Jetrell Fo

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.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/ex-cia-director-james-clapper-confirms-british-intelligence-warned-us-about-trump-russia-activity/

This is a sad state of affairs because Ret. Director James Clapper originally said publicly …

Clapper was also asked on “Meet the Press” if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election. “Not to my knowledge,” Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended. “We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report,” he said. “We had no evidence of such collusion.”

Now he is testifying to the contrary? So which is it? LOL

Possessed said:

Everywhere, you are obviously just antagonizing Fo to further cement his status as the shit stain of the forum (or whatever his latest self deprecating “joke” was), remember?

And this isn’t an attempt at antagonizing?

I actually said being a shit-stain was good because it was less responsibility and it gave more room to breathe. That was not a joke.

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.

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.

Sally Yates took the matter in to her own hands instead of letting the courts decide it originally, as is the proper channel, and that is why she got fired.

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, I could see how one might see it that way, but even Muslims here understood the basis for the concern due to the radicals amongst them which they did not support.

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

He was probably more interested in taking another “victim” shot which he is becoming known for instead of actually reading it first.

Lmao, no, the text that he was talking about is genuinely unintelligible due to the low resolution.

But the fact that you think that proves that he would have been right.

This is not the first time him or you have said such things so there is no proof needed for that.

I believe, had he taken the time (which maybe he didn’t have when he posted it) to read the small print on the bottom right, he would not have posted that specific one.

Pretty simple observation, yes?

Unless he also agrees about those groups often playing the card and was subscribing to the theory that it was put there as sarcasm?

This is an honest possibility.

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

I’m 99% sure I agree.

Which if I’ve done my math correctly, means you are roughly 98% sure that _ender didn’t post the Victim Card image for the small print.

No-one here said he did, not even me, and it’s fairly obvious had he read it he wouldn’t have.

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

He was probably more interested in taking another “victim” shot which he is becoming known for instead of actually reading it first.

Lmao, no, the text that he was talking about is genuinely unintelligible due to the low resolution.

But the fact that you think that proves that he would have been right.

This is not the first time him or you have said such things so there is no proof needed for that.

I believe, had he taken the time (which maybe he didn’t have when he posted it) to read the small print on the bottom right, he would not have posted that specific one.

Pretty simple observation, yes?

don007 said:

DoomBot said:

Great looking sample! Thanks for sharing that with us Don007.

😃 no problem 😃

I really enjoyed it as well. It look so natural.

😃

don007 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have the cinema DTS discs for this film.

😉

Cool.
This film print has stereo optical sound in Czech language 😦

Well, maybe once you’ve got the scan done and ready we could collaborate, and get the DTS sync’d for a release?

one69chev said:

Fart knocker

Wow, I didn’t know this one had such long legs. I never really here anyone say this aside from me.

F.U.B.A.R.

I’m surprised no-one mentioned this one yet. Maybe it’s cause I’m just old.

dahmage 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.

that discussion is like 100 pages in the past… lets not go back to trying to say that this was obama’s list therefore you must not question it. that has been refuted so many times.

That was not my point so I’m not sure why you bring it up. This list was already in use before Trump got there. The only people that called it a “muslim” ban were those that didn’t like that he was strengthening the process related to immigration to America.

He was probably more interested in taking another “victim” shot which he is becoming known for instead of actually reading it first.

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.

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.

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.

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

Seems Ender was off his game too because it’s kind of inflammatory.

😉

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/08/527069104/sally-yates-to-testify-in-russia-hearing-susan-rice-not-so-much

Blow it out your wazoo.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-seeking-2-million-post-campaign-book-source-says-992862

This may be why Huma Abedin is refusing to co-operate with the investigation … big book money deal.

😃

DuracellEnergizer said:

Everyone on this forums sucks at ignoring anyone (yours truly being no exception).

Well, we can’t all be as popular as Frink and Warbler, so I’m happy to settle with my shit-stain standing. Less expectations and more room to breathe.

😉

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I don’t care about her at all.

That’s about as true as him not being a Trump supporter.

Warbler said:

I’ll go back to ignoring you now.

😃

Possessed said:

one69chev said:

Plus my kids kinda understand why their dad turned out like he did.

I think we’d all like an explanation for that. 😉

2 words … flight pants.

😉

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’d rather you and Frink keep ignoring me

For me, it would really help if you would return the favor, as I’ve said many times, but for some reason you still insist on responding to every post I make. And I’m not talking about posts like the one I’m making now, I’m talking about the random ones where I post a current events article. You always have to comment on it. Is it so hard to not respond? I don’t want to have a conversation with you, so why keep trying to comment on everything I say?

TV’s Frink said:

I swear, I don’t know why I bother with some of you people in this thread. It’s like you can’t read or something.