What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
squistion said:
Dude, if you talking about ugly, I don't think you can top pedophile Mark Foley sitting behind Trump at his rally tonight and waving to the camera when Trump gave a call out to the audience in back of him.
Click to expand...
If making yourself feel a notch higher than a pedophile helps you sleep better tonight, get some rest. 

You seem very eager to want to keep posting that heinous word again and again, it's kind of disturbing. 

It doesn't change the fact an Islamic Taliban sympathizer who's son murdered 50 people in a nightclub in Orlando was personally invited by HRC and the DNC to attend her rally and sit behind her. One doesn't change what happened in the other. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
If making yourself feel a notch higher than a pedophile helps you sleep better tonight, get some rest. 

You seem very eager to want to keep posting that heinous word again and again, it's kind of disturbing. 

It doesn't change the fact an Islamic Taliban sympathizer who's son murdered 50 people in a nightclub in Orlando was personally invited by HRC and the DNC to attend her rally and sit behind her. One doesn't change what happened in the other. 
Click to expand...
Yes it is the word pedophile you find disturbing, not the actions of Mark Foley. Congrats!

 
squistion said:
Yes it is the word pedophile you find disturbing, not the actions of Mark Foley. Congrats!
Click to expand...
:fishing:

You're trying to use the violation of a small innocent child to prop you up in a debate and also to try and smear posters between popping blue pills to maintain your politirection all day in the FFA, that's what is disturbing you twisted sicko. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
:fishing:

You're trying to use the violation of a small innocent child to prop you up in a debate and also to try and smear posters between popping blue pills to maintain your politirection all day in the FFA, that's what is disturbing you twisted sicko. 
Click to expand...
Better than avoiding the discussion because you can't defend it, which is your default position. You haven't addressed the Foley situation once. Wonder why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the Mods no longer want to deal with this stuff unfortunately we have to do draw the line somewhere Squis

You've chosen to ignore content by squistion.

Last time you sent me a PM saying we wouldn't get to this point again but we did and you can save your breath, go fire up one of your 101 aliases to terrorize this place. You're the very reason we've lost so many good FBG posters over the years. You can never draw a line between what is acceptable and what is too much. You have no respect for yourself or anyone else for that matter, you can talk to yourself now. 

There's a reason the Ministry of Pain doesn't have to keep any aliases, I play by the rules but you don't. 

Good bye

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Since the Mods no longer want to deal with this stuff unfortunately we have to do draw the line somewhere Squis

You've chosen to ignore content by squistion.

Last time you sent me a PM saying we wouldn't get to this point again but we did and you can save your breath, go fire up one of your 101 aliases to terrorize this place. You're the very reason we've lost so many good FBG posters over the years. You can never draw a line between what is acceptable and what is too much. You have no respect for yourself or anyone else for that matter, you can talk to yourself now. 

There's a reason the Ministry of Pain doesn't have to keep any aliases, I play by the rules but you don't. 

Good bye
Click to expand...
Wat?

I sent you a PM and there is a last time I did so? Um...really? I don't remember a first time...But, yes...I suppose that is possible, although after the train wreck you caused in the fantasy league we were in, I thought I made it clear I didn't want any personal contact with you, beyond our public exchanges on this message board.  

My 101 aliases that terrorize this place? :mellow:  Damn, I must be better than Jason Bourne.

I realize it is after 1:00AM in Florida, and your late night drinking has caused you grief over the years, but these weird, irrational rants when you are in your cups confirms the unstable personality that Going MOP represents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure this has been discussed but what motive would Assange have to strongly imply that Seth Rich was a source of his?

Either, Seth Rich was a source or Assange has a grudge against Clinton/the DNC. There's just no other way to interpret what he said and I'm pretty sure there's no contextual issue. 

 
SameSongNDance said:
I'm sure this has been discussed but what motive would Assange have to strongly imply that Seth Rich was a source of his?

Either, Seth Rich was a source or Assange has a grudge against Clinton/the DNC. There's just no other way to interpret what he said and I'm pretty sure there's no contextual issue. 
Click to expand...
As much as I would love to believe that Seth Rich was murdered and the Wikileaks aiding Assange, I have a hard time believing a lot of what he says in interviews.  

