusting but the President should have been told
>before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
>0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
>now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
>pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
been the historical policies back as far as the office goes. I do
find the folks that want instant access to everything rather naive and
sometimes stupid.
>>>>
>>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>>
>>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
>
>I believe he knew at least as much as Holder knew as soon as Holder
>knew it.
judgements and withould information the President does not need to
know. I assume that for two reasons. One is the reason we have
evolved staff management. Once an organization grows above a minimum
size no one can assimilate all the information needed to run it.
Running the country is well above the cutoff point. The second reason
is that of plausible deniability. If there is no reason to make a
decision then not knowing avoids worrying about problems that cannot
be dealth with and avoids problems with the media.
ozm...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2012, 4:07:45 PM11/17/12
to
Thank you
oz, who does......
Vito
Nov 17, 2012, 11:09:03 PM11/17/12
to
"MaxD" <gmd...@att.net> wrote
The many waitresses I dated in my young days all worked 2 or 3 "part time"
jobs because nobody hired full time work else they'd have to provide
benefits. I suspect Obamacare will be the same. These kids work hard for
poor pay. I always tip at least 20% unless the server has screwed up.
jobs because nobody hired full time work else they'd have to provide
benefits. I suspect Obamacare will be the same. These kids work hard for
poor pay. I always tip at least 20% unless the server has screwed up.
Larry
Nov 19, 2012, 12:00:28 PM11/19/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:29:51 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019699873_petraeus17.html
>I really do not see a need for real time reporting unless it is
>critical to the overall health and safety of the country.
You don't consider being blackmailed critical to the safety of the
country?
security incident.
>>>
snip
the president should be told immediately in every case of national
security.
>I think the FBI agent that called his buddy the Congressman should be
>filing for unemployment. I also think the whole thing has been blown
>way out of proportion.
Ok, fire him. Also fire the FBI Director for not doing what is right
for the country. I also agree that it was blown out of proportion.
But nobody knew it was out of proportion until all the facts were
known. At the begining he was a security risk for blackmail.
>
snip
>Given his actions all a blackmail attempt would get was a public
>admission and resignation.
You knew this the same day the FBI found out about the affair? How
did you know this?
>>>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
And I find it important the we now know that the FBI and Holder
withold national security risks from the President.
the President.
That does not change the fact that the President should have been told
at the start.
mark, this is not your neighbor having an affair. It was the head of
the CIA. Now the ex director. Just another person OweBama threw
under the bus when was no longer useful. I wonder if anyone has kept
count of all the people OweBama has thrown under the bus.
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:38:56 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>
snip
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:38:56 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>
>Bob and weave my ass. This was the source I did not bother to look up
>last night. Read it. TWO themes. One about a preplanned attack but
>mostly classified sources. A second one not classified sources but
>the movie. So they avoided the classified sources thus protecting
>them.
Read this:
>last night. Read it. TWO themes. One about a preplanned attack but
>mostly classified sources. A second one not classified sources but
>the movie. So they avoided the classified sources thus protecting
>them.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019699873_petraeus17.html
>I really do not see a need for real time reporting unless it is
>critical to the overall health and safety of the country.
country?
>If the
>ambassador had been in an automobile accident they would have withheld
>his name until the family was notified and the details until they had
>sorted them out if they reported them at all. I find that acceptable.
I agree, in the case of an automobile accident but not in a national
>ambassador had been in an automobile accident they would have withheld
>his name until the family was notified and the details until they had
>sorted them out if they reported them at all. I find that acceptable.
security incident.
>>>
snip
>>I am not a government appointed official in a very sensative position.
>>What I do is none of their business. If I was in that kind of
>>position, I would expect notification be made as soon as they found me
>>in a position to be compromised.
>
>I don't. For the obvious reason in both cases. At least take the
>time necessary to figure out whether the information is valid or not.
mark, I did not sat that they should report it to the news media but
>>What I do is none of their business. If I was in that kind of
>>position, I would expect notification be made as soon as they found me
>>in a position to be compromised.
>
>I don't. For the obvious reason in both cases. At least take the
>time necessary to figure out whether the information is valid or not.
the president should be told immediately in every case of national
security.
>I think the FBI agent that called his buddy the Congressman should be
>filing for unemployment. I also think the whole thing has been blown
>way out of proportion.
for the country. I also agree that it was blown out of proportion.
But nobody knew it was out of proportion until all the facts were
known. At the begining he was a security risk for blackmail.
>
snip
>>Call it whatever you choose, he was in a position to be blackmailed.
>
>Over what?
Over his affair.
>
>Over what?
>Given his actions all a blackmail attempt would get was a public
>admission and resignation.
did you know this?
