Meanwhile, we keep hearing about $2 billion dollars in 14 years. Let's call this what it really is: $133 million/year.

And that's supposed to be better?

More important, why didn't I get any of it?

Guess again. If I'd have wanted to live at home while I went to college, I'd have attended either USC or UCLA.

Interesting, especially the fact that he brought them back as gifts. My understanding was that it was usually queens that did that, not toms. It's supposed to be the same instinct that tells them to bring back prey for their kittens to practice on.

One thing you have to remember: if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

If they could retain talent, they wouldn't have to worry as much about finding it. As far as your last sentence goes, that's got to be your problem, because I'm not making it mine.

Why would we go to that expensive effort if we didn't need too?

Is it possible that you're setting the bar too high and expect too much, too soon from your new hires? Remember, if you want people to stay with you and not jump ship quickly, you need to expect them to grow into the job because if they can already do everything you need, they're not going to be interested in what you want, they'll be looking for new challenges and new things to learn and they'll leave as soon as they find it. I don't know if this applies in the slightest to your situation, but judging only from what you've written here, it looks like a possibility.

Why? I'm not the person who made the original claim, I'm just trying to help you, and possibly others, understand what the OP was talking about. I have no idea if Sec. Clinton did or didn't do anything wrong, other than using a private email server and I'm not about to make unfounded accusations. Now, if you're done arguing against the wrong person, we can end this discussion; if not, keep going; it' won't bother me a bit one way or the other.

There's no way of answering that now, is there? And, if you'll look back over this thread, I never accused Sec. Clinton of anything, I just expanded on an earlier comparison of the deleted emails to a similar action by President Nixon. My personal opinion is that she may not have done anything wrong (other than use a private email server for official business) but it doesn't look good and she's put herself into the position of being unable to prove that the emails in question were innocuous.

If you can't hire and keep enough American talent, your first step is to ask yourself why. Is the salary you're offering too low? Are you expecting them to work too many hours? Are your other benefits, such as health care inadequate? How are working conditions at your office, compared to other companies in your field? Or, are your expectations and job requirements unreasonable? There has to be a reason, and the odds are that it's something you can fix once you've pinpointed it. But just saying that there aren't enough qualified Americans and that your company can't survive without H-1B workers isn't going to solve your long-term issues.

Whoosh! The OP was comparing the 18 missing minutes (and the notes covering that part of the meeting) to the more recent deleted emails. My own party affiliation is irrelevant to this because I'm just expanding on what somebody else wrote.

I think he's referring to the infamous 18 minutes of silence in the Watergate tapes.

I've had several cats. I've seen one of them rush out of the house, pounce on a bird, then kill and eat it, even though its food dish was full. Recently, my current cat caught a lizard out back. He wanted to bring it in and use it as a toy, but I wouldn't let him. In about two minutes, there was nothing left but a bit of blood. Tame, mostly-indoor cats know how to hunt, and what to do with their prey. Yes, they do sometimes play with mice until they die (then leave them for you to deal with) but more often than not, they eat what they kill, at least in my experience.

I'm reasonably sure that Harvard students are qualified for government-backed student loans, which means that the federal government is, in fact, indirectly paying for those student's educations.

Actually, affirmative action is reverse discrimination because it seeks to make it easier for various minorities to get accepted than it otherwise would have been. The fact that this causes the institution to discriminate against qualified applicants who aren't members of the favored minority is just an unpleasant consequence that proponents of the scheme try to sweep under the rug.