+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 01:35 PM
(08-22-2019 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Considering all the issue coming back from you is the board equivalent of 'ignore that man behind the curtain' in light of the facts of the matter ---
What is *your* opinion of the Speaker of the Assembly appointing a person who is amazingly junior in a professional capacity to two statewide commissions, all occurring while the two were doing the horizontal tango? Funny, I havent heard a word from you specifically on that subject.
You seem to have great insight into the politics of this San Francisco DA's office in the early 1990s. Were these appointments truly out-of-left-field for somebody with Harris' background? Perhaps everything that you say is spot-on... perhaps it's not. Where are you getting this information from?
Quote:I find it rather fing unseeming to be honest. At both ends of the equation. At the very least. It smacks of a guy so enraptured by current tail that he has no qualms about the rather massive advancement provided. And it smacks of a person who is more than willing to accept the 'tail for commission seat' so provided. Not the first time I have seen it, probably wont be the last. How does it play to you?
I don't know what their relationship was like. You seem to be clear that she was having sex with him as a calculated maneuver for her political advancement. Are you sure? What if she simply liked him and was dating him without ulterior motive? She wouldn't be the first young woman to be attracted to an older man that held a lot of power.
You condemn Harris for her actions without having any real insight into her motivations. Your main issue seems to be with Willie Brown's behavior in appointing somebody that he is dating to those positions.
Quote:'Slut' may be somewhat overboard, but 'tail for political gain' seems about spot on in this to me. Does that sound accurate to you? How would *you* characterize that apparent quid pro quo?
A rousing condemnation of the term slut as it applies to Harris. Also the strongest one yet from our neighborhood right-wingers.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 02:25 PM
(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".
Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.
RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 08-22-2019 02:33 PM
(08-22-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Considering all the issue coming back from you is the board equivalent of 'ignore that man behind the curtain' in light of the facts of the matter ---
What is *your* opinion of the Speaker of the Assembly appointing a person who is amazingly junior in a professional capacity to two statewide commissions, all occurring while the two were doing the horizontal tango? Funny, I havent heard a word from you specifically on that subject.
You seem to have great insight into the politics of this San Francisco DA's office in the early 1990s. Were these appointments truly out-of-left-field for somebody with Harris' background? Perhaps everything that you say is spot-on... perhaps it's not. Where are you getting this information from?
I learned quite a bit of the inside from personal friends who worked in the SF DA office at the time in question. But that is immaterial since I really havent posted those insights in the slightest, just the bald facts which are stupendously easy to verify.
The funny thing is that you squawk about everything I have posted as being supposition. If you bothered, everything I have said *is* spot on. I have only related cold, hard, easily verified facts. Which one of those facts do you disagree with? Or dont like?
What I *havent* related is the background in the DA's office at the time. Should I repeat those here so you actually have a reason to get all lathered up about background?
Now all I *have* said here is stuff that is easily verifiable. Like Harris' job title, the position in the DA's office that held, and the fact that she was doinking Willie at the time. And it is undisputed the dates that Slick Willie appointed her. Criminy, if you are so enraptured about the source and facts you can use Google for that level.
What I *havent* said is the massive actual political fallout in the DA office because of those appointments. But given the absolute and resolute resistance you show to actual verifiable and hard facts, my guess is that will *really* get your goat running wild.....
Please do tell where I have related 'insights into the SF DA office' from 1990 - 1995? I am at an utter fing loss which facts I have related show such 'insight' that you sardonically and sarcastically refer to. As noted before I will be more than happy to relate those as they were told to me from members of the SF DA at that time.
Quote:Quote:I find it rather fing unseeming to be honest. At both ends of the equation. At the very least. It smacks of a guy so enraptured by current tail that he has no qualms about the rather massive advancement provided. And it smacks of a person who is more than willing to accept the 'tail for commission seat' so provided. Not the first time I have seen it, probably wont be the last. How does it play to you?
I don't know what their relationship was like. You seem to be clear that she was having sex with him as a calculated maneuver for her political advancement. Are you sure?
All I noted was that she seemed more than okay with the appointments. It may not have been a calculated maneuver for 'political advancement'. Perhaps it was more of the extra 120k per annum that went into her pocket as a result of those appointments. Maybe she was just so bat **** smitten with Willie's willie that she didnt know what the fk was happening. Which do you think?