>>>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
withold national security risks from the President.
>
>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
the President.
>>
>>You may find it disgusting but the President should have been told
>>before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
>>0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
>>now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
>>pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
>
>I do not find the current administration any different than what has
>been the historical policies back as far as the office goes. I do
>find the folks that want instant access to everything rather naive and
>sometimes stupid.
I did not ask for nor do I want want instant access to everything.
>>You may find it disgusting but the President should have been told
>>before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
>>0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
>>now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
>>pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
>
>I do not find the current administration any different than what has
>been the historical policies back as far as the office goes. I do
>find the folks that want instant access to everything rather naive and
>sometimes stupid.
That does not change the fact that the President should have been told
at the start.
>
>>>>>
>>>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>>>
>>>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
>>
>>I believe he knew at least as much as Holder knew as soon as Holder
>>knew it.
>
>I don't. I assume one of Holder's functions is to make value
>judgements and withould information the President does not need to
>know. I assume that for two reasons. One is the reason we have
>evolved staff management. Once an organization grows above a minimum
>size no one can assimilate all the information needed to run it.
>Running the country is well above the cutoff point. The second reason
>is that of plausible deniability. If there is no reason to make a
>decision then not knowing avoids worrying about problems that cannot
>be dealth with and avoids problems with the media.
Do you know the meaning of the words "national security"?
>>>>>
>>>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>>>
>>>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
>>
>>I believe he knew at least as much as Holder knew as soon as Holder
>>knew it.
>
>I don't. I assume one of Holder's functions is to make value
>judgements and withould information the President does not need to
>know. I assume that for two reasons. One is the reason we have
>evolved staff management. Once an organization grows above a minimum
>size no one can assimilate all the information needed to run it.
>Running the country is well above the cutoff point. The second reason
>is that of plausible deniability. If there is no reason to make a
>decision then not knowing avoids worrying about problems that cannot
>be dealth with and avoids problems with the media.
mark, this is not your neighbor having an affair. It was the head of
the CIA. Now the ex director. Just another person OweBama threw
under the bus when was no longer useful. I wonder if anyone has kept
count of all the people OweBama has thrown under the bus.
Larry
Nov 19, 2012, 12:05:55 PM11/19/12
to
any money. My wife was a waitress before we met, she claims to have
done very well for the amount of time she did that type of work. One
of my fishing partners has a daughtey that works at Applebees and he
says she always seems to have money for whatever she wants.
Don Lampson
Nov 19, 2012, 1:36:52 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 9:00 am, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:29:51 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
> >>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
So Obama "threw Patraeus under the bus when he was no longer useful",
after 20,000 messages to the "real housewives of Tampa"? HawHawHaw!
Spartacus O'Malley Jones
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:29:51 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
> >>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <notherm...@not.here>
after 20,000 messages to the "real housewives of Tampa"? HawHawHaw!
Spartacus O'Malley Jones
nothermark
Nov 19, 2012, 1:56:13 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:00:28 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:29:51 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:38:56 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>>
>snip
>>Bob and weave my ass. This was the source I did not bother to look up
>>last night. Read it. TWO themes. One about a preplanned attack but
>>mostly classified sources. A second one not classified sources but
>>the movie. So they avoided the classified sources thus protecting
>>them.
>
>Read this:
>http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019699873_petraeus17.html
No new information. There were two parallel stories coming in. One
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:29:51 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:38:56 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:18 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:41:26 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>>
>snip
>>Bob and weave my ass. This was the source I did not bother to look up
>>last night. Read it. TWO themes. One about a preplanned attack but
>>mostly classified sources. A second one not classified sources but
>>the movie. So they avoided the classified sources thus protecting
>>them.
>
>Read this:
>http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019699873_petraeus17.html
was terrorists and one was locals being upset over the movie. For
public consuption. They say they did it to hide/protect sources. I
can live with that with no problem. The reason for that is that I do
not see a need for instant access by the public to everything we know.
>
>>I really do not see a need for real time reporting unless it is
>>critical to the overall health and safety of the country.
>You don't consider being blackmailed critical to the safety of the
>country?
>>If the
>>ambassador had been in an automobile accident they would have withheld
>>his name until the family was notified and the details until they had
>>sorted them out if they reported them at all. I find that acceptable.
>I agree, in the case of an automobile accident but not in a national
>security incident.
There was no time sensitve aspect for the rest of us. That leaves it
in the realm of things better left on the shelf for a week or two so
the story can get reported correctly. Report the death in near real
tme and the follow up a week or two later and make it policy to do
that all the time.
>>>>
>snip
>>>I am not a government appointed official in a very sensative position.
