I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I provided a source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). Then you said it didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in question to save you the time from reading it. Then you went on some batshit tangent about filing a FOIA on the National Security Council of all things. Then you brought up "it hasn't happened yet".
Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when a power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later wasn't abused? You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any sort of rational thought. This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. Please, at least try to make it a better one. On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