Quote:You condemn Harris for her actions without having any real insight into her motivations.
Funny, kind of *just like* you auto snark Trump (supporters, voters, followers). Amazing that, isnt it?
Truth be told, Harris knew damn well that Willie was handing her a political appointment and an extra 120k for jumping the guy. If she would be so naive as to not, then she has no fing business running for SF DA, CA Atty General, US Senate, or the presidency.
Do fault Willie? Sure. Following your d-ck to hand out political appointments is stupid, and reeks of non-fair play. Taking such an appointment knowing that your hooha played a role in it also has that air to it for me. The only way I would not continue with that fault on her part is if she were so slow as to be classified as mentally challenged and not being able to understand that context. For some odd reason, I dont picture her riding that particular length of bus.
Quote:Quote:'Slut' may be somewhat overboard, but 'tail for political gain' seems about spot on in this to me. Does that sound accurate to you? How would *you* characterize that apparent quid pro quo?
A rousing condemnation of the term slut as it applies to Harris. Also the strongest one yet from our neighborhood right-wingers.
And you still havent bothered to delienate how you feel about the situation. That is, aside from your (continued) 'maybe she was just head over heels and love and had zero realization of what had happened posit.' (Oh, and I forgot the catty remark about 'oh how do you know the inside scoop' over sheer, bald facts.)
Feel free to get back with me if you want some of the 'Inside the SF DA' story as I heard it. What I heard, Arlo was fing pissed that some junior ass underling in his office got that level of not just an appointment, but plural of that, as he had serious designs on state office. Led to serious bad blood between him and Willie in the long run. One guess who had a hand in shivving out Arlo when he ran for re-election in 94 or 95.
And from the next DA, Hallinan was apparently so scared of Harris and her 'helper' that she got serious kid glove treatment. Kind of worked out, because Hallinan wiped out about 80 per cent of Arlo's upper staff, which opened up a lot of room to move up people that *he* thought might help him politically. One of those people ended up running against him and ousting him. Double goodthink points if you can identify that person.
Once again, how would *you* characterize that apparent quid pro quo?
The running joke in the SF DA office in 2006-2011 was that Kamala threw the book at prostitutes and johns (she actually did), but there was definitely an upper limit for her where it was no longer sex for 'thing of value' (legal joke as it tracks the actual solicitation and prostitution statute that Kamala went ape **** in enforcing).
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 02:35 PM
(08-22-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".
Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
Like I said to Tanq... you have no clue as to Harris' motivations when it came to her relationship with Willie Brown. You are assuming that she was sleeping with him in a calculated effort to advance her career. This is pure speculation on your part.
Even if the story went exactly as you laid it out... that still wouldn't make her a slut. Do you know what a slut is?
Quote:If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.
Your position is that she lacks the educational background/intelligence/motivation/charisma that are required to be successful on her own merits. The only way for her to actually advance her career was to have sex with the right man. Have I gotten that right?
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 02:50 PM
(08-22-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Considering all the issue coming back from you is the board equivalent of 'ignore that man behind the curtain' in light of the facts of the matter ---
What is *your* opinion of the Speaker of the Assembly appointing a person who is amazingly junior in a professional capacity to two statewide commissions, all occurring while the two were doing the horizontal tango? Funny, I havent heard a word from you specifically on that subject.
You seem to have great insight into the politics of this San Francisco DA's office in the early 1990s. Were these appointments truly out-of-left-field for somebody with Harris' background? Perhaps everything that you say is spot-on... perhaps it's not. Where are you getting this information from?
I learned quite a bit of the inside from personal friends who worked in the SF DA office at the time in question. But that is immaterial since I really havent posted those insights in the slightest, just the bald facts which are stupendously easy to verify.
The funny thing is that you squawk about everything I have posted as being supposition.
No. I asked you where you were getting all of your information about the SF DA's office. The supposition that I pointed to involved your assumptions about Harris' relationship with Brown.
Quote:If you bothered, everything I have said *is* spot on. I have only related cold, hard, easily verified facts. Which one of those facts do you disagree with? Or dont like?
What I *havent* related is the background in the DA's office at the time. Should I repeat those here so you actually have a reason to get all lathered up about background?
