Better be careful, or I might start revoking some security clearances.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Some of You Guys' Posts Are Really Starting to Annoy Me
1,190 Views |
21 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Golem
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
"It it ain't broke, get a bigger hammer!"
Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
I think I'll just drive up to ExxonMobil's HQ in The Woodlands, knock on the front door, and demand the access I once had.
Stupid thread is stupid.
You might think otherwise if we were to come into your place of employment and plant a spy to plant fake information to smear you to your employer that could potentially cost you your job and potentially put you in jail if it wasn't uncovered. But lets keep making light of it. If this was happening to Hillary or Obama the world would be turned upside down.Midnight Rider said:
Better be careful, or I might start revoking some security clearances.
The people who have responded so far are not the people who need to be worried. It's non-conformists like cinque and Waco1947 that make me feel insecure.
Now now Yoak, don't want to see you on TV or anything.YoakDaddy said:quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
I think I'll just drive up to ExxonMobil's HQ in The Woodlands, knock on the front door, and demand the access I once had.
Forest Bueller said:Now now Yoak, don't want to see you on TV or anything.YoakDaddy said:quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
I think I'll just drive up to ExxonMobil's HQ in The Woodlands, knock on the front door, and demand the access I once had.
Just kidding. They'd definitely tell me hell no so I wouldn't even try.
It's also exceedingly uncommon for a president to have this kind of entrenched resistance from the executive branch and the military/industrial/media complex.quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
Sam Lowry said:It's also exceedingly uncommon for a president to have this kind of entrenched resistance from the executive branch and the military/industrial/media complex.quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
He brings it on himself, you're shooting the messenger.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Only in the sense that he's willing to stand up to them. We've needed someone like that for a long time. It would be nice if he were more presidential, but the result would be the same. It isn't about style.quash said:Sam Lowry said:It's also exceedingly uncommon for a president to have this kind of entrenched resistance from the executive branch and the military/industrial/media complex.quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
He brings it on himself, you're shooting the messenger.
Sam Lowry said:Only in the sense that he's willing to stand up to them. We've needed someone like that for a long time. It would be nice if he were more presidential, but the result would be the same. It isn't about style.quash said:Sam Lowry said:It's also exceedingly uncommon for a president to have this kind of entrenched resistance from the executive branch and the military/industrial/media complex.quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
He brings it on himself, you're shooting the messenger.
Right, it's about substance. Horrible staff picks, tariffs, corrosion of institutions, and an incoherent foreign policy, among others. Many others.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Petty, tyrannical rages that make a concern that this man has the power to launch nukes concerning, total lack of concern for any national security that might implicate him or his cronies (which means no investigations involving Putin or Russia), an all-out assault on our intelligence service that may harm our national security for years to come, a stupid immigration policy that has now cost a lot of time and energy reuniting families Sessions separated, expensive parades we don't need, a fixation on presidential powers but not on presidential responsibilities.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Only in the sense that he's willing to stand up to them. We've needed someone like that for a long time. It would be nice if he were more presidential, but the result would be the same. It isn't about style.quash said:Sam Lowry said:It's also exceedingly uncommon for a president to have this kind of entrenched resistance from the executive branch and the military/industrial/media complex.quash said:Yes, he is. Which is why Pompeo met with him. It is common for folks to meet with their predecessors and useful for the predecessor to be up to speed. It is exceedingly uncommon to have a president act in this petty way.Loaded4Bear said:
The dude is an ex employee. Get over it. I think most if not all persons no longer employed by the federal government should not have their security clearances renewed.
He brings it on himself, you're shooting the messenger.
Right, it's about substance. Horrible staff picks, tariffs, corrosion of institutions, and an incoherent foreign policy, among others. Many others.
Trump is all circuses and no bread (except for him and his family). He can't work collaboratively with anyone--which is an essential trait of a president and of members of congress (Ted Cruz has this problem, too).
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
But his TWEEEETTTSSS!!!!!!
GolemIII said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
But his TWEEEETTTSSS!!!!!!
Sounds like I hit a trigger.
Oh well.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:GolemIII said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
But his TWEEEETTTSSS!!!!!!
Sounds like I hit a trigger.
Oh well.
Tweets do appear to be triggering to you, yes. It's good you have identified another of your issues. Good work.
GolemIII said:quash said:GolemIII said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
But his TWEEEETTTSSS!!!!!!
Sounds like I hit a trigger.
Oh well.
Tweets do appear to be triggering to you, yes. It's good you have identified another of your issues. Good work.
Caps and multiple exclamation points. Then "I know you are but what am I?". Classic snowflake.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:GolemIII said:quash said:GolemIII said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:Couldn't disagree more. He's allowing the special counsel investigation to run its course even though it's incredibly disruptive and there's no legal justification for it.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
If true, these are all excellent reasons to vote against Trump. I don't think most of them are true, but that's why we take our differences of opinion to the ballot box. The idea that the bureaucracy can override an elected president's judgment on tariffs or any other policy issue would be fatal to democracy if it became accepted.
The bureaucracy hasn't laid a finger on Trump. Trump's fingers are all over disrespect for the rule of law, etc. Enough he that he might face obstruction charges.
Allowing, huh. Nothing disruptive about his daily witch hunt tweets. And disagree about the legal justification.
But his TWEEEETTTSSS!!!!!!
Sounds like I hit a trigger.
Oh well.
Tweets do appear to be triggering to you, yes. It's good you have identified another of your issues. Good work.
Caps and multiple exclamation points. Then "I know you are but what am I?". Classic snowflake.
Your one trick not working out for you, pony (tail)?