CatBus

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.

Jetrell Fo said:

Also, as far as I know, there isn’t a single reporter assigned to the press briefings that is a registered Republican.

I don’t know of any who are registered Democrats (and would it even matter if the news organization they represent is as conservative as most are?). But you know that white-supremacist-lite conspiracy theorist with the pedophile fixation you were quoting earlier? Yeah, that guy. He’s got a press pass now. Think he’s not a Republican? Although I do throw up a little when I try to call him a reporter.

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

SilverWook said:

None of us ever imagined as kids that we would have to resort to “alternative methods” to keep these historic versions from fading away to memory, before nobody remembers them at all.

My take? Scratch this. To a media PHB, it’s a threat. And illegal. And piracy. And a war crime. And the end of civilization as we know it.

Understood. I kept it vague, but they have to be at least aware of such things. 😉 The idea is not to threaten, but underscore the passion for a film we cannot easily obtain.

Still not nearly subtle enough IMO.

Now, I’ll admit I don’t think this thing has a snowball’s chance. But the path it’d have to follow is to somehow end up with someone who has some influence and hasn’t made up their mind yet, via some fluke. The newly-promoted mid-level executive who might not even know that the movies they’re selling are not remotely the same as the movies the fans love.

You want to cue curiosity, maybe research into projected sales. You do not want to cue a call to the legal department (remember, this is the new PHB, so the same lack of institutional bias we’re counting on for making the pitch will also mean they won’t know about the restraint Lucasfilm has shown in this regard). Especially since the letter points right back here 😉

Jetrell Fo said:

Trump has a better chance at getting re-elected than you seem to give him credit for.

For once I agree with Fo, in conclusion if not in how I got there. It should come as no surprise to anyone that when polled on issues rather than candidates, “Democratic issues” win by enormous margins. Part of the problem is clearly messaging.

When Democrats run on their policies, they win. What was missing this last cycle? Well, the top media topics were: Benghazi, Emailghazi, Sneezeghazi, pussy grabbing, and penis size. Whether true/important or not, these were character issues and not policy stories. Was Clinton’s character fatally flawed? Maybe, but the Trump team is also very, very good at waving shiny things in front of the media–even if it doesn’t reflect well on them–to prevent people from talking about policy issues. Does it matter that nobody knew where Trump stood on any issues? Not as long as they kept people from knowing where Clinton stood.

And as Lee Atwater said, when Republicans run on race, they win. America hasn’t seen a campaign as racially charged as Trump’s since George Wallace, and it’s unlikely he’s going to change the strategy that put him in the White House.

Democrats seem hell-bent on pursuing policies that appeal to the most people. Trump seems hell-bent on ignoring what appeals to the most people and simply appealing to the right people (the disproportionately influential white/rural working class). Where does that leave us? With a Democratic Party that’s successfully outpolled their opposition in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections, and is simultaneously wondering how they can change to become relevant in national politics again.

The wild card is that the Trump team loves to play the victim card, and it worked well when he wasn’t an incumbent. When you control all three branches of federal government and the vast majority of state governments, it’s tough to convince people the mean system is rigged against you. Not that he’s not trying, what with Obama’s microwave spying on him and all. I just can’t see them changing tack on this one either, and it could lead to people seeing him as a paranoid nut, which might work against him. Or not.

SilverWook said:

None of us ever imagined as kids that we would have to resort to “alternative methods” to keep these historic versions from fading away to memory, before nobody remembers them at all.

My take? Scratch this. To a media PHB, it’s a threat. And illegal. And piracy. And a war crime. And the end of civilization as we know it.

Maybe just say: None of us imagined twenty years ago that we’d still be watching Star Wars on the exact same VHS tapes, while other films easily leapfrogged past that home video quality many times over.

We live in a era where even a “bad” movie is loved enough to get a meticulous restoration, and can be easily purchased.

Again, when dealing with a media PHB, a bad movie is one that didn’t make enough money to justify a home video release. Direct-to-video movies are all good movies, QED.

Maybe focus on something along the lines of Star Wars in 1977 being a revolutionary and groundbreaking A/V experience in 1977–and yet in 2017, it’s easily outshone by the very films it once stood apart from, because those other films have gotten meticulous restorations, released on modern home video formats, and can be easily purchased.

We have nothing against the Special Editions. They simply aren’t the versions we grew up with and loved.

Meh. I suppose you can say this, as long as there are at least two of us who believe it to qualify for the use of “we”.

I agree with Puggo to the degree that booting a few million people off health insurance won’t hurt Trump’s re-election chances. However, it could play badly in certain legislative districts, and even flip some state governments (Florida, for example).

What’s interesting to me is that many of the arguments about the ACA (“why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare?”) are actually arguments against the concept of insurance in general and not specific to the ACA or even health insurance. It goes back to John Birch or even further back, when people railed against insurance companies, not only because they’re rich (which they are), but because insurance is an inherently collectivist concept. And worse, it’s an example of a collectivist concept that appears to be the only reasonable solution to a common market problem. And that is a real problem for Birchers/Tea Partiers, etc.

Lack of any insurance whatsoever–health, life, auto, etc–would actually be seen as a real success by this group, a triumph of “freedom” over collectivism. Never underestimate the power of ideology–some people will march right over a cliff if they think freedom’s on the other side, and they’ll keep believing it all the way down.

I’m not sure it will actually help Trump though. I think he’s currently assured to get about 45% of the vote in 2020, and I’m not sure this changes that. The only question is who the other 55% vote for, and where they live.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Seems typical legit.

You couldn’t find your own shtick?

😉

If you don’t like unoriginal schtick, don’t post unoriginal conspiracy theories.

There’s a Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory?

Several, actually. The one you posted, which was that this was tied back to the Clintons is the one I was talking about. There’s also one that ties it back to Trump. New York’s millionaire social scene is smaller than you’d think, and you can invent all kinds of crazy connections, as it appears Mike is rather used to doing.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Seems typical legit.

You couldn’t find your own shtick?

😉

If you don’t like unoriginal schtick, don’t post unoriginal conspiracy theories.

Mike O said:

I’m fucking sick of shit. “Oh, wait for the 40th anniversary, oh wait for May 4th, oh Wait for 2020.” Fuck this shit. I’m not getting any younger.

This “rumor of a pending new decent OOT release” business is almost old enough to buy its own beer. It’s not gonna quit now just because it’s been wrong every single time for a couple decades running.

Info on Mike Cernovich for those who don’t want to crawl through the sewers:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/12/how-mike-cernovich-is-pizzagating-his-latest-victim.html

Maybe the first thing to understand about Cernovich — in the context of this story, at least — is that he has a tendency to accuse people he dislikes, whether politicians or the subjects of his online disputes, of terrible sexual predilections. He does it really, really frequently, and is particularly obsessed with pedophiles and their enablers and cover-uppers: Cernovich believes they are absolutely everywhere, that the world is awash in pedophile conspiracies.

Numerous examples given in the story. So basically he’s a prominent white nationalist-lite conspiracy theorist with a pedophile fixation.

Seems typical legit.