>>>What I do is none of their business. If I was in that kind of
>>>position, I would expect notification be made as soon as they found me
>>>in a position to be compromised.
>>
>>I don't. For the obvious reason in both cases. At least take the
>>time necessary to figure out whether the information is valid or not.
>
>mark, I did not sat that they should report it to the news media but
>the president should be told immediately in every case of national
>security.
rumor mongers reporting every tabloid titilation and a lot the
Tabloids ignore.
>
>>I think the FBI agent that called his buddy the Congressman should be
>>filing for unemployment. I also think the whole thing has been blown
>>way out of proportion.
>
>Ok, fire him. Also fire the FBI Director for not doing what is right
>for the country. I also agree that it was blown out of proportion.
>But nobody knew it was out of proportion until all the facts were
>known. At the begining he was a security risk for blackmail.
found out everybody will find out. That example is rampant.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Nov 19, 2012, 2:44:14 PM11/19/12
to
from. From where I sit Patraeus jumped under the bus.
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
nothermark
Nov 19, 2012, 3:18:17 PM11/19/12
to
is no guarantee it will not be on Wikileaks next week on one hand, not
the stigma today that it was 50 years ago on the other.
>
>>Given his actions all a blackmail attempt would get was a public
>>admission and resignation.
>You knew this the same day the FBI found out about the affair? How
>did you know this?
>
>>>>>> As it stands the leak from the FBI agent to congress
>>>>>>set off the over reaction I find disgusting.
>And I find it important the we now know that the FBI and Holder
>withold national security risks from the President.
>>
>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>the President.
are generated?
>>>
>>>You may find it disgusting but the President should have been told
>>>before the leak. Why was the FBI keeping it a secret? Or was
>>>0weBama told previously and they are keeping that fact a secret
>>>now???????? Don't you care that 0weBama is classifying so many
>>>pertinent facts? Stick your head back in the sand, mark.
>>
>>I do not find the current administration any different than what has
>>been the historical policies back as far as the office goes. I do
>>find the folks that want instant access to everything rather naive and
>>sometimes stupid.
>I did not ask for nor do I want want instant access to everything.
>That does not change the fact that the President should have been told
>at the start.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I do not think it is an over raction when it all points to the
>>>>>Presiden and other high officials lying to the citizens.
>>>>
>>>>How can the President lie about something he knew nothing about?
>>>
>>>I believe he knew at least as much as Holder knew as soon as Holder
>>>knew it.
>>
>>I don't. I assume one of Holder's functions is to make value
>>judgements and withould information the President does not need to
>>know. I assume that for two reasons. One is the reason we have
>>evolved staff management. Once an organization grows above a minimum
>>size no one can assimilate all the information needed to run it.
>>Running the country is well above the cutoff point. The second reason
>>is that of plausible deniability. If there is no reason to make a
>>decision then not knowing avoids worrying about problems that cannot
>>be dealth with and avoids problems with the media.
>Do you know the meaning of the words "national security"?
>
>mark, this is not your neighbor having an affair. It was the head of
>the CIA. Now the ex director. Just another person OweBama threw
>under the bus when was no longer useful. I wonder if anyone has kept
>count of all the people OweBama has thrown under the bus.
him under the bus. If you notice I think you will find they figured
out it happened, had ended, and was not a story until the FBI agent
whined to his Congressional buddy.
If anything the Conservative crowd should be having kittens about how
many other elected officails have had a discrete fling but not had it
reported. As long as it stays private I do not care.
nothermark
Nov 19, 2012, 3:24:47 PM11/19/12
to
off and enjoy something else now. Right after he settles hurricane
Holly. ;-)
gregz
Nov 19, 2012, 8:16:31 PM11/19/12
to
Greg
Larry
Nov 20, 2012, 8:03:39 AM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:16:31 +0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>> I find a lot of people are of the opinion that waitresses don't make
>> any money. My wife was a waitress before we met, she claims to have
>> done very well for the amount of time she did that type of work. One
>> of my fishing partners has a daughtey that works at Applebees and he
>> says she always seems to have money for whatever she wants.
>
>Did they pay for healthcare or anything else ?
>
>Greg
Not when my wife was a waitress. Back then many jobs did not have
health care benefits. I do not know about now.
wrote:
>> I find a lot of people are of the opinion that waitresses don't make
>> any money. My wife was a waitress before we met, she claims to have
>> done very well for the amount of time she did that type of work. One
>> of my fishing partners has a daughtey that works at Applebees and he
>> says she always seems to have money for whatever she wants.
>
>Did they pay for healthcare or anything else ?
