Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/05/pu ... r-life.htm

Gonna be a lot more of this stuff if Hillary wins, when you swing at a man you stop being a woman l

I was wondering the same thing, when I read a headline about how "toxic" masculinity was being portrayed at some Universities. Is that what women want? For men to turn a blind eye when they are getting beat up or bullied?

Glad I am married, for I wouldn't know how to navigate the dating scene these days.

Her masculinity is the least toxic thing I have seen in awhile and I am watching the Montana State game as I type this.

For the record:
This is Alpha's first completely irrelevant "It's Hilary's fault" thread...
and there will be MANY MANY more to come over the next 8 years

Tell that to Argentina, which got its tail whipped by the Iron Lady....

Chizzang wrote:For the record:
This is Alpha's first completely irrelevant "It's Hilary's fault" thread...
and there will be MANY MANY more to come over the next 8 years

What will be more entertaining is 8 years of you defending her in obtuse, roundabout kinds of ways


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:For the record:
This is Alpha's first completely irrelevant "It's Hilary's fault" thread...
and there will be MANY MANY more to come over the next 8 years

He and JSO will make quite a pair. And you never know where love will bloom.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:For the record:
This is Alpha's first completely irrelevant "It's Hilary's fault" thread...
and there will be MANY MANY more to come over the next 8 years

What will be more entertaining is 8 years of you defending her in obtuse, roundabout kinds of ways


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the fun will be her relationship with the Director of the FBI. Sparks should fly between a slimy politician like her and your non-political, straight shooting, tell-it-like-it-is-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may buddy.

On the up side, especially for a guy in your line of work, President Clinton should now be able to get funds to increase security at our embassies. Goddamn shame Americans had to die because the treasonous conk fvcks in the House wouldn't spend the money needed to keep them safe in Benghazi.

conks.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
What will be more entertaining is 8 years of you defending her in obtuse, roundabout kinds of ways


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On the up side, especially for a guy in your line of work, President Clinton should now be able to get funds to increase security at our embassies. Goddamn shame Americans had to die because the treasonous conk fvcks in the House wouldn't spend the money needed to keep them safe in Benghazi.

I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
On the up side, especially for a guy in your line of work, President Clinton should now be able to get funds to increase security at our embassies. Goddamn shame Americans had to die because the treasonous conk fvcks in the House wouldn't spend the money needed to keep them safe in Benghazi.

I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never get the juicy memos. Sometimes I think they don't even know I exist...

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
On the up side, especially for a guy in your line of work, President Clinton should now be able to get funds to increase security at our embassies. Goddamn shame Americans had to die because the treasonous conk fvcks in the House wouldn't spend the money needed to keep them safe in Benghazi.

I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never get the juicy memos. Sometimes I think they don't even know I exist...

If only we were that lucky..................

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
On the up side, especially for a guy in your line of work, President Clinton should now be able to get funds to increase security at our embassies. Goddamn shame Americans had to die because the treasonous conk fvcks in the House wouldn't spend the money needed to keep them safe in Benghazi.

I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So why bother to ask Congress for increased security funding for embassies?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I see you got the memo and of course you believe it.

But it is a false narrative. DoS security is a line item and if there isn't enough, the department moves the money. 100% a failure of leadership within the department.

But just keep on wiping your chin there, granny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So why bother to ask Congress for increased security funding for embassies?

Because that's what all Federal departments do every year. They break everything down to line items and then argue that each one is a life and death matter and Congress must approve each one or the moon will fall out of the sky.

Then Congress approves 2/3rds of what everyone asks for.

All departments move funding around between bureaus. If the general public knew how that worked then the "Congress caused Benghazi by not funding security" narrative would be ridiculed just as much as the "it was a video" one.

The only reason the department said there wasn't enough funding was that was the only way to shift the blame a fundamental internal management issue away from the department.

But by all means don't feel like you have to know how things work to know how things work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
So why bother to ask Congress for increased security funding for embassies?

Because that's what all Federal departments do every year. They break everything down to line items and then argue that each one is a life and death matter and Congress must approve each one or the moon will fall out of the sky.

Then Congress approves 2/3rds of what everyone asks for.

All departments move funding around between bureaus. If the general public knew how that worked then the "Congress caused Benghazi by not funding security" narrative would be ridiculed just as much as the "it was a video" one.

The only reason the department said there wasn't enough funding was that was the only way to shift the blame a fundamental internal management issue away from the department.

But by all means don't feel like you have to know how things work to know how things work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Poor houndy.
I'm calling the cops on CID for elder abuse.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
So why bother to ask Congress for increased security funding for embassies?

Because that's what all Federal departments do every year. They break everything down to line items and then argue that each one is a life and death matter and Congress must approve each one or the moon will fall out of the sky.

Then Congress approves 2/3rds of what everyone asks for.

All departments move funding around between bureaus. If the general public knew how that worked then the "Congress caused Benghazi by not funding security" narrative would be ridiculed just as much as the "it was a video" one.

The only reason the department said there wasn't enough funding was that was the only way to shift the blame a fundamental internal management issue away from the department.

But by all means don't feel like you have to know how things work to know how things work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thats why I asked a heavy-hitting bureaucrat. Someone who would know about who is and who isn't a nonpolitical straight-shooter that tells it how it is and lets the chips fall where they may.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Because that's what all Federal departments do every year. They break everything down to line items and then argue that each one is a life and death matter and Congress must approve each one or the moon will fall out of the sky.

Then Congress approves 2/3rds of what everyone asks for.

All departments move funding around between bureaus. If the general public knew how that worked then the "Congress caused Benghazi by not funding security" narrative would be ridiculed just as much as the "it was a video" one.

The only reason the department said there wasn't enough funding was that was the only way to shift the blame a fundamental internal management issue away from the department.

But by all means don't feel like you have to know how things work to know how things work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thats why I asked a heavy-hitting bureaucrat. Someone who would know about who is and who isn't a nonpolitical straight-shooter that tells it how it is and lets the chips fall where they may.

You continue to bring that up as if it is some kind of a dig but I have not backed off of it- so I'm not sure what your point is.

Maybe I just don't understand hayseed humor.

Comey is in fact a straight shooter with integrity. He hasn't handled the whole Clinton thing very well (across the board) but his record speaks for itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Thats why I asked a heavy-hitting bureaucrat. Someone who would know about who is and who isn't a nonpolitical straight-shooter that tells it how it is and lets the chips fall where they may.

You continue to bring that up as if it is some kind of a dig but I have not backed off of it- so I'm not sure what your point is.

Maybe I just don't understand hayseed humor.

Comey is in fact a straight shooter with integrity. He hasn't handled the whole Clinton thing very well (across the board) but his record speaks for itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, he did.

And you forfeit rights to make fun of anybody when your boss is Donald Trump.