[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Author Thread
fishmike
Posts: 53816
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
10/27/2016  3:39 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Sixers org has ever right to do what they like, but just imagine if she wore a more provocative slogan, like "The Troops Matter".

Or maybe "Yes, Black People Exist" or "We Should Be Proud of the Civil Rights Era".

'We Matter' is some charged, controversial language, all right.

Maybe she should have wore a bag over her head and gloves. Then no one could assume what she meant by "we".

Problem solved.

But not a hoodie, that would have been a giveaway.

You want to vote for Hillary who called black people "super predators"--you get what you pay for. Hispanics AA get shoved aside for another 4 years--played like sckers--but the sad part is they cant see it and accept it. Its tragedy--not funny.


Hillary is human. She's said things she regrets and takes back and actually APOLOGIZES for. Trump has offended far more people (basically everyone who's not a wealthy, white, Christian man) and never apologizes. You can't possibly be using the criticism you mentioned at a reason to vote for Trump over Clinton. Like Fish said, Trump is worse in every area you criticize Hillary for.
EVERY AREA!!!! And you dont need conspiracy videos from the same guys saying 9/11 was carried out by our own gov, all you need to do is quote him. Directly. Especially people in this area who have been hearing about his BS for years.

Lets all take 40 seconds out of our lives, press pause on your conspiracy videos and learn everything we need to learn about Trump

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
AUTOADVERT
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
10/27/2016  3:49 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
arkrud wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics.

I get why people hold that POV, but IMO it is also somewhat a selective one and reduces her to a caricature.

Her full biography reveals a person who from a very early age through more than half of her life demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service, particularly in regard to the welfare of children.

If people want to view her full biography as some sort of craven pre-meditated long-term masterplan to rise to the corridors of political power, they can and apparently do.

What it demonstrates to me is the capacity for genuine compassion and public service is there, and seen through that lens it becomes more difficult to reduce her to a Bond villain.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?

Acknowledge? Certainly.

Support? I'm genuinely not certain what form that takes?


Which biography are you referring to, when was it written? and by whom?

I AM of the opinion that she has spent much of her adult life to try and be POTUS, so IMO yes, it could have been written for just that case or to create an alternate caricature of her. Alternate to the one that many people do maintain for her and for good reason. Even BO and MO called her out during the 2008 campaign as being dishonest.

Who is to blame for the so-called caricature that you mention?
-Getting kicked off the Watergate commission for bad ethics for instance.
-making thousands on futures trades she had no idea of what to do.
- and countless of other "gates" that follow her literally EVERYwhere ever she goes. The list is staggering. How is that? Is it all a Right wing conspiracy? If so, then I am an idiot. I'll admit it.

I understand that standing up and fighting for children's rights is commendable. However, why then did she defend a guy who raped a 12 year old girl? Why not defend that child or defer from the case? Maybe that was the inspiration for her to be an advocate for children but if so, then reach out and apologize to that girl and now woman!

The latest leaks show her campaign staff to treat "women and brown" people as objects to be used when they need a certain message. The leaked memo that exposes "Bill Clinton Inc" and how they get donations essentially so he can have a salary. Corporations pay for their vacations, plane rides, whatever. The leaks show that her own staff compared WJC to Cosby an admission of equivalence! There is evidence of possible pay for play while SOS. The Podesta-Russia thing that Assange himself was on today talking about!

It seems to be that just as the Trumpsters will support their guy, the HRC supporters will support her regardless of anything that is exposed about her, WJC or the CF.

I simply cannot. To me her entire public image is made up and IMO, bears little or no resemblance to who she is.

DJT's image is who he is and I absolutley accept your argument as to why you cannot support him.

The political establishment in US is a reality show created to entertain the public.
Current set of clowns is fascinating and amusing.
It does not really matter who is the face of the power or if it even has a face.
Our society is self-driving machine oiled by law and fueled by wealth.
The driver just directed to keep a hand on the wheel so passengers will be comforted.
And elections exist to make passengers think that they are in control.
So don't worry, we will have a happy ending regardless.

I'll entertain this premise.

What would you be doing in a genuinely free society?

Freedom is realized necessity.
Being free meaning understand the necessities and be in piece with them.
We as spices are not free of the environment, society, family, traditions, morals, and even our own mind.
One person, even with a lot of assigned or assumed power is nothing comparing to this forces which are driving our lives.
One can only find freedom and happiness within and no one from outside can do nothing about it.

Okay, I grant you possess freedom and happiness within. Not being snarky, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.

