Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
But Jimmy has Hawkeye Pierce to help him.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
True. Very true. Although Jack has William Dafoe killing anyone that stands in his way overseas. Even did it on live TV to the leader of Iran who dared step up to him. Meanwhile, Jed let some french guy kidnap his daughter. I'll take Jack.
timschochet
Footballguy
You have a point about the French guy. However Willem Dafoe played Jesus in possibly the worst movie of the last 50 years. So I win.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Jed's 1st Chief of Staff was the same guy in the Air Force that wouldn't launch his nukes because he was a scaredy cat and Michael Madsen had to put a gun to his head before Matthew Broderick played some computer games one day when he didn't want to go to school. And his second Chief of Staff was married to a closet gay gay from the army that killed his neighbor because he wouldn't have sex with him. Not to mention that Jed is married to Rizzo while Jack's wife is, depending on the timeline you are in either (1) Dr. Beverly Crusher (2) the chick from Body of Evidence (3) Bridget Moyahan and (4) Keira Knightley who is heavenly with a sword. So you know, you can have Rizzo.
timschochet
Footballguy
All right. The Rizzo thing puts you over the top. I concede.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
.... the only winning move is not to play...
timschochet
Footballguy
Interesting article here from the National Journal, about Obama and Hillary:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-is-setting-up-hillary-clinton-to-fail-20150127
In essence, the article suggests that Obama in his speech last week offered liberal proposals that box Hillary in, and that she won't be able to be the centrist candidate if Obama (and Elizabeth Warren) keep pushing her to the left.
It's a solid argument, but it's probably premature at this point. Hillary doesn't know who she's running against, and won't know for probably the next 18 months. That's her biggest problem IMO. If the GOP nominates a conservative candidate, then it will be relatively easy for Clinton to position herself as a centrist no matter what Obama does during the next 2 years. If on the other hand, it's Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, then Hillary will have greater difficulty capturing the center.
With virtually no competition for the Dem nomination, Hillary does have to be careful here. I think we're going to see her subtly distance herself from some of Obama's policies, especially with regard to foreign affairs. That's already started. More difficult for her is how she reacts to Warren's populist demands.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-is-setting-up-hillary-clinton-to-fail-20150127
In essence, the article suggests that Obama in his speech last week offered liberal proposals that box Hillary in, and that she won't be able to be the centrist candidate if Obama (and Elizabeth Warren) keep pushing her to the left.
It's a solid argument, but it's probably premature at this point. Hillary doesn't know who she's running against, and won't know for probably the next 18 months. That's her biggest problem IMO. If the GOP nominates a conservative candidate, then it will be relatively easy for Clinton to position herself as a centrist no matter what Obama does during the next 2 years. If on the other hand, it's Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, then Hillary will have greater difficulty capturing the center.
With virtually no competition for the Dem nomination, Hillary does have to be careful here. I think we're going to see her subtly distance herself from some of Obama's policies, especially with regard to foreign affairs. That's already started. More difficult for her is how she reacts to Warren's populist demands.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I don't think Hillary Clinton will have a hard time saying whatever she has to say to get what she wants.
timschochet
Footballguy
Meanwhile, Scott Walker is gaining momentum:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/27/scott_walker_i_dont_think_its_ever_been_good_to_bet_against_me.html
His problem is lack of establishment money. But that might not matter. The Koch brothers, who are NOT GOP establishment and who like to support more conservative candidates than the Chamber of Commerce guys typically do, have pledged to spend a staggering 889 MILLION on this election! No, that is not an exaggeration. Love or hate the Citizens United decision, this is the result. The Kochs love Walker- if they get behind him early, watch out.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/27/scott_walker_i_dont_think_its_ever_been_good_to_bet_against_me.html
His problem is lack of establishment money. But that might not matter. The Koch brothers, who are NOT GOP establishment and who like to support more conservative candidates than the Chamber of Commerce guys typically do, have pledged to spend a staggering 889 MILLION on this election! No, that is not an exaggeration. Love or hate the Citizens United decision, this is the result. The Kochs love Walker- if they get behind him early, watch out.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry, that post was a mistake. I forgot we are actually on Article 4.
timschochet
Footballguy
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Does anybody here believe that, at some point in the future, we will add another state to the United States? If so, where and how?
