CatBus

TV’s Frink said:

Even if the firing is justified, the optics are staggeringly poor.

Fake optics.

SilverWook said:

Firing people always makes the problem go away.

Trumpy better hope Comey doesn’t have a certain video, or knows someone who does. 😉

I really never wanted to re-live the Watergate days. But now I’m wishing it ultimately boiled down to a matter of burglary.

Way to recuse yourself from all things related to the Russia investigation, Jefferson, after you got caught misleading Congress on the matter.

Looks like the FBI investigation will wrap itself up by next week. Turns out there was no fire under all that smoke after all.

A simpler conversation flowchart would go something like:

J: [Outrageous quote from non-credible source without any evidence]
R: Evidence?
J: There’s no evidence supporting this quote at all. I was just posting the quote. It’s not something I am stating myself, yeesh.

The same conclusion reached without spiraling out of control.

I’m pretty much against the ultimate-boxed-set approach. At least for quite a long time, the only way to buy the theatrical cut of Superman on Blu-ray, for example, was to buy a big-ass boxed set, with not only the Special Edition of Superman, but all the other movies, including multiple cuts of Superman II.

Now yeah, I bought it–because I’m a sucker–and now I have the movie I want and a bunch of shiny new coasters. There was also quite a while where the only way to buy Raiders of the Lost Ark on Blu was to buy it with all its attendant coasters. Fortunately I was able to wait that one out until it was available as a single.

Having to buy a bunch of swag just to get the movie you want is crappy. I don’t even think the trilogy should be bundled. Only want Empire? Fine, go for it.

Jetrell Fo said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/obama-flynn-trump.html

“If President Obama was truly concerned about General Flynn, why didn’t they suspend his security clearance, which they approved just months earlier?” Mr. Spicer said during his daily press briefing.

“Not only did they reaffirm it, but they took no steps to suspend it,” Mr. Spicer said. He said that decision casts doubt on how vigorous Mr. Obama’s warning to Mr. Trump was during their meeting in November.

Evidence please.

It’s in the fracking article I quoted from … read it would you, it’s not something I am stating myself, yeesh.

Better yet, if you’re too lazy to read, watch then …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jAAvYmKkto

A quote from Spicer is not evidence in any sense of the word. We understand you’re not stating it yourself. After all, you’re a Bernie supporter!

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/obama-flynn-trump.html

“If President Obama was truly concerned about General Flynn, why didn’t they suspend his security clearance, which they approved just months earlier?” Mr. Spicer said during his daily press briefing.

“Not only did they reaffirm it, but they took no steps to suspend it,” Mr. Spicer said. He said that decision casts doubt on how vigorous Mr. Obama’s warning to Mr. Trump was during their meeting in November.

Evidence please.

Sure.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

I’m declaring May Alternate History Month.

Yeah but can a month last four years?

This last one sure seemed like it did.

I’m declaring May Alternate History Month.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

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.

Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:

If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.

…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it.

We misunderstood each other then. I know what she said and how she felt and I wasn’t trying to argue that part. She got fired for it because she bypassed the legal process designed to do what she did.

FWIW, it’s statements like this that really muddied the waters:

Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong

Which I took to mean you didn’t believe she found anything wrong.

Jetrell Fo said:

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.

Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:

If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.

…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it. And yet here we are several posts later with you still disputing an argument nobody ever made.

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 the 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.

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.

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. Maybe a sign that a rubber stamp is not the correct tool to use for legal review, see: John Yoo’s torture memo for another example.

EDIT: What’s the thing they found? Among other things, intent. Intent can be nowhere in the text of the law, yet it is regularly taken into consideration by the courts–especially in cases like this where the intent is so well-documented and unambiguous. So if Muslim Ban 3.0 came out and just said “Screw it, we’re closing the borders completely to everyone”, it would still be unconstitutional if the courts found the intent behind the law was to ban Muslims, and everyone else was just collateral damage in an attempt to make that ban look legally justifiable.

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.

I don’t think anyone really expected fireworks in a public venue dealing with classified information…

But man, it was fun watching Ted Cruz get the law Yatesplained to him so hard he had to leave the room afterward.

EDIT: I’m sure once he gets over the public humiliation, he’ll endorse her.

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?

Maybe intended as satire, but too close to the way people really see things. There are plenty of people who think getting called racist is exactly the same thing as censorship, or that white people and Christians never ever play the victim card. Satire usually takes the position and tweaks it humorously. This is straight-up duplication–putting it on an actual card is the only funny tweak, so it doesn’t actually parody the belief at all.

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

If victim card does not work, continually claim oppression and try to silence those who something with your something by reporting them to get shut down. Something.

I guess what I was asking what are the somethings?

Last bit says (i.e. censorship). Which is kindof a giveaway that whoever made the image didn’t know/care what censorship really is, and along with the “can’t be used by white men, Christians, etc” shows they’re pretty unaware of how much the victim card gets played by those groups. So… nice graphic at first, icky right-wing propaganda upon further examination.

Chewie’s all paleo. He doesn’t trust that Imperial processed food. Stick it to the man, Chewie!

Haarspalter said:

Yery interesting! Thats leads me to the question which one of these tracks were shipped for the audio dubbing in foreign countries? The German Dubbing for example featured the “Close the blast doors!” line and a music cue during the Dianoga attack from the get-go. (The Dianoga music was later reused for the extended Mos Eisley scene in the ANH Special Edition.)

AFAICT the Dionaga music was added (accidentally?) in the 95 THX releases in several European markets. It’s there on the Spanish THX release as well, but was not on any prior Spanish home video release.

I have never been able to successfully alterna-swear, impressionable children be damned.

But I always liked Melon Farmer.

Possessed said:

Yeah man just be happy and be attracted to who you feel out for. There’s nothing wrong with being bi and being attracTed to men doesn’t make your feelings for this girl any less real. If it gets serious I would tell her though but in a way that lets her know your feelings for her are still genuine.

Yeah, but the fact that you’ve got a bunch of anonymous Internet Star Wars geeks rooting for you two is something probably best left unmentioned.

But seriously, congratulations and best of luck to you both. I’d offer advice, but the last long-distance relationship I was in involved exchanging lots of letters (in ink, on paper), and I’m pretty sure that’s officially an historical oddity by now.

FWIW, my prediction is that the French election will end up much like the recent Dutch election. Macron will win, but there will be a price. The Overton window will be moved so far to the right that fascism will be considered an established mainstream political option, albeit not the one currently in power. Most if not all national parties will feel obligated to borrow racist rhetoric from Le Pen’s fascists to some degree, to maintain popular appeal in the new political climate.

Not quite frevious bad, but sure as hell not wonderful.

Oh yeah, and we’ll have to finally admit that maybe the French are simply smarter than us, and that’s a tough pill to swallow. But on the upside, plane fares to Paris may get cheaper if they move the capital back to Vichy.

Macron campaign’s e-mails are now out on the Internet, unknown at this point if they were altered by Russian intelligence to give the appearance of impropriety like some of the Clinton campaign e-mails were. Le Pen campaign appears mysteriously immune from hackers. Election in two days.