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.
At some point I suspect you will get bored of throwing out these lame insults which are beneath you. Then if you'd like we can return to having an actualdiscussion.I am beginning to wonder if Tim is running the Eminence alias just so he has someone to engage in "ridiculousness"
We are only as good as the content provided. What you put on the internet several posts up suggests Hillary is above the law because of her position. If that's not what you meant when you said it, then you have to explain it. Don't put your inability to type out your thoughts on us.
It's not an insult....it's a thought that came across my mind reading some of your recent drivel. It was very similar to his. You threw it out there. Don't shoot the messengerAt some point I suspect you will get bored of throwing out these lame insults which are beneath you. Then if you'd like we can return to having an actualdiscussion.I am beginning to wonder if Tim is running the Eminence alias just so he has someone to engage in "ridiculousness"
If you get depressed because of a message board it's time for you to step away and take a break.
Ookie Pringle, Beaver Cleaver, poopdawg, Stinger Ray- are you guys all the same guy? Because it's awfully repetitive.If you get depressed because of a message board it's time for you to step away and take a break.
I won't. But thanks for your advice anyhow.
Then say that next timeExcept I haven't. This has been my main point all along.Nice shifting the goal posts Timtimschochet said:
I never wrote anything else. And this is not the first time you have inserted your own false understanding for what I actually wrote. When others do this they at least acknowledge it. You simply move on to your next lame insult.Then say that next timeExcept I haven't. This has been my main point all along.Nice shifting the goal posts Timtimschochet said:
IK is a big boy and can speak for himself, but it appears you are putting words in his mouth. We are free to take the "smoke-fire" approach with whomever and it's perfectly reasonable. This notion that because someone held a specific position (anywhere) is beyond silly. I'm going to hold her to the same standard as I would anyone else. It's already been documented she's a liar. Her actions speak for her. Are there reasons she did these things, that if I knew the full story I'd give her a pass? Perhaps. That's irrelevant to the point being made. She's more than welcome to clear things up, but her "go to" is to muddy things even more. When I see that sort of behavior from other people in "everyday life" it throws up a red flag. The senses are heightened that much more when the behavior is happening in an environment I already know is as corrupt as ####, but I still welcome an explanation clarifying what we are seeing.
Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
ldusnure:
I know....and I think it's absurd
No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running. In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
I believe you. You strike me as an honest guy. Your opinion is your opinion.I know....and I think it's absurd
ETA: You won't believe this, but there was a time where I gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt and really had no issue with her at all. Twenty or so years later, I think I've given her plenty of chances and have reached my end with her. There's just too much "anecdotal" evidence (as you will call it) for me to look past at this point.
No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
I have friends that work at the White House, and she by far heads their list of the nastiest people they've ever worked for. She hasn't met a cuss word she doesn't love. She will lie to get her way. She never stops degrading anyone she thinks is lower than her on the social totem pole, and that represents 99.9999% percent of Americans. She's a terrible person.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
Yes it does. I would argue that's been his biggest flaw as President. I think Hillary will do better.
To clarify, I didn't say that she should necessarily have been forced to resign as SOS. Having Bill knock off his speaking engagements while she was serving would have been fine too. The main thing is that it's a pretty significant ethical break and speaks to her character -- just like the email server, her defense of sexual harassment, etc.
You can't seriously believe that Hillary will get along with Congress better than Obama. Hillary herself surely doesn't believe that.
Why not? She did as a senator. She is less of an ideologue and more pragmatic. The Tea Party types don't run everything in the GOP, not yet. Yeah I think she'll get along with them better than Obama. Hillary is not nearly as contemptuous as Obama acts at times. Obama is just plain rude and insulting.
And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
And yet for the last 7 years you have over and over and over again blamed the Republicans for not working with Obama and held Obama blameless.
Good lord, I can't even take Tim seriously anymore. He must be drowning his mind in Democratic Underground or something. Some of the most unbalanced one-sided opinions on the board anymore.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
IK, I think we both know it's red meat for the people who lap up the
It will not surprise me at all when she's able to "get things done" with Congress. She's part of the group. A guy like Bernie would struggle for sure, but I don't think Hillary will have many problems. They'll "compromise" and continue driving the country into the ditch.
