Jetrell Fo

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

RANDOM THOUGHTS THREAD DELETION IMMINENT

lets hope not.

The empire is watching.

😉

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

I guess the Jay/mods had enough of the bickering. But again I find it odd the thread of deleted instead of locked.

I believe it was the subject matter, not the bickering, that got it taken without word or warning. I know there is at least one person in the room walking around like a proud peacock even if we never know who it is. No-one was dragged in to the thread. Everyone had a choice to ignore or respond. If anyone chose to respond it was their own doing, they had something to say.

Oh well, so much for discussions that matter.

I think he was referring to you mentioning him being fond of calling people names even though what little he had said so far in the thread wasn’t directed at you, or mean spirited, but at this point it doesn’t matter.

This is fair. It was more about not being fond of certain practices especially considering we have newer, younger members, that have grown up with such things and the tragedy it can cause.

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.

Warbler said:

I guess the Jay/mods had enough of the bickering. But again I find it odd the thread of deleted instead of locked.

I believe it was the subject matter, not the bickering, that got it taken without word or warning. I know there is at least one person in the room walking around like a proud peacock even if we never know who it is. No-one was dragged in to the thread. Everyone had a choice to ignore or respond. If anyone chose to respond it was their own doing, they had something to say.

Oh well, so much for discussions that matter.

I need to restate … we got censored today. Thanks for the correction warb.

😃

Warbler said:

technically, we all got censored since it seems all of the posts made in the thread have been deleted. I looked at my post history and the posts I made in the thread are not there.

True enough, we all did. Is it odd that it happened just when some started understanding the conversation?

I’m the crazy one remember? You are not seeing things, I got censored.

😦

I’m a bit disappointed that I got censored here today. Funny how one person only makes one post in it and then a little bit later … poof? It wasn’t funny, it is the reality of it.

😦

If the DNC doesn’t get real and get their shit together a month is going to last 8 years.

generalfrevious said:

Jeebus said:

generalfrevious said:

Donald Trump is going to stay in power for the rest of his natural life. The Russia scandal won’t sink him, he might even stop the investigations altogether in the coming weeks. Even if he somehow leaves office after two terms, he has already changed the Supreme Court for the next forty years, so any action against right-wing hegemony will be struck down immediately.

Meanwhile, the standard of living is going to plummet hard, as over half of Americans will be living under the poverty line by 2050, most people won’t even live past sixty, and a few dozen extremely rich families will make more money in a couple hours than 300 million combined in their lifetime. We will be worse off than the poorest African countries are today.

And there is nothing we can do about it.

Have you ever considered becoming an Alternative History writer?

This isn’t alternate history. If you drive to any rural part of this country, the abject poverty is already there. There are states where, if they were seperate nations, would be some of the poorest in the world.

There is no Russian scandal. There never was. But you and others believing there is … ensures that there was one. Stop being sheople and do your own thinking, your own research, decide for yourself.

TV’s Frink said:

The Constitution does not give the President the ability to discriminate against a religion, which is exactly what a Muslim ban does.

Ric Olie picture inserted here.

The part that is the problem is the VISA’s. There is a clause to the constitutional ammendment which gives the President this ability with regards to protection of people with VISA’s so they are not declined renewal due to Religious affiliation. If they already do not have VISA’s the President can legally keep them from entering, legally.

Sally Yates was fired because she used this clause to say no to the EO without letting it go through the courts first like she was supposed to.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo 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.

If you take this in the “muslim ban” context

You are implying there is an “if” there, when there isn’t. It’s Trump’s own words.

Jetrell Fo said:

I could see how one might see it that way

I think you mean “Trump saw it that way”. It’s Trump’s own words.

Jetrell Fo said:

even Muslims here understood the basis for the concern due to the radicals amongst them which they did not support.

That’s irrelvant to the point you were making. You said “it was never a muslim ban”. Trump said it was, it’s Trump’s own words.

The Constitution of the United States implicitly allows the President to make these types of decisions whether you and I like it or not. Instead of requiring only radical muslims to be vetted to hell and back before they can enter it requires all people from those countries including Muslims to go through it before entering. It was done this way so as not to discriminate against religious freedoms.

darthrush said:

This whole debacle has become annoying as shit, regardless of who is in the right or wrong. It literally is sucking all the joy and life of the forum.