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Does anybody here believe that, at some point in the future, we will add another state to the United States? If so, where and how?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Lessee, bringing in Bibi through the back door one time previously, refusing to meet with him this time, leaking threats like "price to pay." The Israelis are our partners.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Great Jehosephat man, that's because he picked the lower number with lower range to make it look cheaper."I will rent you this building for year's lease for 10 grand."
"Great."
[buyer walks up January 1st, key doesn't work]
"Oh yeah when I said a year's lease I meant May through December. You knew that right? Whoops!!!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Puerto Rico has been trying torever I think. Then you have the crazies in my state who want to break it into two states. I'd put the chances at about 5% we ever have another state. The Washington DC people are lunatics as well. They are never going to be a state.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's more like this Saints:
Me "The rent for the year is $6000"
You "That's great! I'll take it. Let's sign a 5 year lease."
Me "Wait, the $6000 is only for the rest of this year, because today is July 1. It's actually $1000 per month, so the rent for every other year will be $12000"
You "What? You cheated me!"
Me "no you misunderstood me. Do you still want the place?"
You "I'm already moved in. What choice do I have? But I don't like it!"
ONE YEAR LATER
Me "how's it going?"
You "I don't like this place but I'm stuck with it because I signed a lease. Why did I ever sign that stupid lease? I wish I could move"
Me "Sorry. But I've got good news. Expenses are down so I've decided to lower your rent to $800 a month. From now on your annual rent will be $9800."
You "It should be $6000. That's what you promised!"
Me "You're bringing that up again? We've already been through that"
You "$9800 is a big increase from $6000."
Me "But you weren't paying $6000, you were paying $12000. Why can't you be happy about the decrease?"
You "It would make logical sense for me to be happy about it. I should be happy about it. But if I express happiness, that means Obama wins. So I'd rather bring up that old misunderstanding and pretend I'm being cheated. "
Me "The rent for the year is $6000"
You "That's great! I'll take it. Let's sign a 5 year lease."
Me "Wait, the $6000 is only for the rest of this year, because today is July 1. It's actually $1000 per month, so the rent for every other year will be $12000"
You "What? You cheated me!"
Me "no you misunderstood me. Do you still want the place?"
You "I'm already moved in. What choice do I have? But I don't like it!"
ONE YEAR LATER
Me "how's it going?"
You "I don't like this place but I'm stuck with it because I signed a lease. Why did I ever sign that stupid lease? I wish I could move"
Me "Sorry. But I've got good news. Expenses are down so I've decided to lower your rent to $800 a month. From now on your annual rent will be $9800."
You "It should be $6000. That's what you promised!"
Me "You're bringing that up again? We've already been through that"
You "$9800 is a big increase from $6000."
Me "But you weren't paying $6000, you were paying $12000. Why can't you be happy about the decrease?"
You "It would make logical sense for me to be happy about it. I should be happy about it. But if I express happiness, that means Obama wins. So I'd rather bring up that old misunderstanding and pretend I'm being cheated. "
timschochet
Footballguy
California has also talked about 3 new states. But that won't happen either, I'd guess.
timschochet
Footballguy
youre talking about slights. I'm talking about changes in policy.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
That wasn't funny. If that's what you were going for. Or clever. Again, if that's what you were going for.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
timschochet
Footballguy
it wasn't meant to be either. It was meant to be accurate. And it is.
timschochet
Footballguy
During today's hearing for Loretta Lynch (soon to be our new attorney General) , Senator Lindsay Graham wanted to know if by legalizing gay marriage, that would open the door for polygamy to be legal. Apparently Senator Graham is greatly concerned about this question. Is there something going on in the backwoods of South Carolina?
