Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,261 Excellent

About parrot

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

5,694 profile views
  1. You just know God is about environmentalism.
  2. The one I've been seeing lately is the Office meme with Jim smiling through the blinds and the caption is "Gun Owners watching non gun owners stockpile apocalypse supplies for them." Kinda sounds like they're the ones planning to do the looting. Funny stuff right there.
  3. Technically yes, but so loosely that other than being based in Boston, there's really no connection to the books or the original show.
  4. Or maybe he wasn't aware it was fake. It's not like Trump hasn't tweeted similar and worse.
  5. I think that tweet has been shown to be fake.
  6. No I'm not really offering up that Schumer was talking impeachment. I was answering your question. To be clear, I don't think Schumer was talking about impeachment, I think he was more talking about swinging the political pendulum back the other way and how that can affect even a position like the Supreme Court. Do you really think he was encouraging violence against Supreme Court justices?
  7. Except the idea that there are no potential political costs beyond being voted out is false, so the supposed difference isn't what you are making it out to be. Also, I'm not a democrat, and I if you'd care to point out where I've claimed any moral high ground, feel free. I haven't said much about either statement, fyi. I just thought it was interesting that you were lecturing others about hypocrisy and consistency.
  8. Impeachment? But there are also other possible political consequences or 'payments'; like simply changing the political winds so these types of laws aren't made in the first place due to the makeup of congress, or maybe eventually losing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, making their voices less relevant. There are any number of possible interpretations to what Schumer said other than violence. To contend that Schumer was automatically making a violent threat when before you endorsed a post that scoffed at almost the same verbiage being interpreted as a threat is at best a little disingenuous. And your distinction without a difference doesn't explain it away.
  9. I have it on good authority that saying someone should pay a price in politics is not a threat. "Nope, only those that are offended by almost anything see it as a threat. Okie Dokie Pokie" You liked that post. "You can see how that strikes some of us as a bit hypocritical."
  10. The guy I mentioned in my previous post posted the mortality rate on FB today. I guess I'm supposed to feel relieved that it only kills 1 in 7 people over 80, 1 in 12 over 70, and 1 in 33 over 60.
  11. My "How's your 401k?" guy posted on Facebook Monday "Anyone want to bet the market is back up 1000 points by Friday... its called sell-off of profits" I really wish I had taken him up on it, or at least told him not to quit his day job, by which I mean his MLM.
  12. My opinion is that not only did he absolutely lie, it was obvious and pathetic. But it's still just an opinion because it's not something I can prove. None of that is contradictory.
  13. It's my opinion. That's what "IMO" means. My full opinion is it was an obvious lie, and should have been obvious to anyone watching. And telling obvious lies to Congress while under oath, no matter how minor, should preclude you from being on the Supreme Court. But that's not the world we live in.