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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not spending time searching this site for your posts but you're showing Tim-level honesty if you don't think you've been one-sided politically promoting hate and fear mongering.  I'm also not going to go Squistion on you and start tracking all your posts in the future either nor am I going to play your game of listing 30 links to back my opinions.
I am not asking you to search anything.  You are making claims... do you even know who I am voting for since it's so clear my political position?

You come off as a shallow fool because when I give a legitimate response to important questions, you show no ability nor desire to even try and do the same in response. 

Answer the questions or just admit you don't have the answers and are clearly speaking from out of your ###. 

 
I got a bone to pick with you Saints: Latest poll out of Lousiana: Trump has widened his lead to 20 points! 

In almost every other state in the union, the last few weeks have been disastrous for Trump and his numbers have gone down. But not on YOUR state; there he seems to get more popular by the day. Care to explain? 

 
I am not asking you to search anything.  You are making claims... do you even know who I am voting for since it's so clear my political position?

You come off as a shallow fool because when I give a legitimate response to important questions, you show no ability nor desire to even try and do the same in response. 

Answer the questions or just admit you don't have the answers and are clearly speaking from out of your ###. 
:lmao:   I could claim you're voting for Mickey Mouse and you can just as easily claim you're voting for Donald Duck and I can't prove it one way or the other.  Nor do I care.  I actually never claimed to know who you're voting for either so before you continue calling someone names read what I said you were doing.  Or just keep begging me here to get into an iPissing Contest with you if you want but we both know you've done exactly what you accused DD of doing this week: Promoted hate and fear mongered one side politically.

 
I got a bone to pick with you Saints: Latest poll out of Lousiana: Trump has widened his lead to 20 points! 

In almost every other state in the union, the last few weeks have been disastrous for Trump and his numbers have gone down. But not on YOUR state; there he seems to get more popular by the day. Care to explain? 
This hearkens to a discussion I had with Henry a while back and I got all emotional because I claimed that "My State" would turn against Trump. I've even boldly told people from out of state that this would happen. Henry said, nah Trump will win LA.

In terms of explanation: uhhhh.... 'Louisiana'. Have you read up on us lately?

Buddy if the whole country zigs, we will zag. We invented populism before there was a name for it. Personally to me there is no reason this should not go the way of the Duke elections (ie rejection) but I think it's not unlike a lot of things that affect DC, people vote for people they do and the ways they do often because they think its 'not my problem' and 'send a message.'

My guess is as a practical matter if Trump wins LA it's because there isn't enough black voter turnout (I will never understand that in my state) and because educated whites did not turn against him. What can I say we are an apathetic, unmanageable bunch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David, everything I said about hearing the vitriolic language not only creep into, but take over some of your posts, is exemplified here. 

It's not only a shallow approach, it's a disservice to you and the causes you say you hold dear.  Honestly, it's sad more than anything.  We can have constructive discourse without resorting to comparisons between Hillary and Drug Lords.  It's really disgusting to be honest.  Just being totally honest and blunt with you, not trying to be inflammatory.  Heck, it would hard to be as inflammatory as you and your portrayal of Hillary has been.

And I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I'm just tired of seeing the damage such language is doing to our nation, to our social fabric, to our very institution of democracy.  You are showing a terrible lack of respect for the very values we used to care about in a presidential election. It's a base approach that is the very thing wrong with our nation today, our tenor, our lack of dialogue and willingness to sow further division through derision. 




 




 
I am saying she is selling a mirage.  She is not a Democrat.  She is in bed with big business.  Her campaign is financed by the Middle East she has helped de-stabilize and the big banks that have her and her team in their pocket.   She is for fracking, TPP, massive personal surveillance on the US citizens.  You say she helps the poor.  I say she helps herself and hides behind these "charities".  For me, that makes her the worst kind of person.  Maybe Drug Lord is a little over-the-top.  TV Evangelist might be a closer comparison.       

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You get called out on it all the time from many people. 
No, just a handful of people, all of whom seem to disagree with my politics. And most of the time they don't do it in response to the content one of my posts, as you just did (and which I appreciate, since then I can defend myself). They just call me out so they can insult me or try to make me feel bad whenever they don't want to deal with substance.

I have plenty of conversations around here about lots of other things, some heated, and the only people who seem to complain about this are conservative posters in political threads. That seems like more than just a coincidence. Still, I'm always trying to do better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I got a bone to pick with you Saints: Latest poll out of Lousiana: Trump has widened his lead to 20 points! 

In almost every other state in the union, the last few weeks have been disastrous for Trump and his numbers have gone down. But not on YOUR state; there he seems to get more popular by the day. Care to explain? 




 
I am guessing a lot of people there want to drain the swamp.

 
You know I'm just giving you crap, Saints. I would love to visit your lovely state. 

Do you know "Summertime in New Orleans" by Anders Osborne? 