I agree 100%. If people who say they aren’t going to get involved and complain about this stuff wouldn’t get involved and then continue drag it out in other threads it wouldn’t get like it does. I can only affect or take blame for my own participation but I am not the only one participating so the others will have to speak for themselves.

DuracellEnergizer said:

My kingdom for an ignore feature.

You say that now.

😉

Dek Rollins said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Dek Rollins said:

Warbler said:

Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?

it was Ender’s “victim card” post.

Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.

You brought up the fact that he posted a gif when you were temp banned, and that seemed to be the biggest issue of confusion in the conversation. When Warb asked for further clarification because he wasn’t fully understanding your statements, you blew him of and didn’t answer the question. And no, I won’t piss off, because I was trying to clarify it simply for Warb when you apparently refused to do so.

He got you to think he was confused. He did post the Orson Welles applauding gif when I got temp-banned because he had already stated he was looking forward to it happening so him doing it in an innocent way was a no brainer and related to his Orson Welles applauding for rule#6 in the updated rules thread. Making innocent is just a loophole.

This gif was Shia LeBouf applauding because he agreed with enders post talking shit about me being a “victim”. Something else warbler has shown approval for. He knew I would get it but he again did it in a way that wouldn’t make it look as if he was “openly” breaking rule #6.

warbler got sloppy with his little modus operandi so I said something. Making himself again looking innocent by saying he doesn’t understand … he’s not as innocent and his posting around the forum shows he’s more knowledgeable than he’s saying he is now.

It’s the last I’m saying on the matter. I hate that I let myself get bent about this stuff but finding ways to circumvent the rules innocently is still breaking the rules. I’m not trying to be a jerk to you Dek, I’m just ticked off that this shit never stops and most everyone is okay with it.

Dek Rollins said:

Warbler said:

Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?

it was Ender’s “victim card” post.

Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Yeah, clapping. So?

You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.

😃

So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.

Let me set you straight … I fully believe you posted the clapping gif today because ender was posting the “victim card” at me and that you agreed with his post, the same thing you did when I was temp banned. You may twist words and say only half of what you mean but my experience with you is all the convincing I need.

I was agreeing with a post made by Darth Ender, when I posted gif when you were temp-banned? Just what post made by Darth Ender do you think I was agreeing with?

I am tired of the infantile rewording of questions to further confusion. It’s very boring.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Yeah, clapping. So?

You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.

😃

So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.

Let me set you straight … I fully believe you posted the clapping gif today because ender was posting the “victim card” at me and that you agreed with his post, the same thing you did when I was temp banned. You may twist words and say only half of what you mean but my experience with you is all the convincing I need.

CatBus said:

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.

What I meant by that was that she bypassed the process designed to confirm what she thought was wrong. I apologize if that wasn’t clear.

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.

Warbler said:

Yeah, clapping. So?

You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.

😃

Warbler said:

The gif you(Jetrell Fo) posted today:

The gif I posted earlier today:

The gif I posted while you(Jetrell Fo) were temp banned.

3 different gifs.

I know, and they all have a quietly common theme, don’t they … or some such thing. The bottom one you used for your approval of Rule #6 in the updated rules thread.

😉

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.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

btw, can anyone tell me what the fine print under the “(your name)” says? I can’t seem to read it.

DOES NOT APPLY TO: Whites, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexuals, or Christians.

huh?

That is the small print on the bottom right of the card, you said you couldn’t read the small print, I typed it out so you could.

1. That wasn’t the print I was talking about. I was talking about the small print bottom center, under the place you are supposed to sign.

2. you left out this:

Warbler said:

Makes your “I wasn’t talking about you Fo” clapping post reference look pretty stupid now doesn’t it?

That is what I was going “huh?” at.

You knew what I was referring to …

[Warbler said:]

but saying “huh” is safer than answering honestly. I get that.

If you are referring to the pic I posted while you were temp banned:

1. the gif posted back then is not the one you posted today, nor is it the one I posted earlier today.

2. One has nothing do to with the other. For all that is known, the gif posted while your were temp banned, had nothing to do with you being temp banned. The gif I posted today was my reaction to Darth Ender’s post, no pretending involved.

You’d make a good politician with the way you responded … or some such thing.

😉

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.