Monday, July 3, 2017

Tillerson lies

To Congress. It's like it's part of the job description for Trumpeters.

Mr. Tillerson’s testimony notwithstanding, the programs explicitly promise that fellows will be able to join the Foreign Service if they successfully complete the fellowship. Zaid Zaid, a former Pickering fellow, said that Mr. Tillerson’s claim that no one had promised the fellows jobs in the Foreign Service was “patently false and ridiculous.”

38 comments:

  1. It's part of the job description for all politicians and bureaucrats. Actually, it's part of the job description of being human, come to think of it. Or do you know someone, anyone who's never stated something false?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bret, no matter Harry's answer, it is bound to be false.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No that I have a bit more time, let's examine Harry's post.

    Tillerson lies …

    Mr. Tillerson’s testimony notwithstanding, the programs explicitly promise that fellows will be able to join the Foreign Service if they successfully complete the fellowship. Zaid Zaid, a former Pickering fellow, said that Mr. Tillerson’s claim that no one had promised the fellows jobs in the Foreign Service was “patently false and ridiculous.”


    First of all, for Tillerson's testimony to be a lie, the promise must have been unconditional. That is to say, does Employment in the Department of State Foreign Service for those who successfully complete the program and Foreign Service entry requirements.

    Having served in the military, I know full well that provided expectations will always be contingent upon the needs of the service. There can be no doubt that the State Dept made a promise — as opposed to provided an expectation — that if these people completed their programs, they would, no matter what, get a job at the end.

    If the State Dept's budget decreases, then there will be consequences. Among them will be that some expectations will not become reality. I have been there several times. To insist that there was some sort of binding promise made to these people is simply foolish.

    That Gardiner Harris, the reporter, could present an expectation as a promise strongly suggests he should find a different line of work, because accurately assessing the glaringly obvious is clearly not his strong suit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh for pete fricking sake:

    There can be no doubt that the State Dept made a promise — as opposed to provided an expectation ...

    That sentence is a complete mess.

    The State Dept provided an expectation, not a promise. There is no way State would promise that, no matter what, fellows would get a job at the end.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am glad you brought that up, Skipper, because across the country, businesses and governments hire people based on promises of deferred compensation, which later they fail to pay. (Not the case with these fellows, but it reminded me of the problem.)

    Yet these businesses and governments are never charged with theft. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bret,

    Are you defending Harry, as a citizen, has no right to be bothered by an important person of the govt to be lying?

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's lies and then there's lies.

    Congress set up that program (I surmise from the name Rangel) and so it knows what was promised. Had Tillerson lied to me, I wouldn't know it because I never heard of the program till now.

    It's stupid to lie to people who know the truth, doubly stupid when you know your target knows the truth, triply so when the target created the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From the Rangel Fellowship site:

    Fellows who successfully complete the program and Foreign Service entry requirements will receive appointments as Foreign Service Officers, one of the most exciting and rewarding careers available.

    That seems clear enough.

    Also, I have never heard of a fellowship that the fellow had to repay, although I suppose that if a fellow were offered a post and refused it, repayment might be reasonable.

    The whole thing is not just an example of dishonesty, disrespect and arrogance but of the fundametal meanspiritedness of the rightwing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Harry:] Yet these businesses and governments are never charged with theft. Why not?

    You really need to be much more specific.

    Congress set up that program (I surmise from the name Rangel) and so it knows what was promised.

    Harry, that isn't how it works. The program established goals and expectations: Fellows who successfully complete the program and Foreign Service entry requirements will receive appointments as Foreign Service Officers, one of the most exciting and rewarding careers available. 

    I guarantee that the contract these fellows signed was a great deal more specific, and limited, than what you quote. The State Dept can, for whatever reasons it chooses terminate the agreement.

    Mr. Tillerson is absolutely correct: an unconditional promise never existed. Zaid Zaid either never read the contract he signed, or did and is lying. Can't have it both ways.

    It's stupid to lie to people who know the truth, doubly stupid when you know your target knows the truth, triply so when the target created the truth.

    It is epically stupid to do what you can't stop doing: accuse people of lying when you have no idea what the truth is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So you read the contract? lease cite the part where it says if the employer does not offer a post, you have to repay the fellowship.

    As for the first statement, there are tens of thousands of examples. It is hard to believe that you, a self-proclaimed expert on employment agreements, would not be aware of them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you read the contract? lease cite the part where it says if the employer does not offer a post, you have to repay the fellowship.

    Harry, here is what you said in the post:

    Mr. Tillerson’s testimony notwithstanding, the programs explicitly promise that fellows will be able to join the Foreign Service if they successfully complete the fellowship. Zaid Zaid, a former Pickering fellow, said that Mr. Tillerson’s claim that no one had promised the fellows jobs in the Foreign Service was “patently false and ridiculous.”

    That you understand neither "explicitly" nor "promise isn't my problem to solve.

    Nor is your inability to read and understand your own citation. You know, the part that renders where it says if the employer does not offer a post, you have to repay the fellowship self ridiculing.

    As for the first statement, there are tens of thousands of examples. It is hard to believe that you, a self-proclaimed expert on employment agreements, would not be aware of them.

    Harry, you are the one who brought it up. Please provide specifics. Otherwise Yet these businesses and governments are never charged with theft. Why not? is just empty twaddle.

    Your blog. You can troll it as much as you want.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Like I said:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/SB110003711129469246.htm

    If you were unaware of this before, then you have just admitted your incompetence to comment on employer-employee matters

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice company you're keeping, Skipper

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/06/hanassholesolo-anti-semitic-posts-215344

    ReplyDelete
  14. Harry, I thought your policy was not change subjects.

