The Goat Pen

eCat wrote:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10&p=151138&hilit=p ... ty#p151138

Yeah, I know I've been saying that...it's one of the things I believe. I just don't understand if you are pointing to something where I am choosing some party line over principle beliefs or are you saying that Susan Rice is choosing party over principle?

Seriously, I figured it was tossed out as a dig, but I'm not connecting where you are digging. Maybe my moon is stuck on stupid this month, but I don't get it.

Bklyn wrote:Internet privacy just hit the shitter today. Almost missed it wading through the Rice paddies.

Trumpetts will tell you the GOP congress is to blame. The Donald merely signed off on it so he could get back to doing the people's business.

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10&p=151138&hilit=p ... ty#p151138

Yeah, I know I've been saying that...it's one of the things I believe. I just don't understand if you are pointing to something where I am choosing some party line over principle beliefs or are you saying that Susan Rice is choosing party over principle?

Seriously, I figured it was tossed out as a dig, but I'm not connecting where you are digging. Maybe my moon is stuck on stupid this month, but I don't get it.

Rice is Party over Principle

I've been saying Net Neutrality was going to be a casualty of Trump from the day he was elected

The only hope I have is that the masses demand alternatives which spurs the companies adversely affected by a tiered system to develop competing providers.

I'm guessing within 10 years every every person that has access to high speed internet via cable will also have access to high speed wireless from a competing provider.

I'm wondering

How did Alito get confirmed with a vote of 58-42 in 2006?

Because the democrats care about the welfare of the country and are willing to put partisan bickering aside...

Just saw a headline that Bannon has been kicked off the National Security Council. Another MustSeeTV episode coming later today at 2pm starring Sean Spicer-McCarthy..

Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News. However, Bannon only attended one meeting and felt he was no longer needed in that role after the selection of H.R. McMaster as national security advisor.

McMaster, who Bannon wanted in the role, was given authority to reorganize the committee when he joined the White House, according to NBC.

eCat wrote:Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News.

Perfect. So according to the WH, the new NSA needed a 'minder' and Bannon was it...but since Trump axed Flynn for the good of the country, Bannon's role on the committee is no longer needed.

"Sean, a top WH official said Bannon served as a check against Gen. Flynn...care to comment?"

"Check doesn't mean what YOU people think it means. We use the term differently...check as in buddy-check -- he had his buddy's back. Not a check against...a check for. I'm serious, and don't shake your head."

bluetick wrote:

eCat wrote:Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News.

Perfect. So according to the WH, the new NSA needed a 'minder' and Bannon was it...but since Trump axed Flynn for the good of the country, Bannon's role on the committee is no longer needed.

"Sean, a top WH official said Bannon served as a check against Gen. Flynn...care to comment?"

"Check doesn't mean what YOU people think it means. We use the term differently...check as in buddy-check -- he had his buddy's back. Not a check against...a check for. I'm serious, and don't shake your head."

Bannon was a check again not just Flynn but also Pence and Priebus.

You act like you just keep finding this stuff out

eCat wrote:

bluetick wrote:

eCat wrote:Bannon originally served on the committee as a check against Michael Flynn before Flynn was ousted as National Security Advisor, a top White House official told NBC News.

Perfect. So according to the WH, the new NSA needed a 'minder' and Bannon was it...but since Trump axed Flynn for the good of the country, Bannon's role on the committee is no longer needed.

"Sean, a top WH official said Bannon served as a check against Gen. Flynn...care to comment?"

"Check doesn't mean what YOU people think it means. We use the term differently...check as in buddy-check -- he had his buddy's back. Not a check against...a check for. I'm serious, and don't shake your head."

Bannon was a check again not just Flynn but also Pence and Priebus.

You act like you just keep finding this stuff out

lol Says the guy who threw away 10k in medical equipment cause he didn't know how to sell it.

I'm guessing you were picked on alot as a kid but not enough that you learned why.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But you put it out there in the public domain...a questionable call imo.

Don't be mad.

I never put anything out here if I'm not ready to hear about it 10 years from now

Tough news about Bannon, but at least the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence were bumped back up to regular attendees. That was always a head-scratcher, how they got demoted in favor of Bannon.

Sounds like McMaster has a handle on things. ::::thumbs up:::::

Trump is not a professional politician coupled with the belief that not only should he not maintain status quo, but do what makes sense to him.

Throw in that Riebus, Ryan, McConnell, McCain, Paul, Graham, and a littany of others have said he isn't qualified to serve at one point or another - AND - they would sell him down the river first chance things got bad - and he is going to be insulate himself with those around him that he trusts.

Trump is going to make many more mistakes from lack of experience and applying what he sees as common sense to Washington problems.

This is expected.

I've been saying all along this needs to happen.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/gary-coh ... mberg.html

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:
But it seems kind of odd to say that Thomas is making decisions with a bias toward whites

That's not what I was saying. I was saying he's a horrible SCJ. That's all.

Bklyn, why do you have a problem with well-educated black men in position of great power?

Rice unmasked the surveillance of Trump and his people. Yes, she had the legal authority to do that, but it never seemed to occur to her that a National Security Advisor of a Democrat President unmasking the identities of a Republican presidential candidate and his staff, then Republican president-elect and his staff, looks really, really bad to any reasonable person. To change the rules of who gets access to the unmasked intelligence so that practically everybody in government has access to it, exponentially increasing the likelihood that somebody in the Bureau of Weights and Measures or the US Mint, will leak it, looks even more really really bad. To do so in the last days of the outgoing administration, looks even more really really bad.

And if the outgoing Democrat NSA does unmask the identities of an incoming Republican President and his staff, she had better have a REALLY, REALLY good reason to do so in the interest of national security. It is being reported that the identities that Rice unmasked were in communications that had nothing to do with the Russian investigation. If that turns out to be true, then Rice unmasked for purely political reasons, which is Watergate v. 2.0, and she should go to jail.

Lastly, somebody leaked secret unmasked material to unauthorized persons and it went public. Whoever did that committed a felony and deserves to go to jail. If the leaker turns out to be the unmasker, then she needs to go to jail for even longer. If the leaker turns out to be somebody else, then Rice should bear some legal responsibility for enabling that leaker.

One of the consequences of "blowing it up" is that you get dangerously unqualified people with important jobs. And, in our case, we have this guy in charge of the middle east, relations with China, and solving the opiate problem. Best case scenario, when he's done meddling,we are in the same place that we started with all those issues.

[img2]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... 32xskw.jpg[/img2]

Kushner couldn't do any worse with the Middle East than W or Obama did.