- Time
- Post link
I agree that it’s annoying, and I’m sure there’s some technical reason the internet works that way.
Where were you in '77?
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 255
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
I agree that it’s annoying, and I’m sure there’s some technical reason the internet works that way.
its because of capitalism. bandwidth is money. everyone solves the problem for themselves. so ever layer has its own cache (browser, cia/google, website)
- Time
- Post link
President Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview Thursday with NBC News’ Lester Holt, called ousted FBI chief James Comey a “showboat” and revealed he asked Comey whether he was under investigation for alleged ties to Russia.
“I actually asked him” if I were under investigation, Trump said, noting that he spoke with Comey once over dinner and twice by phone.
“I said, if it’s possible would you let me know, ‘Am I under investigation?’ He said, ‘You are not under investigation.’”
“I know I’m not under investigation,” Trump told Holt during the 31-minute White House interview.
It would be highly unusual for someone who might be the focus of an FBI probe to ask whether he was under investigation and to be directly told by the FBI director that he was not.
Somebody sounds worried.
And of course, we already know that his campaign is under investigation.
Damage control mode. I sense there will suddenly be a lot of interviews with media outlets he’s been insulting and blowing off the past year.
- Time
- Post link
I mean, why would he ask Comey three times if he’s under investigation unless he’s worried that an investigation will turn things up?
- Time
- Post link
well, he is egotistical.
- Time
- Post link
Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes
To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…
😉
(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)
This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.
Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.
from the article…
"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.
Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.
So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.
Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?
What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.
Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then 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. Spicer then emerged…
so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.
other fuller accounts here;-
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f
No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.
😦
Not being shitty in the slightest mate. You are right though - this isn’t a pissing contest - it’s just getting to the facts (so far).
Discussion is always welcome - no-one said it isn’t.
And opinion, belief and varied discourse should thrive and be encouraged in the quality forums like we have here - but let’s not get away from the actual events and facts of the matter(s) being discussed - nor try and portray opinion or belief as fact, yes?
I just don’t appreciate you saying that I was trying to portray my opinion or belief as fact. I was just telling you what I saw, nothing more. We have plenty of posts in this thread that read as if they’re doing what you say and for the most part they get left alone. Ask me fine, but there is no need to be smarmy.
😉
- Time
- Post link
Anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t understand Fo is just being shitty or dickish.
Fuck You Frink. I gave you full opportunity in the open to bury the hatchet. If you’re gonna be a baby and cry and talk shit it’s on you buddy.
Now BACK OFF!!!
- Time
- Post link
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.
and yet you are the user who’s avatar is literally giving the finger. It might be time to change that. 😃
I’ve had that for like 2 weeks now, LOL.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
If you’re gonna be a baby and cry and talk shit it’s on you buddy.
???
Anything I’ve said to you or about you is completely unrelated to the point, which is that you think everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they’re mean people who are out to get you. Case in point, you accused Ryan of acting dickish and oojason of acting shitty simply because they had a different opinion than yours or didn’t understand what you were trying to say. It’s a pattern that everyone but you seems to recognize.
But OK I’LL BACK OFF!!!
- Time
- Post link
If you’re gonna be a baby and cry and talk shit it’s on you buddy.
???
Anything I’ve said to you or about you is completely unrelated to the point, which is that you think everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they’re mean people who are out to get you. Case in point, you accused Ryan of acting dickish and oojason of acting shitty simply because they had a different opinion than yours or didn’t understand what you were trying to say. It’s a pattern that everyone but you seems to recognize.
But OK I’LL BACK OFF!!!
YOU are NOT a MOD. Ryan accused me of being dickish first and you didn’t say a fucking thing about that did you? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, not Mr. Frink, you can say anything you want to Fo he just can’t return it. Go stick it in your bum and blow.
- Time
- Post link
Just like Thanksgiving with the folks.
Dammit, now I’m hungry.
- Time
- Post link
Ryan accused me of being dickish first and you didn’t say a fucking thing about that did you?
Really? That’s an interesting interpretation of
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)
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.
I went back further into Ryan’s post history as well (two pages worth) and found no case of him saying you were dickish, in fact he’s been much more polite than either of us.
- Time
- Post link
YOU are NOT a MOD.
However, this is a vaild point (and we’re both violating the thread rule everyone loves), so I will now drop it.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Just like Thanksgiving with the folks.
Dammit, now I’m hungry.
Who am I at the table?
I wanna be the old crotchety woman who had a pony back in the old country.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
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.
and yet you are the user who’s avatar is literally giving the finger. It might be time to change that. 😃
I’ve had that for like 2 weeks now, LOL.
so, are you:
- surprised i didn’t mention it sooner (because i did notice it two weeks ago, in case you think i didn’t)
- saying that two weeks isn’t very long, and that makes it silly to point out, but if i had waited another X weeks, it would be a valid complaint?
This is really just a lighthearted ribbing about your avatar, pointing out that maybe having an avatar that is giving everyone on this forum the finger 24x7, might not be giving off a warm and friendly feeling to everyone who sees it.
(fixed typos)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Just like Thanksgiving with the folks.
Dammit, now I’m hungry.
Who am I at the table?
I wanna be the old crotchety woman who had a pony back in the old country.