 
SameSongNDance said:
I'm sure this has been discussed but what motive would Assange have to strongly imply that Seth Rich was a source of his?

Either, Seth Rich was a source or Assange has a grudge against Clinton/the DNC. There's just no other way to interpret what he said and I'm pretty sure there's no contextual issue. 
Click to expand...
1. Stir the pot, hurt Hillary, help Trump. 2. Divert people away from the Russians as the source of the hacks.

 
SameSongNDance said:
I'm sure this has been discussed but what motive would Assange have to strongly imply that Seth Rich was a source of his?

Either, Seth Rich was a source or Assange has a grudge against Clinton/the DNC. There's just no other way to interpret what he said and I'm pretty sure there's no contextual issue. 
Click to expand...
Speaking of Assange, he's been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for four years as there is an international arrest warrant out on him for two cases of rape in Sweden. He's finally agreed to let Swedish police interview him - at the embassy, obviously.

 
There are definitely a lot of legitimate criticisms of Clinton but this whole "she suffering from head trauma" shtick being pushed by the right is  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: .

Both candidates are 70 years old, so statistically they are both more likely than average to become ill/pass away but that's about it.

Aesthetically, Trump looks like a man with balogna meat coursing through his veins, so if I had to assume someone was less healthy it'd be him.

 
squistion said:
Alex Seitz-Wald ‏@aseitzwald 34m34 minutes ago

No Sista Souljah moment for Clinton -- even while wooing Republicans, she's not pivoting to center.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501
Click to expand...
Don't have to go digging deep at all to see she's already moved center from "Free college (all expenses paid....which was left of Bernie's "free tuition") for everyone" to "Well, let me pick and choose...think I'll draw the line at $125,000 for free education".

 
Though to be fair.....the following is the qualification the article makes right at the beginning.

What economic policy concessions might Hillary Clinton offer up to woo Republicans? If her speech Thursday in Warren, Michigan is any indication, the answer is: Nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely confident her speeches are not an indication of much of anything (unless she's talking about children)

 
SameSongNDance said:
There are definitely a lot of legitimate criticisms of Clinton but this whole "she suffering from head trauma" shtick being pushed by the right is  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: .

Both candidates are 70 years old, so statistically they are both more likely than average to become ill/pass away but that's about it.

Aesthetically, Trump looks like a man with balogna meat coursing through his veins, so if I had to assume someone was less healthy it'd be him.
Click to expand...
That is probably the most convincing case for Trump I have heard. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Trump's quote was at a rally and wasn't really in response to anything except himself.  On his own accord, he told the audience that there was "nothing they could do" if Hillary got to appoint justices.  And then he suggested that maybe there was something that could be done.  To me, that seems at least a step or two closer to suggesting that someone should do something.

With that said, I don't think Trump was actually trying to get someone to kill Hillary or threatening Hillary or anything.  I just think he said every dumb thing that pops in his head.  But instead of apologizing like Hillary, he now claims that his words meant something completely different from the way most people understood them.
Click to expand...
I think "Well, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" is exactly analogous to "Maybe a rope."

In both cases, Trump made a statement (Mexicans who climb the wall with a ladder will have no way to get down / When Hillary wins and starts appointing Justices there will be nothing anyone can do about it). In both cases, after making the statement, he realized that the statement may not be entirely correct because there's a loophole (Maybe a rope / Maybe take up arms). And in both cases, as soon as the loophole popped into his head, he said it out loud -- because that's how someone without an internal censor works.

But he was not advocating or hoping that people would assassinat Hillary or conduct an armed rebellion any more than he was advocating or hoping that his precious wall would be breached by the use of a rope. He was simply acknowledging the possibility out of -- well, probably a lack of impulse control, but let's be charitable and call it a desire to self-correct his own inaccurate statements for the sake of full disclosure.

He obviously should have apologized for saying something that could be misconstrued as wishing his opponent dead, same as Hillary did after her remark.

But I don't think the statement itself was at all nefarious. Accurately acknowledging that something might be possible is not at all the same as hoping that it happens -- and in that respect, I think Trump's and Hillary's gaffes were quite similar.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Trump's quote was at a rally and wasn't really in response to anything except himself.  On his own accord, he told the audience that there was "nothing they could do" if Hillary got to appoint justices.  And then he suggested that maybe there was something that could be done.  To me, that seems at least a step or two closer to suggesting that someone should do something.

