Jetrell Fo

Strawberry Swirl Cheesecake.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

bawoosh7 said:

Jeebus said:

bawoosh7 said:

Is believing in ghost tied to believing in certain religions? I remember overhearing from someone when I was in community college that you shouldn’t fear ghost and the like unless you believe in certain religions. I myself am afraid of ghost or seeing a ghost, but I don’t practice or read up on my religion since my youth.

Not necessarily, no. I think anyone can believe in ghosts, regardless of their religion (unless their religion specifically states that ghosts aren’t real).

Yeah that makes sense. Funny how I don’t want to see one, but occasionally I dive down a deep hole on searching for evidence of its existence like pictures or videos. Once I get my fill though I can’t sleep for a few days which sucks.

There are numerous things neither science or religion can account for. We are still learning things about our world, our selves, and our place in the cosmos. It is for you to learn and understand how you fit in. The unknown is nothing to fear, the unknown is there to be discovered. If you believe it is possible, then learn all you can, welcome the experience as part of who you are.

😃

http://www.dorisday.com/multimedia/video/sunshine-medley-with-john-denver

This conversation needs a legal pick me up.

Here’s a novel idea for a new thread … Off-Topic in Politics in Off-Topic thread.

😉

This day needs to end.

Darth Id said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Possessed said:

Yes clearly him calling you on your bullshit is a worse problem than your constant bullshit itself.

I will ask you the same thing. Please stop. I should only have to ask once.

Thank you.

Hey this the bitchin’ thread son!
You don’t like th’bitchin’, then git t’steppin’!

You’re not helping any.

Possessed said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Possessed said:

Yes clearly him calling you on your bullshit is a worse problem than your constant bullshit itself.

I will ask you the same thing. Please stop. I should only have to ask once.

Thank you.

If you’ll quit with the whiny everybody bullies me act I’d be more than happy to.

I asked you once. I’m cool with you, I want to stay that way. This is a “end of my patience” courtesy … please stop.

Possessed said:

Yes clearly him calling you on your bullshit is a worse problem than your constant bullshit itself.

I will ask you the same thing. Please stop. I should only have to ask once.

Thank you.

I would like to inquire about your choice of color for the front side of the box. What made you choose purple over black?

Thank you.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t even know why I bother calling you out on this nonsense. I really hoped that your ban would get you to stop this, but I guess it didn’t.

Again, let me point out to you, I am not the “only” one in the conversation. If you want to complain then complain about all of us, the fact that you chose one person only, says more about you than it does your “issue”.

You’re the only person to do this shit so obviously you’re the only one I’m complaining about. At this point I’m just going to try to ignore it, but I doubt I’ll be too successful.

Okay, I’ve been nice, but I’m done. I’m asking you to stop this now. If you cannot or do not I will take the next step. End of conversation.

Thank you.

Darth Id said:

Jetrell Fo said:

^^“LOL”

for a second there I felt dirty, but then I realized that the double-"^" indicates that Fo’s deranged delight derives from Frinkly’s “I’m ‘sorry’” gag, rather than my epic-takedown, Judo-like retort. Thank godz.

I recognized the copy-cat sarcasm of the “gag”. Your epic-take(yourself)down a notch resembles no real martial arts I’m aware of either.

If you feel dirty you may want to wash with soap and water instead of sand or ground.

😉

DuracellEnergizer said:

I would’ve posted this in the self-reflection thread, but it’s still locked,

If there is enough interest in it I’ll ask that it be re-opened. I left it as is due to those that soiled it in the first place. I did not want to see it digress yet again for no obvious reason other than it was a thread people didn’t respect.

SilverWook said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522518472/trump-donates-salary-to-national-parks-even-as-he-tries-to-cut-interior-departme

Talk about an empty gesture. And also not a charity.

President Trump has donated his salary from his first few months in office to the National Park Service, making good on a campaign pledge to forego a presidential paycheck.

His gift represents a small fraction, however, of the money the Park Service stands to lose if Trump’s budget were adopted.

Instead of collecting a salary of $400,000 a year, Trump has volunteered to donate that money to charity. He chose the Park Service as the beneficiary of his first installment, $78,333, which covers the first ten weeks Trump was in office.

Zinke hinted, however, that the president’s gift won’t go very far.

“We’re about $229 million behind in deferred maintenance on our battlefields alone,” he said.

Trump is proposing deep cuts to the Interior Department, which includes the Park Service. The president’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year would trim $1.5 billion or 12 percent from the department’s budget. Ultimately, it’s up to Congress to determine how much money the department can spend.

Conservationists denounced Trump’s donation as a “publicity stunt.”

“If Donald Trump is actually interested in helping our parks, he should stop trying to slash their budgets to historically low levels,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “America’s parks, and the people and economies they support, need real funding, not a giant fake check. Parks are a good investment and we must invest now if we want them to be around for our kids,” Brune added.

KDK1 to KDK12…I’m sorry, Mrs. Torrance, due to budget cuts, we regretfully don’t have the funds to come up and rescue you from your crazy axe wielding husband. We recommend finding a secure location in the hotel, and locking yourself in until spring. Over and out.