But I think the question is still a fair one. I'm not sure if you're arguing our current political (or societal) system is natural, inevitable state of being or a perverted one.

I think it naturally build as it is. From all societies we observed on the Earth it one of the more successful to date.
Does not mean it is even close to perfection or ever be.
Our individual perceptions are irrelevant because they are always egocentric.
We are a success statistically. And we are still expanding the wealth, security, and stability.
Trend is still positive and this is all that matters.
People all over the world may hate America but many are dreaming to get in and go to all kind of extremes and hurdles for that.
And not many are fleeing if any.
It is paramount who will lead Russia or Syria, but almost irrelevant who will lead US... and this is a huge achievement by itself.

Huh...

I feel ya all the way to the last 2/3rds of the last line.

Empathy can coexist with ego, even if not on equal terms.

That last thing is a signal to me empathy is being lost, that ego is swallowing it whole.

Not onboard with that.

I know it is comforting to feel that you are in control of your life, your family, your country...
But no one is. Just enjoy the current moment, the rest is just a bunch of distractions.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said about empathy, but okay!

The ability to understand and share the feelings of another is not an issue to me.
I do not believe in "another". We all are one. There is no duality.
Love yourself means love others and all the way around.
When you look in the eyes of any person you see God and you see self.

Ah, okay.

I understand you now.

I am not insisting it is write or wrong.
Just share what works for me.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

10/27/2016  5:56 PM
fishmike wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Sixers org has ever right to do what they like, but just imagine if she wore a more provocative slogan, like "The Troops Matter".

Or maybe "Yes, Black People Exist" or "We Should Be Proud of the Civil Rights Era".

'We Matter' is some charged, controversial language, all right.

Maybe she should have wore a bag over her head and gloves. Then no one could assume what she meant by "we".

Problem solved.

But not a hoodie, that would have been a giveaway.

You want to vote for Hillary who called black people "super predators"--you get what you pay for. Hispanics AA get shoved aside for another 4 years--played like sckers--but the sad part is they cant see it and accept it. Its tragedy--not funny.


Hillary is human. She's said things she regrets and takes back and actually APOLOGIZES for. Trump has offended far more people (basically everyone who's not a wealthy, white, Christian man) and never apologizes. You can't possibly be using the criticism you mentioned at a reason to vote for Trump over Clinton. Like Fish said, Trump is worse in every area you criticize Hillary for.
EVERY AREA!!!! And you dont need conspiracy videos from the same guys saying 9/11 was carried out by our own gov, all you need to do is quote him. Directly. Especially people in this area who have been hearing about his BS for years.

Lets all take 40 seconds out of our lives, press pause on your conspiracy videos and learn everything we need to learn about Trump

Does that guy have a single core belief or any issue he hasn't been on both sides of?
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  6:03 PM
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  6:03 PM
Welpee wrote:
fishmike wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Sixers org has ever right to do what they like, but just imagine if she wore a more provocative slogan, like "The Troops Matter".

Or maybe "Yes, Black People Exist" or "We Should Be Proud of the Civil Rights Era".

'We Matter' is some charged, controversial language, all right.

Maybe she should have wore a bag over her head and gloves. Then no one could assume what she meant by "we".

Problem solved.

But not a hoodie, that would have been a giveaway.

You want to vote for Hillary who called black people "super predators"--you get what you pay for. Hispanics AA get shoved aside for another 4 years--played like sckers--but the sad part is they cant see it and accept it. Its tragedy--not funny.


Hillary is human. She's said things she regrets and takes back and actually APOLOGIZES for. Trump has offended far more people (basically everyone who's not a wealthy, white, Christian man) and never apologizes. You can't possibly be using the criticism you mentioned at a reason to vote for Trump over Clinton. Like Fish said, Trump is worse in every area you criticize Hillary for.
EVERY AREA!!!! And you dont need conspiracy videos from the same guys saying 9/11 was carried out by our own gov, all you need to do is quote him. Directly. Especially people in this area who have been hearing about his BS for years.

Lets all take 40 seconds out of our lives, press pause on your conspiracy videos and learn everything we need to learn about Trump

Does that guy have a single core belief or any issue he hasn't been on both sides of?

I don't believe he's ever wavered on Ivanka's hotness.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  6:04 PM
Welpee wrote:
fishmike wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Sixers org has ever right to do what they like, but just imagine if she wore a more provocative slogan, like "The Troops Matter".

Or maybe "Yes, Black People Exist" or "We Should Be Proud of the Civil Rights Era".