With that said, I don't think Trump was actually trying to get someone to kill Hillary or threatening Hillary or anything.  I just think he said every dumb thing that pops in his head.  But instead of apologizing like Hillary, he now claims that his words meant something completely different from the way most people understood them.
Click to expand...
I think "Well, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" is exactly analogous to "Maybe a rope."

In both cases, Trump made a statement (Mexicans who climb the wall with a ladder will have no way to get down / When Hillary wins and starts appointing Justices there will be nothing anyone can do about it). In both cases, after making the statement, he realized that the statement may not be entirely correct because there's a loophole (Maybe a rope / Maybe take up arms). And in both cases, as soon as the loophole popped into his head, he said it out loud -- because that's how someone without an internal censor works.

But he was not advocating or hoping that people would assassinat Hillary or conduct an armed rebellion any more than he was advocating or hoping that his precious wall would be breached by the use of a rope. He was simply acknowledging the possibility out of -- well, probably a lack of impulse control, but let's be charitable and call it a desire to self-correct his own inaccurate statements for the sake of full disclosure.

He obviously should have apologized for saying something that could be misconstrued as wishing his opponent dead, same as Hillary did after her remark.

But I don't think the statement itself was at all nefarious. Accurately acknowledging that something might be possible is not at all the same as hoping that it happens -- and in that respect, I think Trump's and Hillary's gaffes were quite similar.
Click to expand...
way way way way too much rational thought in these posts.  You guys are gonna have to take it to the Presidential Race thread.  That sort of thought isn't allowed in this or the Trump thread.....TIA.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think "Well, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" is exactly analogous to "Maybe a rope."

In both cases, Trump made a statement (Mexicans who climb the wall with a ladder will have no way to get down / When Hillary wins and starts appointing Justices there will be nothing anyone can do about it). In both cases, after making the statement, he realized that the statement may not be entirely correct because there's a loophole (Maybe a rope / Maybe take up arms). And in both cases, as soon as the loophole popped into his head, he said it out loud -- because that's how someone without an internal censor works.

But he was not advocating or hoping that people would assassinat Hillary or conduct an armed rebellion any more than he was advocating or hoping that his precious wall would be breached by the use of a rope. He was simply acknowledging the possibility out of -- well, probably a lack of impulse control, but let's be charitable and call it a desire to self-correct his own inaccurate statements for the sake of full disclosure.

He obviously should have apologized for saying something that could be misconstrued as wishing his opponent dead, same as Hillary did after her remark.

But I don't think the statement itself was at all nefarious. Accurately acknowledging that something might be possible is not at all the same as hoping that it happens -- and in that respect, I think Trump's and Hillary's gaffes were quite similar.
Click to expand...
That is the kindest possible interpretation of that. I've seen both clips and the rope thing seemed more of a 'a-ha!' moment that the 2nd amendment thing, at least to me.

But thankfully, I am not in The Donald's head so I can not be sure. However, given that it was such a stupid remark that could be interpreted as a call for violence against SC judges or indeed his opponent, an apology for the remark and in't ambiguity would seem in order. But I guess The Donald doesn't do apologies  

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Since the Mods no longer want to deal with this stuff unfortunately we have to do draw the line somewhere Squis

You've chosen to ignore content by squistion.

Last time you sent me a PM saying we wouldn't get to this point again but we did and you can save your breath, go fire up one of your 101 aliases to terrorize this place. You're the very reason we've lost so many good FBG posters over the years. You can never draw a line between what is acceptable and what is too much. You have no respect for yourself or anyone else for that matter, you can talk to yourself now. 

There's a reason the Ministry of Pain doesn't have to keep any aliases, I play by the rules but you don't. 

Good bye
Click to expand...
         :goodposting:

   :hifive:  I've become a new fan  of the ignore feature

 
Still waiting to hear from you on the Mark Foley situation as the biggest Trump supporter in the FFA.

You came into this thread and trashed Hillary for having the Orlando shooter's father sitting behind her.  You claimed, falsely, he was invited and specifically seated in the VIP section. You lied. It was false and was debunked by fact checkers.

Then Trump has Foley, a sexual predator of teenage boys, sit behind him and when repeatedly asked about that, you run away and hide (like MOP did). You have refused to discuss it. Instead you talked about the play Hamilton.

Even though you have been asked repeatedly about Trump and Foley, you have not said one word in response. This speaks volumes about you as a person and none of it is good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If only ignore would block posts of people replying to the person you're ignoring... 

I refused to ignore anyone the entire time I've been here... Except Tim.   

 
I just dropped in to see if the squirrel escaped into this thread. Because the Broncos are playing the Bears and guess what? THE BEARS STILL SUCK!

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think "Well, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" is exactly analogous to "Maybe a rope."

In both cases, Trump made a statement (Mexicans who climb the wall with a ladder will have no way to get down / When Hillary wins and starts appointing Justices there will be nothing anyone can do about it). In both cases, after making the statement, he realized that the statement may not be entirely correct because there's a loophole (Maybe a rope / Maybe take up arms). And in both cases, as soon as the loophole popped into his head, he said it out loud -- because that's how someone without an internal censor works.

But he was not advocating or hoping that people would assassinat Hillary or conduct an armed rebellion any more than he was advocating or hoping that his precious wall would be breached by the use of a rope. He was simply acknowledging the possibility out of -- well, probably a lack of impulse control, but let's be charitable and call it a desire to self-correct his own inaccurate statements for the sake of full disclosure.

He obviously should have apologized for saying something that could be misconstrued as wishing his opponent dead, same as Hillary did after her remark.

But I don't think the statement itself was at all nefarious. Accurately acknowledging that something might be possible is not at all the same as hoping that it happens -- and in that respect, I think Trump's and Hillary's gaffes were quite similar.
Click to expand...
Not even sure what you are saying.

2nd amendment solutions is a Republican dog whistle.  Trump used it knowingly.  He didn't apologize.

What was the Hillary gaffe?

 
-fish- said:
If only ignore would block posts of people replying to the person you're ignoring... 

I refused to ignore anyone the entire time I've been here... Except Tim.   
Click to expand...
This community would be vastly improved if everyone ignored Tim.  Only guy I ever put on ignore, and suddenly it became so much easier to navigate the political threads without having to correct the endless amount of bull#### he puts forth.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't know why this is so hard - politics, I suppose.

What they each said was inappropriate - its not a ####-measuring contest.  You don't get to be less inappropriate here.  Its a binary measurement.
Click to expand...
What a crazy statement. To paraphrase a TV show, it's a little wrong to call a tomato a vegetable, but it lot wrong to call it a mode of transportation.

 
cobalt_27 said:
This community would be vastly improved if everyone ignored Tim.  Only guy I ever put on ignore, and suddenly it became so much easier to navigate the political threads without having to correct the endless amount of bull#### he puts forth.
Click to expand...
Tim has had some moments of blathering, and he can definitely clog up a thread with his heavy volume of posts, but in general he stays on topic and responds intelligently to others.   I suspect "easier" is code for "don't want to defend an outrageous comment that I made."

 
squistion said:
Bill Maher ‏@billmaher 9m9 minutes ago

This election is simply a referendum on decency - Trump has none, and if he's elected there's a part of this country we will never get back
Click to expand...
Yes.  Though it is also a referendum on corruption, which is why the majority of the country doesn't feel like in electing her we win some kind of war.  

 
The Future Champs said:
Tim has had some moments of blathering, and he can definitely clog up a thread with his heavy volume of posts, but in general he stays on topic and responds intelligently to others.   I suspect "easier" is code for "don't want to defend an outrageous comment that I made."
Click to expand...
Tim's got a bad habit of inserting wildly extreme propositions into his posts. He then proceeds to forget whatever he learned in reeling back those statements. Sometimes he admits he's totally uninformed on the point and also that he's uninterested in informing himself. I can understand why some say he's trolling, it can be a thin line, and it can be a distinction without a difference, and I say that in the way of tough love. Cobalt's a great poster and I've never seen what you have here. I think Tim has acknowledged his own mistakes in the past and every so often he moderates himself. Personally I enjoy his perspectives on history and he's driven a good number of good OP's in this forum, and I don't have anyone on ignore (even certain suspects in the Trump thread).

