What's new
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.

The woman nobody mentions anymore (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully she got paid very well for her testimony
There you go...that is an insulting statement.

I'd like a link to someone insulting her, like you said.  Because I'm pretty sure Joe and Co. wouldn't allow that.  Not someone forming an opinion whether she was telling the truth or not.  And since Joe and Co. wouldn't allow it they shouldn't allow people like you to spout off falsehoods about it to further your argument either because that is just as bad.
Im pretty sure Joe and Co have allowed it before.  And yes...someone calling her a liar would also be insulting.  If I felt the need to find the thread from the hearings...Im quite positive there are more if they have not already been deleted by mods.

And not sure your insistence on trying to wonder what Joe and Co would do.

 
There you go...that is an insulting statement.

Im pretty sure Joe and Co have allowed it before.  And yes...someone calling her a liar would also be insulting.  If I felt the need to find the thread from the hearings...Im quite positive there are more if they have not already been deleted by mods.

And not sure your insistence on trying to wonder what Joe and Co would do.
:lmao: . Hoping she got paid well is an insulting statement?  Try harder Sho.

 
There you go...that is an insulting statement.

Im pretty sure Joe and Co have allowed it before.  And yes...someone calling her a liar would also be insulting.  If I felt the need to find the thread from the hearings...Im quite positive there are more if they have not already been deleted by mods.

And not sure your insistence on trying to wonder what Joe and Co would do.
Hoping someone made money is not an insult. Neither is forming an opinion on whether she was telling the truth or not, that's the sole purpose of her testimony.   Looking for an insult, you know, like the fat shaming you are so fond of.

 
Hoping someone made money is not an insult. Neither is forming an opinion on whether she was telling the truth or not, that's the sole purpose of her testimony.   Looking for an insult, you know, like the fat shaming you are so fond of.
Insinuating she testified for the money is very much insulting.  Calling her a liar is also insulting.  Its someone's opinion...but that doesn't make it less insulting.

Anyway...enough of it...no more need to derail.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insinuating she testified for the money is very much insulting.  Calling her a liar is also insulting.  Its someone's opinion...but that doesn't make it less insulting.
Like most times, your perception of things are not reality.  You should carefully try to understand the meaning of the phrases you write.

 
Just so we are clear on the rules

Blasely-Ford, AOC, Pelosi, and Warren are off limits

Huckabee-Sanders, Conway, Devos, Ivanka, Melania are Fair game with regard to any facet (intelligence, looks, personality, etc.) of their life. 

:coffee:

I seem to notice a trend....

 
OK.

Can I get a link to the Clinton Foundation welching on a public pledge to donate money? You said they did, so I'm assuming you had an example in mind. I'd hate to think you were a liar.
I guess I would misappropriation of donations pretty much the same category of ethical malfeasance.  Call me what you want.  It’s never stopped you before.  

 
Just so we are clear on the rules

Blasely-Ford, AOC, Pelosi, and Warren are off limits

Huckabee-Sanders, Conway, Devos, Ivanka, Melania are Fair game with regard to any facet (intelligence, looks, personality, etc.) of their life. 

:coffee:

I seem to notice a trend....
Wrong.

Everyone is on the same level. 

If you see otherwise, please use the report function. 

 
Nobody mentions her anymore? I heard her name last night on the NBC evening news (interview with Anita Hill).
I hadn't seen that. I was just thinking about it this morning, and it occurred to me that she has basically disappeared from the news (though the death threats haven't gone away.)

It was also not my intention to compare her to Sarah Sanders.

 
I guess I would misappropriation of donations pretty much the same category of ethical malfeasance.  Call me what you want.  It’s never stopped you before.  
I didn't ask about your moral code. I asked you to support what you said here with an example. It appears you can't.  

Also, the article doesn't say anything about misappropriation of donations. I'd ask you to provide an example to justify that statement, but I have a feeling I know how that would go.

 
All comments about Ford aside, you have said several times now that insults towards women with weight problems are more acceptable than other types of insults.  You've doubled down by saying people with weight problems have full control over that problem.  This is sadly inappropriate and uninformed.   
:goodposting:

He’s so out of touch  it’s mind boggling 

 
I guess I would misappropriation of donations pretty much the same category of ethical malfeasance.  Call me what you want.  It’s never stopped you before.  
To sum it up - you made a flippant statement that you can't back up with facts, but instead of admitting you were wrong you take a shot at the poster who called you out and play the victim card.

 
All comments about Ford aside, you have said several times now that insults towards women with weight problems are more acceptable than other types of insults.  You've doubled down by saying people with weight problems have full control over that problem.  This is sadly inappropriate and uninformed.   
I didn’t say women.  Enough of your usual nitpic everything I say. I have enough shadows like that.  Bye now.

 
Just so we are clear on the rules

Blasely-Ford, AOC, Pelosi, and Warren are off limits

Huckabee-Sanders, Conway, Devos, Ivanka, Melania are Fair game with regard to any facet (intelligence, looks, personality, etc.) of their life. 

