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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Saints it's not worth my time. If you have a news story that has never been reported on by the mainstream media that you think I should believe please present it. Not FBI notes. Not an opinion piece. A news story, like the Drudge one about Hillary's secret affairs. 
Click to expand...
Point proved, Tim, thank you for playing.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Annnnnnd today Bill Clinton has a new accuser that he, er, mashed her. Mashed, or sexually assaulted.
Click to expand...
this is a pretty slick move & line though:

She also says that Clinton signed his name to a page on her reporter’s notebook that had her own name on it, writing “Clinton” directly above her name.

“And I said, ‘What are you doing? Giving me an autograph now?’ And he said, ‘No, I just wanted to show you how good Clinton looks on top of Leslie.’”

 
timschochet said:
Saints it's not worth my time. If you have a news story that has never been reported on by the mainstream media that you think I should believe please present it. Not FBI notes. Not an opinion piece. A news story, like the Drudge one about Hillary's secret affairs. 
Click to expand...
Another great example of your intellectual dishonesty.  Good work, Saints

 
"Given the politics now w bipartisan support including Schumer, I'll support repeal w 'sense of the Senate' that revenues would have to be found," Clinton wrote. "I'd be open to a range of options to do that. But we have to be careful that the R version passes which begins the unraveling of the ACA," she continued.
Click to expand...
Why does Hillary want Obama's signature piece of legislation to unravel?  You know, the one that Tim thinks is a success.

 
Re: New Clinton emails


From:john.podesta@gmail.com

To: brentbbi@webtv.net Date: 2016-01-01 20:01

Subject: Re: New Clinton emails

Sid is lost in his own web of conspiracies. I pay zero attention to what he says.
 
On Friday, January 1, 2016, Brent Budowsky <brentbbi@webtv.net> wrote:
 
> John, assume I wrote a thousand words about this. It is disquieting that when HRC was secretary of state she spent a good time of time doing gossip emails with Sid Blumenthal about various matters, the ubiquitous Lanny > Davis shilling for himself in pathetic ways, and Neera Tanden gossiping > about what Soros thinks of Obama. At least Tanden I regard as a serious > person. Sid and Lanny I do not by standards of a secretary of state or potential president. > > I was not in touch with you at the time of the healthcare debate, but what Sid suggests does not strike me as your style. I was in very regular and > close touch with Daschle at the time, and he would never have said to the > press what Sid suggests, and since I am in the press I know those were not > his views. I guarantee that based on direct personal knowledge of Tom's views and actions at the time. Blumenthal did not have the slightest idea of what he was talking about in his girlie gossip with the secretary of state about this. Why she places such great stock over so much time in these exchanges with Blumenthal is mystifying to me---and frankly troublesome. > > This whole subject, to use vernacular, gives me the creeps. Secretaries of state, presidential candidates and presidents should not be spending their time on this kind of minor league stuff.
Click to expand...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7432
 
- Brent Budowsky, ladies and gentlemen, summing it up perfectly. :hifive:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
It's not even worth looking at this corruption stuff anymore because every one of these stories eventually gets debunked. Every one of them. And when they do, none of the haters acknowledge it, they just move on to the next story. So why should any one with an open mind even bother? 
Click to expand...
Yeah, who could forget the time when it turned out that Bill Clinton didn't pardon Marc Rich and Marc Rich didn't donate tens of thousands of dollars to Hillary's senate campaign?  And who could forget when other recipients of Clinton pardons didn't pay a quarter of a million dollars directly to Hillary's relatives?  Oh, and I remember well the day we learned that the DNC and Hillary actually didn't conspire to launder campaign funds through 33 state DNC committees.  All of those were definitely debunked (among plenty of others!).

 
NCCommish said:
And why is that a good thing?
Click to expand...
not a fan of organizations like this that receive government money to operate in the millions.   It's appears they were in financial trouble and then video escalated their demise.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

I've read a lot more since my first post about this guy, and it's comedy, but still interesting that we have a firing and a resignation of a top guy with the new videos. Why would you resign if there wasn't a problem?  Is it just Hillary asking another to take the fall (like DNC leader) to have the story focus on them and not her?