Ms. Lynch replied that she had not studied the issue.
Ms. Lynch replied that she had not studied the issue.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Not a ridiculous question, but (if the USSC holds it be a fundamental right) the answer is yes. Honestly I have no idea why the states have any reason to declare any kind of marriage legitimate or illegitimate, maybe except possibly for health reasons with siblings but that's it.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I will say it again:
This is the opposite of Nixon and China. This would be like if Nixon became president and like everyone predicted he became a red baiter who tried to push us to the edge of war with the USSR and Mao.
He's also the opposite of Carter who used his real idealism to dig his heels in and get the impossible done an actual peace treaty. Instead Obama has given Israel the Heisman stiffarm.
Rhetoric and leaks are policy. He has basically ignored Israel while made entreaty after entreaty after entreaty to the countries and groups that hate Israel. Instead of bringing them together he has turned away from Israel and begged for attention from some awful groups. In Egypt he said that the USA's policy was to stay out of politics (while the Muslim Brotherhood came to power), but in Israel he clearly is trying to influence the election. He has got to be the least effective president in this area (Israel & the mideast) since .... ever. The point about Khalidi & Wright is that Obama clearly has no compunction with being in a room where Israel is called every epithet in the book.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
lol Nicely done. But seriously, do you really believe that the CBO estimates are made up? There's no foundation for them?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Stop right there - the "Me" in that scenario is a liar, a cheat, a swindler, a cad, a sharp and a thief. If you are jammed into moving in and have no further choice it is all the more so, nothing ever changes that.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Saints it's fair to say that I disagree with you utterly about Israel. The truth is that despite, or perhaps because of, Obama's enmity with Bibi, Israel and the USA have worked very well together playing good cop/bad cop against the Arabs. Hillary goes into some detail about this in her book and so does Beinart. Obama's policies in the Middle East have been, IMO, far superior to his predecessor or for that matter to any living President. And he has strengthened Israel's security in the bargain.
timschochet
Footballguy
A cad? Is this Victorian England? By Jove, why not call him a swine and a rotter as well? Damnation, my good sir!
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I think the assumptions and constraints they are forced to use make their estimates significantly less accurate.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Exactly, he's a mere duffer, in the final analysis a lout, a tout and and all `round macer.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Senate hearing for Loretta Lynch was devoted, not to her record, but to Eric Holder. There will be more of the same tomorrow- apparently there are going to be witnesses discussing Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and Ferguson.
Outside of Barack Obama himself, there seems to be no person currently more detested by conservatives than Eric Holder. Does he deserve their disdain? A lot of very smart people I respect seem to think so. I want to examine his performance here and attempt an evaluation.
Outside of Barack Obama himself, there seems to be no person currently more detested by conservatives than Eric Holder. Does he deserve their disdain? A lot of very smart people I respect seem to think so. I want to examine his performance here and attempt an evaluation.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Oh goodie
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, so let's start with the controversies.
The New Black Panthers
The Facts Two members of the New Black Panthers stood outside of a polling booth in Philadelphia, dressed in paramilitary uniforms. One was carrying a nightstick. The Bush Justice Department pursued what was originally a civil suit for voter intimidation. Claiming lack of evidence, Holder's Justice Department dropped all charges against the Black Panther Party and against one of the two men. The other man received a narrow injunction.
The Charge Former lawyers who had served under the Bush Administration have stated that the current DOJ under Holder is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. Later, Christopher Coates of (of the Justice's Civil Rights Division) acknowledged telling attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities
The Defense Holder vehemently denied that there was any political decision not to continue to prosecute the Black Panther Party. However he indicated that the decision to prosecute them in the first place was political. He bridled at the idea that this was voter intimidation equal to that used against minorities in the 1960s, saying in a hearing that it was a "great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people."
