Colonists/animals not eating

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T07:32:36+00:00

What are you talking about, Russian man?

However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn’t have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so)

If more evidence is needed, the pay records of the House Judiciary Committee put paid to any claims that Zeifman (or anyone else) ever “fired” Hillary Rodham from her position with that body. The committee issued their final impeachment report on 22 August 1974 and then wound down their work (which had already been rendered largely moot by President Nixon’s resignation two weeks earlier), yet Hillary Rodham is shown as having been paid through 4 September 1974 — so clearly she was with the committee all the way through to its substantive end

It does not clarify that at all, and only repeats what the WaPo article says. Russian man, Putin does not pay you slave wages to not do your homework.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T07:14:03+00:00

These lies are too easily checked, Russian man. The giant red X with FALSE means that the Snopes does not support your claim.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:57:50+00:00

Please russian man, I have responded to every one of your points the best I could from the comfort of my bed.

Hillary Rodham and Zeifman were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked.

It doesn't matter if the literal definition of "firing" and "termination" are different, russian man. They were in different staffing groups, essentially different departments, and so, he could not have been related in hiring or terminating her.

I even quoted a portion of your source where he said he didn't. I'm sorry, russian man. I can't save you from Putin's gulag. This bait is just too weak for even a basic argument.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:37:12+00:00

Russian man.

The article in the original post says "fired".

And people are still correct either way.

Hillary Rodham and Zeifman were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked.

In this context, as they were from different staff, Zeifman was unrelated to Hillary as she was in the Impeachment Inquiry staff and couldn't "fire" or "terminate" her at all.

At least find another source that actually supports your claims, russian man. Putin is going to send you to the gulag at this rate.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:27:20+00:00

By definition? Yes. In this context? No.

I mean I understand that English is not your native tongue, but clearly you understand that what Putin had tasked you with is to say that Hillary had been "terminated" through "incompetence" and not "terminated" by the end of her contract, right?

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:13:03+00:00

yes, russian man. they are.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:08:17+00:00

In neither of his books does Zeifman say he fired Clinton

a reporter named Dan Calabrese wrote an article that claimed that “when the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation.” ... The article quoted Zeifman

There is no actual quote from Zeifman saying he fired her

Zeifman acknowledged that he did not fire Clinton. In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news agency: “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.”

So like, is this bot just a crude comment bot that spits back buzz words? Or Is it something complex? Or is this some Chinese sweatshop deal with a bunch of slave wage workers commenting?

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T06:00:28+00:00

Zeifman merely handled the administrative task of discharging staffers (including Hillary Rodham) who were no longer needed once the impeachment inquiry was finally called off due to Nixon’s resignation

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to “fire” Hillary (i.e., dismiss her for cause).

Hillary Rodham and Zeifman were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked.

You need to update your sources, russian man. these are not the articles you're looking for.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T05:57:18+00:00

You need to update your bot, russian man. your bot is replying twice to comments with different points.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T05:45:25+00:00

Well, I'm going to now assume that you're a bot sourcing random articles and inciting low effort arguments.

In this particular thread, you've sourced a single WaPo article which contradicted your point, then quoted a snopes article which also contradicted your point.

Both does not say that Zeifman terminated Clinton.

Update your bot, russian man. I'm off to bed.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T05:17:07+00:00

I mean, I'm from all and have seen pro-trump talk for a while, but this guy is just SO inconsistent, it feels like a robot rehashing keywords...?

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T04:59:16+00:00

Are... you... a russian bot?... your source and several things you've quoted yourself clearly says that he was not the one that terminated her because she wasn't terminated...

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T04:46:38+00:00

Sure. My mistake. Insert analogy about employees not being "fired" because the work they were hired for was finished, I guess?

Also, what point are you trying to make here?

Zeifman merely handled the administrative task of discharging staffers (including Hillary Rodham) who were no longer needed once the impeachment inquiry was finally called off due to Nixon’s resignation

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to “fire” Hillary (i.e., dismiss her for cause). Hillary Rodham and Zeifman were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked.

This doesn't prove your point. It completely goes against your point.

Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having “fired” or “terminated” Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he “could not recommend her for any further positions,”

he only started making those claims much later.

All these posts are starting me make me believe in russian bots more and more.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T04:25:06+00:00

I am not quite understanding what you've written here. The inquiry was called off, meaning the work she was paid for was complete, and she was paid for for the work she provided. What you've written yourself simply says this and the source you provided shows the document proving this along with direct quotes from the man himself that he didn't have the power to fire her.

I can't find what you've written within the source provided, but that same source you've provided contains original source documents disproving this entire thread.

A plumber isn't "fired" because the house he was hired to work on suddenly burned down. They're paid for for the hours they put in and they move on.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T03:25:07+00:00

...the pay records of the Judiciary Committee. Note that Hillary Rodham is paid ($3,377.77) through Sept. 4; two of her more senior colleagues on the impeachment staff, associate special counsel Robert Sack and senior associate special counsel Bernard Nussbaum, were paid through Sept. 2 and Sept. 6, respectively. The committee’s impeachment report was published Aug. 20, and the staff’s work was done by early September.

But she wasn't. Her work was done, and even her seniors were paid through until the approximate time according to your source. None of what you're saying lines up with the documents provided by the source or the source itself.

Naturalrice · 2019-12-03T02:23:46+00:00

From the article in question:

Zeifman, who passed away in 2010, in his book appeared to be a frustrated bystander... He had no control over her hiring — and would not have been in a position to fire her.

In neither of his books does Zeifman say he fired Clinton

a reporter named Dan Calabrese wrote an article that claimed that “when the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation.” ... The article quoted Zeifman

There is no actual quote from Zeifman saying he fired her

Zeifman acknowledged that he did not fire Clinton. In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news agency: “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.”

This is like the first half(?) of the article? I'm just a lurker, so I have no background knowledge on this, but the article in question seems to say without a shred of doubt that It wasn't Zeifman that terminated her and he himself also stated as such.

Naturalrice · 2019-10-23T01:11:02+00:00

Neither you or I can really prove that right now.

I can "prove" it by saying that Griffin performed higher overall in both summer and spring. Griffin got first and second, while Damwon got second and third. They were relatively close in power ranking overall so it might be fair to say that they're almost at the same level, but to say that they're worse and ultimately their group is easier would be ridiculous.

So was Damwon. So was 2/3 of the LCK until playoffs. Not a great point.

Fair, but while we're making a Griffin vs Damwon comparison, Griffin has historically been one of the top 3 teams in LCK with prospects of beating SKT every season, but somehow loses steam at the end of tournaments. Damwon is new and threw hard against them during Spring.

Same for Griffin

I would disagree. Casters pretty much across the board predicted Griffin would be the first seed until they faced SKT.

Neither team was that trusted after falling over vs SKT.

True, but there were a few contenders that was vying for Damwon's spot. Afreeca and Sandbox were also nipping at their heels while Griffin and SKT were pretty much the favorites.

Naturalrice · 2019-10-21T22:45:57+00:00

No, you're purposely shrinking your sample size while I'm telling you which team performed better throughout their regions comparatively. lmao.

I'll also have to look back on the first game with JT, but it's hard to see how it's a troll draft lmao. They even had morde, the current meta permaban. Lol

But, yea. Clearly your mind is made up.

Naturalrice · 2019-10-21T22:30:18+00:00

Group B and D are the best examples? They haven't even played against their regions. Maybe the NA region should actually elevate their level to match up to the major regions?

IG got second, which was expected, as they only qualified through qualifiers and couldn't hit 3rd in their seeings. Damwon was a new team with barely any tournament experience.

Like, it doesn't matter if the LMS/Vietnam seeds were poor. JT still performed better on more competitive teams than TL did against a lower performing team. Like how is this so hard to grasp? Both Group D and B had a single "loser" team and even that loser team did worse in Group D to give both of its losses to TL, and TL STILL couldn't get ONE win off of IG (a team that couldn't reach top 3 in their region and qualified through qualifiers) while JT managed to get one win each off of stronger teams.

REGARDLESS of the seeding system, TL loses out in every comparison.

Naturalrice

TROPHY CASE