ask a less purposefully vague question On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Answer this question: > > Should we allow any government official to bestow powers upon their own > office? > > I know exactly what the founding fathers thought of this, because they > wrote extensively about it. > > I'm asking for your opinion here. > > > On Jan 29, 2017 5:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > no, we need compartmentalization of government. Thats exactly what is > happenning. and people like you are just too ego pilled to actually see it > happen. > > "he will waterboard" who? "Drumf" really? "yeas, he said so" interesting, > will he hold the towel, or pour the water? "well no, but hes going to" > really? "well, not him directly" oh, so who? "he will put people in charge > to do it" really? "yes" like mattis and pompeo? "exactly" interesting > > he cant run, he cant win, his numbers are too low, he wont get the > primary, he wont get those states, why is he there, he doesnt know what he > is doing...... really? > > The problem with people like you, you think very very small, not bigly. > You cant comprehend this presidency has been in the works since the 80s. > People like you are exactly why its going to grow, youve already clinched 8 > years. Why you ask? See above. > > There has never been a presidency like this presidency, where the > constitution fully worked exactly as intended, yet you want to pull the > "when in history" well, thats easy... never. > > 1 week and the whole nation is in play, this has never happened before, on > this many fronts, and you are still talking about what you know. You are > begging, pleading, insulting for the status quo, because thats what you do > actually know. > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical list >> of times this has happened. >> >> Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". >> >> And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. >> >> It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future presidents >> that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the house and >> senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations that have no >> mechanism for congressional oversight? >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre doing >>> fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