My verdict This was a nonstory, built up by Fox News to stoke racist fears. Holder was correct not to prosecute.
The New Black Panthers
The Facts Two members of the New Black Panthers stood outside of a polling booth in Philadelphia, dressed in paramilitary uniforms. One was carrying a nightstick. The Bush Justice Department pursued what was originally a civil suit for voter intimidation. Claiming lack of evidence, Holder's Justice Department dropped all charges against the Black Panther Party and against one of the two men. The other man received a narrow injunction.
The Charge Former lawyers who had served under the Bush Administration have stated that the current DOJ under Holder is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. Later, Christopher Coates of (of the Justice's Civil Rights Division) acknowledged telling attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities
The Defense Holder vehemently denied that there was any political decision not to continue to prosecute the Black Panther Party. However he indicated that the decision to prosecute them in the first place was political. He bridled at the idea that this was voter intimidation equal to that used against minorities in the 1960s, saying in a hearing that it was a "great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people."
My verdict This was a nonstory, built up by Fox News to stoke racist fears. Holder was correct not to prosecute.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Fast and Furious
The Facts Between 2006 and 2011, the ATF allowed (and/or supervised) illegal sales of guns to gangs in Mexico. The idea was to trace the guns to gang leaders in conjunction with the Mexican government. Hundreds of people were killed as a result, including an ATF officer named Brian Terry. Beginning in 2011, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on this issue. Originally Eric Holder testified that he was not aware of the operation until only a few weeks before the hearings. Later it was proven that Holder had received reports on this operation as early as 2010. Holder acknowledged this but claimed he was confused. The House demanded all documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, but President Obama invoked executive privilege on a small number of documents, claiming national security. Because of this action by Obama and Holder's earlier lie or misstatement, the House of Representatives held Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress in June of 2012. Democrats claimed this was a purely partisan move designed to influence the presidential election.
The Charge House Representatives, led by Darrell Issa, believe that Fast and Furious, though in effect since 2006, only became significant in 2010 under Eric Holder. They believe Holder deliberately lied and withheld documents. The Heritage Foundation, along with other conservative sources, have charged that Holder deliberately hoped for gun violence as a result of this operation so as to clampdown on legal gun owners in the United States. The NRA has taken up this accusation and believe that this operation, along with other "false flag" operations, are designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Other extreme conservative sources have charged that Brian Terry was deliberately murdered by members of the ATF under the orders of Holder and the Obama Administration, perhaps because he "knew too much".
The Defense Both Obama and Holder have placed 100% of the blame for Fast and Furious on the Bush Administration. They claim initial lack of knowledge, and once they learned about it they stopped it. Holder regarded the House hearings as a partisan witch hunt designed to embarrass him and the Obama Administration. No wrongdoing or mistakes have ever been acknowledged; only some initial confusion.
My verdict It's highly implausible that Holder did not know what was going on before 2011. If he knew and lied about it, that is a sign of corruption (though not major corruption IMO.) If he did not know about it, that is a sign of incompetence. Either way, this whole incident is an embarrassing stain on the Obama Administration. However, numerous investigations by journalists and by Congress have yet to uncover any deliberate wrongdoing by Obama and Holder. And the absurd conspiracy theories pushed forward by some conservatives and especially the NRA have not helped Issa make credible accusations. The Contempt of Congress was a ridiculous political move, unworthy of Congress. But Holder does deserve criticism and there's no way to give him a good or even passing grade here.
The Facts Between 2006 and 2011, the ATF allowed (and/or supervised) illegal sales of guns to gangs in Mexico. The idea was to trace the guns to gang leaders in conjunction with the Mexican government. Hundreds of people were killed as a result, including an ATF officer named Brian Terry. Beginning in 2011, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on this issue. Originally Eric Holder testified that he was not aware of the operation until only a few weeks before the hearings. Later it was proven that Holder had received reports on this operation as early as 2010. Holder acknowledged this but claimed he was confused. The House demanded all documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, but President Obama invoked executive privilege on a small number of documents, claiming national security. Because of this action by Obama and Holder's earlier lie or misstatement, the House of Representatives held Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress in June of 2012. Democrats claimed this was a purely partisan move designed to influence the presidential election.