:coffee:

I seem to notice a trend....
Nobody claimed or insinuated that.  

 
I didn't ask about your moral code. I asked you to support what you said here with an example. It appears you can't.  

Also, the article doesn't say anything about misappropriation of donations. I'd ask you to provide an example to justify that statement, but I have a feeling I know how that would go.
Google the Haiti controversy.  

 
Blasely-Ford, AOC, Pelosi, and Warren are off limits

Huckabee-Sanders, Conway, Devos, Ivanka, Melania are Fair game with regard to any facet (intelligence, looks, personality, etc.) of their life. 
I think it's all fodder and fair game. But I think sometimes people here think other people are trying to change people's minds. IMO it's not or shouldn't be, it's a way for people from wildly different walks of life in the US (and out) to exchange ideas.

Personally I think you and other Gopers are way off about Trump's treatment of women from a Republican POV. The way he has repeatedly humiliated Melania is IMO disgraceful. He made Cohen go tell her that he had been paying those women of his own accord without telling Trump. Disgraceful lies. 

And SHS is being fired. She has been 100% loyal, will say any ### ####ed thing for this man, throw herself in front of any rhetorical train, take any abuse and self-abasement - and the PROBLEM here is that she told Bob Mueller the truth under oath, an oath that Trump himself would not take. 

Sec. DHS Nielsen, same thing. Manigault, same thing. Hicks, same thing.

I can say all that and defend these women even as I strongly disagree and even on some points abhor their actions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's all fodder and fair game. But I think sometimes people here think other people are trying to change people's minds. IMO it's not or shouldn't be, it's a way for people from wildly different walks of life in the US and out to exchange ideas.

Personally I think you and other Gopers are way off about Trump's treatment of women from a Republican POV. The way he has repeatedly humiliated Melania is IMO disgraceful. He made Cohen go tell her that he had been paying those women of his own accord without telling Trump. Disgraceful lies. 

And SHS is being fired. She has been 100% loyal, will say any ### ####ed thing for this man, throw herself in front of any rhetorical train, take any abuse and self-abasement - an the PROBLEM here is that she told Bob Mueller the truth under oath, an oath that Trump himself would not take. 

Sec. DHS Nielsen, same thing. Manigault, same thing. 

I can say all that and defend these women even as I strongly disagree and even on some points abhor their actions.
You are not the problem.  You are a respectable poster that does not resort to these types of insults.  

 
I didn’t say women.  Enough of your usual nitpic everything I say. I have enough shadows like that.  Bye now.
Pointing out your posts that say fat shaming of anyone, including women since they were the people you were talking about, as a more acceptable form of insult isn't nit picking and it deserves to be pointed out.  It points to the shallow personal views you have.  It's worth considering why you have these views because they are on equal footing if not worse than the people you were complaining about when you made the post.  Especially so since you think it's your job to constantly point out other people's posts.

 
Vote for her for what?  She doesn't appear to be qualified for many offices that would be voted on.  Maybe a member-at-large to a city council?  (note...for my followers...no that is not a fat joke)

 
Vote for her for what?  She doesn't appear to be qualified for many offices that would be voted on.  Maybe a member-at-large to a city council?  (note...for my followers...no that is not a fat joke)
Given the choice, I would vote for her for President if she were running against Trump.

 
I don’t recall saying that.  Though, insulting someone for things they can control (like weight) is a bit different than insulting someone because she testified against someone Trump nominated.
Back to the topic at hand.  She most certainly could and did control whether or not she testified.  Unlike some people and their weight.

 
Her story was based on few small segments of a memory which happened 37 years ago and lacks even the smallest piece of collaboration.  Not a single person could collaborate the alleged party even occurred.  Why should she be remembered?  Her story was dubious and it reeked of being a political ploy.  

She is only a hero to the rabidly pro-choice crowd.  Ironically, Kavanaugh will probably be more moderate than expected and probably less of an ideologue than what Trump could have confirmed post mid-term election.   

 
Her story was based on few small segments of a memory which happened 37 years ago and lacks even the smallest piece of collaboration.  Not a single person could collaborate the alleged party even occurred.  Why should she be remembered?  Her story was dubious and it reeked of being a political ploy.  

She is only a hero to the rabidly pro-choice crowd.  Ironically, Kavanaugh will probably be more moderate than expected and probably less of an ideologue than what Trump could have confirmed post mid-term election.   
I didn't find it dubious at all. Nor a political ploy. It still amazes me (and frankly outrages me) that others do.

As far as Kavanaugh goes, irony be damned. For me this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh's positions. I couldn't have cared less if I agreed with him on issues 100% of the time. He was credibly accused of attempted rape, he was most likely guilty of it, and it's disgusting that he's now an associate justice.

 
Any and all memories from 37 years ago are dubious.   They need some supporting facts to have real credibility.  Human memories never fair well to scrutiny and get much worse as time goes by.  That is just fact.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top