Now all I *have* said here is stuff that is easily verifiable. Like Harris' job title, the position in the DA's office that held, and the fact that she was doinking Willie at the time. And it is undisputed the dates that Slick Willie appointed her. Criminy, if you are so enraptured about the source and facts you can use Google for that level.
Not sure if "What type of committee appointments were assistant DA's in the San Francisco DA's office routinely receiving in the 1990s" would have provided much juice from Google.
Quote:What I *havent* said is the massive actual political fallout in the DA office because of those appointments. But given the absolute and resolute resistance you show to actual verifiable and hard facts, my guess is that will *really* get your goat running wild.....
Which verifiable facts? Where you say that her committee appointments were way out-of-bounds for somebody at her level? I'm not saying you are wrong... but it's not like I had a way of "verifying" that information.
Quote:Please do tell where I have related 'insights into the SF DA office' from 1990 - 1995? I am at an utter fing loss which facts I have related show such 'insight' that you sardonically and sarcastically refer to. As noted before I will be more than happy to relate those as they were told to me from members of the SF DA at that time.
You are giving me heresay from a buddy or buddies that may have worked at the SF DA's office around the same time as Harris. Maybe this is all accurate. Maybe your buddy has/had an axe to grind. I don't know.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 02:52 PM
(08-22-2019 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Like I said to Tanq... you have no clue as to Harris' motivations when it came to her relationship with Willie Brown. You are assuming that she was sleeping with him in a calculated effort to advance her career. This is pure speculation on your part.(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
Even if the story went exactly as you laid it out... that still wouldn't make her a slut. Do you know what a slut is?
I think it's pretty clear what happened here. Would you prefer "prostitute"?
Quote:Quote:If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.Your position is that she lacks the educational background/intelligence/motivation/charisma that are required to be successful on her own merits. The only way for her to actually advance her career was to have sex with the right man. Have I gotten that right?
Pretty much. Maybe not the only way to advance, but definitely the short cut to power and influence.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 02:52 PM
(08-22-2019 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Like I said to Tanq... you have no clue as to Harris' motivations when it came to her relationship with Willie Brown. You are assuming that she was sleeping with him in a calculated effort to advance her career. This is pure speculation on your part.(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
Even if the story went exactly as you laid it out... that still wouldn't make her a slut. Do you know what a slut is?
I think it's pretty clear what happened here. Would you prefer "prostitute"?
Quote:Quote:If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.Your position is that she lacks the educational background/intelligence/motivation/charisma that are required to be successful on her own merits. The only way for her to actually advance her career was to have sex with the right man. Have I gotten that right?
Pretty much. Maybe not the only way to advance, but definitely the short cut to power and influence.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 02:52 PM
(08-22-2019 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Like I said to Tanq... you have no clue as to Harris' motivations when it came to her relationship with Willie Brown. You are assuming that she was sleeping with him in a calculated effort to advance her career. This is pure speculation on your part.(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
Even if the story went exactly as you laid it out... that still wouldn't make her a slut. Do you know what a slut is?
I think it's pretty clear what happened here. Would you prefer "prostitute"?
Quote:Quote:If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.Your position is that she lacks the educational background/intelligence/motivation/charisma that are required to be successful on her own merits. The only way for her to actually advance her career was to have sex with the right man. Have I gotten that right?
Pretty much. Maybe not the only way to advance, but definitely the short cut to power and influence. And Kamala is pretty clearly all about power and influence.
Suppose some bimbo shacked up repeatedly and openly with Donald Trump, while he is president, and suppose that she gets appointed to two or three positions of great influence, out of nowhere. What would you conclude about her motivation?
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 03:00 PM
(08-22-2019 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Like I said to Tanq... you have no clue as to Harris' motivations when it came to her relationship with Willie Brown. You are assuming that she was sleeping with him in a calculated effort to advance her career. This is pure speculation on your part.(08-22-2019 12:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Your extrapolation of Kamala Harris' dating history with Willie Brown to referring to her as a "slut".Extrapolation? How so? Woman sleeps with powerful man. Powerful man has the ability to jump start her professional career by leaps and bounds, and does so. What term would you use for that?
Even if the story went exactly as you laid it out... that still wouldn't make her a slut. Do you know what a slut is?
I think it's pretty clear what happened here. Would you prefer "prostitute"?
