The thought police and montana

[EverettGriz]

Hm. Not sure I even want to think about-- say nothing about actually know --how you know the size of men's dicks, PR.

 

[Copper Griz]

I have no f*cks to give for your politics or blame game

:clap:

It's always been my position that those who strongly promote a political position are almost always:

1. Wrong
2. Ignored by 99.7% of the rational people.

My theory is that people with small dicks tend to call things dick measuring contests, probably they are so insecure. I've never understood why some people think discussions anod disagreements are dick measuring contests.

One way or the other it always comes back to dick size. You are a real sexist PR. Leaving the women completely out of the argument. What about bra size?

 

[Copper Griz]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

Cheney was by far the best President of The United States -ever! Cheney, Cheney, Cheney!! Oh, wait a minute.

 

[Ursa Major]

And just a small question about this scandal: What in the world does it have to do with University of Montana athletics? (I probably should have posed this question first.)

That's an excellent question. All of the political jibber jabber appears to be some type of dick measuring. Isn't there a politics forum for this bullshit? I have no f*cks to give for your politics or blame game. Anything to share regarding Griz football?

+2

 

[CV Griz Fan]

Woah big fella! Relax. Read my post about how Americans have some of the shortest memories on the planets. I'll see you during the next Republican scandal. I hope then that I won't be as aggressive as you are here.

The key difference between Republican (of which I am not one) and Democrat scandals is the way the PRESS treats them. And if you are in denial about that, then you're truly beyond hope.

Agree on all counts, and I'm not a Repub either. The press is being much less harsh on Obama in the past month, than it would have been on Bush or a Repub. While not quite the same, the press has also largely given the Obama admin a pass on the missed step/signals in the Boston marathon bombings, but went after Bush on the bits of "missed" signs in the WTC/911 bombings--and Bush had only been the president for 8 months.

I think if Obama had almost died from choking on a pretzel or said something like "OB-GYN's can't practice love with their patients" the press would be harder on him. Sometimes when political figures are in a "tailspin" like "W" was there is no stopping the press attacks. Bush was his own worst enemy. Even Bush No. 1 couldn't stand him.

 

[Grizlaw]

Why would he get clearance to attend so many meetings, but attend so few of them? I wonder if that is common.

I suspect that it is. I have never been to the White House, but I have been cleared to get into Treasury before (which, because it is next door to the White House and is connected to the WH's underground tunnel network, requires the same security clearance). To attend a meeting at Treasury, you have to obtain clearance at least 24-48 hours in advance...no exceptions. Because of that, it seems to be common practice to obtain clearance for everyone who might attend a scheduled meeting, since it is not possible to add people at the last minute. I'm sure the same is true at the White House.

 

[PlayerRep]

Why would he get clearance to attend so many meetings, but attend so few of them? I wonder if that is common.

I suspect that it is. I have never been to the White House, but I have been cleared to get into Treasury before (which, because it is next door to the White House and is connected to the WH's underground tunnel network, requires the same security clearance). To attend a meeting at Treasury, you have to obtain clearance at least 24-48 hours in advance...no exceptions. Because of that, it seems to be common practice to obtain clearance for everyone who might attend a scheduled meeting, since it is not possible to add people at the last minute. I'm sure the same is true at the White House.

I don't buy the high ratio of 157 to 11. Just read that the IRS commissioner had more authorizations to attend White House meetings than any cabinet member. Why would the IRS commissioner be in so many meeting with Cutter, the political operative who at the time did in fact have a White House role. She's the one who said recently that Shulman was in meetings with her and that they related to implementing ObamaCare. Why do none of Shulman's approved visits coincide with days that another lower level IRS official, eventually the IRS person in charge implementing ObamaCare at the IRS, was cleared to attend White House meetings? Maybe all coincidence, but looks a bit fishy to me.

 

[Grizlaw]

I don't buy the high ratio of 157 to 11. Just read that the IRS commissioner had more authorizations to attend White House meetings than any cabinet member. Why would the IRS commissioner be in so many meeting with Cutter, the political operative who at the time did in fact have a White House role. She's the one who said recently that Shulman was in meetings with her and that they related to implementing ObamaCare. Why do none of Shulman's approved visits coincide with days that another lower level IRS official, eventually the IRS person in charge implementing ObamaCare at the IRS, was cleared to attend White House meetings? Maybe all coincidence, but looks a bit fishy to me.

Obviously we can only speculate, but I suspect the discrepancy is due to a combination of things (i.e., meetings that were scheduled but that Shulman ended up attending telephonically; meetings that were tentatively scheduled and re-scheduled or cancelled, etc.) Without knowing more about the White House's protocols for things like this, it's hard to have an informed view.

It may or may not be fishy. Certainly, this entire debacle gives us plenty to be suspicious about, but occasionally a cigar truly is just a cigar.

 

[garizzalies]

...Certainly, this entire debacle gives us plenty to be suspicious about, but occasionally a cigar truly is just a cigar.

Reminds me of one of my favorite ACT skits CoCo used to do in the late 90s:

Janet Reno is to "export Cuban" as
Bill Clinton is to "insert Cuban"

 

[brian s]

I don't buy the high ratio of 157 to 11. Just read that the IRS commissioner had more authorizations to attend White House meetings than any cabinet member. Why would the IRS commissioner be in so many meeting with Cutter, the political operative who at the time did in fact have a White House role. She's the one who said recently that Shulman was in meetings with her and that they related to implementing ObamaCare. Why do none of Shulman's approved visits coincide with days that another lower level IRS official, eventually the IRS person in charge implementing ObamaCare at the IRS, was cleared to attend White House meetings? Maybe all coincidence, but looks a bit fishy to me.