I’m not naming names, but we’ve got the aging Gen-X dad who still wears his hipster clothes, we’ve got Mom who likes dad well enough but kinda thinks he’d make a much better point if he wasn’t wearing an old ratty Black Sabbath T-Shirt and waving a drumstick. Liesl the exchange student who thinks maybe she got placed with the wrong family but is too polite to bring it up. And Uncle Vinnie, who swears he’s just as liberal as the next guy, but he’s checked all three Internets AND Fox News and Obama is definitely a Muslim what’s so hard to understand about that?!?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes
To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…
😉
(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)
This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.
Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.
from the article…
"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.
Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.
So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.
Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?
What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.
Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then 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. Spicer then emerged…
so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.
other fuller accounts here;-
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f
No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.
😦
Not being shitty in the slightest mate. You are right though - this isn’t a pissing contest - it’s just getting to the facts (so far).
Discussion is always welcome - no-one said it isn’t.
And opinion, belief and varied discourse should thrive and be encouraged in the quality forums like we have here - but let’s not get away from the actual events and facts of the matter(s) being discussed - nor try and portray opinion or belief as fact, yes?
I just don’t appreciate you saying that I was trying to portray my opinion or belief as fact. I was just telling you what I saw, nothing more. We have plenty of posts in this thread that read as if they’re doing what you say and for the most part they get left alone. Ask me fine, but there is no need to be smarmy.
😉
No mate - not being smarmy either.
If you find a post that corrects you with actual facts - to your false claims - and call them smarmy or shitty then that is on you. Don’t try and deflect or project these insults onto others who are just supplying facts, and in turn undermining your points with the truth.
I’m being patient with you. I’m being polite - yet to the point (with facts). I’m not saying you are shitty or smarmy etc - like you have me. But enough is enough - if you can’t handle the truth or facts being pointed out to you then that is your problem - no-one elses - so lay off with the sly personal insults.
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.
- Time
- Post link
the aging Gen-X dad who still wears his hipster clothes
Well…I don’t own hipster clothes, but otherwise that’s spot on.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Russia must be laughing up their sleeves watching as the U.S. tears itself apart over a Democrat EXCUSE for losing the election.
“Don’t look over here” aside, I must admit I thought he screwed up a saying until I looked it up. I had never heard “laughing up their sleeves” before.
JEDIT: Hey, is Trump the Anti-Ric?
- Time
- Post link
I went back further into Ryan’s post history as well (two pages worth) and found no case of him saying you were dickish, in fact he’s been much more polite than either of us.
To be fair to Fo, I did ask him if his tone sounded “dickish” in this post…
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1074730
…but to be fair to me, it did.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
- Time
- Post link
Ryan accused me of being dickish first and you didn’t say a fucking thing about that did you?
Really? That’s an interesting interpretation of
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)
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.
I went back further into Ryan’s post history as well (two pages worth) and found no case of him saying you were dickish, in fact he’s been much more polite than either of us.
I went back further into Ryan’s post history as well (two pages worth) and found no case of him saying you were dickish, in fact he’s been much more polite than either of us.
To be fair to Fo, I did ask him if his tone sounded “dickish” in this post…
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1074730
…but to be fair to me, it did.
I will just let this be the last post on this matter.
- Time
- Post link
Well shit, I missed that. Duly noted.
- Time
- Post link
Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes
To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…
😉
(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)
This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.
Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.
from the article…
"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.
Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.
So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.
Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?
What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.
Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then 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. Spicer then emerged…
so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.
other fuller accounts here;-
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f
No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.
😦
Not being shitty in the slightest mate. You are right though - this isn’t a pissing contest - it’s just getting to the facts (so far).
Discussion is always welcome - no-one said it isn’t.
And opinion, belief and varied discourse should thrive and be encouraged in the quality forums like we have here - but let’s not get away from the actual events and facts of the matter(s) being discussed - nor try and portray opinion or belief as fact, yes?
I just don’t appreciate you saying that I was trying to portray my opinion or belief as fact. I was just telling you what I saw, nothing more. We have plenty of posts in this thread that read as if they’re doing what you say and for the most part they get left alone. Ask me fine, but there is no need to be smarmy.
😉
No mate - not being smarmy either.
If you find a post that corrects you with actual facts - to your false claims - and call them smarmy or shitty then that is on you. Don’t try and deflect or project these insults onto others who are just supplying facts, and in turn undermining your points with the truth.
I’m being patient with you. I’m being polite - yet to the point (with facts). I’m not saying you are shitty or smarmy etc - like you have me. But enough is enough - if you can’t handle the truth or facts being pointed out to you then that is your problem - no-one elses - so lay off with the sly personal insults.
Okay, your pointing to the articles and that’s fine. I am just relaying what I saw right before the briefing. I didn’t post it to base it as fact. I think we’ve both made sly insults from time to time, point taken. If you didn’t see the TV part of the briefing that I did than I understand why you would say it was false. In return, just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t aired, and in turn didn’t happen.
I am not refuting your articles so I ask that you not refute what I saw before the briefing took place.
- Time
- Post link
the aging Gen-X dad who still wears his hipster clothes
Well…I don’t own hipster clothes, but otherwise that’s spot on.
That makes you Mom.
- Time
- Post link
Jetrell Fo said:
I am not refuting your articles so I ask that you not refute what I saw before the briefing took place.
I’m starting to get it… it’s an entirely new logic system.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars