The Kerminator
Footballguy
Well ya gotta admit then that if premiums have gone up every year since Obama care that that ain't a good thing
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
I'm actually not a fan of the ACA. Insurance companies help write it and support it and I don't think it's good for the country. I think it has been good for some people to get coverage they wouldn't normally get, but I'm not a fan of the ACA at the end of the day.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is where Google is your friend:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-premium-growth-slowed-after-obamacare/
It was actually going up more before Obamacare. It's slowed down since.
timschochet
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You're just so far up Hillary's rear end that you'll argue anything regardless of what you believe.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's comfy in here.
cstu
Footballguy
No, the infrastructure industry lobby isn't nearly as large as the defense industry lobby.
Odd that the so-called 'anti-establishment' candidate hasn't ran on this idea.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
... the forest for the trees!Premiums, Copays and Deductibles are SKYROCKETING, Coops are collapsing and going defunct and major insurers are exiting the exchanges but they're going to tell us it's NOT collapsing?
The WP is like the band on the Titanic.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
All the campaign reform talk to get "money out of politics" in the primaries missed that the real problem is K Street.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
LBJ endorses Hillary
Election over
Election over
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It has not been debunked. It basically boils down to:timschochet said:
1) Do you believe a group of families with no known history of lying, and no apparent reason to lie about this? -or-
2) Do you believe a single politician with a history of lying about everything she has been involved with, and a clear motive to lie about this particular event?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
That's called hearsay. Pretty crappy way to set your belief systems upon.
Especially when you have a boatload of quotes from her at that time on this very subject in a myriad of forms.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Its the very definition of it.
You are believing... information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
I was referring to the legal definition.
In any case, you are doing the exact same thing, believing the one known liar with a motive to lie against the multiple people with no apparent motive to lie.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I'm not doing anything. You are running with hearsay.
We had so much investigation and resources spent on it... and yet you are still running on rumors.
We had so much investigation and resources spent on it... and yet you are still running on rumors.
It's not rumors. These are direct statements on the public record by a whole group of people with no apparent motive to lie about it.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Then show the ### #### quote by Clinton. Otherwise you have hearsay. Exactly hearsay. Nothing but hearsay.
Motive? LOL at they don't have motive. Obtuse: level 11.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Hell. We know it does NOT exists in an acceptable manner because of the 24+ investigations into the matter -- showing NOTHING.
You have to resort to hearsay with no legal finding or worthy documentation.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't have a clue what I am talking about do you? I am not talking about the whole Benghazi matter, just the dispute about what Hillary told the families. That's all. The statements from both sides are on the public record, and given Hillary's past history of lying about anything and everything, I tend to believe the families.
It works the same way with all the accusations about Donald Trump. He, like Hillary, is a known liar. Therefore, I will not give either of them the benefit of the doubt on disputes they have with more normal people.
That is the problem in this election. The major parties have put forward the two most shameless and prolific liars in politics today.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yes, hearsay. You seem stuck on this.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Negative!
However, I do appreciate your smoke screens, diversions and "look! squirrel!" posts. I have to say that you've achieved TGunz level with your zealous adherence to the Party Talking Points and ignorance of everything else burning all around you.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Hah! Here we go again with this "False Equivalency! False Equivalency!" nonsense. I guess you can at least make yourself feel better about your choice by residing in fantasy land.
I pointed this out earlier, but you should know that parroting the "False Equivalency! False Equivalency! Sqwaaaak! False Equivalency!" numerous times doesn't make it true.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Good news folks, Hillary is only half lying or totally lying half the time. Much better than Trump, you know.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
*dusts off benghazi* Hey, look at this!
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
At some point you would hope Trump supporters would notice that every week there's 2-3 brand new actions or discoveries about Trump that are disqualifying, and they counter with the same 2-3 stories about Hillary. "See? They're both terrible!"
Or looking at their tax plans. Trump's would add about $5 trillion to the deficit, Clinton's about $200 billion. "See? They're both fiscally irresponsible!"
timschochet
Footballguy
Conservative Wall Street journalist and lifelong critic of the Clintons Dorothy Rabinowitz endorses Hillary:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121?client=safari
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121?client=safari
timschochet
Footballguy
"She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit President in US history."