Obviously we can only speculate, but I suspect the discrepancy is due to a combination of things (i.e., meetings that were scheduled but that Shulman ended up attending telephonically; meetings that were tentatively scheduled and re-scheduled or cancelled, etc.) Without knowing more about the White House's protocols for things like this, it's hard to have an informed view.

It may or may not be fishy. Certainly, this entire debacle gives us plenty to be suspicious about, but occasionally a cigar truly is just a cigar.

This cigar is really a cigarillo

 

[zengriz]

...when bill lied...
...nobody died...

... ...

 

[tnt]

...when bill lied...
...nobody died...

... ...

Unlike Iran-Contra

 

[Jerry Punch]

When you follow things like this up with a chintzy and cute icon, it really lessens your overall point.

We can have a debate about the Obama presidency without delving into his race, but don't let me interrupt the Klan party, bro. Carry on.

Yeah the icon is way worse than falsely race-baiting. P.S. There is no debate about who is worse - Obama by a mile. :thumb: :clap:

I'll take that one under advisement as I slowly count my earnings from the stock market over the past few years.

Market is taking a major digger this week. Still counting? hahaha

Stocks up sharply on May jobs report. There you go again with that short memory.

 

[Grizlaw]

Stocks up sharply on May jobs report. There you go again with that short memory.

Or you could just ask him how the markets are doing since Obama took office. The Dow is up about 86%, for anyone who cares...

 

[UMGriz75]

"Inside Higher Ed:"

"Into the Lawyer's Den"

PHILADELPHIA -- John K. DiPaolo is a brave man.

College lawyers are far from thrilled with how DiPaolo's employer -- the U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights -- is regulating colleges' handling of sexual harassment of students is an understatement.

Yet there DiPaolo was Thursday before a roomful of legal experts at the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, explaining the department's recent actions and absorbing pointed yet generally polite pushback from those who believe the agency has overstepped its bounds in cracking down on perceived violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. (It could be argued that DiPaolo was there under false pretenses, given that the session's moderator, David A. Armstrong, of Notre Dame College of Ohio, joked that he had lured the federal official to the meeting by assuring him that "he would be among friends.")

The Obama administration has stepped up its enforcement of sexual harassment rules since 2010, starting with investigations that led to voluntary resolution agreements with Armstrong's institution and Eastern Michigan University, escalating with high-profile inquiries at Yale University and the University of Notre Dame and a 2012 letter with regulatory guidance, and peaking this spring with a settlement with the University of Montana. The Montana case drew significant attention because, in a letter trumpeting the expansive and unusually aggressive agreement, the Justice Department characterized the settlement there as a "blueprint" for other colleges.

Among other things, the Montana agreement drew fire from civil liberties' advocates for appearing to define sexual harassment exceptionally broadly to include some statements, and from many campus officials for, among other things, seeming to reject Montana's policy of requiring that sexual harassment be "objectively offensive," opening up the possibility of a much more subjective definition, said Armstrong, currently vice president for enrollment and legal counsel at Notre Dame but about to become president of Thomas More College.

...
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/21/ocr-official-explains-harassment-policies-skeptical-college-lawyers#ixzz2WrfreGV0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Inside Higher Ed

 

[UMGriz75]

UM's legal counsel was recently quoted in the Missoulian, very nearly taking credit for the "agreement" that inverts UM students' due process and free speech rights -- that other universities are calling for guidance.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/um-meets-initial-goals-of-doj-sex-assault-harassment-agreement/article_464c4148-4681-11e3-8ee7-0019bb2963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really?

That's too bad. DOJ says its "not" the template.

WASHINGTON, November 21, 2013—The federal government is backing away from the nationwide “blueprint” for campus speech restrictions issued this May by the Departments of Education and Justice. The agencies’ settlement with the University of Montana sought to impose new, unconstitutional speech restrictions, due process abuses, and an overbroad definition of sexual harassment and proclaimed the agreement to be “a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country.”

But in a letter sent last week to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the new head of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Catherine Lhamon, said that “the agreement in the Montana case represents the resolution of that particular case and not OCR or DOJ policy.”

http://thefire.org/article/16512.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Recent actions from OCR further suggest that the worst features of the Montana settlement are not being required of public colleges, indicating that OCR no longer regards the controversial components of its May agreement as a blueprint for all colleges. Indeed, the actual policies adopted by the University of Montana itself this fall depart from the broad definition announced by the blueprint."

http://thefire.org/article/16301.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under Engstrom, UM students, and faculty, get a special sort of "shaft." No "equal protection" here.

As with the NCAA agreement, Engstrom was, literally, willing and even anxious to go the extra mile to give his interlocutors what they likely did not even want.

 

[UMGriz75]

News Item:

MSU reports more campus crime than UM, but some say numbers are misleading

"According to the figures, MSU handled 63 forcible sexual assault reports between 2002 and 2012 compared with 59 at Washington State University. UM handled 31 reports while Idaho State handled 25 and the University of Idaho handled 21."

Missoulian, November 23, 2013.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/msu-reports-more-campus-crime-than-um-but-some-say/article_e2ca5e40-548e-11e3-b5e4-0019bb2963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;