I was thinking about this exact scene when I saw the original post.

^ I believe that is handled by FOIA?

😉

^^“LOL”

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t even know why I bother calling you out on this nonsense. I really hoped that your ban would get you to stop this, but I guess it didn’t.

Again, let me point out to you, I am not the “only” one in the conversation. If you want to complain then complain about all of us, the fact that you chose one person only, says more about you than it does your “issue”.

In the end, it is only money, that speaks the loudest in most situations.

😦

I remember when Susan Rice said she didn’t know anything about the unmasking … LOL

TV’s Frink said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/did-susan-rice-ask-to-unmask-trump-officials/521688/

Rice has not commented on the report. It would likely be legal for Rice to request the unmasking—“The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything,” Lake notes.

As Lake notes, nothing he—or anyone else—has uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. As with each step in the story, this one offers only a small sliver of information. Many experts seem to think the Bloomberg View story does not imply anything improper or unusual. Others withheld judgment, saying there’s simply not enough information to judge.

“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”

Here’s a WaPo piece that tries to strike a balance between the defense of Rice and the outrage at Rice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/04/susan-rice-isnt-a-smoking-gun-but-she-does-have-some-explaining-to-do/?utm_term=.6bae2a8d12f0

It is my understanding that the question is about the pattern of her requests for the unmasking timeline is what is causing the biggest concern. It was discovered as an anomaly, not the normal pattern, that these things generate when done. She was in a position where she could legally request unmasking of names and I understand the law on this. If what she got was what was disseminated to all those other agencies before Obama left, than yeah, she got huge explaining to do about it and the anomaly of requests.

moviefreakedmind said:

Oh my God, this is ridiculous. Why do you have to do this every single day?

Jetrell Fo said:

It never fails that at least every few days, at least one person brings it up,

And I was saying? LOL

Oh your elephant, relax, this was kind of a floating discussion, and I wasn’t the only one in it.

😉

darth_ender said:

No insult intended by me. No humor at Jetrell Fo’s expense. I genuinely think you don’t realize just how your behavior causes problems. It indicates fights sometimes and puts you at the butt end of others’jokes. I’ve been trying to let up as I believe you are trying to get along, but you jumped in on the Warbler/Id discussion, and therefore got yourself involved. I’m not sure why you’re so convinced Warbler is part of the problem. I’ve gotten on him too when I think he’s being unreasonable, but he’s really a good guy, but a subject of your frequent misperception.

Id is most certainly the aggressor in a lot of cases but warbler is not as unintentional with his words at times either. I’m not saying warbler’s bad.

^Nah, my uselessness here has been well documented by some. Even Marilyn Manson has fans so I’m not going to worry about it.

😉

RicOlie_2 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Let’s laugh and move on, shall we.

😃

Agreed, but please try to follow that advice whenever you feel that people are having fun at your expense (or even when they’re not having fun). We aren’t all out to get you.

I most certainly “have” been trying yet I am only as human as the rest of you. I know all of you aren’t but there are some that don’t always paint a positive picture of the whole.

😉

Wait, you’re only as human as the rest of us–but the rest of us aren’t human. Things are finally starting to make sense… 😉

It sure would explain a lot, hey? 😉

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

Can you talk to a doctor?

Unlikely, given my current living situation.

I’m touched, by the way, that so many of you care about me.

It is times like this that make me very proud to be a member of this forum. I hope we get to see more of this sentiment.

Jetrell Fo said:

[said:]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/did-susan-rice-ask-to-unmask-trump-officials/521688/

Rice has not commented on the report. It would likely be legal for Rice to request the unmasking—“The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything,” Lake notes.

As Lake notes, nothing he—or anyone else—has uncovered lends credence to President Trump’s outlandish and unsupported claim that Obama ordered surveillance of him at Trump Tower prior to the election. Nor does the new story suggest any illegal behavior on Rice’s part. As with each step in the story, this one offers only a small sliver of information. Many experts seem to think the Bloomberg View story does not imply anything improper or unusual. Others withheld judgment, saying there’s simply not enough information to judge.

“In a situation where there’s incidental collection and it appears that they’re discussing U.S. incoming or current officials, it would not be unusual for a national security adviser to try to understand what it is this foreign government is trying to do to manipulate their position against the U.S.,” said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and national-security commentator. “That’s how the game is played.”

Key words are “incidental surveillance”. That means no direct surveillance hence no reason for their names to be unmasked. She would of course have the legal right to do it but it would be the same as them catching a part of a ordinary persons conversation with Bernie Sanders and then she asks them to unmask both of those names even though they had nothing to do with what they were looking for, hence the term incidental, which is what the conversation would have been.

LOL

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/flashback-susan-rice-said-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Here is an article and video showing Rice saying she knew nothing about the unmasking.

😉

RicOlie_2 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Let’s laugh and move on, shall we.

😃

Agreed, but please try to follow that advice whenever you feel that people are having fun at your expense (or even when they’re not having fun). We aren’t all out to get you.

I most certainly “have” been trying yet I am only as human as the rest of you. I know all of you aren’t but there are some that don’t always paint a positive picture of the whole.

😉