Quote:Quote:If not for Willie Brown, she's an assistant DA in Alameda County.Your position is that she lacks the educational background/intelligence/motivation/charisma that are required to be successful on her own merits. The only way for her to actually advance her career was to have sex with the right man. Have I gotten that right?
Pretty much. Maybe not the only way to advance, but definitely the short cut to power and influence. And Kamala is pretty clearly all about power and influence.
Suppose some bimbo shacked up repeatedly and openly with Donald Trump, while he is president, and suppose that she gets appointed to two or three positions of great influence, out of nowhere. What would you conclude about her motivation?
I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that first you labelled Kamala Harris as a "slut" and now she is "some bimbo" in your example.
RE: Trump Administration - Fort Bend Owl - 08-22-2019 03:02 PM
I thought I was the one who dubbed you guys the Angry Old Men? In any case, I was the one who brought up the movie. I'll stop referring you guys to that nickname because quite frankly the nickname game is juvenile and lazy. You have plenty of ammunition to mention the specifics why you don't like a particular politician.
In particular, I'd say Kamala the Slut is very demeaning to women in general. I don't care if she had an affair with Willie Brown or not. She's done enough work on her own through the years to demonstrate that she's a sharp individual who could handle the aspects of every job she's had. And according to Hambone's definition, you may as well call Melania Trump a slut because she did the same thing Harris did.
Just because Trump gives everyone nicknames doesn't mean you guys should do the same.
RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 08-22-2019 03:03 PM
too many day drunk boomers in the quad
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 03:29 PM
(08-22-2019 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that first you labelled Kamala Harris as a "slut" and now she is "some bimbo" in your example.
The "some bimbo" refers to some hypothetical person who shacked up with Trump. I don't think Kamala Harris is a hypothetical person (unfortunately) and I can't see her shacking up with Donald Trump, so I don't quite understand your quandary.
And if you want to engage in further discussion with me, you probably have to find a way to get past my labelling her as a slut. Because I'm not retracting. As I noted, "prostitute" may be more technically correct, but "slut" rolls off the tongue a lot easier.
RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 08-22-2019 03:32 PM
(08-22-2019 02:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Considering all the issue coming back from you is the board equivalent of 'ignore that man behind the curtain' in light of the facts of the matter ---
What is *your* opinion of the Speaker of the Assembly appointing a person who is amazingly junior in a professional capacity to two statewide commissions, all occurring while the two were doing the horizontal tango? Funny, I havent heard a word from you specifically on that subject.
You seem to have great insight into the politics of this San Francisco DA's office in the early 1990s. Were these appointments truly out-of-left-field for somebody with Harris' background? Perhaps everything that you say is spot-on... perhaps it's not. Where are you getting this information from?
I learned quite a bit of the inside from personal friends who worked in the SF DA office at the time in question. But that is immaterial since I really havent posted those insights in the slightest, just the bald facts which are stupendously easy to verify.
The funny thing is that you squawk about everything I have posted as being supposition.
No. I asked you where you were getting all of your information about the SF DA's office. The supposition that I pointed to involved your assumptions about Harris' relationship with Brown.
Uh...... both Harris and Brown readily admit to their relationship and the depth of that relationship during that time. No supposition about their relationship in the slightest there.
Quote:Quote:If you bothered, everything I have said *is* spot on. I have only related cold, hard, easily verified facts. Which one of those facts do you disagree with? Or dont like?
What I *havent* related is the background in the DA's office at the time. Should I repeat those here so you actually have a reason to get all lathered up about background?
Now all I *have* said here is stuff that is easily verifiable. Like Harris' job title, the position in the DA's office that held, and the fact that she was doinking Willie at the time. And it is undisputed the dates that Slick Willie appointed her. Criminy, if you are so enraptured about the source and facts you can use Google for that level.
Not sure if "What type of committee appointments were assistant DA's in the San Francisco DA's office routinely receiving in the 1990s" would have provided much juice from Google.
One step is to do a search of appointments and recommendations coming from Brown's office. The second is to look at whom those appointments went to.
So I guess if you dont know, and dont have the spine to do the work you question it. Sounds like a plan to me.
This came to me from more than one person who were in the SF DA at the time. If you wish to doubt it, feel free to look up any contra facts and present them. Or just badmouth them if they dont say what you wish they would say. Your choice.
