To be completely honest, had i not watched that particular interview, I might be a little more bent about this
(taking bannon out of the equation, i still dont know what this guy is actually doing there, but theres probably alot more I dont know about this guy than I do know) On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:58 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote: > Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in > positions that were confirmed by the senate via executive action. > > No, and if it ever happens that way, Ill be the first to say its bad. I > however have zero problem with restructuring departmental and > interdepartmental discussions to be more efficient, if any of the multiple > governmental and civilian oversight and watchdog committees find instances > of abuse of this then we have an impeachment process already on the books. > > Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals in > positions that were confirmed by the senate via the passing of a bill or > bills? > > Assuming you mean signing into law a change that has presented as a bill > and made it through the house and senate for signature by the executive to > sign it into law... without question (caveat being if in two years we > achieve super-majority, then I trust zero bills that come through) > > > Now, I will admit, my last full reading of the constitution was well over > twenty years ago, but I do not recall any component that defines the > structure of the meetings, I could be wrong, I did smoke alot of pot and > take alot of acid back then. > > > > > There was an interview, I think on PBS with Obamas outgoing chief of > staff. It was an excellent interview, where they discussed what amounted to > interdepartmental communications and the separation of the executive from > each of the individual departments. Well worth watching. > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:40 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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.