Look, while our opinions are subjective, the facts of the matter are not. Either Hillary Clinton is a public servant first and foremost as she claims, or she is the greedy, corruption-filled individual you claim. Either she is a patriot, or she isn't. Either her most important goal is to make this country better, or she has another, more self-serving goal as her primary one. Either her ideas are better and she will be a better and more effective President than the other people running, or she will not be. So I'm either right about this stuff or I'm wrong.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
And my question was (and still is) how do you measure the "right" vs "wrong" about this stuff so it's no longer opinion rather fact.Look, while our opinions are subjective, the facts of the matter are not. Either Hillary Clinton is a public servant first and foremost as she claims, or she is the greedy, corruption-filled individual you claim. Either she is a patriot, or she isn't. Either her most important goal is to make this country better, or she has another, more self-serving goal as her primary one. Either her ideas are better and she will be a better and more effective President than the other people running, or she will not be. So I'm either right about this stuff or I'm wrong.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
I think that one if the most clear of them all. Every move she has made since Bill was elected has been self serving.Look, while our opinions are subjective, the facts of the matter are not. Either Hillary Clinton is a public servant first and foremost as she claims, or she is the greedy, corruption-filled individual you claim. Either she is a patriot, or she isn't. Either her most important goal is to make this country better, or she has another, more self-serving goal as her primary one. Either her ideas are better and she will be a better and more effective President than the other people running, or she will not be. So I'm either right about this stuff or I'm wrong.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
Again this demonstrates to me that you haven't read me very well. I have consistently criticized Obama for his dealings with Congress. It's his main weakness. It's certainly not all of his fault, but I reject the idea that he's tried to work with them since 2010 to no avail; he hasn't. I have compared Obama to Woodrow Wilson in terms of his overall contempt for Congress as stupid and beneath him. I have done this over and over again.
I admit that any measurement which we will both agree on in the end will be very difficult. All I was saying is that the questions themselves have clear answers, even if we're unable to determine what exactly those are.And my question was (and still is) how do you measure the "right" vs "wrong" about this stuff so it's no longer opinion rather fact.Look, while our opinions are subjective, the facts of the matter are not. Either Hillary Clinton is a public servant first and foremost as she claims, or she is the greedy, corruption-filled individual you claim. Either she is a patriot, or she isn't. Either her most important goal is to make this country better, or she has another, more self-serving goal as her primary one. Either her ideas are better and she will be a better and more effective President than the other people running, or she will not be. So I'm either right about this stuff or I'm wrong.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
ETA: And I don't think I ever said she's full of corruption. My view of her is she'll do anything to be President. "Being President" is her goal above all else. The rest is interpretation of her actions. I'll never know who she really is. That's all I have to go by.
You don't agree? Can you say, in your own words, what you think Dodd Frank has accomplished and why it should be protected?
dude....work with me hereI admit that any measurement which we will both agree on in the end will be very difficult. All I was saying is that the questions themselves have clear answers, even if we're unable to determine what exactly those are.And my question was (and still is) how do you measure the "right" vs "wrong" about this stuff so it's no longer opinion rather fact.Look, while our opinions are subjective, the facts of the matter are not. Either Hillary Clinton is a public servant first and foremost as she claims, or she is the greedy, corruption-filled individual you claim. Either she is a patriot, or she isn't. Either her most important goal is to make this country better, or she has another, more self-serving goal as her primary one. Either her ideas are better and she will be a better and more effective President than the other people running, or she will not be. So I'm either right about this stuff or I'm wrong.And how is "right" or "wrong" determined here? Those aren't terms generally associated with opinions which seems to be what you're asserting.No, right about the fact that she is a genuine public servant, a patriot, that her first and most important goal is to make this country a better place, that her ideas for doing so are superior to any other candidate running, and that she will be a better and more effective President than anyone else running.In short, we're right to be for her.Right about what? That she'll win? Aren't most of us of that opinion, even the "detractors"?
ETA: And I don't think I ever said she's full of corruption. My view of her is she'll do anything to be President. "Being President" is her goal above all else. The rest is interpretation of her actions. I'll never know who she really is. That's all I have to go by.
It started with Obama care, you somehow blamed Republicans for being locked out of the debate. You also blamed republicans for sequestration. Every time there was an impasse on the budget, it was all the GOP's fault. The government shutdown debates, the fights over the debt ceiling. All these were the GOP fault in your mind. We had this discussion a dozen times.
It's a pretty long act. I have personally witnessed the fact that it has made lending institutions more careful in terms of loan applications. One thing it did that I think is very positive is set federal guidelines for appraisals.
As far as who would likely be approved by the Senate, I doubt her nominees would differ that much from Bernie's. More likely her SCOTUS replacements would be closer ideologically to Sanders positions, then, let's say, from any nominee by Trump, Cruz or Rubio.
The FBI is working on this. And they continue to subpoena and confiscate evidence. Whether or not the DoJ, which is currently a hugely partisan office, decides to prosecute is another matter. Even if not the findings of the FBI will make their way to the public and we'll see exactly what she did and didn't do.
They would be conservatives replacing conservatives and would not impact the balance of the court. Unless Ginsburg dies, but the GOP would need about 65 senators to replace her with anything close to a conservative. And even then it would be a civil war.
about how it's so out of control