It is in line with that I know about appointments in Texas (junior attorneys dont get appointed to state commissions), so it passes a second smell test.
When you find out something contra, be sure and let us know.
Quote:Which verifiable facts? Where you say that her committee appointments were way out-of-bounds for somebody at her level? I'm not saying you are wrong... but it's not like I had a way of "verifying" that information.
Public records are your friend. Utilize them. Or simply not, then badmouth. Sound like a plan?
Quote:You are giving me heresay from a buddy or buddies that may have worked at the SF DA's office around the same time as Harris. Maybe this is all accurate. Maybe your buddy has/had an axe to grind. I don't know.
Maybe you have an axe to grind and are too fing lazy to check?
Since we are down the 'may have worked' route, why dont we just end this here. You are going down the snotty as fk 'well maybe' route.
Look sparkles, if you can dig up any junior as **** DA who got a state commission appointment, go for it.
Ive known a metric ton of people who get and have gotten such appointments. In two states. I cant name a single junior level deputy DA who got one. Can you?
So here is a plan (to paraphrase a statement that you love so much): Why dont you go home and study the question if you can name any single deputy DA who got not one, but two state commission appointments, and come back to us with a report? Sound like a plan? Should be easy, and remember this (it is important): public records are your friend.
So instead of bad mouthing and complaining about the characterization, I suggest you go hit the fing books. Something tells me you wont....
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 03:37 PM
(08-22-2019 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2019 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that first you labelled Kamala Harris as a "slut" and now she is "some bimbo" in your example.
The "some bimbo" refers to some hypothetical person who shacked up with Trump. I don't think Kamala Harris is a hypothetical person (unfortunately) and I can't see her shacking up with Donald Trump, so I don't quite understand your quandary.
So why not just say "some woman" instead of "some bimbo"? Obviously placing "some bimbo" in your example negates the value of the comparison unless you also think Kamala Harris qualifies as a "bimbo". But you didn't need me to tell you that.
Quote:And if you want to engage in further discussion with me, you probably have to find a way to get past my labelling her as a slut. Because I'm not retracting. As I noted, "prostitute" may be more technically correct, but "slut" rolls off the tongue a lot easier.
OK... go to your grave thinking it is just fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. We'll agree to disagree that it's incredibly disrespectful to Harris and to women in general.
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 03:44 PM
(08-22-2019 03:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Considering all the issue coming back from you is the board equivalent of 'ignore that man behind the curtain' in light of the facts of the matter ---
What is *your* opinion of the Speaker of the Assembly appointing a person who is amazingly junior in a professional capacity to two statewide commissions, all occurring while the two were doing the horizontal tango? Funny, I havent heard a word from you specifically on that subject.
You seem to have great insight into the politics of this San Francisco DA's office in the early 1990s. Were these appointments truly out-of-left-field for somebody with Harris' background? Perhaps everything that you say is spot-on... perhaps it's not. Where are you getting this information from?
I learned quite a bit of the inside from personal friends who worked in the SF DA office at the time in question. But that is immaterial since I really havent posted those insights in the slightest, just the bald facts which are stupendously easy to verify.
The funny thing is that you squawk about everything I have posted as being supposition.
No. I asked you where you were getting all of your information about the SF DA's office. The supposition that I pointed to involved your assumptions about Harris' relationship with Brown.
Uh...... both Harris and Brown readily admit to their relationship and the depth of that relationship during that time. No supposition about their relationship in the slightest there.
Quote:Quote:If you bothered, everything I have said *is* spot on. I have only related cold, hard, easily verified facts. Which one of those facts do you disagree with? Or dont like?
What I *havent* related is the background in the DA's office at the time. Should I repeat those here so you actually have a reason to get all lathered up about background?
Now all I *have* said here is stuff that is easily verifiable. Like Harris' job title, the position in the DA's office that held, and the fact that she was doinking Willie at the time. And it is undisputed the dates that Slick Willie appointed her. Criminy, if you are so enraptured about the source and facts you can use Google for that level.
Not sure if "What type of committee appointments were assistant DA's in the San Francisco DA's office routinely receiving in the 1990s" would have provided much juice from Google.