    And I'm not sure why someone I've never met somehow constitutes the wrong kind of company, in comparison to someone I have met who traffics in lies, smears, and completely fails to take any accountability for even the most egregious errors.

    So instead of trotting out irrelevancies, how about responding to the points you raised.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (Shrug)

    You have, by now, linked me hundreds of times to people you regard as progressives who 1) I never heard of, 2) may not be progressives.

    I have from time to time corrected you, but you insist you know what I think better than I do, the same way you do with Muslims, Christians etc. So, I notice you have not denounced your neonazi fellow-travelers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Harry:

    The first time "progressives" was used in this thread was by you.

    So instead of trotting out irrelevancies, how about responding to the points you raised.

    Oh, yeah, and assume accountability for your epic ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, now you;re disowning all your previous comments? Got it

    ReplyDelete
  18. No, Harry, unlike you, I do not disown my previous comments. You are a hard leftist, indistinguishable in any meaningful regard from progressives and marxists. It's a duck test thing.

    Now, what has that to do with your incomprehension regarding this foreign service program?

    BTW, are you disowning your comments about changing subjects here at RTO?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Clovis, I think it silly to be bothered by folks lying. I get the use of pointing out lies by the other side for the purposes of propaganda, but everybody in government lies a lot on both sides.

    Where I agree with libertarians is that when in doubt reduce the power of government which simply will reduce the impact of the lies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Speaking of ducks, I believe these are on your side:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/us/avalanche-of-hate-daily-stormer-lawsuit/index.html

    Not leftists, at any rate

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bret, I think it entirely appropriate to be bothered by lies. Particularly among those who so energetically fling that poo at others.

    [Harry:] Speaking of ducks, I believe these are on your side:

    IIRC, both Salon and Puffingtonhost published articles explaining how that poor kid the NORKs beat to death had it coming to him because of white privilege.

    They are on your side. Just like those tossing Jews out of an LGBTQWHATEVER parade. And the antifa fascists. And the campus maolings.

    Go ahead and fling that crap; there's spades ready to come back at you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.teenvogue.com/story/fox-news-comments-malia-obama-harvard

    ReplyDelete
  23. What a perfectly stupid article, even by Teen Vogue standards.

    They do, like you, show a stunning incapability of using the word "racism" in a complete sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Speaking of the duck test:

    Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that progressives are exhibiting all of the traits that they accused Christian conservatives of embodying: smug judgmental attitudes, harsh denunciation of those who make different choices, lack of respect for others who see things differently and a refusal to recognize individual autonomy, an eagerness to enforce a stifling code of behavior, and a conditional-at-best view towards liberty.

    That is you, right down the line.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Smug judgmental attitudes? Well, it's hard not to feel at least satisfaction when your poster children for Christian conservatism, the Greens, are exposed as common crooks.
    I was completely unsurprised.

    And, no, I don't respect fascists. I do not plan to apologize for that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, it's hard not to feel at least satisfaction when your poster children for Christian conservatism, the Greens, are exposed as common crooks.

    That is perhaps the most unhinged comment you have ever put up.

    And, no, I don't respect fascists. I do not plan to apologize for that.

    You need to apologize for every time you used that word -- never mind "racist" -- as a baseless smear.

    Which is, at last counting is just about every darn time you've used either one.

    Odds of that happening? Precisely the same as you owning your lies and flagrant mistakes.

    Now, what has that to do with your incomprehension regarding this foreign service program?

    BTW, are you disowning your comments about changing subjects here at RTO?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Your moral heroes, the Greens, are common thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Regardless, that has nothing whatsoever to do with their position on abortifacients.

    What is it with you and the tar brush?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between chalk and cheese?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your moral heroes don't believe in the 8th Commandment. So I conclude they don't really believe in the 5th either.

    That tablet was a package deal.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Harry, just when you seem have established an unbeatable record for logic abuse, you turn right around and break it.

    Your conclusion is stupid on multiple levels: violating a commandment can't mean disbelieving it. Violating one commandment doesn't mean a violation of other commandments. That the identity of the Greens has anything do with asserting abortifacients are murder weapons, and that individuals may conscientiously object to directly supporting murder.

    That is a powerful lot of stupid in just a couple sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Your sleazy heroes had better hope I am wrong about their god being imaginary, because if I'm wrong, things are going to go very hard for them.

    The sins of the Decalogue are not rank-ordered. I thought you were a religion expert

    ReplyDelete
  33. The sins of the Decalogue are not rank-ordered. I thought you were a religion expert

    If your reading comprehension was rank ordered with invertebrates, you wouldn't make it into the upper division.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Te issue is 'sincerely held religious belief.' At least, it was for the court.

    It isn't usually possible to determine sincerity, but the Greens are an exception

    ReplyDelete
  35. It is always possible to determine your authority on this subject: none. Your arguments have been so removed from reason as to be nearly incomprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You should listen to evangeical preachers. I do

    ReplyDelete
  37. Harry, your all-pervasive hatred has caused you to come off the rails.

    In this thread, you made a comment so removed from reason that it is nearly impossible to comprehend. In a previous thread, your hatred of Christians is so blinding that you, in saying that Christians are more prone to terrorism in the US than Muslims, couldn't see your glaring, monumental, statistical error.

    Just so here. The court has decided that the government may not force individuals to subsidize murder. If you think that amounts to religious tyranny, or that the Greens can't possibly have a valid ethical view on the matter because of questionable dealings in antiquities are sure signs you have nothing worthwhile to say, other than being a continual source of fascination for the hypocrisy and departures from reality that come from the kind of hatred that would make any Stormfronter proud.

    ReplyDelete