Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 244

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

huh?

That is the small print on the bottom right of the card, you said you couldn’t read the small print, I typed it out so you could.

1. That wasn’t the print I was talking about. I was talking about the small print bottom center, under the place you are supposed to sign.

2. you left out this:

Warbler said:

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

That is what I was going “huh?” at.

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

Seems Ender was off his game too because it’s kind of inflammatory.

😉

That’s not the part he was asking about.

Whether or not pretending he wasn’t clapping in reference to this being directed at you is another thing though and I’m not getting into it.

Where did I say anything about and sort of pretending?

Everywhere, you are obviously just antagonizing Fo to further cement his status as the shit stain of the forum (or whatever his latest self deprecating “joke” was), remember?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamCu-w7rsc

I’m so glad the internet didn’t exist in the 1930s.

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

He was probably more interested in taking another “victim” shot which he is becoming known for instead of actually reading it first.

Lmao, no, the text that he was talking about is genuinely unintelligible due to the low resolution.

But the fact that you think that proves that he would have been right.

This is not the first time him or you have said such things so there is no proof needed for that.

I believe, had he taken the time (which maybe he didn’t have when he posted it) to read the small print on the bottom right, he would not have posted that specific one.

Pretty simple observation, yes?

Unless he also agrees about those groups often playing the card and was subscribing to the theory that it was put there as sarcasm?

This is an honest possibility.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.

The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?

Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.

From the Washington Post…

On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:

TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.

If you take this in the “muslim ban” context, I could see how one might see it that way, but even Muslims here understood the basis for the concern due to the radicals amongst them which they did not support.

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.

The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?

Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.

From the Washington Post…

On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:

TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.

Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.

EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.

Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.

Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.

Sally Yates took the matter in to her own hands instead of letting the courts decide it originally, as is the proper channel, and that is why she got fired.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

huh?

That is the small print on the bottom right of the card, you said you couldn’t read the small print, I typed it out so you could.

1. That wasn’t the print I was talking about. I was talking about the small print bottom center, under the place you are supposed to sign.

2. you left out this:

Warbler said:

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

That is what I was going “huh?” at.

You knew what I was referring to …

[Warbler said:]

but saying “huh” is safer than answering honestly. I get that.

Possessed said:

Everywhere, you are obviously just antagonizing Fo to further cement his status as the shit stain of the forum (or whatever his latest self deprecating “joke” was), remember?

And this isn’t an attempt at antagonizing?

I actually said being a shit-stain was good because it was less responsibility and it gave more room to breathe. That was not a joke.

CatBus said:

EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.

Hahahahaha.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/ex-cia-director-james-clapper-confirms-british-intelligence-warned-us-about-trump-russia-activity/

This is a sad state of affairs because Ret. Director James Clapper originally said publicly …

Clapper was also asked on “Meet the Press” if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election. “Not to my knowledge,” Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended. “We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report,” he said. “We had no evidence of such collusion.”

Now he is testifying to the contrary? So which is it? LOL

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.

The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?

Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.

From the Washington Post…

On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:

TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.

Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.

EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.

Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.

Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.

And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.

If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.

The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?

Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.

From the Washington Post…

On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:

TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.

Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.

EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.

Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.

Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.

And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.

If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.

Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.

I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

huh?

That is the small print on the bottom right of the card, you said you couldn’t read the small print, I typed it out so you could.

1. That wasn’t the print I was talking about. I was talking about the small print bottom center, under the place you are supposed to sign.

2. you left out this:

Warbler said:

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

That is what I was going “huh?” at.

You knew what I was referring to …

[Warbler said:]

but saying “huh” is safer than answering honestly. I get that.

If you are referring to the pic I posted while you were temp banned:

1. the gif posted back then is not the one you posted today, nor is it the one I posted earlier today.

2. One has nothing do to with the other. For all that is known, the gif posted while your were temp banned, had nothing to do with you being temp banned. The gif I posted today was my reaction to Darth Ender’s post, no pretending involved.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

huh?

That is the small print on the bottom right of the card, you said you couldn’t read the small print, I typed it out so you could.

1. That wasn’t the print I was talking about. I was talking about the small print bottom center, under the place you are supposed to sign.

2. you left out this:

Warbler said:

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

That is what I was going “huh?” at.

You knew what I was referring to …

[Warbler said:]

but saying “huh” is safer than answering honestly. I get that.

If you are referring to the pic I posted while you were temp banned:

1. the gif posted back then is not the one you posted today, nor is it the one I posted earlier today.

2. One has nothing do to with the other. For all that is known, the gif posted while your were temp banned, had nothing to do with you being temp banned. The gif I posted today was my reaction to Darth Ender’s post, no pretending involved.

You’d make a good politician with the way you responded … or some such thing.

😉

The gif you(Jetrell Fo) posted today:

The gif I posted earlier today:

The gif I posted while you(Jetrell Fo) were temp banned.

3 different gifs.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.

The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?

Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.

From the Washington Post…

On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:

TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.

Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.

EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.

Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.

Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.

And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.

If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.

Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.

I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.

You mean this part where she talks about the Muslim Ban with Sen. Cornyn? I watched it. Maybe you should take your turn now, and you could hear this part:

YATES: I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful.

I gotta love how you post only the piece that is relevant to your point. After that she agreed that she did not put it to the courts before a final determination was made, she made it herself without the court. She has the right to feel that way but not the final say.

Warbler said:

The gif you(Jetrell Fo) posted today:

The gif I posted earlier today:

The gif I posted while you(Jetrell Fo) were temp banned.

3 different gifs.

I know, and they all have a quietly common theme, don’t they … or some such thing. The bottom one you used for your approval of Rule #6 in the updated rules thread.

😉

Yeah, clapping. So?

I clapping “something or another” back then and today I was clapping Darth Ender’s post. So?