Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

ckf

Administrators
  • Posts

    30,987
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    200

Posts posted by ckf

  1. 12 minutes ago, SVT Renegade XRS said:

    How soon before that's mandatory here? 

    I think we need to keep a few forums open for now so the old membership can see some of the posts about needing to re-register. If there's something that you don't want everyone to see you can post it in CE for now :bc:

  2. Just now, Cumulus Nimbus said:

    Then you are either stupid or blind, pick one and run with it.

    Jim don't not post anything that I could find today where he was looking to argue. Yet you had to run your mouth without him even engaging you. What happened to the new and improved ZOSO that you and rob discussed?

  3. Just now, Capt.Storm said:

    Where is the cm deal?

    We haven't got it setup yet. I wanted to see if I had to upgrade my server before asking members to kick in funds :bc:

  4. 19 hours ago, Capt.Storm said:

    Man Joe Walsh just played rocky mountain way live on the voice..holy fawk was it good..he played with that bearded guy that I like.

    I guess you can pull it off i tunes or something..wish somebody could do that and post it here..I would owe a favor!

     

  5. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

    Hillary Clinton Is Criticized for Private Emails in State Dept. Review

    By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC LICHTBLAUMAY 25, 2016

    Photo
    26emails-web-master768-v2.jpg
     
    Hillary Clinton during a campaign event at the University of California, Riverside, on Tuesday. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times

    WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general has sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, saying she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received it if she had.

    In a report delivered to members of Congress on Wednesday, the inspector general said that Mrs. Clinton “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business” with officials responsible for handling records and security but that inspectors “found no evidence” that she had requested or received approval from anyone at the department to conduct her state business on a personal email.

    The report also said that department officials “did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business.”

    It also added new detail about Mrs. Clinton’s motivation for using the private server, which she has said was set up for convenience. In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Mrs. Clinton, however, replied that she would consider a separate address or device “but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

    The report, as well as an F.B.I. investigation and other legal challenges seeking information about her use of the server, is certain to keep alive a controversy that has shadowed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for the presidency. The events have all come to a climax just as she is close to defeating Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Mrs. Clinton and her aides have played down the inquiries, saying that she would cooperate with investigators to put the email issue behind her. Even so, through her lawyers, she declined to be interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general as part of his review. So did several of her senior aides.

    Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued a statement saying the findings that the problems with record keeping extended beyond Mrs. Clinton’s tenure.

    “Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary’s server,” Mr. Fallon said in the statement.

    The report broadly criticized the State Department as well, saying that officials had been “slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks” that emerged in the era of emails, particularly those of senior officials like Mrs. Clinton.

    It said that “longstanding systemic weaknesses” in handling electronic records went “well beyond the tenure of any one secretary of state” but the body of the report focused on the 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent and received on her private server.

    The State Department issued numerous warnings dating back a decade about the cyber-security risks of using personal emails accounts for government business, the report said, and Mrs. Clinton was personally sent a memo in 2011 warnings of hackers trying to target unclassified, personal email accounts. She was also given a classified, in-person briefing on the dangers, the report said.

    The report found that while dozens of State Department employees used personal email accounts periodically over the years, only three officials were found to have used it “exclusively” for day-to-day operations: Mrs. Clinton; Colin Powell, the secretary of state under President George W. Bush; and Scott Gration, the ambassador to Kenya from 2011 to 2012.

    While State Department officials never directly told Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Powell that they needed to end their use of personal email, the report found, they did do so with Mr. Gration, a lower-level diplomat who did not have the same political clout.

    5 Key Points From the Report

    • Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no.
    • She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act.
    • When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed.
    • In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us."
    • The State Department began disciplinary proceedings against Scott Gration, then the American ambassador to Kenya, for refusing to stop using his personal email for official business.
     

    The response to Mr. Gration’s situation “demonstrates how such usage is normally handed when Department cybersecurity officials become aware of it,” the report said.

    State Department security officials warned Mr. Gration in 2011 that he was not authorized to be using personal email for government business in Kenya. He continued doing so anyway, however, and the State Department initiated disciplinary action against him over “his failure to follow these directions” and several other undisclosed infactions, the report said. He resigned in 2012 before any discipline was imposed.