 
I thought that in the last debate Hillary allowed Trump to drag her down a little bit into the muck. I'd like to see her more focused tonight. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Yeah, who could forget the time when it turned out that Bill Clinton didn't pardon Marc Rich and Marc Rich didn't donate tens of thousands of dollars to Hillary's senate campaign?  And who could forget when other recipients of Clinton pardons didn't pay a quarter of a million dollars directly to Hillary's relatives?  Oh, and I remember well the day we learned that the DNC and Hillary actually didn't conspire to launder campaign funds through 33 state DNC committees.  All of those were definitely debunked (among plenty of others!).
Click to expand...
Hey remember that time Hillary's server thing was in the news and @timschochet said nothing to see here folks move along and then admitted he didn't know anything about the issue because it "bored" him and still insisted there was nothing to it and then when Comey came out and talked about her recklessness and how a person in her position should have known a whole lot better the same Tim who said it was no big deal actually acknowledged it had been a big effing deal and that he sort of missed the boat on the whole thing but was happy she didn't get indicted?

Intellectual dishonesty capsulized in one lousy personality on this board. He is the epitome of it and I'm glad he doesn't change his stripes. 

 
Since I am being constantly challenged on exactitude, I am going to slightly rephrase a couple of opinions I expressed yesterday (even though I'm fairly sure my meaning was understood quite well the first time around.)

1. David Dodds predicted that once in office Hillary Clinton will use the power of the NSA to destroy her political enemies. I find this prediction to be absurd. To the best of my knowledge, only two past Presidents have ever used federal agencies to attack their enemies: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Both were caught doing so (though LBJ a few years after his term.) Other Presidents have been accused of doing so, including Obama, but there is no evidence. Presidents use federal agencies to reward friends all the time, but using them to attack enemies is quite a different matter.  The NSA is one of the most independent federal agencies and even if Hillary wanted to use it in this manner I doubt she could.

2. If a news story originates from a source that is outside of the mainstream media, I don't consider it legitimate unless and until it's been reported in the mainstream media. The mainstream media is IMO the test for legitimacy. They don't always come up with the news first, but by the time they get around to reporting it, I believe that it is likely true. If they NEVER report it, then it's almost surely because they're skeptical of the veracity of the story, which makes me as a layman skeptical as well. Therefore my rule of thumb effectively is: if it wasn't reported by the mainstream media, it didn't happen. This is, of course, a rhetorical device on my part and method of thinking; it is NOT meant to be a statement of absolute truth. I am also only talking about news stories here, not about opinion or raw data.

If anybody disagrees with either of these points, please let me know and I'll be happy to have a discussion. But if you're just going to try to challenge me on my wording so that you can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, please don't waste your time. I often get wording wrong, and I'll concede the point. Hopefully, this time at least, my meaning is clear. 

 
timschochet said:
Since I am being constantly challenged on exactitude, I am going to slightly rephrase a couple of opinions I expressed yesterday (even though I'm fairly sure my meaning was understood quite well the first time around.)

1. David Dodds predicted that once in office Hillary Clinton will use the power of the NSA to destroy her political enemies. I find this prediction to be absurd. To the best of my knowledge, only two past Presidents have ever used federal agencies to attack their enemies: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Both were caught doing so (though LBJ a few years after his term.) Other Presidents have been accused of doing so, including Obama, but there is no evidence. Presidents use federal agencies to reward friends all the time, but using them to attack enemies is quite a different matter.  The NSA is one of the most independent federal agencies and even if Hillary wanted to use it in this manner I doubt she could.

2. If a news story originates from a source that is outside of the mainstream media, I don't consider it legitimate unless and until it's been reported in the mainstream media. The mainstream media is IMO the test for legitimacy. They don't always come up with the news first, but by the time they get around to reporting it, I believe that it is likely true. If they NEVER report it, then it's almost surely because they're skeptical of the veracity of the story, which makes me as a layman skeptical as well. Therefore my rule of thumb effectively is: if it wasn't reported by the mainstream media, it didn't happen. This is, of course, a rhetorical device on my part and method of thinking; it is NOT meant to be a statement of absolute truth. I am also only talking about news stories here, not about opinion or raw data.

If anybody disagrees with either of these points, please let me know and I'll be happy to have a discussion. But if you're just going to try to challenge me on my wording so that you can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, please don't waste your time. I often get wording wrong, and I'll concede the point. Hopefully, this time at least, my meaning is clear. 
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone gives a ####

 
cobalt_27 said:
Hey remember that time Hillary's server thing was in the news and @timschochet said nothing to see here folks move along and then admitted he didn't know anything about the issue because it "bored" him and still insisted there was nothing to it and then when Comey came out and talked about her recklessness and how a person in her position should have known a whole lot better the same Tim who said it was no big deal actually acknowledged it had been a big effing deal and that he sort of missed the boat on the whole thing but was happy she didn't get indicted?

