DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Chicago Bears Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 242109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Sportster Date: September 10, 2015, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahh, k...I see...uhuh.. so there ARE no 'in between' species
presently....ok, gotcha.....
Bunch of nonsense.....
I wonder if you've actually thought through the whole 'chances
of things happening' deal here. Really. What are the chances our
eyeballs just came into being and are as incredibly intricate
and functional as they are. Or our hands, or our brains. Do you
seriously believe just because some time has passed that
suddenly a soupy mix of bacteria and amoeba and carbon, etc
created all this?? Or how about how the food chain works. All of
this 'evolved' to support life....ON ITS OWN, mind you, nothing
guiding it-except the passage of time. Boy, talk about having
some incredible, albeit absolutely ridiculous, faith!
#Post#: 242138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 10, 2015, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=chifaninva link=topic=347.msg242076#msg242076
date=1441901000]
Funny thing, every time I think Trump is going to start to tow
the line he says another stupid something. Criticizing what
Fiorina looks like is about as dumb a thing as he can say. If I
thought she'd do a good job I'd vote for her in a second.
[/quote]
Watch her in the next debate and in a few interviews. It is
very hard NOT to be impressed by her. Each time I see her, I
think more highly of her. As a libertarian, I started thinking
Paul was probably the only Republican candidate I could possibly
actually support, though I would not have been too upset with
either Cruz or Rubio, and believe both would be good demographic
candidates for the Republicans. Paul has real internal problems
with his campaign, to such a degree that it has to cause serious
concerns about his management ability, and also to the extent
that it has bled over into some ineffective campaigning and
likely has seriously damaged any chance he had at the start.
At this point, I believe I would lean to Fiorino, and might even
feel comfortable voting for her in the general election. Since
1976, I have only once voted for anyone other than the
Libertarian candidate for president in the general election.
#Post#: 242139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 10, 2015, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Sportster link=topic=347.msg242109#msg242109
date=1441913179]
Ahh, k...I see...uhuh.. so there ARE no 'in between' species
presently....ok, gotcha.....
Bunch of nonsense.....
[/quote]
Even for you, your lack of understanding is astounding.
#Post#: 242140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 10, 2015, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=chifaninva link=topic=347.msg242091#msg242091
date=1441904752]
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/boss-who-asks-transgender-woman-what-are-you-agrees-to-historic-settlement_55f0af61e4b03784e277e215
This shit has gone too far. This is a nursing home, maybe
residents would be uncomfortable with someone who is a
transgender. After all, they are bathing them and helping them
with changing. I understand he/she got fired (never really
started the job). This is a no win situation, next a resident's
family sues for not disclosing the fact that the N-A is a
transgender.
[/quote]
What upset you about the settlement?
There is no reason to believe the nursing home actually paid a
dime to the plaintiff. The corporation agreed to do things that
the corporation likely felt perfectly comfortable in doing.
As to the possibility "residents would be uncomfortable with
someone who is a transgender," so what? Nursing staffs are both
male and female. If you go into a doctor's office do you get
weirded put if you have to drop your trousers in front of a
female nurse?
#Post#: 242150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jackiejokeman Date: September 10, 2015, 6:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The revolution will not be televised ... or going mobile.
Thanks ATT&T and Direct TV!
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6OASOH_66A
Lets find out who the original of that tag line was.
#Post#: 242172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 10, 2015, 11:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First, after months and months of Hilary insisting that she had
done nothing wrong and that there was absolutely no story there,
and having her apologists do the same, finally she admits that
she really screwed up, and she apologizes.
HTML http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970
Now it is almost as if this is written directly to otto....
HTML http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-apologies-email-213133#ixzz3lHiupSsu
Being a Clinton Apologist is a Hard Life
By JACK SHAFER 09/09/15, 06:40 PM EDT
From the outside at least, being a friend of the Clintons looks
like a demeaning occupation. You defend them, you defend them
some more, you lie down in front of tanks for them and then—when
you least suspect it—they reverse gear and betray you.
Hillary Clinton did that to her most ardent supporters
yesterday. After six months of indignant responses, classic
stonewalling, legalistic prevarication, dismissive jokes and a
sustained and coordinated counter-attack by her allies, she
finally capitulated to critics yesterday, telling David Muir of
ABC News that running a personal email account and server during
her tenure as Secretary of State was a “mistake” and that she
was “sorry about that.” Compare this, if you will, to Bill
Clinton’s denial of an affair with Monica Lewinsky that caused
scores of his supporters to prop up his lies until he ultimately
folded.
Hillary’s regret came exactly one day after she told the
Associated Press she had no reason to apologize, downplaying the
email controversy as a “distraction.”
She also used the ABC News interview to apologize for previous,
inadequate attempts to explain her conduct. “I really didn’t
perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” she said. But even in
this minor act of self-criticism, Clinton reflexively added the
qualifying word of “perhaps” to pave an escape route should she
need to abandon the apology six months from now. “I take
responsibility,” she added, which is politician-speak for, “Now,
will you leave me alone?”
