Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 253

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda 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’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda 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’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

I’m not trying to be mean to you or start anything with this.

There is no logic in saying something is a false equivalency when no equivalency was claimed when it was posted wouldn’t you agree.

Ryan already explained that and you called him a dick. So yeah.

JEDIT: Goddammit I did it again.

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda 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’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

You’re reaching here buddy … we both reside on the same forum, you are a far more prolific poster than I am so your posts are like everywhere, and don’t you feel even the tiniest bit egotistical trying to get folks to actually believe what you just said? The Fonz you’re not, and neither am I, but that really isn’t a rational defense for refusing an olive branch with such indigence.

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)

Okay Ryan, I don’t want you to get all huffy and blown this out of proportion over nothing (even though someone already tried doing just that).

“some of you” = those of us posting in the thread old enough to remember it. Pretty simple.

“I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.” = to anyone complaining about the President firing the FBI Director because it’s not the first time it’s ever happened.

So, there you go, it was not posted to equate it to the reason or the stuff happening now when Comey got fired. So it is not a false equivalent because as you can see, I never equated it to Comey’s situation regarding reasoning, just his firing.

Wow, even I feel weird now that I had to do that, but there it is.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda 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’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

You’re reaching here buddy … we both reside on the same forum, you are a far more prolific poster than I am so your posts are like everywhere, and don’t you feel even the tiniest bit egotistical trying to get folks to actually believe what you just said? The Fonz you’re not, and neither am I, but that really isn’t a rational defense for refusing an olive branch with such indigence.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Just added the “Neighborhood Watch / OT.com Meta” section. Ranking will be coming soon.

Are you running for President here or something? Maybe looking to usurp Frink’s singular spot here?

LOL

I can almost never understand what you’re trying to say.

Then why respond?

MSNBC has a chyron up:

“FBI Sources: Comey fired because he wouldn’t end FBI investigation.”

If true, that’s pretty damning…but I can’t find whatever story they’re presumably referencing.

Closest I can find.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/donald-trump-james-comey-russia/

There are two reasons why President Donald Trump fired James Comey, according to a source close to the now-former FBI director:

1. Comey never provided the President with any assurance of personal loyalty.
2. The fact that the FBI’s investigation into possible Trump team collusion with Russia in the 2016 election was accelerating.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda 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’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

You’re reaching here buddy … we both reside on the same forum, you are a far more prolific poster than I am so your posts are like everywhere, and don’t you feel even the tiniest bit egotistical trying to get folks to actually believe what you just said? The Fonz you’re not, and neither am I, but that really isn’t a rational defense for refusing an olive branch with such indigence.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Just added the “Neighborhood Watch / OT.com Meta” section. Ranking will be coming soon.

Are you running for President here or something? Maybe looking to usurp Frink’s singular spot here?

LOL

I can almost never understand what you’re trying to say.

Then why respond?

I just want to know the deal with these allusions and analogies. What’s the deal with The Front? And what about the olive branch?

And what is Frink reaching for? I mean, just some basic reading comp. stuff I want answered.

You should consider becoming a novelist. I think you’d be good at that.

Being as simplistic as I can here. If you are asking me to give you answers so you don’t have to go back in the thread to read, I don’t know what else to tell you.

“The Fonz” = Fonzie from the old Happy Days T.V. show.

James Comey’s goodbye letter.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/james-comey-farewell-letter/index.html?sr=twpol051117comey-goodbye-letter1223AMStoryLink&linkId=37457481

FBI Dir Comey mislead Congress today when he stated that emails on Republicans were not released during 2016.

http://archive.is/jmZse

It seems he did mis-speak and he also said that both parties were hacked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/10/asked-to-describe-trump-americas-most-common-replies-are-idiot-and-incompetent/?utm_term=.12b0c4846ae0

In this most recent survey, though, Quinnipiac included a less-common question than approval: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump?” The results were not generally complimentary.

The most common responses, in order:

1. idiot, 39 times
2. incompetent, 31 times
3. liar, 30 times
4. leader, 25 times
5. unqualified, 25 times
6. president, 22 times
7. strong, 21 times
8. businessman, 18 times
9. ignorant, 16 times
10. egotistical, 15 times

It is good that we only did the top 10, because the 11th most-common word is not suitable for a family newspaper. It rhymes with “mass soul.” And actually, it’s only tied for 11th … with “stupid.”

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

oojason said:

Comey requested more money for Russia scandal probe before (his) firing…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comey-requested-more-money-russia-scandal-probe-firing

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075117

oojason said:

Comey requested more money for Russia scandal probe before (his) firing…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comey-requested-more-money-russia-scandal-probe-firing

I haven’t found anything that proves this has been confirmed one way or the other so I don’t know why Rachel Maddow would even suggest it has been.

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

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.

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Comey requested more money for Russia scandal probe before (his) firing…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comey-requested-more-money-russia-scandal-probe-firing

I haven’t found anything that proves this has been confirmed one way or the other so I don’t know why Rachel Maddow would even suggest it has been.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075117

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.da186fc3b770

the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.

Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.

The known actions that led to Comey’s dismissal raise as many questions as answers. Why was Sessions involved in discussions about the fate of the man leading the FBI’s Russia investigation, after having recused himself from the probe because he had falsely denied under oath his own past communications with the Russian ambassador?

Why had Trump discussed the Russia probe with the FBI director three times, as he claimed in his letter dismissing Comey, which could have been a violation of Justice Department policies that ongoing investigations generally are not to be discussed with White House officials?

And how much was the timing of Trump’s decision shaped by events spiraling out of his control — such as Monday’s testimony about Russian interference by former acting attorney general Sally Yates, or the fact that Comey last week requested more resources from the Justice Department to expand the FBI’s Russia probe?