(02-03-2016 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I encourage you to google the 'Buck Stops Here' sign and what it originally meant. It's quite interesting. Basically, the sign was not about taking responsibility for things that happen beneath you, it was about making the final decision without sending it along to another to make. It's sort of taken on a life of its own recently.

I encourage you to read some leadership literature because part of being a leader is being responsible for what your subordinates do.

The only reason one of your subordinates is in a position to make a decision is because you as the leader of the organization delegated that responsibility to them. If the subordinate did not have the authority to make said decision then the leadership failure is the fact you do not have control over your organization.

There is no better example of this leadership principle than the letter Eisenhower drafted in case the D-Day landings failed. He wrote this before the landings even took place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/d-day-in-...wer-2012-6

Quote:"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

THAT'S leadership.

And Harry Truman's, "The buck stops here."

(02-03-2016 05:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I encourage you to google the 'Buck Stops Here' sign and what it originally meant. It's quite interesting. Basically, the sign was not about taking responsibility for things that happen beneath you, it was about making the final decision without sending it along to another to make. It's sort of taken on a life of its own recently.

I encourage you to read some leadership literature because part of being a leader is being responsible for what your subordinates do.

The only reason one of your subordinates is in a position to make a decision is because you as the leader of the organization delegated that responsibility to them. If the subordinate did not have the authority to make said decision then the leadership failure is the fact you do not have control over your organization.

There is no better example of this leadership principle than the letter Eisenhower drafted in case the D-Day landings failed. He wrote this before the landings even took place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/d-day-in-...wer-2012-6

Quote:"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

THAT'S leadership.

Again, your asking for the impossible. There was no way of knowing what level of security was enough to prevent what happened. Even if the requests for more security were approved, that still does not guarantee he would have survived this. Sorry, it just doesn't.

And as noted above. Hillary did take responsibility for the attack in her testimony.

But to use your analogy here, you're basically saying that Eisenhower should be held responsible if one of his troops marches in the wrong direction or shoots the wrong thing! While yes, they can say they take responsibility, nobody rationally expects them to actually be held accountable for it.

Yes because the deaths of four Americans and the wounding of ten others is the same as marching in the wrong direction or shooting the wrong target.

This was a critical failure of State Dept policy any way you cut it. Either they failed in their security evaluations of the Benghazi compound or else Clinton failed to maintain control over her personal representative if Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi without orders.

(02-03-2016 02:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans have been so busy trying to make this about Hillary that they've ignored some basic and very important issues. Somebody made the decision to have the ambassador bascially run a naked bootleg in very dangerous country on a potentially very explosive date, with no supporting resources reasonably available (although we certainly possess those resources many times over in a global sense). I don't know who made that decision, but whoever did needs to fry. The problem is that unless they can prove that person is Hillary, republicans don't seem to care. And here's where that's doubly stupid. I'd tend to bet a lot of money that whoever made that decision, whether it's Hillary or not, is going to lead investigators to a trail that goes back to Hillary, so republicans would get what they want just by doing what they ought to be doing, instead of obsessing with Hillary

I agree with this

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

What a colossally stupid comment.

(02-03-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 10:59 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Benghazi did happen... but I guess you are too ignorant to understand that 4 people died in that attack. I wonder if you wanna go tell their families that no one cares about their deaths.

Just keep carrying that water...

Benghazi happened and the families are mourning. Hillary however had nothing to do with it. Since when did you become the spokesman for the families?

So, now she was never Secretary of State. Jeez, was she responsible for ANYTHING during those years?

What exactly could she have done to prevent it?

Spent more money...sent in more security for him beforehand...pulled him out of a dangerous country...

I believe both were reviewed by staff underneath her and they decided against it for one reason or another. I guess she could have been involved in every decision at state, but that would be a tall task even for someone as gifted as her.

She's an incompetent worthless twat.

(02-03-2016 11:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:31 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 10:16 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 09:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Hey Mach - you probably aren't old enough to remember the Russian "news" media called TASS. They were no more than the media arm of the Communist government and only reported stories showing the government as benevolent and suppressed any and all stories of the bad stuff that government did to their people.