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Direct accounts of conversations by participants in those conversations are not hearsay under any definition. Sorry you struggle so much with this concept.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yes it is.
They could say anything they wanted with zero verification.
What you are saying has no legs. Yet you keep running on your nubs. Show the link of what she said when it was documented at the time of her saying it... you cant. They couldn't even utilize it in the congressional hearing because of it being total and complete hearsay. She/anyone could simply say "I never said that". As its hearsay.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm the one that "dusted off Benghazi". You might want to look back at my posts before calling me a Trump supporter. Trump and Hillary are both completely unacceptable.
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Have any major newspapers endorsed Trump? Do their circulations add up to more than the papers endorsing Johnson?
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I expect this from the derp squad, but you should be better than this. I am not defending Hillary; I don't like her, and the only reason I will be voting for her in November is the the alternative is so unimaginably awful. Hillary, as bad as she is, falls well within the normal range of "lying politicians." Trump is so far off of the scale -- it's not an opinion, it's a fact.
G
Guest
Guest
Drudge top headline is Bill's son by way of prostitute. 
Can't see how it will affect election, but claims are the Hillary knew and banished him. So maybe some tap dancing. Worst nightmare election cycle ever gets even worse.
Can't see how it will affect election, but claims are the Hillary knew and banished him. So maybe some tap dancing. Worst nightmare election cycle ever gets even worse.
Last edited:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
When the Democrats nominate Kim Kardashian, you'll have a good point with this schtick. Don't worry, I actually fully believe that it will happen as the Republican base certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the stupid.
The neocons are going home to the Democratic Party. I would imagine Bernie's supporters are thrilled. ?
timschochet
Footballguy
Soonerman, I don't think that any of this is as clear cut as you and others imply. I believe that at the time Hillary met with the families, she believed that the deaths were a result of protests over the video. She believed this because that was the conclusion of the CIA (and we know this because the head of the CiA has testified before Congress to that effect). It's true that on the night of the attacks Hillary told her daughter that the video was NOT the cause, but again that was based on info she had at the time, which was later changed by the CIA, and later changed again. There is no evidence that either Hillary or the Obama administration attempted to mislead the public on this point, even though nearly a dozen Congressional investigations were eager to prove it. They couldn't because they found nothing.
With no evidence that there was any attempt to mislead the public, there was no reason for Hillary to lie to the families. No doubt she mentioned the video, but she doesn't recall discussing it as firmly as they recall it. Are they lying? I doubt it. But I think their memory is colored by a desire to find someone to blame for the deaths, and given conservative vitriol Hillary makes an easy target. I feel bad for them but again there's no evidence Hillary lied.
With no evidence that there was any attempt to mislead the public, there was no reason for Hillary to lie to the families. No doubt she mentioned the video, but she doesn't recall discussing it as firmly as they recall it. Are they lying? I doubt it. But I think their memory is colored by a desire to find someone to blame for the deaths, and given conservative vitriol Hillary makes an easy target. I feel bad for them but again there's no evidence Hillary lied.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't recall any.
- eta - I don't think it' the influence of endorsements at play here, I think it reflects a trend happening in the electorate. Trump cannot win with a significant and influential portion of the conservative and GOP electorate going for Hillary. Cannot happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
As to your other disqualifying point, soonerman, Hillary did not believe the women who accused her husband of infidelity. That's natural. Did she attempt to destroy them? The evidence for this has always been scanty, reported by right wing sources and nowhere else. There is also no real evidence that she was an enabler of Bill's.
There is a counterpoint to this as well: the fact that several of the women who accused Bill were surrounded by conservative operatives who had political agendas. That, along with the fact that they accused Bill of unwanted sexual molestation (unlikely) and rape (extremely unlikely) and had major credibility issues, it's no wonder that Hillary attacked that credibility. None of this disqualifies her.
There is a counterpoint to this as well: the fact that several of the women who accused Bill were surrounded by conservative operatives who had political agendas. That, along with the fact that they accused Bill of unwanted sexual molestation (unlikely) and rape (extremely unlikely) and had major credibility issues, it's no wonder that Hillary attacked that credibility. None of this disqualifies her.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