    The report did not delve deeply into the issue that has become the focus of the F.B.I.’s investigation — the references in dozens of emails to classified information, including 22 emails that the Central Intelligence Agency considered “top secret.”

    But it called into question the security risk of using a private server for what were clearly sensitive discussions of the nation’s foreign policy. It noted that Mrs. Clinton sent or received most of the emails that traversed her server from a mobile device, her BlackBerry.

    Security and records management officials told the inspector general’s office that “Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements,” the report said.

    The report also disclosed an attempt to hack into Mrs. Clinton’s server in January 2011.

    It said a “nondepartmental adviser” to Bill Clinton — apparently Bryan Pagliano, who installed the private server — informed the department that he had shut down the system because “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in, I didn’t want to let them have a chance.”

    The attack continued later that day, prompting another official to write to two of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, to warn them not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive.” She explained that she would “explain more in person.

     
     

    The report also criticized Mrs. Clinton for not adhering to the department’s rules for handling records under the Federal Records Act once she stepped down in January 2013.

    “Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report said.

    The inspector general also said that while Mrs. Clinton had turned over her email, she had not included those she sent and received in her first months as secretary from January to April 2009. In 2015, the Department of Defense also turned over 19 emails between Mrs. Clinton and David H. Petraeus that had been sent from his official email account to her private account but had not been included among those turned over.

    Mrs. Clinton belatedly turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department, which she said were all the records “in her custody.”

    But investigators determined that her production of those records was “incomplete,” and they found gaps in the documents that she turned over.

    The controversy over Mrs. Clinton’s emails could force significant changes in the department, which has faced new scrutiny about its handling of records, including from the conservative watchdog organization, Judicial Watch. The inspector general made a series of recommendations for the department, and a spokesman, Mark Toner, said they would be implemented.

    Secretary of State John Kerry also acknowledged to the inspector general that he had used a personal account at times during his transition between leaving the Senate and joining the State Department, but that after becoming secretary and discussing the issue with aides, he “began primarily using his Department email account to conduct official business.”

    Mr. Kerry said that while he occasionally responded to people who emailed him on his personal account, he would preserve the records.

  6. 31 minutes ago, sledder10 said:

    .49 a pound? Bone in? Good price either way unless it was a 10 year old boar. :lol2:

     

    I was thinking of doing a shoulder this weekend as well on my Masterbuilt. 

    Bone in Smithfield all natural. It's a pretty good size chunk of pork for $3.87 :good: 

  7. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/opinions/who-in-world-supports-trump/index.html

    Colombo, Sri Lanka (CNN)My global search for fans of Donald Trump has finally borne fruit, but it was not easy.

    Ever since Donald Trump started monopolizing headlines in the United States, I have made it a point to ask people around the world their thoughts about the American presidential campaign. In fact, I always try to find out what people are thinking as I travel around the world. But it's been particularly intriguing to gauge global attitudes in the time of Trump.

    I will not pretend my survey follows a scientific method. But I was stunned that after talking with scores of people from more than a dozen countries, I had not found a single person who said (or admitted) that he or she hoped Trump would win.

    So far this year I have asked my questions in six different countries, during travels for different projects. But it took flying some 10,000 miles away from U.S. shores, to an island in the Indian Ocean, to find my first non-American Trump supporter.

    I didn't take the easy road. I could have gone to Russia, where the very popular President Vladimir Putin has expressed admiration for Trump -- and Trump has reciprocated. In fact, Russians are alone among the world's 20 largest economies in supporting Trump over Hillary Clinton, according to a recent poll. Just about everywhere else -- in that survey and in my traveling experience -- Hillary Clinton is a runaway favorite and Trump a source of deep concern.

    When I tell people in the U.S. that most of the world dreads a Trump victory, Trump supporters often explain that this is a good sign, an indication that the world knows Trump would look after American interests, not everyone else's. But what I have heard abroad is quite different.

    People who admire and respect the United States -- America's friends -- want Trump to lose. Those who think a weaker America is desirable -- America's foes -- want Trump to win. It's no wonder that another poll of America's closest allies concluded recently "Europe is terrified at the prospect of President Donald Trump."

