• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Englebert

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

7,485 profile views
  1. Global Warming Update!

    Once the narrator said that "climatologists" had an excellent record in their prediction modules, I had to turn it off. Who does he think he's kidding? 
  2. NBA to get rid of the term “Owners”

    Does Green and the ones advocating this asinine proposal really think people are just that stupid? Does anyone believe that the owner of a business "owns" the people that work for him? This is even dumber than the adage that people can't obtain an ID to vote. The unmitigated elitism of some is just downright appalling, but the willingness of too many to give credence to such pathetic notions is shocking. You've been called "stupid" directly to your face, and far too many do not even realize it. Maybe Green should change his name, because there are people that might actually think his skin color is green. Same dumb logic...for a dumb society.
  3. Can't help but wonder

    I didn't say the lawyers on the Trump probe where not his fans. I asked if you would be comfortable with knowing people investigating you were not fans of yours. Based on the fact that the Mueller team where Democrat donors, the perception of a biased team was apparent. Having to endure all of the pathetic rhetoric flung Trump's way, especially from Democrats, to have 20 high-priced lawyers that donated to Clinton must have been unsettling for him, and for a lot of people. It would be like a Black man on trial with 12 card-carrying KKK members as the jurors. Or a White man on trial with 12 antifa members as the jurors. Maybe they would be fair, maybe not. The perception is not favorable to that outcome. That was my whole point. Why did Mueller choose a team with most, if not all, Clinton donors? If he thought these were the best, so be it. But the perception is that such a partisan looking team would probably not be fair. Why bring that element into the equation? And the report does not provide evidence whether they were biased or not. Since you have indicated you are okay with the Mueller team, are you okay with other homogeneous groups in charge of investigating/judging others who are not like them? Are perceived partisan groups okay in all situations, or just when it involves Trump? Your question of my posts makes your last statement mute. But even if my interpretation was as you guessed, I would not have a lot of explaining to do. Trump donated to both sides, in my opinion to curry favor. Did the lawyers donate to Hillary (and just Hillary/Democrats) in an attempt to gain favoritism? And even if Trump donated to Democrats only, considering he lived in New York that would not be a big deal. Trump has never been a true Conservative. 
  4. Can't help but wonder

    You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you? Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.
  5. Can't help but wonder

    So you agree that a homogeneous group can be fair and unbiased when judging someone that "doesn't look like them". The person being judged should have no worries that the group of "judges" will be fair despite their differences/attitude towards the person being judged.
  6. Can't help but wonder

    If a jury is made up of twelve White guys judging the guilt/innocence of a Black defendant, you find no problem with that? If so, I'm with you. Don't let stereotypes or past history of the "judges" or prosecutors influence their abilities to do their jobs. Judge each person by their abilities, not the color of their skin...or their ideological leanings. Kudos Coach Frey, we agree that diversity is a non-issue and that a homogeneous group does have the ability to conclude unbiased judgements. Agree?
  7. Anyone who ventures into a Walmart and claims they can smell the candidate of choice must be possessed by something.
  8. If I had around 20 high-priced veteran lawyers ready to pounce on my every word, and who I knew were not fans, and had a history of perjury traps, my number of "I don't recall" answers would be equal to the number of questions asked.
  9. UT Alum, please answer Nash's pertinent question and explain how Trump can be a clown by forgetting 37 times, but Comey can plead ignorance 200+ times without such retribution or suspicion? In fact, please refute your obvious TDS symptoms by laying out a basis for your "clown" comment. Keep in mind that your "evidence" must apply across the board...in which your analysis will be understandably ridiculed. 
  10. Can't help but wonder

    I'm sure you've heard that saying a whole lot in your lifetime. It's not surprising you would use it inappropriately though. I'm guessing an extreme case of TDS can bring this on, or is it just natural for you?
  11. Socialized Medicine Anyone?

    Source? Do you have any credible evidence for that statement? Do you think anyone can take you serious with such crude and unimaginative accusations that you formulate out of thin air?
  12. to what party does this DA belong?

    Can I get this guys address? Maybe I will help myself to $749 worth of his "necessary" stuff. And I guess I should brings some "friends in need" with me. We can each get $749 worth of his stuff.
  13. He did that how? Can you elaborate on how your analytical skills guided you to this conclusion? Is that more laughter?
  14. I can understand the first part of your post. Unintelligent people often laugh to mask their lack of understanding. The second part of your post is a flat out lie. You make stuff up all the time. After all of your blunders, illogical and baseless rationale displayed on this thread alone, you still feel embolden with the condescending attitude? Now that is entertainment.
  15. Let's see if we can dumb this down for you: ABC Liberal NBC Liberal CBS Liberal MSNBC Liberal CNN Liberal Fox News Conservative Did you purposely leave off ABC, NBC and CBS? Or did you conveniently forget that those channels exist?   Who did you refer to as stupid? It's like a kindergartner calling his teacher stupid. How embarrassing that you can't understand simple math.