The mainstream media you tout (ABC, NBC, CBS) has become basically like that in this country for the Democratic party and just like TASS - they try and pass themselves off a unbiased journalists. If they were honest - they'd wear cheerleader outfits with a big "D" on the front during their newscasts.



They pretty much looked the other way during Bush's war too. I don't think it's carrying water for one party as much as it is just lack of investigative reporting. They are either lazy or no longer have the resources.

This is about Hillary, not Bush... stick to the topic.

I'm on topic. The media doesn't do investigative reporting anymore so unless more stuff comes out on its own, they are simply going to move on. Quit trying to make Benghazi happen. No one cares.

Could be because when someone does do undercover investigative journalism a rouge DA's office may charge them with a crime..

So, are you advocating for DA's to not charge for crimes when they uncover evidence that leads them to believe they occurred???

Guess you aren't keeping up. We all want Hillary charged for her crimes.

(02-03-2016 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:30 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:04 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Benghazi happened and the families are mourning. Hillary however had nothing to do with it. Since when did you become the spokesman for the families?

Please show me where I stated that I was the spokeman for the families, but good try at deflecting...

I'm not the one who brought up the families. Did you actually think I was talking about them? I guess I'm going to have to spell it out for you. I was talking about who in the general public cares about Benghazi. Your so silly.lol

Anyone with a heart that noticed that American died. Admittedly, that's a lower and lower figure in today's "me first" society.

Of course when it happened people were concerned and upset. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics still feels however that there are still unanswered questions.

You just never stop do you.

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Except for the hundreds of times you proclaimed George Zimmerman guilty before he was even charged. Not to mention the hundreds of times you proclaimed him guilty of murder AFTER he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Guilty and guilty in a court of law are two different things. She is guilty. There is no dispute. Only denial. And lies.

(02-03-2016 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Guilty and guilty in a court of law are two different things. She is guilty. There is no dispute. Only denial. And lies.

Only the court of law matters and unless you were there, you can't know for sure.

Can't know what if I weren't were?

Do you not care that OJ murdered a couple of people?

(02-03-2016 08:34 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Do you not care that OJ murdered a couple of people?

I know I don't....toss in him never meaning shite in the scope of this cuntry, and it's almost time for waffles at 'the house'....

(02-03-2016 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Guilty and guilty in a court of law are two different things. She is guilty. There is no dispute. Only denial. And lies.

Only the court of law matters and unless you were there, you can't know for sure.

waffles...waffling...waffler...

you are as inconsistent as my drizzle tool as it pleads the fif....

what a strange troll you are....

waffles are now in digestive mode...

(02-03-2016 07:59 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Except for the hundreds of times you proclaimed George Zimmerman guilty before he was even charged. Not to mention the hundreds of times you proclaimed him guilty of murder AFTER he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

I love it how Fit just skipped right over your post

(02-03-2016 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Guilty and guilty in a court of law are two different things. She is guilty. There is no dispute. Only denial. And lies.

Only the court of law matters and unless you were there, you can't know for sure.

Where was this fitbudwhen Zimmerman was on trial..

(02-03-2016 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 08:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 07:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.
Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

No, she's guilty once she's committed a crime. And she's already done that. She just wont face any consequences till a court of law makes a correct ruling.

She isn't guilty until a court says she's guilty.

Guilty and guilty in a court of law are two different things. She is guilty. There is no dispute. Only denial. And lies.

Only the court of law matters and unless you were there, you can't know for sure.

I have seen enough alleged facts to know that if those allegations are indeed true, then she has committed multiple and serious crimes.

At this point, I think the question is more whether a "team before country" AG will choose to prosecute than whether she will be convicted if prosecuted aggressively.

What are the specific law(s) that you're saying she broke? Is it only Section 1924 of Title 18?

Quote:Section 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a ) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b ) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a ).

(c ) In this section, the term ‘‘classified information of the United States’’ means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.