If I am not too busy...ha On Jan 30, 2017 11:19 AM, "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You do have a point. People are drawing big conclusions based on small > amounts of information. > I'd say we should just let this drop, but I'm pretty sure Jamie will bring > it back up tomorrow morning and every morning thereafter for the next 4 > years. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: 1/30/2017 12:45:02 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > > The military and intelligence organizations were removed from the national > security council? when. The last update was something about presence when > applicable, now theyre just fully removed? madness I tell you, madness. > I heard that in his spare time, trump waterboards melania because melania > sounds too much like melanin and bannon and hiss kkk rituals dont like > melanin, its the devils dye they say. > ... it really does sound just that stupid > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Karl Rove was not allowed in Bush's meetings with the NSC. >> >> Imagine removing the military and intelligence organizations from the >> national security council and then putting Karl Rove in as a required >> member in their places in a Bush administration. That's basically what we >> are looking at here. >> >> On Jan 30, 2017 11:28 AM, "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Not to split hairs, but naturally his political choices are based on his >>> political views. That would be true of anyone. Maybe you meant something >>> else. >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> >>> To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: 1/30/2017 11:53:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >>> office >>> >>> >>> Of course Dumbo Trumpshit didn't put a ban on Saudi Arabia where 911 >>> attackers came from....Wonder if its because he has beautiful golf courses >>> there >>> Then puts Banning in top security job and demotes guys that actually >>> have knowledge...All based on his political views.... >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2017 6:26 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Don't watch it. I've heard it is good though. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Homeland is on tonight... >>> > >>> > From: Josh Reynolds >>> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:42 PM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >>> > office >>> > >>> > "The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for >>> coordinating >>> > these policies among various government agencies." >>> > >>> > A secret National Security Council panel pursues the killing of an >>> > individual, including American citizens, who has been called a >>> suspected >>> > terrorist.[9] In this case, no public record of this decision or any >>> > operation to kill the suspect will be made available.[9] The panel's >>> actions >>> > are justified by "two principal legal theories": They "were permitted >>> by >>> > Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against >>> militants in >>> > the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted >>> under >>> > international law if a country is defending itself."[9] >>> > >>> > On Jan 29, 2017 6:34 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> NSC is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United >>> States. >>> >> Since its inception under Harry S. Truman, the function of the >>> Council has >>> >> been to advise and assist the president on national security and >>> foreign >>> >> policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for >>> >> coordinating these policies among various government agencies. >>> >> >>> >> So, this is essentially a committee, put together by the president, >>> do do >>> >> what he wants. It is not a branch of government, it is an advisory >>> council. >>> >> Period. President can do what he wants with it which includes >>> dissolving >>> >> it, or renaming it the orange hair dye council. So why get your >>> panties in >>> >> a twist that he is using his committee as he wants? >>> >> >>> >> From: Josh Reynolds >>> >> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:24 PM >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >>> >> office >>> >> >>> >> The security council decides on many things, and anything pushed to >>> from >>> >> the security council to another branch (judicial for example) is >>> expected to >>> >> be followed. I'm a little fuzzy on the legality of how that aspect >>> works. >>> >> >>> >> Are you familiar with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? >>> >> >>> >> It's proceedings are keep very secret (in the name of national >>> security) >>> >> and no reviews or appeals from said court can travel to the supreme >>> court. >>> >> >>> >> That said, they've had quite a few leaks by outraged defendants and >>> other >>> >> individuals of said court. >>> >> >>> >> The FISC, in very broad terms, rules on the legality of many things >>> the >>> >> National Security Council wants to accomplish. It actually doesn't so >>> much >>> >> check to see if they are legal as it does wordsmith what the NSC >>> wants done >>> >> to make it fit in loopholes of the current legal framework. >>> >> >>> >> This is the court that has legalized large scale spying on American >>> >> citizens, among other things. >>> >> >>> >> So now, we have a National Security Council who's senate appointed >>> members >>> >> are only allowed to attend when asked to, that pushes policy down to a >>> >> secret court that has used any and every means to find ways around >>> the US >>> >> Constitution against American citizens. >>> >> >>> >> Carry on though, it's no big deal. >>> >> >>> >> On Jan 29, 2017 6:01 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I understand the whole "granting yourself powers" thing but I don't >>> get >>> >> why you think the executive branch deciding who inside the executive >>> branch >>> >> should attend meetings or briefings is somehow unconstitutional. I >>> don't get >>> >> that. It is his branch, not the judiciary and not the Congress. I am >>> not >>> >> saying it is good judgement, just not unconstitutional or granting >>> himself >>> >> powers. Unless I missed something which is possible as this >>> discussion had >>> >> worm me out. But by all means, continue. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 5:45 PM Josh Reynolds <[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. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2017 5:41 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.gov/the >>> -press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organizatio >>> n-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. > >