 
badmojo1006 said:
Hillary's campaign disavowed Mateen's appearance at the rally and his endorsement, has Trump done the same with Mark Foley?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Trump gave money to Foley something like 6-8 times when he was a Congressman. This is a double edged sword for Hillary fans because I could totally see Foley getting special entree to sit behind Trump, so if special permission or invitation is required to sit behind a candidate then it is. Or it isn't for both. However I joked earlier before Foley that Trump liked to have his own diverse backdrop and for him that means 40 old white guys, and Foley certainly fits that. Still I can't believe these campaigns aren't at least taking names of the people sitting behind the candidates, have some awareness of who these people are. It was a rare sloppy move by Hillary's professional staff. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion said:
All of you guys beating the corruption drum hated Reagan just as much, right?
Click to expand...
Tbh the Clinton intermixing of private and public reminds me most of political behavior you see in the South. A mayor or councilman with a non-profit and private consulting companies with information and activity flowing interchangeably seems like something you'd see in LA, MS or AR. I've never seen or heard of anything like it in DC. 

 
I haven't been around lately and even this will be a "hit and run" post, but has the article "How American Politics Went Insane" from The Atlantic been discussed yet?   Seems to be a pretty solid defense of Tim's political perspective while throwing most of you, and to some extent me under the bus.   Mostly it says (not directly) we need more Hillary's and less outsiders if we ever want Washington to work again.   That many of the cures (reforms)  that have been put in place are far worst in practice than the symptoms they addressed.  That those that sit "above it all" are the problem.  And more.

 
The Constitution makes no mention of many of the essential political structures that we take for granted, such as political parties and congressional committees. If the Constitution were all we had, politicians would be incapable of getting organized to accomplish even routine tasks. Every day, for every bill or compromise, they would have to start from scratch, rounding up hundreds of individual politicians and answering to thousands of squabbling constituencies and millions of voters. By itself, the Constitution is a recipe for chaos.

So Americans developed a second, unwritten constitution. Beginning in the 1790s, politicians sorted themselves into parties. In the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, the parties established patronage machines and grass-roots bases. The machines and parties used rewards and the occasional punishment to encourage politicians to work together. Meanwhile, Congress developed its seniority and committee systems, rewarding reliability and establishing cooperative routines. Parties, leaders, machines, and congressional hierarchies built densely woven incentive structures that bound politicians into coherent teams. Personal alliances, financial contributions, promotions and prestige, political perks, pork-barrel spending, endorsements, and sometimes a trip to the woodshed or the wilderness: All of those incentives and others, including some of dubious respectability, came into play. If the Constitution was the system’s DNA, the parties and machines and political brokers were its RNA, translating the Founders’ bare-bones framework into dynamic organizations and thus converting conflict into action.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I don't think so. Trump gave money to Foley something like 6-8 times when he was a Congressman. This is a double edged sword for Hillary fans because I could totally see Foley getting special entree to sit behind Trump, so if special permission or invitation is required to sit behind a candidate then it is.  
Click to expand...
Well, that's pretty much what Trumo said when he was blasting Hillary about Mateen with Foley sitting behind him.

Now for the rest of the post, you are assuming that if Trump's operates campaign operates that way, Hillary's does too. Maybe it does. However, it would not be the first nor the most glaring difference between the two campaigns if it doesn't

 
Our only hope is that Trump drops out and some bombshell forces Hillary out. Only then will this long national nightmare be over.

Neither is fit to be President.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I haven't been around lately and even this will be a "hit and run" post, but has the article "How American Politics Went Insane" from The Atlantic been discussed yet?   Seems to be a pretty solid defense of Tim's political perspective while throwing most of you, and to some extent me under the bus.   Mostly it says (not directly) we need more Hillary's and less outsiders if we ever want Washington to work again.   That many of the cures (reforms)  that have been put in place are far worst in practice than the symptoms they addressed.  That those that sit "above it all" are the problem.  And more.
Click to expand...
I actually had a family member send this to me a couple days ago.  I've read part of it, but not all.  So far, it seems like more of the same with respect to the establishment types and the finger pointing.  Again, I haven't read the whole thing so perhaps it will get better, but so far it seems like more "Why can't you just let us do what we want to do since we know best?".  And I haven't seen the author address the politician behavior as part of the equation in any meaningful way either.  I'll continue reading.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top