Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 252

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

And for the computer savvy …

Cisco kills leaked CIA 0-day that let attackers commandeer 318 switch models
Fix neutralizes attack code that was put into the wild in early March.

Dan Goodin - 5/9/2017, 3:41 PM

https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/cisco-kills-leaked-cia-0day-that-let-attackers-commandeer-318-switch-models/

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

Who was Sessions investigating at the time?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/defiant-fbi-chief-removed-from-job-by-the-president.html

I am still looking to find info on your question if there is any. He had previously investigated Iran-Contra and we all know how that turned out.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

I never said Trump is not within his legal power to fire the FBI director. It has nothing to do with my point, and you continue to prove why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent because I never said it was equivalent?

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to undermine the election.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

TV’s Frink said:

and you continue to prove why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

No disrespect to you but it seems you caused your own issue with regards to communication.

This is an interesting story I hadn’t read until today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/fbi-xi-xiaoxing.html?ribbon-ad-idx=18&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article

Jetrell Fo said:

There’s the proof of Russian connection … a handshake and photo-op.

Lock Him Up, Lock Him Up!!!

I giggled.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I said once before that I don’t want to have a normal civil conversation with you because I don’t understand 90% of the things you say and it’s not worth the effort to try and decode everything. I stand by that.

Oh Spicy…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/as-trump-fired-comey-his-staff-scrambled-to-explain-why/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_spicer220am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.c7dc1a0e1b4b

After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this. … Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

He hid.

In the bushes.

To stay off camera.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I said once before that I don’t want to have a normal civil conversation with you because I don’t understand 90% of the things you say and it’s not worth the effort to try and decode everything. I stand by that.

I’m just going to leave this here so people can see for themselves the answer you gave to my olive branch. I was very sincere and you just gave me the finger. Have it your way. I don’t want to see any crying or complaining from you or the others when I question or try to discuss things you might post.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

Oh for goodness sake.

You posting an article about a somewhat (on the surface) similar historical case (that the Trump team has also been spinning all over the place today), during a discussion of the current case and sarcastically saying “I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this” isn’t you suggesting they are equivalent? Really. Then what was it for?

Please explain exactly what you meant by posting it, who “some of you” are, why you think those persons won’t remember it and exactly what you meant by your comment in general.

(EDIT: Frink’s comment above was posted at the same time as mine, not before. So please don’t take this as another example of the mob persecuting you. We just happened to both think your comments were baffling)

It’s just you being dickish again. I accept it is probably part of your personality. I’ve already discussed it. I see no need to drag it out just because others want the answers they believe support their opinion.

https://lieu.house.gov/federal-employees-guide-sharing-key-information

Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles County) and Congressman Don Beyer (D | Virginia) released the following resource guide for federal employees who wish to break the Administration’s communications blackout on federal agencies. The guide explains how to safely and responsibly share information, and encourages employees to “Know Your Rights” and “Know Your Options.” In the “Know Your Rights” section, federal employees can learn about which federal laws apply to them. In the “Know Your Options” section, employees can learn about how to safely disseminate information to agency inspectors general and the press. The resource guide also includes links to an in-depth list of federal whistleblower statutes and information about agency inspectors general.

Pretty cool to have a legal guide for this stuff.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I said once before that I don’t want to have a normal civil conversation with you because I don’t understand 90% of the things you say and it’s not worth the effort to try and decode everything. I stand by that.

I’m just going to leave this here so people can see for themselves the answer you gave to my olive branch. I was very sincere and you just gave me the finger. Have it your way. I don’t want to see any crying or complaining from you or the others when I question or try to discuss things you might post.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

Jetrell Fo said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

Oh for goodness sake.

You posting an article about a somewhat (on the surface) similar historical case (that the Trump team has also been spinning all over the place today), during a discussion of the current case and sarcastically saying “I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this” isn’t you suggesting they are equivalent? Really. Then what was it for?

Please explain exactly what you meant by posting it, who “some of you” are, why you think those persons won’t remember it and exactly what you meant by your comment in general.

(EDIT: Frink’s comment above was posted at the same time as mine, not before. So please don’t take this as another example of the mob persecuting you. We just happened to both think your comments were baffling)

It’s just you being dickish again. I accept it is probably part of your personality. I’ve already discussed it. I see no need to drag it out just because others want the answers they believe support their opinion.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

Oh for goodness sake.

You posting an article about a somewhat (on the surface) similar historical case (that the Trump team has also been spinning all over the place today), during a discussion of the current case and sarcastically saying “I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this” isn’t you suggesting they are equivalent? Really. Then what was it for?

Please explain exactly what you meant by posting it, who “some of you” are, why you think those persons won’t remember it and exactly what you meant by your comment in general.

(EDIT: Frink’s comment above was posted at the same time as mine, not before. So please don’t take this as another example of the mob persecuting you. We just happened to both think your comments were baffling)

It’s just you being dickish again. I accept it is probably part of your personality. I’ve already discussed it. I see no need to drag it out just because others want the answers they believe support their opinion.

No, your trucks’ fake.

WYSHS