>
>Greg
health care benefits. I do not know about now.
Larry
Nov 20, 2012, 8:22:57 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:44:14 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
(dot) us> wrote:
>Don, I do not know where Obama throwing Patraeus under the buss comes
>from. From where I sit Patraeus jumped under the bus.
>
>mike
>--
>
>Pensacola, FL
>http://www.travellogs.us/
mike, I am not Don but I made the original statement. From Bay News
>from. From where I sit Patraeus jumped under the bus.
>
>mike
>--
>
>Pensacola, FL
>http://www.travellogs.us/
9, in Tampa, some network news programs and a lot of news on the net,
my understanding is that Patraeus would much rather have NOT resigned,
NOT made his affair public, NOT ruined his reputation and NOT
embarrassed his wife. Speculation is that it was held over his head
so he would cooperate up until the election. I believe he was then
told to resign or be publicly disgraced even further by being fired
for his sins.
Larry
Nov 20, 2012, 9:34:40 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:17 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>the President.
>
>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>are generated?
Huh, unfounded romor? Holder has said in an interview that he knew
since the summer.
wrote:
>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>the President.
>
>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>are generated?
since the summer.
nothermark
Nov 20, 2012, 10:21:16 AM11/20/12
to
conspiracy looking for a place to happen.
While I am reasonably sure Patraeus would just as soon let the whole
issue blow over I do not see Obama sitting on the resignation for a
day if it was a setup. I don't think anything would have happened if
the Congress had not gotten involved.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Nov 20, 2012, 10:25:05 AM11/20/12
to
Larry, that may turn out to be the case. However, at this point it
looks like you are jumping on one of those theories that Jan likes to
post links to.
So far none of Jan's links have turned out to be true.
We will see if this one has any more merit.
nothermark
Nov 20, 2012, 11:23:38 AM11/20/12
to
point.
The who knew what and what did it matter discussion is interesting.
Ralph E Lindberg
Nov 20, 2012, 4:08:04 PM11/20/12
to
In article <d18na81itqlqnbp7o...@4ax.com>,
Claiming that this was "election" related is tough, since all the info
we have too date it was only the House GOP that knew what was going
before. The Whitehouse did not.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
we have too date it was only the House GOP that knew what was going
before. The Whitehouse did not.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Vito
Nov 20, 2012, 8:49:29 PM11/20/12
to
"Larry" <La...@fishing.net> wrote
Remember the primary function of the FBI - what its original purpose was.
It exists to gather dirt on people that the FBI and the pols it serves can
use to control them and always has. Remember J-Edgar's files? Remember
the motel in So. Md., the one with 2-way mirrors and secret passages the
FBI and LBJ used to use to "condition" new congressmen and senators? Hey,
it's just business as usual.
It exists to gather dirt on people that the FBI and the pols it serves can
use to control them and always has. Remember J-Edgar's files? Remember
the motel in So. Md., the one with 2-way mirrors and secret passages the
FBI and LBJ used to use to "condition" new congressmen and senators? Hey,
it's just business as usual.
Larry
Nov 21, 2012, 9:52:40 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:21:16 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:22:57 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:44:14 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>(dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>Don, I do not know where Obama throwing Patraeus under the buss comes
>>>from. From where I sit Patraeus jumped under the bus.
>>>
>>>mike
>>>--
>>>
>>>Pensacola, FL
>>>http://www.travellogs.us/
>>
>>mike, I am not Don but I made the original statement. From Bay News
>>9, in Tampa, some network news programs and a lot of news on the net,
>>my understanding is that Patraeus would much rather have NOT resigned,
>>NOT made his affair public, NOT ruined his reputation and NOT
>>embarrassed his wife. Speculation is that it was held over his head
>>so he would cooperate up until the election. I believe he was then
>>told to resign or be publicly disgraced even further by being fired
>>for his sins.
>
>Any corroboration on that scenario? It sounds to me like a right wing
>conspiracy looking for a place to happen.
Learn to read for understanding. If I had corroboration I would not
has said speculation.
about Benghazi before the election? That is hard for me to beileve
mark. Even you are not that dumb.
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:22:57 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:44:14 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>(dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>Don, I do not know where Obama throwing Patraeus under the buss comes
>>>from. From where I sit Patraeus jumped under the bus.
>>>
>>>mike
>>>--
>>>
>>>Pensacola, FL
>>>http://www.travellogs.us/
>>
>>mike, I am not Don but I made the original statement. From Bay News
>>9, in Tampa, some network news programs and a lot of news on the net,
>>my understanding is that Patraeus would much rather have NOT resigned,
>>NOT made his affair public, NOT ruined his reputation and NOT
>>embarrassed his wife. Speculation is that it was held over his head
>>so he would cooperate up until the election. I believe he was then
>>told to resign or be publicly disgraced even further by being fired
>>for his sins.
