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.”
Monday, July 3, 2017
Tillerson lies
To Congress. It's like it's part of the job description for Trumpeters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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?
ReplyDeleteBret, no matter Harry's answer, it is bound to be false.
ReplyDeleteNo that I have a bit more time, let's examine Harry's post.
ReplyDeleteTillerson 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.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteThat is to say, does Employment in the Department of State Foreign Service for those who successfully complete the program and Foreign Service entry requirements [added] constitute an unconditional promise?
Oh for pete fricking sake:
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
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.)
ReplyDeleteYet these businesses and governments are never charged with theft. Why not?
Bret,
ReplyDeleteAre you defending Harry, as a citizen, has no right to be bothered by an important person of the govt to be lying?
There's lies and then there's lies.
ReplyDeleteCongress 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.
From the Rangel Fellowship site:
ReplyDeleteFellows 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.
[Harry:] Yet these businesses and governments are never charged with theft. Why not?
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteHarry, 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.
Like I said:
ReplyDeletehttp://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
Nice company you're keeping, Skipper
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/06/hanassholesolo-anti-semitic-posts-215344
Harry, I thought your policy was not change subjects.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
(Shrug)
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
Harry:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
So, now you;re disowning all your previous comments? Got it
ReplyDeleteNo, 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.
ReplyDeleteNow, 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteWhere I agree with libertarians is that when in doubt reduce the power of government which simply will reduce the impact of the lies.
Speaking of ducks, I believe these are on your side:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/us/avalanche-of-hate-daily-stormer-lawsuit/index.html
Not leftists, at any rate
Bret, I think it entirely appropriate to be bothered by lies. Particularly among those who so energetically fling that poo at others.
ReplyDelete[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.
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/fox-news-comments-malia-obama-harvard
ReplyDeleteWhat a perfectly stupid article, even by Teen Vogue standards.
ReplyDeleteThey do, like you, show a stunning incapability of using the word "racism" in a complete sentence.
Speaking of the duck test:
ReplyDeletePerhaps 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI was completely unsurprised.
And, no, I don't respect fascists. I do not plan to apologize for that.
Well, it's hard not to feel at least satisfaction when your poster children for Christian conservatism, the Greens, are exposed as common crooks.
ReplyDeleteThat 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?
Your moral heroes, the Greens, are common thieves.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, that has nothing whatsoever to do with their position on abortifacients.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with you and the tar brush?
Do you have difficulty distinguishing between chalk and cheese?
ReplyDeleteYour moral heroes don't believe in the 8th Commandment. So I conclude they don't really believe in the 5th either.
ReplyDeleteThat tablet was a package deal.
Harry, just when you seem have established an unbeatable record for logic abuse, you turn right around and break it.
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe sins of the Decalogue are not rank-ordered. I thought you were a religion expert
The sins of the Decalogue are not rank-ordered. I thought you were a religion expert
ReplyDeleteIf your reading comprehension was rank ordered with invertebrates, you wouldn't make it into the upper division.
Te issue is 'sincerely held religious belief.' At least, it was for the court.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't usually possible to determine sincerity, but the Greens are an exception
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.
ReplyDeleteYou should listen to evangeical preachers. I do
ReplyDeleteHarry, your all-pervasive hatred has caused you to come off the rails.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
The government does force individuals to subsidize murder. That's what the USAF does, and I am forced to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteAnd it wasn't questionable dealings, it was lawless thievery, lying, smuggling and vandalism of items some think to represent a heritage for all peoples. It is typical of you to be unwilling to admit that the Greensa re hardened criminals
The government does force individuals to subsidize murder. That's what the USAF does, and I am forced to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't understand the difference between that, and Hobby Lobby -- which is so glaring as to be evident to a grade schooler -- than your hatred has blinded you to reality.
Pro-tip: the Greens own Hobby Lobby; the US government owns the AF.
It is typical of you to be unwilling to admit that the Greensa re hardened criminals
No, it is typical of me to not mistake chalk for cheese.
There isn't any difference.
ReplyDelete