One step is to do a search of appointments and recommendations coming from Brown's office. The second is to look at whom those appointments went to.
So I guess if you dont know, and dont have the spine to do the work you question it. Sounds like a plan to me.
or don't have the time during my work day?
Quote:This came to me from more than one person who were in the SF DA at the time. If you wish to doubt it, feel free to look up any contra facts and present them. Or just badmouth them if they dont say what you wish they would say. Your choice.
Tell me where I badmouthed them?
Quote:It is in line with that I know about appointments in Texas (junior attorneys dont get appointed to state commissions), so it passes a second smell test.
When you find out something contra, be sure and let us know.
Quote:Which verifiable facts? Where you say that her committee appointments were way out-of-bounds for somebody at her level? I'm not saying you are wrong... but it's not like I had a way of "verifying" that information.
Public records are your friend. Utilize them. Or simply not, then badmouth. Sound like a plan?
Sorry. Not doing homework assignments in the middle of my work day.
Quote:
Quote:You are giving me heresay from a buddy or buddies that may have worked at the SF DA's office around the same time as Harris. Maybe this is all accurate. Maybe your buddy has/had an axe to grind. I don't know.
Maybe you have an axe to grind and are too fing lazy to check?
Lazy? Maybe these quick hitter posts are probably more time than I should be taking from my work day?
Quote:Since we are down the 'may have worked' route, why dont we just end this here. You are going down the snotty as fk 'well maybe' route.
Look sparkles, if you can dig up any junior as **** DA who got a state commission appointment, go for it.
Ive known a metric ton of people who get and have gotten such appointments. In two states. I cant name a single junior level deputy DA who got one. Can you?
So here is a plan (to paraphrase a statement that you love so much): Why dont you go home and study the question if you can name any single deputy DA who got not one, but two state commission appointments, and come back to us with a report? Sound like a plan? Should be easy, and remember this (it is important): public records are your friend.
So instead of bad mouthing and complaining about the characterization, I suggest you go hit the fing books. Something tells me you wont....
Yes... I recommend that you not hold your breath on this homework assignment.
RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 08-22-2019 03:50 PM
(08-22-2019 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:(08-22-2019 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2019 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that first you labelled Kamala Harris as a "slut" and now she is "some bimbo" in your example.
The "some bimbo" refers to some hypothetical person who shacked up with Trump. I don't think Kamala Harris is a hypothetical person (unfortunately) and I can't see her shacking up with Donald Trump, so I don't quite understand your quandary.
So why not just say "some woman" instead of "some bimbo"? Obviously placing "some bimbo" in your example negates the value of the comparison unless you also think Kamala Harris qualifies as a "bimbo". But you didn't need me to tell you that.
I do like how the king of non-stating that Trump (followers, supporters, voters) are ignorant is incensed, incensed! mind you, of the *implication* of K Harris as a 'bimbo' for garnering two! state appointments because of Willie's willy. This is rich.
This is as good as Louis Renault in 'Casablanca'.
Quote:Quote:And if you want to engage in further discussion with me, you probably have to find a way to get past my labelling her as a slut. Because I'm not retracting. As I noted, "prostitute" may be more technically correct, but "slut" rolls off the tongue a lot easier.
OK... go to your grave thinking it is just fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. We'll agree to disagree that it's incredibly disrespectful to Harris and to women in general.
Any less disrespectful than garnering two state appointments by being Willy's bouncy house toy?
I mean, that is such an incredibly powerful role model story there...... How in the hell is that method of garnering appointments 'respectful to women in general' in even the slightest manner? lol....
This outrage is comedy gold.
RE: Trump Administration - Rice93 - 08-22-2019 03:52 PM
OK...couldn't resist a google search on my wait out of the office for "California Assistant DA appointed to State Commission"
This is one of the first links (from 2017)
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-announces-state-appointments
Attorney General Becerra nominated Tracey Whitney to the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (COMIO). COMIO was created by the Legislature in 2001 to address growing concerns about the high number of individuals with mental illness who were incarcerated or at risk of incarceration.
Ms. Whitney is currently a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. She is a founding member of the DA’s Mental Health Advisory Board and the County’s Permanent Steering Committee. Prior to her nearly two decades in the DA’s office, Ms. Whitney served as a Deputy District Attorney in Orange County. Ms. Whitney also clerked for federal court judge Honorable Kim McLane Wardlaw. She began her career in private practice. Ms. Whitney received her Juris Doctor from USC Gould School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Duke University.