'We Matter' is some charged, controversial language, all right.

Maybe she should have wore a bag over her head and gloves. Then no one could assume what she meant by "we".

Problem solved.

But not a hoodie, that would have been a giveaway.

You want to vote for Hillary who called black people "super predators"--you get what you pay for. Hispanics AA get shoved aside for another 4 years--played like sckers--but the sad part is they cant see it and accept it. Its tragedy--not funny.


Hillary is human. She's said things she regrets and takes back and actually APOLOGIZES for. Trump has offended far more people (basically everyone who's not a wealthy, white, Christian man) and never apologizes. You can't possibly be using the criticism you mentioned at a reason to vote for Trump over Clinton. Like Fish said, Trump is worse in every area you criticize Hillary for.
EVERY AREA!!!! And you dont need conspiracy videos from the same guys saying 9/11 was carried out by our own gov, all you need to do is quote him. Directly. Especially people in this area who have been hearing about his BS for years.

Lets all take 40 seconds out of our lives, press pause on your conspiracy videos and learn everything we need to learn about Trump

Does that guy have a single core belief or any issue he hasn't been on both sides of?

He has always been a racist...

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  6:06 PM
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  6:15 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  6:23 PM
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  6:40 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

The response had nothing to do with the message. The point is when and where can an employer exhibit control over the product they are selling..Is everyone now allowed to express a personal message dear to their hearts when they see fit??..Wanting to end wars and bring troops back home seem like a noble cause, can we now wear those t's to work??..If I was working for some one on a contract basis, Ill try to adhere to their wishes as much as possible..But that's just me..

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  6:56 PM
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

The response had nothing to do with the message. The point is when and where can an employer exhibit control over the product they are selling..Is everyone now allowed to express a personal message dear to their hearts when they see fit??..Wanting to end wars and bring troops back home seem like a noble cause, can we now wear those t's to work??..If I was working for some one on a contract basis, Ill try to adhere to their wishes as much as possible..But that's just me..

Again, it isn't about a team's right to control the visuals at their venue. I've agreed twice that's their right. This'll make it three.

It's just sad conditions are which that they thought it necessary to exercise them.

Half of the duo that sang that anthem at Game 2 of the World Series wore a real military jacket and a mock flag as a scarf and I'm FINE with that. So was MLB.

But I'm also fine with a black woman who came to SING, not protest, the anthem wearing the words "we matter."

Why would anyone not be?

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  7:10 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  7:11 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

The response had nothing to do with the message. The point is when and where can an employer exhibit control over the product they are selling..Is everyone now allowed to express a personal message dear to their hearts when they see fit??..Wanting to end wars and bring troops back home seem like a noble cause, can we now wear those t's to work??..If I was working for some one on a contract basis, Ill try to adhere to their wishes as much as possible..But that's just me..

Again, it isn't about a team's right to control the visuals at their venue. I've agreed twice that's their right. This'll make it three.

It's just sad conditions are which that they thought it necessary to exercise them.

Half of the duo that sang that anthem at Game 2 of the World Series wore a real military jacket and a mock flag as a scarf and I'm FINE with that. So was MLB.

But I'm also fine with a black woman who came to SING, not protest, the anthem wearing the words "we matter."

Why would anyone not be?

It's a political statement that a large segment of people don't agree with..Briggs posted it made him and his friend uncomfortable and upset..

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/27/2016  7:13 PM
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

The response had nothing to do with the message. The point is when and where can an employer exhibit control over the product they are selling..Is everyone now allowed to express a personal message dear to their hearts when they see fit??..Wanting to end wars and bring troops back home seem like a noble cause, can we now wear those t's to work??..If I was working for some one on a contract basis, Ill try to adhere to their wishes as much as possible..But that's just me..

Again, it isn't about a team's right to control the visuals at their venue. I've agreed twice that's their right. This'll make it three.

It's just sad conditions are which that they thought it necessary to exercise them.

Half of the duo that sang that anthem at Game 2 of the World Series wore a real military jacket and a mock flag as a scarf and I'm FINE with that. So was MLB.

But I'm also fine with a black woman who came to SING, not protest, the anthem wearing the words "we matter."

Why would anyone not be?

It's a political statement that a large segment of people don't agree with..Briggs posted it made him and his friend uncomfortable and upset..

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  7:15 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  7:18 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Nalod wrote:
holfresh wrote:

she was paid by the sixers to sing, not demonstrate her 1st amendment rights.
She can record a song about "we matter", but if her deal with sixers was to show up wearing a Sixers jersey, or
some other pre determined dress code, then that's the deal. Right or wrong. Players are paid to play ball. They have to wear their uniform.
If they feel that strongly about it, then can quit their jobs as players.

