That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
It would depend on his definition of what qualifies as a success.pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pmHow can you agree with that quote??LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.
“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
SHS doesn't understand words.pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pmHow can you agree with that quote??LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.
“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
Because no one can credibly argue that it's been a successful year.pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pmHow can you agree with that quote??LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.
“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pmHow can you agree with that quote??LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.
“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
Do it, I dare you.Kraken wrote:I could care less.
You know I love the first amend, I could say something bad about the first amendment. It's treated me so unfairly but I won't I love it's a great amendment it should really apologize to me though, the worst rated amendment in the history of Declaration of Independence, I mean we are the party of Lincoln. I have zero respect for the Amendment, I think the news is overrated.Kraken wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:34 pm I wish a reporter would ask Trump "Which amendment to the Constitution do you hate the most?" Because he would totally take that bait.
I interviewed Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked — or not disliked — the piece I wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was a picture of a belligerent Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for later publication — journalistically, as a fly on the wall — which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said. I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?"— author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.
Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang around — checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch.
Exactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.
It just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:10 pmExactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.
Hypocrisy indeed. Kind of like how OMG STATES' RIGHTS the GOP/Trump club is. Unless it's states' rights to, say, legalize marijuana. Or police their vehicle emissions. Or manage their voter info. Or do anything they don't like, really.Grifman wrote:What I find interesting is hearing Trump's defenders disparaging Wolff by saying that he didn't follow the journalistic standards (#fake news!) and pointing out some tweets from MSM journalists who have cast some doubt on some of his stories/quotes. All of sudden they appeal to the MSM and it's standards! What a bunch of hypocrisy.
On the plus side there aren't any allies/competitors that are motivated to spy on the US government and simply use this disorganization to their advantage. Especially not with the much improved international diplomatic relations this administration has pushed from the very beginning.Grifman wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 pm It just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.
Fake news...Grifman wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 pmIt just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:10 pmExactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.
Kurth wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:04 am Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind:
I love this because it means we'll hear Wolff's tapes.Max Peck wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:53 am
Fake news...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0839572481
Sometimes "satire" is counterproductive. This is one of those times.malchior wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:09 amKurth wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:04 am Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind:
Spoiler:
Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:02 am It would help if it was actually funny.
Sounds like something a third grader would tell and laugh at.
So you're saying that when everyone told you repeatedly that posting bad pictures of Hillary wasn't actually funny, you agreed, then kept doing it anyway? Huh.Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am
Meh, some are funny and some aren't just like pictures of Trump. I love those ones replacing him with the wax figure from Disney.
I love some Trump mocking as much as Clinton or Obama mocking.
The funny or not isn't really a matter of who is being mocked or made fun of.
He expected a different result.Chaz wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:12 amSo you're saying that when everyone told you repeatedly that posting bad pictures of Hillary wasn't actually funny, you agreed, then kept doing it anyway? Huh.Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am
Meh, some are funny and some aren't just like pictures of Trump. I love those ones replacing him with the wax figure from Disney.
I love some Trump mocking as much as Clinton or Obama mocking.
The funny or not isn't really a matter of who is being mocked or made fun of.
The best people. Just the best.Neilson represented the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry,133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), defending Proposition 8, which would have banned same-sex marriage in California.
- After the district court, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, Nielson filed a Motion to Vacate the judgment. Nielson’s motion argued that the judge, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, a Reagan appointee, “had a duty to disclose not only the facts concerning his [same-sex] relationship, but also his marriage intentions.”
- Nielson’s motion reflected the rhetoric of certain right-wing groups. The American Family Association said that it was “extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.” Conservative activist Tony Perkins specifically said that Judge Walker’s decision was compromised by the fact he is “openly homosexual.”
- Nielson argued, in attempting to vacate the judgment, that only if Judge Walker had “unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome[.]”
