Englebert

Maybe we can "collude" with the Russians (or a high school computer geek) to hack into the DNC emails to get the real number. Hopefully no one will wind up dead in the process.

You must be the little brother.

Boy are your analytical skills out of whack. The Conservatives are not the party of hate. That would be you and your Liberal party, formerly know as the Democrat party.

I still don't see your analogy lines. Politicians are very much real, just use fake talking points to keep themselves in position. If you are trying to equate fake talking points with being a fake person, then okay. Seems like too far of a stretch to me. I wish politicians were more like the Superfriends, but they tend to act more like the people the Superfriends fight.

And that is similar to Superfriends how?

I'm surprised you don't like Paul Ryan. He wants to expand government, just like you do. He wants the government to run our lives from cradle to grave, just like you do. He wants to confiscate money from the working class people and redistribute it to those without, just like you do. Y'all might be brothers.

Care to explain?

You might think it is funny, but we are the ones laughing...and we are not laughing with you. We know you constantly quote the Liberal talking points. Republicans think for themselves, while Liberals are the little sheeple that walk in lock-step with their almighty leaders. This fact is well documented even in your alternate history books. Even you can't deny it, even though you make feeble attempts at it. I feel sorry for the true Democrats that are left, having to watch their once proud party being ruined by Liberals. Your retort just piles on more evidence of the destruction of the Democrat party. Deny, deny, deny, blame, blame, blame, pass judgement, pass judgment pass judgment, label, label, label. All of your posts can pretty much be summed up into one of these categories.

An analogy is an analogy. It would only be dehumanizing for someone trying to read too much into an analogy. As far as Point A, we don't know who injected the grapes, therefore have no way to determine the good from the bad. And for Point C, the foolish endeavor was eating the grapes, i.e. taking your chances and hoping you guess right as opposed to the prudent act of ensuring safety but not being able to enjoy the fruit.

It's just too addictive. I was supposed to get back to work 20 minutes ago.

Then my analogy was spot on.

I played a friend in golf a while back. We decided to play match play. I won 12 of the 18 holes. He beat me in overall score. When he whined about having the lower overall score, I didn't say a word. I just waved my winnings in front of his face. He never said another would about it...unlike some that constantly whine even though they knew the rules.

I have no problem getting along with people that I don't see eye-to-eye. But when someone makes an accusation, then it is their duty to back up their contentions. And I bet it would bother you a whole lot if people started accusing you of pedophilia, especially since you are in the Education field. That could be very damaging to your career. And that is my whole point. You accused a person of stereotyping a group of people, then want to run and hide without explanation. That is just not right, and is potentially harmful. If you want to spout an opinion, be prepared to back it up. If you have reasons for labeling someone, then give those reasons. I might not agree with you, and that's fine. But to throw out an accusation without explanation is just flat out wrong. On a side note, I really appreciate you giving the scores and updates on the soccer and baseball forums. I wish we had more like you to take the time to do this. For this, I give you a big thank you. And please keep posting them.

You advocate for every government expenditure proposed, and are constantly saying "what has the government done for me". You can deny all you want, but it is easy to deduce your mindset.

How would you feel if they acted like Obama...never admitting failure and always blaming others for his failures? If I had to pick between the two, I would take the crude non-PC talk over blaming others any day.

And you still want to increase the size and scale of the Federal government. That is incomprehensible to most.

But here you are debating. I'm curious as to what part of my analogy you think is incorrect. If you want to offer an opinion on a subject, especially when you are accusing others of negatively stereotyping a group of people, it's your duty to back up your claims. I guess I could claim you are a pedophile then simply say I won't debate. Now that wouldn't be very nice would it.

Or you only hear what you want to hear.

What part do you disagree with?

Your hero Bill Clinton has been accused by multiple people of actually doing the thing Trump only talked about, but you show no outrage about that little tidbit of truth.

If you have a bowl of grapes, and 3 of the grapes have been injected with cyanide, are you going to eat any of the grapes? And if not, does this necessarily mean you are claiming that all of the grapes are poisonous, i.e. labeling all grapes as bad? Most people will say the whole bowl is spoiled, not because they are attributing the bad characteristics of a few to the whole group, because they know some are good and some are rotten. The good ones cannot be identified from the bad ones, therefore you avoid the whole bowl. This is not stereotyping, this is being realistically cautious. If you want to eat the grapes, be my guest. But don't force me to indulge in the foolish endeavor until we find a satisfactory solution of identifying the good ones from the bad ones. I love grapes, but will throw out the whole bunch if I believe one in the bunch will kill me.

I'm not sure why you quoted me for your reply. And I'm not sure why you think that people on here do not want to help the truly needy. I guess when your Liberal leaders pound that lie into your skull then you capitulate. And it is particularly amusing that you feel you have the ability to analyze the internal thinking of Trump voters. Just because you are easily manipulated by the media doesn't mean all are. And your example is truly revealing as to your lack of understanding of many voters who vehemently did not want Hillary for president. You say you try to figure out who truly deserves help, but then advocate for the Federal government to seize wages from the American worker to re-distribute to the "needy". The Federal government has repeatedly shown (and even admitted by you) that it is terrible at running these types of programs, and yet you advocate for more. If you were sincere in helping the needy you would advocate for more charities who are far and away more adept in identifying who is truly needy.

What's sad is that you feel the need to comment on a bill you know nothing about. I would be willing to bet the farm that if this was a Democrat proposal you would be praising it's virtues. Regardless, you will comment exactly the way your Liberal gods tell you to comment. Now that is just sad.

I'm sorry if you can't understand simplistic statements. But what's very sad is you choose to comment on them, thus exposing to everyone your lack of understanding.

Only to you. Everybody else got it.