>
>Any corroboration on that scenario? It sounds to me like a right wing
>conspiracy looking for a place to happen.
has said speculation.
>
>While I am reasonably sure Patraeus would just as soon let the whole
>issue blow over I do not see Obama sitting on the resignation for a
>day if it was a setup. I don't think anything would have happened if
>the Congress had not gotten involved.
You don't think OweBama wanted to keep Patraeus from telling the media
>While I am reasonably sure Patraeus would just as soon let the whole
>issue blow over I do not see Obama sitting on the resignation for a
>day if it was a setup. I don't think anything would have happened if
>the Congress had not gotten involved.
about Benghazi before the election? That is hard for me to beileve
mark. Even you are not that dumb.
Larry
Nov 21, 2012, 9:54:05 AM11/21/12
to
Larry
Nov 21, 2012, 10:04:22 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:23:38 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:40 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:17 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>
>>>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>>>the President.
>>>
>>>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>>>are generated?
>>
>>Huh, unfounded romor? Holder has said in an interview that he knew
>>since the summer.
>
>
>He knew about the allegation.
The FBI told him the were investigating the CIA director who may be in
a compromising situation. The CIA director knows all our secrets but
you are willing to wait until they dig up proof before notification of
the President?
If you are robbing a store at gunpoint, should I wait until you pull
the trigger befoe disarming you?
>When did he get proof? That is the point.
>
>The who knew what and what did it matter discussion is interesting.
I guess we will just disagree about when notification should be made.
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:40 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:17 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>
>>>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>>>the President.
>>>
>>>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>>>are generated?
>>
>>Huh, unfounded romor? Holder has said in an interview that he knew
>>since the summer.
>
>
>He knew about the allegation.
a compromising situation. The CIA director knows all our secrets but
you are willing to wait until they dig up proof before notification of
the President?
If you are robbing a store at gunpoint, should I wait until you pull
the trigger befoe disarming you?
>When did he get proof? That is the point.
>
>The who knew what and what did it matter discussion is interesting.
nothermark
Nov 21, 2012, 12:01:24 PM11/21/12
to
Benghazi. As far as I am concerned it is another molehill made into a
mountain by the Conservatives looking for anything to whine about.
nothermark
Nov 21, 2012, 12:15:40 PM11/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:04:22 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:23:38 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:40 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:17 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>>
>>>>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>>>>the President.
>>>>
>>>>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>>>>are generated?
>>>
>>>Huh, unfounded romor? Holder has said in an interview that he knew
>>>since the summer.
>>
>>
>>He knew about the allegation.
>
>The FBI told him the were investigating the CIA director who may be in
>a compromising situation. The CIA director knows all our secrets but
>you are willing to wait until they dig up proof before notification of
>the President?
>
>If you are robbing a store at gunpoint, should I wait until you pull
>the trigger befoe disarming you?
Apples and oranges. Investigating somebody is not proof of wrong
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:23:38 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:34:40 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:17 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Too bad we cannot publicly execute the Agent that leaked.
>>>
>>>>>Better to execute the ones that are withholding the information from
>>>>>the President.
>>>>
>>>>Unfounded rumor that is not yet verified? How many a day do you think
>>>>are generated?
>>>
>>>Huh, unfounded romor? Holder has said in an interview that he knew
>>>since the summer.
>>
>>
>>He knew about the allegation.
>
>The FBI told him the were investigating the CIA director who may be in
>a compromising situation. The CIA director knows all our secrets but
>you are willing to wait until they dig up proof before notification of
>the President?
>
>If you are robbing a store at gunpoint, should I wait until you pull
>the trigger befoe disarming you?
doing. As far as that goes no laws were broken. If the affair had
started earlier there might have been an issue under the UCMJ but that
went out with the move to the CIA. I don't know where Paula Broadwell
stands as she has/had a reserve commision but was probably not on
active duty.
>
>>When did he get proof? That is the point.
>>
>>The who knew what and what did it matter discussion is interesting.
>
>I guess we will just disagree about when notification should be made.
every director since has been trying to avoid getting into a position
of being accused of making up allegations to and collecting data to
blackmail folks.
OTOH I do not expect we will ever agree as I do not see the affair as
an issue or any reason to get into it until there was proof. Even
then I would not mind at all if they just shut up about it. Little or
no good was done by revealing it as it was already over and of little
concsequence. OTOH the repercussions are significant for a lot of
folks and maybe the country.
0 new messages