The Charge House Representatives, led by Darrell Issa, believe that Fast and Furious, though in effect since 2006, only became significant in 2010 under Eric Holder. They believe Holder deliberately lied and withheld documents. The Heritage Foundation, along with other conservative sources, have charged that Holder deliberately hoped for gun violence as a result of this operation so as to clampdown on legal gun owners in the United States. The NRA has taken up this accusation and believe that this operation, along with other "false flag" operations, are designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Other extreme conservative sources have charged that Brian Terry was deliberately murdered by members of the ATF under the orders of Holder and the Obama Administration, perhaps because he "knew too much".
The Defense Both Obama and Holder have placed 100% of the blame for Fast and Furious on the Bush Administration. They claim initial lack of knowledge, and once they learned about it they stopped it. Holder regarded the House hearings as a partisan witch hunt designed to embarrass him and the Obama Administration. No wrongdoing or mistakes have ever been acknowledged; only some initial confusion.
My verdict It's highly implausible that Holder did not know what was going on before 2011. If he knew and lied about it, that is a sign of corruption (though not major corruption IMO.) If he did not know about it, that is a sign of incompetence. Either way, this whole incident is an embarrassing stain on the Obama Administration. However, numerous investigations by journalists and by Congress have yet to uncover any deliberate wrongdoing by Obama and Holder. And the absurd conspiracy theories pushed forward by some conservatives and especially the NRA have not helped Issa make credible accusations. The Contempt of Congress was a ridiculous political move, unworthy of Congress. But Holder does deserve criticism and there's no way to give him a good or even passing grade here.
Last edited by a moderator:
If it was a white group that did that to a minority, there is 100 percent chance there would have been charges and the charges would stick. A white person in that district is a minority. Your hatred of all conservative sources is very ugly, imho. If the facts maybe were not true it would be worthy of mention. But to base your entire opinion about the facts on it, just is bing a hack. This story should be offensive regardless of who the victims were. Americans should not feel their life is threatened simply for exercising their right to vote, period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim11
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Well, I will give Obama a tonof credit if that was the actual plan because that is foreign policy chess whilst most are still playing checkers.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry Yankee, but for at least the next day or so it's going to be about Eric Holder. I want to figure out if he truly deserves the disdain he receives, or if it's been overblown. So far I'm on the fence.
If you're not interested just ignore this part of the conversation.
If you're not interested just ignore this part of the conversation.
timschochet
Footballguy
i never said that was the actual plan, but that's the way it's worked out.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
He's one of the most incompetent Attorney's General we have ever had and should have been removed from office a long time ago. Sadly he is also nothing new as we have had a slew of miserable Attorneys General going now through a few administrations.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
A good AG is like a good ref, the kind of guy whose name you never hear mentioned.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I know that's what you said. I'm trying to giv Obama credit if he deserves it. The problem with foreign policy a lot of times is that all of us see simple solutions and cry foul when the guy on the other side of the spectrum doesn't do that but we all know - or at least should - that diplomacy in its many forms is a massively complicated endeavor. And the leaders who are great at it very much gameplan stuff the way we are describing here and most of the time we don't even know it for decades after the fact.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
timschochet
Footballguy
Well that's what I want to find out. I already wrote that his handling of Fast and Furious was, IMO, incompetent. Whether that makes him overall incompetent I'mnot sure yet. Unlike many people I don't regard FF as a significant affair in the larger scheme of things.
But conservatives also charge that he is corrupt as well as being inept. I want to examine that charge as well.
Similar threads