If I hire someone to work in my office I expect a certain protocol and its written. IM not taking away their freedom as they are free to protest and exhibit self expression outside my office.
Thus, "Sevyn" has no reason to be upset. If she showed up naked she would not be allowed on.

Completely Agree...

As I say, the Sixers can do as they like, but the fact the two words "we matter" is considered a provocative political statement to some is just a sad state of affairs.


Not really...When you are running a business, when do you draw the line??..Can all employees now wear such shirts with messages and what messages are allowable??..Sure the hoops star getting treated differently and with more leaniant rules because they are in the spotlight..But you are have to draw a line somewhere..

What line?

"We matter?"

What's that message being placed behind a line?

Are we suggesting that someone could be offended because they disagree?

To appease the people who think they don't matter?

The point escapes me.

Wouldn't be an issues if it said "The Troops Matter." She'd have been invited to Fox and Friends.

So we can all get behind that, but the idea black people matter is divisive?

Again, not criticizing the Sixers. I'm commenting on the conditions in which seeing a black person where the words "we matter" requires a need to draw lines.

The response had nothing to do with the message. The point is when and where can an employer exhibit control over the product they are selling..Is everyone now allowed to express a personal message dear to their hearts when they see fit??..Wanting to end wars and bring troops back home seem like a noble cause, can we now wear those t's to work??..If I was working for some one on a contract basis, Ill try to adhere to their wishes as much as possible..But that's just me..

Again, it isn't about a team's right to control the visuals at their venue. I've agreed twice that's their right. This'll make it three.

It's just sad conditions are which that they thought it necessary to exercise them.

Half of the duo that sang that anthem at Game 2 of the World Series wore a real military jacket and a mock flag as a scarf and I'm FINE with that. So was MLB.

But I'm also fine with a black woman who came to SING, not protest, the anthem wearing the words "we matter."

Why would anyone not be?

It's a political statement that a large segment of people don't agree with..Briggs posted it made him and his friend uncomfortable and upset..

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

Why?..How do you presume "blue lives matter" came about??..It pissed someone off..

holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

10/27/2016  8:11 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  8:12 PM
Trump's court date set for December 16, 2016 on charges of raping 13 year old girl at convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein apartment..Should be interesting if he actually wins..It's the third try at this for the alleged victim..
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
10/27/2016  10:30 PM
Who the F is Sevyn
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/27/2016  10:34 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/27/2016  10:35 PM
All four Georgia polls from the past 2 weeks are within the margin of error. That's GEORGIA!
meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/27/2016  11:51 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:Look there is no fukkin way I'm voting for that radioactive orangeblobman

that said

I fukkin hate Hillary too. This **** is ridiculous:

Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s Aides, Emails Show
By STEVE EDER and AMY CHOZICKOCT. 26, 2016

In the years before Hillary Clinton announced she would run again for president, her top aides expressed profound concerns in internal emails about how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s own moneymaking ventures would affect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.

Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

But they do show pronounced worries among the Clintons’ closest advisers about the millions of dollars coming into the foundation, and to Mr. Clinton personally, and how they could inoculate Mrs. Clinton from criticism over it.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.


In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed with Mrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.


1123
COMMENTS
When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.

“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

Thank God for Bipileaks

The Clintons have been exposed for their corruption as well in this election cycle. Or maybe corruption is not the right word, their actions maybe within the law. I don't know the nuances of accepting millions in fees and donations at the same time. The only thing I will say in Hillary's defense is that if she had faced a regular republican instead of Trump the mudslinging would not have descended to this level. The media has created a false equivalency to appear impartial, which means they have to dig up all this dirt on her to try to make her look bad. Trump is an absolute lowlife piece of **** and Hillary has to be dragged down to his level to make this look like a fair fight.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: Don't ever mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty the pig loves it.

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

10/28/2016  12:48 AM    LAST EDITED: 10/28/2016  1:10 AM
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:Look there is no fukkin way I'm voting for that radioactive orangeblobman

that said

I fukkin hate Hillary too. This **** is ridiculous:

Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton’s Aides, Emails Show
By STEVE EDER and AMY CHOZICKOCT. 26, 2016

In the years before Hillary Clinton announced she would run again for president, her top aides expressed profound concerns in internal emails about how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s own moneymaking ventures would affect Mrs. Clinton’s political future.