You can decide for yourself how sincere these devious and
dissembling comments by Clinton are. What interests me is how
dramatically this turnaround ditches the surrogates who rushed
to the airwaves and to defend her conduct. In early March, when
the story broke, Clinton defenders (and intimates) David Brock,
Lanny Davis, Maria Cardona, Jennifer Granholm, James Carville
and Karen Finney advanced with absolute certainty that the
Clinton email/server story was, in Granholm’s words, “just a
nothingburger.” Brock’s pro-Clinton advocacy organization
Correct the Record called the email affair a “manufactured
controversy” and a “tempest in a teapot.” Carville called the
email dispute “made up” and Clinton a victim of a double
standard (“Colin Powell does the same thing. Jeb Bush does the
same thing.”). About the emails, Davis said, “All preserved. And
if deleted you know they can be found.” Cardona had so much
faith in Clinton that she said, “I don’t think she needs to say
anything more until she actually announces her campaign.”
Clinton has now conceded on national TV that the email story is
not quite a nothing burger. It’s actually a Royale With
Cheese—maybe a Double Royale With Cheese and Pineapple. Nothing
was “manufactured” and indeed, yes, some of the emails were
deleted. In recognition of these facts, will these Hillary
loyalists volunteer to return to the TV chat shows to
acknowledge their errors? Better yet, will the shows revisit the
issue to illustrate how Clinton’s proxies attempted to roll
them? Nah, but it would make great TV, wouldn’t it?
Did the surrogates even know what they were talking about?
According to a Washington Post story from the opening week of
the “scandal,” some “supporters in Congress and others were
willing to go on cable television to defend Clinton” were
dismayed by the fact that her aides did not prepare talking
points to help them help her. “A lot of people were flying
blind,” one anonymous Democratic ally told the Post. As the
Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf noted in a splendid follow-up to
the Post account, two levels of political sleaze were revealed:
First, the Clinton defenders sought talking points—rather than
the truth—about the emails for use in their rebuttals; and
second, when given none, some winged it on pure faith in their
patrona.
Clinton isn’t the first candidate to reward the blindly loyal
with a kick to the teeth. Even at the semi-pro levels, politics
demands the occasional human sacrifice to that the higher ups
can go even higher up. But the suicide missions completed by
people like David Brock, Lanny Davis, et al. are almost never
life- or career-ending. For psychological reasons I cannot plumb
here, they seem not to mind being used. To them, giving an
uneducated defense of someone you love is the highest form of
friendship. Like video-game deaths, the death that comes from
shame is only temporary. Besides, the TV press doesn’t
discriminate against sources who talk out of their hat. What
would cable news be if it couldn’t book guests who dissembled,
stonewalled and cast false aspersions? Today, every one of the
friends and party hacks who rose—armed with only the flimsiest
understanding of the underlying facts and driven by the basest
impulses—to champion the email hygiene of Hillary Clinton remain
welcome across the dial to spout more slipshod and ill-informed
opinions.
Why is that? If Clinton is so “sorry” about her “mistake,” if
she really thinks she “could have and should have done a better
job answering questions earlier,” why shouldn’t we hold her
supporters to the same standard? So I invite Lawrence O’Donnell,
Erin Burnett, Christi Paul, and others who hosted the Clinton
apologists to invite their guests back on ask if they regret
about endorsing Clinton’s mistake comes close to equaling hers.
Like Clinton, I’ll bet they’d say they’re sorry, too. But like
Clinton, I’ll bet they won’t mean it.
#Post#: 242382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Pekin Date: September 12, 2015, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The truth about Benghazi is slowly coming to light...
HTML http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/09/11/exclusive-new-emails-in-benghazi-weapons-mystery/?intcmp=hplnws
Turi provided Fox News with emails he exchanged - in early April
2011 - with Chris Stevens to alert him to the proposed weapons
deal. The emails were previously cited by the New York Times,
but Fox News has made the message traffic public.
Stevens replied with a "thank you " and wrote "I'll keep it in
mind and share it with my colleagues in Washington."
As Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge
first reported, a heavily redacted email released to the
Benghazi committee in May clearly states that on April 8, 2011,
a day after the Turi/Stevens exchange, Clinton was interested in
arming the rebels using contractors:
"FYI. the idea of using private security experts to arm the
opposition should be considered," Clinton wrote. Significantly,
the state department released emails blacked out this line, but
the version given to the Benghazi select committee was complete.
In May 2011, Turi got a brokering approval from the State
Department for Qatar. Federal court documents show that on June
14th, a Russian businessman wrote to Turi indicating Chris
Stevens was the State Department's point man for arming the
rebels.
Document 55, exhibit F, contains an email from the Russian,
stating "I sent you an email days back and no answer from
you....anyhow, Mr. Stevens the American embassedor (sic) in
benghazi (sic) has been informed of the arrangement...and things
should be ok."
#Post#: 242392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 12, 2015, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without all of the attribution, that is pretty much what Glen
Beck had been saying from as early as December of 2012.
#Post#: 242395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: chifaninva Date: September 12, 2015, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see Rick Perry dropped out, bye bye. Now how about Huckabee
and a few others. Get this thing down to about 8 people. I'm
surprised Bush is so lost in the backdrop, not that I'm sorry..
#Post#: 242401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: packrat Date: September 12, 2015, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hillary dropped below 40% in late poll.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page