how centrist of you to devolve so quickly On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public education > system :P > > On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that hasnt even > happenned... at least thats clear > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security council, it >> would be fucking prudent to have the Director of National Intelligence. >> >> You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken place, and >> FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of national security. >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of the >>> message. >>> hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person attending a >>> meeting that doesnt pertain to them? >>> are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from meetings? >>> File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. >>> reply in line now with the specific meetings you are referencing having >>> taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA response we can correlate >>> them to the listed grievances you are referencing today >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, by item, >>>> who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall attend when it >>>> pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to them? >>>> >>>> Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This removes >>>> quite a bit of balance when the only individuals confirmed by the Senate >>>> may spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to them". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Im assuming this is excerpt of this: https://www.whitehouse.g >>>>> ov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organ >>>>> ization-national-security-council-and >>>>> >>>>> this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an executive >>>>> secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. The NSA and HSA >>>>> (why >>>>> isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified secretaries (like the girl at >>>>> the desk on steroids) >>>>> >>>>> At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited to >>>>> anything that pertains to them. >>>>> >>>>> A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched the >>>>> senate hearings... very inefficient time management. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI may only >>>>>> attend when it is determined it is required. >>>>>> >>>>>> Text attached from the order. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is actually >>>>>>> happening on. just like youre saying it makes him more important than >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego inflated opinions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role critical to the >>>>>>>> National Security Council (making him more important than the Director >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the >>>>>>>> Director of >>>>>>>> National Intelligence to attend "when it pertains to them"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This was an executive order... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. Wouldn't >>>>>>>>> it be great if we could argue about the policy and theory rather than >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> character, or lack thereof? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It sounds like you want a dictatorship. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly as it >>>>>>>>>>> is, and those of like mind, it will make 2020 a breeze. And ivankas >>>>>>>>>>> 8 year >>>>>>>>>>> reign will be glorious >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in "art of the >>>>>>>>>>>> deal", which basically means "lie about everything, and negotiate >>>>>>>>>>>> down". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a second term. >>>>>>>>>>>> I am also thinking that the Dems won't have their shit together >>>>>>>>>>>> over the >>>>>>>>>>>> next 4 though. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What a fucked up place we are in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> then even more work can be done >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real question is whether he can keep it up for 207 more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks. And once the news organizations stop fawning over him, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do? Start wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? He can't stand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the shiny object, but you tell the news media to shut up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and listen, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at some point they will shut up and cover something else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really die over the past 18 months and the news is just now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dribbling out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or did the Trump victory just take away their hope? Barbara >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hale was 94, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess waiting 4 more years to see if the Orange One wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-election might >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem a bit much to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary Tyler Moore was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 80. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 66, it's always a bit unnerving when someone younger than me >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dies. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they say, only the good die young. Carrie Fisher must have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very, very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good. We miss you, Princess. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first week in office >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that untruths >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Orange's mouth were about twice as plentiful as untruths >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other politician from either party ( and that includes Obama and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. That is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bar the will never again be reached. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Rory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first week in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > office >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is largely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, so take it for that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a liar. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think he's not necessarily lying; he just doesn't know the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. Most of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what he says appears to be just made up on the fly, and my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that his memory is not so good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > bp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> First week...What a joke... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-fir >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> t-week-in-office >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the team. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of >>>>>>>>>>> the team. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