The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.

Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

But they do show pronounced worries among the Clintons’ closest advisers about the millions of dollars coming into the foundation, and to Mr. Clinton personally, and how they could inoculate Mrs. Clinton from criticism over it.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.


In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed with Mrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.


1123
COMMENTS
When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.

“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

Thank God for Bipileaks

The Clintons have been exposed for their corruption as well in this election cycle. Or maybe corruption is not the right word, their actions maybe within the law. I don't know the nuances of accepting millions in fees and donations at the same time. The only thing I will say in Hillary's defense is that if she had faced a regular republican instead of Trump the mudslinging would not have descended to this level. The media has created a false equivalency to appear impartial, which means they have to dig up all this dirt on her to try to make her look bad. Trump is an absolute lowlife piece of **** and Hillary has to be dragged down to his level to make this look like a fair fight.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: Don't ever mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty the pig loves it.

The other way to look at it is: if these leaks came out when her opponent wasn't already on the defensive himself, all of the suspicions of the ridiculed Bernie or Busters wouldn't look so ridiculous now. Instead, the fear of a Trump presidency (justified IMHO) has driven opposition from the left underground. If a Kasich, Rubio or Cruz (Jah Jah forbid) made it through, Hillary might be the one taking heavy fire from the media, down in all these polls and looking at a likely loss.

Most people a year ago thought it would be Clinton vs Bush and people across the political spectrum didn't want any more retreads. GOP rejected Jeb with the quickness. People's wives were being dragged into the fray, POWs ridiculed, and this is the supposedly patriotic family values party. Values, shmalues... I guess Charlie Sheen primed the US to just crave "Winning!" Meanwhile Clinton avoided Biden, shafted Bernie via DNC (though honestly he just had little name recognition in the South until it was too late), and is the good soldier who took her lumps from her husband's administration and kissed and made up with "Shame on you" Barack Obama and is riding the first woman thing. I think she is capable, and talented... but I preferred the earnestness and compassion of Sanders versus the realpolitik of the Clintons.

I'm not immune to the emotion of BRIGGS' initial argument. She WAS hiding from the media, being cagey and focused more on fundraising than connecting to her base. Bernie pushed her and the party to more people-centered positions, but if she isn't held to keep her promises if/when elected, she'll just revert to neoliberal form and go into bunker mode for the inevitable obstruction of the hot mess that is the GOP — "bat**** crazy" like Lindsey Graham said after the now-party nominee doxxed his phone number out of spite. To go from supporting Bernie to reading the behind the scenes machinations of the Clinton camp, it makes me sick. And maybe that is what politics is and I'm being naive about what it takes.

At this point I feel like the last couple seasons of Entourage: I don't care about these characters anymore and their dumb self-indulgent plot lines but I've invested so much time, I gotta see how this ends.

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

10/28/2016  1:19 AM    LAST EDITED: 10/28/2016  2:05 AM

Meanwhile, here is Barry O championing the youth and promoting science to our future. Some of the "nothing" he's gone over the past 8 years. Right BRIGGS?

I commiserate with Obama after 150 pages of jibber jabber with the likes of you. I concede points, try to find common ground, respect you as a rational actor in this dialogue. But 150 pages later, same stubborn point of view, with little attempt to meet half way, acknowledge you were exaggerating, or flat out wrong. Like Obama thought that the GOP would put the country before their petty obstruction. Connecticut is going for Trump because of yard signs... the Chinese "get it" while the Blacks and Latinos are the "creeds" (lol) that don't... Trump's a narcissist and buffoon but golly, BRIGGS still supports:
- an 80s rerun of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,
- a bankrupting outsourcing "job creator" of sweatshop workers and illegal laborers,
- living proof that the House doesn't always win,
- his fortune built on discrimination to where Woody Guthrie is writing songs against his old man,
- who builds only in the glitzy zip codes for 30 years and suddenly cares about the "inner city" 8 weeks before the election,
- a debunked Birther who must have "forgot" he gave a full-throated disavowal of David Duke 15 years ago so he doesn't lose the support of his "14/88" fans,
- who is hiding his tax returns like a shady little bitch,

But who cares if he's grabbing ***** or calling his daughter a piece of ass, I want Mexico to pay for a wall around my wife's emergency room...

I have to cling to the image of the youth to whom a black man as President is the only reality they know and don't understand what the big deal is. Because talking to 20th century dudes stuck in their crappy reasoning is played out, man. What is the point. It's sad. Sad!

#MakeAmericaThinkAgain

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy