Page 1 of 8

uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:59 pm
by ip_law-hokie
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald ... 1787545407

Donations to Mountain Stage, West Virginia public radio can be made at the site linked below for your convenience:

https://secure.wvpublic.org/donate/

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:03 pm
by USN_Hokie
Low info fodder.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:04 pm
by ip_law-hokie
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Good luck

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:14 pm
by HokieFanDC
ip_law-hokie wrote:http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald ... 1787545407

Donations to Mountain Stage, West Virginia public radio can be made at the site linked below for your convenience:

https://secure.wvpublic.org/donate/
LOL. He really has no control over his mouth.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:14 pm
by HokieFanDC
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Atta boy!

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:20 pm
by HokieFanDC
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:22 pm
by absolutvt03
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
B/c it's obviously low info for someone to expect a candidate for President of the United States to not talk like an FSU quarterback...

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:40 pm
by ip_law-hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
Below, Uppity provided a definition of low-info:

"LIVs are the people that are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her."

This is low-info fodder because, if you make mention of the GOP Presidential nominee referring to being able to, by virtue of his fame, "grab women by the pussy," it is more likely that you "are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her." Got it?

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:47 pm
by HokieFanDC
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
Below, Uppity provided a definition of low-info:

"LIVs are the people that are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her."

This is low-info fodder because, if you make mention of the GOP Presidential nominee referring to being able to, by virtue of his fame, "grab women by the pussy," it is more likely that you "are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her." Got it?
So, if you are someone who is unaware, or unwilling to admit that Trump is the least qualified person to ever run for POTUS (at least in our lifetime), and are still planning to vote for him, that makes you well-informed?

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:49 pm
by ip_law-hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
Below, Uppity provided a definition of low-info:

"LIVs are the people that are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her."

This is low-info fodder because, if you make mention of the GOP Presidential nominee referring to being able to, by virtue of his fame, "grab women by the pussy," it is more likely that you "are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her." Got it?
So, if you are someone who is unaware, or unwilling to admit that Trump is the least qualified person to ever run for POTUS (at least in our lifetime), and are still planning to vote for him, that makes you well-informed?
Not sure. But you would NOT be a LIV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:49 pm
by nolanvt
Seems about right.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:54 pm
by nolanvt
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
Below, Uppity provided a definition of low-info:

"LIVs are the people that are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her."

This is low-info fodder because, if you make mention of the GOP Presidential nominee referring to being able to, by virtue of his fame, "grab women by the pussy," it is more likely that you "are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her." Got it?
So, if you are someone who is unaware, or unwilling to admit that Trump is the least qualified person to ever run for POTUS (at least in our lifetime), and are still planning to vote for him, that makes you well-informed?
Obviously!

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:56 pm
by ip_law-hokie
nolanvt wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
Below, Uppity provided a definition of low-info:

"LIVs are the people that are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her."

This is low-info fodder because, if you make mention of the GOP Presidential nominee referring to being able to, by virtue of his fame, "grab women by the pussy," it is more likely that you "are either unaware, or unwilling to admit that Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for the POTUS and are planning to still vote for her." Got it?
So, if you are someone who is unaware, or unwilling to admit that Trump is the least qualified person to ever run for POTUS (at least in our lifetime), and are still planning to vote for him, that makes you well-informed?
Obviously!
We are #blessed that these intellectuals grace us with their presence (and donations to WV public radio).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:57 pm
by HokieFanDC
absolutvt03 wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
B/c it's obviously low info for someone to expect a candidate for President of the United States to not talk like an FSU quarterback...

Somewhere, God is busy shortening his list of future roommates based on people voting for Trump. I mean, if you support Trump, you obviously support adultery, and hate monogamy and marriage.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:01 pm
by nolanvt
ip_law-hokie wrote:
We are #blessed that these intellectuals grace us with their presence (and donations to WV public radio).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you worked on your speech for when you accept the Fundraiser of the Year award?

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:01 pm
by USN_Hokie
absolutvt03 wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
B/c it's obviously low info for someone to expect a candidate for President of the United States to not talk like an FSU quarterback...
Low info is not reading the link to see this was from over a decade ago when he was running for....no office at all.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:02 pm
by nolanvt
USN_Hokie wrote:
absolutvt03 wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
B/c it's obviously low info for someone to expect a candidate for President of the United States to not talk like an FSU quarterback...
Low info is not reading the link to see this was from over a decade ago when he was running for....no office at all.
No, we read it.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:04 pm
by USN_Hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:09 pm
by ip_law-hokie
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.
Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:18 pm
by USN_Hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.
Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean talked about not having sex with married women right? This feigned outrage is coming from the party that used 18 year old interns for humidors correct? I just want to make sure I have this right

Edit: Ok, I just watched the video(hot mic). I must have misread the the quotes; I thought he was quoted as saying "but she's married." Sounds like he was hitting on a married woman, which is not cool.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:22 pm
by HokieFanDC
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.
Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean talked about not having sex with married women right? This feigned outrage is coming from the party that used 18 year old interns for humidors correct? I just want to make sure I have this right
Right on cue. Atta boy!

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:29 pm
by USN_Hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.
Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean talked about not having sex with married women right? This feigned outrage is coming from the party that used 18 year old interns for humidors correct? I just want to make sure I have this right
Atta boy!
Well, if Hillary was looking for a way to make Trump talk about her husband's infidelity and rape accusations, this was it. Should be fun on Sunday (Westworld better still be on).
Right on cue.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:43 pm
by HokieFanDC
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.[/quote]

You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.[/quote]

Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

You mean talked about not having sex with married women right? This feigned outrage is coming from the party that used 18 year old interns for humidors correct? I just want to make sure I have this right[/quote]
Atta boy![/quote]
Well, if Hillary was looking for a way to make Trump talk about her husband's infidelity and rape accusations, this was it. Should be fun on Sunday (Westworld better still be on).
Right on cue.[/quote]

Uh uh. You guys always deflect back to Hillary. Which might matter to me if i was voting for Hillary.
Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin are both better people than these two. Most people are. I'm also considering a wrtie in vote, which is still better than those two.

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:44 pm
by ip_law-hokie
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Low info fodder.
Why is it "low info" fodder? That makes no sense.
You've said worse in private settings I'm sure.
Indeed. Who hasn't been hot miked for a TV show and made comments about trying to have sex with married women and grabbing women by the pussy while in their younger years (well into their sixties at least).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean talked about not having sex with married women right? This feigned outrage is coming from the party that used 18 year old interns for humidors correct? I just want to make sure I have this right
Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: uh oh

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:46 pm
by nolanvt
HokieFanDC wrote:Uh uh. You guys always deflect back to Hillary. Which might matter to me if i was voting for Hillary.
Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin are both better people than these two. Most people are. I'm also considering a wrtie in vote, which is still better than those two.
Yup. I mean...if USN wants me to, I could vote for Hillary if he'd like, but both of these clowns are unacceptable.