    To find people hoping for a Trump victory I had to travel to the island of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. "I hope Trump will win," Iresh Edirsinghe told me. He sounded like a variety of American you can find in 2016 when he said, "I hate Hillary." In fact, Edirsinghe, a 40-year-old who runs a one-man car service, told me he has no great admiration or even respect for Trump, but believes Clinton is "too close to the terrorists, to the Tamils."

    I heard similar comments from other Sri Lankans. Gayani Perera, a shop keeper, also prefers Trump because she believes "Hillary didn't see our side" in the war against the Tamil Tigers.

    Clinton was secretary of state during the final months of a 26-year war between the Sri Lankan military and the brutal separatist terrorist group known as the Tamil Tigers. In 2009, Sri Lanka's final offensive soundly defeated the terrorists, but at a steep price for the civilian population. At the time, Clinton warned of "untold suffering" in the Tamil areas. And in fact, United Nations investigations have now concluded that some 40,000 civilians were killed in that campaign, with both sides -- the Tigers and the government -- committing crimes against humanity.

    Still, not everyone in Sri Lanka wants Trump to win, not by a long shot. In fact, the American election was seldom front-page news even before the recent floods that devastated the country and crowded out other news.

    But some people are paying attention. America matters. Edirsinghe made it clear that he prefers Trump because he doesn't really like any American government, certainly not one with the power to give its opinion on Sri Lankan affairs.

    Another place that would prefer a more quiet America is China, a country that has been sharply at odds with the U.S. over Beijing's expansionist policies in the South China Sea and its human rights policies, to name just a couple of issues. There, Trump is gaining some support, despite his threats to declare a trade war. China, like Russia and like some Sri Lankans, would prefer a weaker Washington, one with less global power.

    A weaker America makes it easier for other countries to push the boundaries of international law. It makes it easier for America's rivals and foes to grow stronger.

    China particularly likes Trump's suggestion that it may be time for the U.S. to stop defending its Asian allies. Since America's vow to defend South Korea and Japan is in large part a promise to protect them from China, an expansionist Beijing relishes the idea.

    Elsewhere, however, among those who admire the United States, Trump's mere rise is a deep disappointment.

    In Albania, I spoke with Adrian Kati, who spent 15 years as a prisoner of the communist government. He's not one to speak about God, but he makes an exception when talking about America and the creation of its system of government and its Constitution. "For this one time," he says, he believes there was divine intervention in the creation of America, a country that represents a gathering of minds from around the world and the ages, resulting in something singular, special.

    He remembers other political prisoners. "Before they were shot," he told me, "they said, 'We are with democracy, American democracy.'" For Kati, the notion that Trump could become president after opposing immigration and seeking to downplay America's role in promoting freedom in the world, would be a stunning turn of events. I heard similar sentiments from many Albanians. And their leaders have been echoing what I heard.

    In Latin America, it's even more difficult to find someone hoping for a Trump victory. It's not just his anti-Mexican, anti-immigrant stance, it's more than that. Amparo Rodriguez, a retired nurse in Cali, Colombia, told me "Trump is against the poor. I like Clinton's wife."

    In the Middle East, where I have been informally canvassing opinions for decades, I found much the same: fear that Trump would be a disaster, matched with a powerful sense that Hillary Clinton could be quite the opposite.

    If you are looking for a region where the overwhelming feeling is that the Obama administration's foreign policy has been a failure, this is the place. At least I've found it so. And yet, that disappointment does not extend to his former secretary of state. In Israel, the polls show stronger support for Clinton than for Trump.

    In the United Arab Emirates a few weeks ago, I asked a group of young Emirati professionals who they wanted to see as the next American president. They responded in unison, "Hillary!"

    I insisted, "How about Trump?" The expression on their faces made it clear they found my question absurd.

    According to Bahar Erdogan, a government communications expert working in the Emirates, "It's not about who wins. It's time for someone... who is aware that it is his job to work for [the] people and not to serve himself." She doesn't think Trump is capable of representing America.

    My worldwide search for Trump supporters leads me to one conclusion: In the U.S., Trump supporters may want to make America great again. But when it comes to the rest of the world, the people rooting for America are not cheering for Trump.

    And the people cheering for Trump are not rooting for America. [/quote}

×
×
  • Create New...