 
:lmao:   I could claim you're voting for Mickey Mouse and you can just as easily claim you're voting for Donald Duck and I can't prove it one way or the other.  Nor do I care.  I actually never claimed to know who you're voting for either so before you continue calling someone names read what I said you were doing.  Or just keep begging me here to get into an iPissing Contest with you if you want but we both know you've done exactly what you accused DD of doing this week: Promoted hate and fear mongered one side politically.
I am about as on the record as possible as voting for the Libertarian ticket.  As I did in 2012.  I don't like Hillary, but this #### has gone way to far. To the point of harming our nation.  and baseless, thoughtless and lazy posts like yours, refusing to even explain your basis for making accusations, is a part of this overall disintegration of our political understanding and discourse.

Your refusal to ask the most basic questions after you make such confident posts speaks for itself. 

 
Sadly, like I said, we can't go home alone.  And the natural juice cleanse store down the street, Big Johnson T-Shirt Company, and McMullin's House of Magic Underwear just don't have enough draw for ladies' night.
Voters need to realize craft beers are better than choosing between Busch and MIller. 

 
Voters need to realize craft beers are better than choosing between Busch and MIller. 
I have terrible news for you.  After spending a few decades trying to convince juries of obvious things, I can assure you that there are so many idiots in this country that the two party system has virtually no chance of being changed any time soon if it depends on voters realizing something.

 
I am saying she is selling a mirage.  She is not a Democrat.  She is in bed with big business.  Her campaign is financed by the Middle East she has helped de-stabilize and the big banks that have her and her team in their pocket.   She is for fracking, TPP, massive personal surveillance on the US citizens.  You say she helps the poor.  I say she helps herself and hides behind these "charities".  For me, that makes her the worst kind of person.  Maybe Drug Lord is a little over-the-top.  TV Evangelist might be a closer comparison.       
I'll just say it one more time - I can understand and even to a large extent agree with what you've said. Some points I believe are hyperbole (financed by the Middle East for example) but totally legit.

My concern is that your legitimate and valuable voice is lost when you denigrate yourself and the conversation by using vitriolic language. Or posting outrageous claims with nothing more than a right wing conspiracy machine as your research... that is the dangerous, partisan and divisive parroting I mentioned before. 

If we could stick to everything you said, I'll EVEN give you the televangelists analogy, then I take no issue with your approach and welcome a legit discussion. 

That really is the root of it for me.

 
I have terrible news for you.  After spending a few decades trying to convince juries of obvious things, I can assure you that there are so many idiots in this country that the two party system has virtually no chance of being changed any time soon if it depends on voters realizing something.
I've always thought our future doesn't look good. Thanks for making it look worse. 

 
I've always thought our future doesn't look good. Thanks for making it look worse. 
When my clients don't want to settle the case because they're in the right and don't understand they can lose, I ask them to picture twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty. Then imagine their lives depend on being able to convince those twelve people that the Earth is not flat.  

 
I'll just say it one more time - I can understand and even to a large extent agree with what you've said. Some points I believe are hyperbole (financed by the Middle East for example) but totally legit.

My concern is that your legitimate and valuable voice is lost when you denigrate yourself and the conversation by using vitriolic language. Or posting outrageous claims with nothing more than a right wing conspiracy machine as your research... that is the dangerous, partisan and divisive parroting I mentioned before. 

If we could stick to everything you said, I'll EVEN give you the televangelists analogy, then I take no issue with your approach and welcome a legit discussion. 

That really is the root of it for me.
King George didn't like the vitriolic language being said about him either. 

 
I have terrible news for you.  After spending a few decades trying to convince juries of obvious things, I can assure you that there are so many idiots in this country that the two party system has virtually no chance of being changed any time soon if it depends on voters realizing something.
Have you tried short slogans with catchy rhymes?

 
King George didn't like the vitriolic language being said about him either. 
I've said my piece. You truly believe it and want to spread it, just own being a part of the monster you help feed. 

I find it disheartening at best and really sad at heart because the approach you and others wish to take, in my opinion, harms the very institutions that serve to protect us even in the extreme case where your over the top, extremist portrayal were to be true. 

I also never thought that folks with the mindset of you and Dodds would fall into that. In that regard it's just frustrating. Because in my humble opinion, you are aligning yourself with and forwarding a dangerous and divisive approach, scortched earth, extreme, lacking in depth with visible and destructive results to our society and common values - and that just shocks me.

It's as if you actively want to be part of the sheers that are tearing the fabric of decency and constructive discourse and in that, threatening the very representative democratic system we have. I always had disagreements with you, perhaps. Just never thought you'd be part of the active force that most threatens what we generally still all strive for... or so I thought. 

and I don't even like the damned candidate. 

 
Looks like some don't like the vitriol aimed at Hillary...maybe we can find a middle ground...from now on Hillary should be treated the exact same way they treated Sara Palin...

 
Looks like some don't like the vitriol aimed at Hillary...maybe we can find a middle ground...from now on Hillary should be treated the exact same way they treated Sara Palin...
That would be weird.  She's not young, a moron, or hot.  Why would you treat a smart, not very attractive, older woman the same way you'd treat a midlife, attractive idiot?  I don't even think the insults used on Palin would be funny on Clinton.

