renesauz

Members
  • Content count

    17,053
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

692 Excellent

About renesauz

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 09/05/1969

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rjshampton
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia
  • Interests
    Rule #1 in my house: The TV belongs to everybody else UNLESS NFL Football or the World Cup Soccer is on..then it's mine, period.

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Philadelphia Eagles

Recent Profile Visitors

17,921 profile views
  1. BY definition? Maybe not. But to intentionally sabotage a presidential election by intentionally with-holding information? Yeah...sorry...might not be treason by definition but I'd call that low life and treasonous. If they have the info it should have already been shared, regardless of political bent
  2. OK....Everyone has been entered into draft A . http://www70.myfantasyleague.com/2016/home/78961#0 The generic password for you right now is 2016League Might want to log in ASAP and customize/change your password. We will roll everything to the other 7 draft sites after most have been entered.
  3. You might be right. ONe of the scariest things to me though is: Who exactly is holding onto the info, and releasing it in this way? I mean: If there's information out there that will bury Clinton, it should have been released already. Holding it until October (as one poster stated is planned) is treason IMO. It's deliberate sabotage of the election process. Releasing daming information as soon as it becomes known is not. Can you imagine the outcry if CLinton were to be arrested in October? Then what kind of damage if it leads to a virtually un-opposed victory for trump...followed a few months later with new information that the folks who held that daming information all the time were conservative hacks determined to ensure the republicans win? The whole thing has me so uneasy, and it should have everyone at that convention uneasy. Far better to denounce her now and ask Bernie to run in November
  4. Scary stuff. He sounds like the neighborhood bully taking the smaller kids' lunch money. Even if he's right, and we could do that, I'd be embaressed as heck to have a family member taking lunch money that way...I'll be mortified if my country does it.
  5. I find it fascinating how conservatives are going nuts over Bernie NOT backing out on Hillary. I wonder why?
  6. Probably deserved it...but still the funniest post I've read in here in days
  7. See afib frequently in my job (ICU nurse). Very common, usually treatable, sometimes (as in your case) reversible.
  8. I certainly understand and appreciate this line of thinking for the most part. Unfortunately, I then remember that this next President will put up 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's nominees will be conservatives picked by the Republicans. So even if I tended to agree with everything you wrote (I don't, but can at least appreciate the argument), the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next 20 years is a big deal to me...and I'd rather Hillary do that.
  9. That's interesting. I read a long article the other day about how the ranchers living along the border stated it wouldn't work
  10. A key frustration to many though is the fact that he is far from clear on HOW he means to do some of these things, and when he does put something out there it's all too often ludicrous and utterly unworkable (like building a giant wall and making Mexico pay for it). Many of us strongly disagree with some of the points you've made here though. Calling Obama's administration a failure is a HIGHLY subjective statement (which, big surprise, I strongly disagree with). His foreign policy plans are difficult to take seriously when he's so poorly informed on the current policies (Nuclear triad anyone?). The Iran deal is a tough one, but is nowhere near as simple as is claimed. The technology to build a nuclear weapon is 70 years old now. It's unrealistic to expect that we can keep third world countries from developing the ability forever. A far better approach is to make friends among those who are getting close, and you don't make friends with long term sanctions. The Iranian people are more liberal than their government, and there is a very real opportunity there if approached correctly. (IE: I happen to think the deal a good one....buying a few more years without the capability of building a nuke while also opening some avenues of trade to build a better rapport and obtain some more good will from the Iranian people. Trump and many like him seem to think we could prevent Iran from building a nuke forever...and that's not just a pipe dream, it's a potentially very dangerous one!) More, some of your points are very generic...they are things EVERY candidate wants to do (bring back jobs from overseas). But simply saying that's what you want doesn't make it happen. Trump seems woefully ill-prepared to work with others to make progress towards these goals.
  11. I get what you're saying, and while I did drag a little hyperbole over it, you're clearly NOT getting what I am saying. The railing against intellectuals is a HUGE part of Trump's shtick, and it's disturbing. I can't help but wonder if Trump is just hitting at the perfect time for his "brand". People are sick of political correctness in general, and he's taking complete advantage of that.
  12. Are you trying to say that it's OK to put someone who is un-intelligent in charge? Sorry EM, but your argument is non-sensical. Even dumb people generally want smart people making decisions...that might well be a big part of WHY there's a anti-intellectual push to begin with...it's someone (relatively) smart pulling a fast one on folks who are (relatively) dumb but not COMPLETE idiots, convincgin them that intelligence is not nearly as important as it is. Sorry EM...but intelligence might well be the single most important trait the leader of the free world must have, and when Joe plumber thinks about that, he generally agrees.
  13. Not even remotely close to it
  14. I've been trying to get that through for a couple of years now, but was not the ringleader this time.
  15. Seriously? A trumpite accusing someone else of throwing Europeans to the wolves? That's rich right there. For the last 30 pages you've consistantly and constantly said "America first", and your candidate has openly talked about abandoning NATO and re-negotiating every deal we have with everyone, INCLUDING europe. Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you're really a very clever and worldly 50 year old that just likes to act silly in order to spur on conversation.