Not sure if deputy district attorney is a reasonable comparison to whatever level that Tanq referred to. Any further thought about this would go over the 15 seconds I am willing to devote to it though.
RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 08-22-2019 04:24 PM
(08-22-2019 03:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote: OK...couldn't resist a google search on my wait out of the office for "California Assistant DA appointed to State Commission"
This is one of the first links (from 2017)
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-announces-state-appointments
Attorney General Becerra nominated Tracey Whitney to the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (COMIO). COMIO was created by the Legislature in 2001 to address growing concerns about the high number of individuals with mental illness who were incarcerated or at risk of incarceration.
Ms. Whitney is currently a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. She is a founding member of the DA’s Mental Health Advisory Board and the County’s Permanent Steering Committee. Prior to her nearly two decades in the DA’s office, Ms. Whitney served as a Deputy District Attorney in Orange County. Ms. Whitney also clerked for federal court judge Honorable Kim McLane Wardlaw. She began her career in private practice. Ms. Whitney received her Juris Doctor from USC Gould School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Duke University.
Not sure if deputy district attorney is a reasonable comparison to whatever level that Tanq referred to. Any further thought about this would go over the 15 seconds I am willing to devote to it though.
I guess you didnt read the part about two decades of experience in the DA's office. How many years legal experience did Kamala have? Did you look into that? If you had (i.e. spent more than 15 secs) you would have noted that it was *less* than two years. Perhaps if you had taken a whole 17 secs you might understand that number in context.
Did you read the part about her founding the DA’s Mental Health Advisory Board and the County’s Permanent Steering Committee? What background in the areas that Willy tapped her (hehe) for did Kamala have? Hmmmm..... well still.... less than two years real world experience in total.
Perhaps if you upped your total to 20 fing seconds you would see what she was called upon to extend the to the world her deep, less than two year expertise to. Somehow that less than two years in all experience total made her supremely well fit to aid the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. And to oversee Medi-Cal service contracts.
Funny, I dont see the equivalent type of background experience that your find had already in mental health issues to be on a mental health commission. Well, lets up that total to 25 seconds so you dont look like a *complete* uninformed ass....
Please do tell how less than two years total experience garnered Harris the amazing expertise to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. I am curious. Or how that less than two years experience garnered her the ability and wisdom for overseeing Medi-Cal service contracts.
Do you actually read things without keywords and skimming? Good grief.
The long and short is that Willy appointed a person with less that two whole fing years of legal experience to these posts. And zero fing years of any real world experience beyond those less than two whole years in the DA office.... Yet by god you are going to fight tooth and fing nail about that --- lolz.
*******..... 200k in state commission salaries with *less* than two years experience in the real fing world. How do I get one of those gigs? That is, aside from being boned by Willy that is....
Quick 'yes or no' question for you 93...... Do you see a significant difference between: a) a 20+ year attorney who founded a local mental health program being selected to be on a mental health related commission; and b) a 2- year attorney with zero other experience whatsoever being selected for *two* state commissions, where the subjects are such where he/she has absolutely zero background in?
Most people will say 'yes' there is a significant difference. An obvious difference. Do you see that difference?
Maybe, just maybe, you will invest in the less than 30 secs to actually look at the facts instead of that brave keyword search you labored over.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 06:26 PM
(08-22-2019 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote: OK... go to your grave thinking it is just fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. We'll agree to disagree that it's incredibly disrespectful to Harris and to women in general.
I do think it's fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. I will agree that it is disrespectful to Harris to call her a slut, and I'm fine with that. She deserves disrespect. I believe it is disrespectful to the 99% of women who are not sluts not to call Harris what she is.
RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2019 06:27 PM
(08-22-2019 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote: OK... go to your grave thinking it is just fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. We'll agree to disagree that it's incredibly disrespectful to Harris and to women in general.
I do think it's fine to call Kamala Harris a slut. I will agree that it is disrespectful to Harris to call her a slut, and I'm fine with that. She deserves and needs disrespect.
I believe it is disrespectful to the 99% of women who are not sluts not to distinguish Harris from them.