 
Oh, wait, do you mean that Congress should spend 25 years investigating Palin and desperately trying to put her in jail?  I can get on board with that.

 
Voters need to realize craft beers are better than choosing between Busch and MIller. 
But the difference between Sam Adams - or hell, make it Heineken ( :X ) and 20 year old expired and skunked Schlitz is not a hard choice when faced with it. 

And to equate the two is, or a true least should be, ridiculous. It stands no legitimate scrutiny.  Yeah, Heinny sucks, by it's a legit beer you can drink much as you may hate it on many levels.  It's not even close to 20 year old skunked Schlitz.

and I apologize to 20 year old skunked Schlitz for my insinuation. If Trump were a beer, I'd just consider the 20 years in-bottle aging and drink it with a begrudging smile. Not too unlike how many of us will pull an election lever in a few weeks. 

 
Oh, wait, do you mean that Congress should spend 25 years investigating Palin and desperately trying to put her in jail?  I can get on board with that.
If it takes 25 months they aren't doing it right. 

Seriously, as a former Hillary hater who just has seen what that has begot us, how can intelligent people not at some level say they've been goin after this woman for nearly THREE DECADES. If she were 1/10th as crooked and awful as you claim, with the rise of a new hard right, the tea party, congressional investigations that tie into far right media channels ... how can she possibly have done anything close to the horrors you proclaim? 

Aint no conspiracy that good. But apparently there are people that gullible.

 
That would be weird.  She's not young, a moron, or hot.  Why would you treat a smart, not very attractive, older woman the same way you'd treat a midlife, attractive idiot?  I don't even think the insults used on Palin would be funny on Clinton.
We should use the same tone whether someone is hot or not attractive, a liar or a moron, young or old...the insults don't have to be the same...it's the level of vitriol that counts...

 
I've said my piece. You truly believe it and want to spread it, just own being a part of the monster you help feed. 

I find it disheartening at best and really sad at heart because the approach you and others wish to take, in my opinion, harms the very institutions that serve to protect us even in the extreme case where your over the top, extremist portrayal were to be true. 

I also never thought that folks with the mindset of you and Dodds would fall into that. In that regard it's just frustrating. Because in my humble opinion, you are aligning yourself with and forwarding a dangerous and divisive approach, scortched earth, extreme, lacking in depth with visible and destructive results to our society and common values - and that just shocks me.

It's as if you actively want to be part of the sheers that are tearing the fabric of decency and constructive discourse and in that, threatening the very representative democratic system we have. I always had disagreements with you, perhaps. Just never thought you'd be part of the active force that most threatens what we generally still all strive for... or so I thought. 

and I don't even like the damned candidate. 
You could have said this to patriots in the 1700's too. The revolution was a monster they helped feed. British rule was an institution that served to protect them. Revolting was a dangerous and divisive approach. Scortchered earth? Yep. Extreme? Yep.

Now when you get into "lacking in depth with visible and destructive results to our society and common values", that's just your opinion. Americans who did not support the revolution felt that way about the revolution. But we celebrate the results of the revolution, so those who held that opinion towards the revolution were obviously wrong. 

I could go on with responding to the details of your post, but in the end nothing you've said has challenged me to think differently. America needs to revolt against the two parties. We're not talking about revolting against the government. We're revolting against the two alliances that exist to game the system. It's no different than blindsiding an alliance in the CBS show survivor. The game doesn't change. All that changes is who wins. 

 
Let's try this again, though I made this point previously: is there anything in this article supporting 'saving millions of lives' which comes from any source other than the Foundation itself?
Is there a fact in that article that is in question?

Even if it 90% of the Clinton Foundation assertions were  :bs: , like I said in the other post the AIDs project alone is all that is needed to demonstrate the ignorance of your reply.   

 
Her opponent really is weak.  He's the worst candidate in my lifetime, and it is not close.  I don't mean "the person I disagree with the most."  I mean "the person least capable of mounting a successful campaign."  By that metric, he's probably the worst candidate ever in American history, but maybe there's some now-anonymous guy out there that I'm overlooking.  Beating him is not a harbinger of great political acumen.  
Johnson is not the worst candidate of your lifetime,   Terrible, of course - but not the worst.

 
We should use the same tone whether someone is hot or not attractive, a liar or a moron, young or old...the insults don't have to be the same...it's the level of vitriol that counts...
Oh, sure.  I agree.  We should tone down the rhetoric about Hillary Clinton to the level we use for Sarah Palin.  Good call.

 
Her opponent really is weak.  He's the worst candidate in my lifetime, and it is not close.  I don't mean "the person I disagree with the most."  I mean "the person least capable of mounting a successful campaign."  By that metric, he's probably the worst candidate ever in American history, but maybe there's some now-anonymous guy out there that I'm overlooking.  Beating him is not a harbinger of great political acumen.  
Google "Joe Exotic"

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top