Intellectual dishonesty capsulized in one lousy personality on this board. He is the epitome of it and I'm glad he doesn't change his stripes. 
Click to expand...
Hey I didn't remember but now that you've reminded me of it 3 times it comes back to me.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, almost nothing you wrote above is true. I hoped there was nothing to see. I hoped folks would move along. After spending months reading up on the details and finding them dull, I wrote that I wasn't really interested in learning any more details (I NEVER wrote that I didn't know anything about the issue.) I continued to hope there was nothing to it, but never insisted that was the case. After Comey spoke I acknowledged that some of my hopes were dashed and that I was disappointed in Hillary, but that I would continue to support her because I liked what I knew about her policies and I considered the alternative to be a total disaster. 

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I doubt anyone gives a ####
Click to expand...
I do. I don't mean to be unclear. It happens a lot to me because

1. I type too much on my phone and that makes it more difficult.

2. MUCH LIKE HILLARY. I have a group of people stalking me here waiting to find flaws in anything I post. It's annoying, but also rather flattering. 

 
timschochet said:
I do. I don't mean to be unclear. It happens a lot to me because

1. I type too much on my phone and that makes it more difficult.

2. MUCH LIKE HILLARY. I have a group of people stalking me here waiting to find flaws in anything I post. It's annoying, but also rather flattering. 
Click to expand...
Much like HRC nothing is keeping you here but your ego.

 
Slapdash said:
It is the classic MO of an Internet troll.  Trying to be provocative by saying things he doesn't mean and spending days clarifying it.   You don't get 1k posts a month by being honest and serious.
Click to expand...
Oh I think obsession pretty much says it all. How many posts have you written about me just today? 5? More than 5? Seek help. 

 
Tim makes a great point about making sure things are in the correct media.  I am sure the corruption of Nazi Germany was being exposed by the German press on a daily basis.

It's not like HRCs team is inviting all of these reporters to a big kickoff party...oh wait that did happen.

It's not like reporters are sending in their articles they wrote to be edited by HRC's staff before going live....oh wait that happened too.

It's not like the inner team of HRC is having stories placed in these outlets...oh wait that is happening as well.

This media wants you to believe that Russia is interfering with this election when they are the ones that are doing 90% of the interference.  The media is not looking to have people read the leaks, because it shines the light on how in bed they have been with HRC from the beginning.

 
David Dodds said:
Tim makes a great point about making sure things are in the correct media.  I am sure the corruption of Nazi Germany was being exposed by the German press on a daily basis.

It's not like HRCs team is inviting all of these reporters to a big kickoff party...oh wait that did happen.

It's not like reporters are sending in their articles they wrote to be edited by HRC's staff before going live....oh wait that happened too.

It's not like the inner team of HRC is having stories placed in these outlets...oh wait that is happening as well.

This media wants you to believe that Russia is interfering with this election when they are the ones that are doing 90% of the interference.  The media is not looking to have people read the leaks, because it shines the light on how in bed they have been with HRC from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Wow. If you really think our news media is comparable to that of Nazi Germany, there's not much to discuss. 

 
David Dodds said:
Tim makes a great point about making sure things are in the correct media.  I am sure the corruption of Nazi Germany was being exposed by the German press on a daily basis.

It's not like HRCs team is inviting all of these reporters to a big kickoff party...oh wait that did happen.

It's not like reporters are sending in their articles they wrote to be edited by HRC's staff before going live....oh wait that happened too.

It's not like the inner team of HRC is having stories placed in these outlets...oh wait that is happening as well.

This media wants you to believe that Russia is interfering with this election when they are the ones that are doing 90% of the interference.  The media is not looking to have people read the leaks, because it shines the light on how in bed they have been with HRC from the beginning.
Click to expand...
See, this is part of the problem with the wikileaks stuff. There are a lot of people who apparently have no idea how journalism works.  Pretty much none of the media relations stuff described in the wikileaks emails are unusual practices, at least not as far as I've seen.  Journalists cover campaign events, and they always have. Journalists always contact the subject of a story they are about to publish to ask them for comment and to ensure that the person has been quoted properly. It would be irresponsible of them NOT to do that. Here is a twitter discussion started by an outstanding investigative journalist for the LA Times complaining about this very thing.

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top