Englebert

Another "A Modest Proposal"? Unlike Jonathon Swift, I don't think this guy is being satirical.

1. Newton 2. Beckville 3. Beaumont West Brook 4. Manvel 5. Barbers Hill 6. Port Arthur Memorial 7. Huntsville 8. Goose Creek Memorial 9. Jasper 10. West Orange-Stark 11. East Chambers 12. Hamshire-Fannett 13. Orangefield 14. Lumberton 15. Buna 16. Madisonville 17. Evadale 18. Hull-Daisetta 19. Trinity School of Texas 20. Beaumont Kelly Catholic 21. Orange Community Christian 22. Baytown Christian 23. Houston Emery-Weiner 24. Deweyville 25. Hardin

This quote should be immortalized right up there with the most terrorizing quote ever... "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

1. Beaumont West Brook 2. Houston St. Pius X 3. Port Arthur Memorial 4. New Caney 5. Magnolia 6. Port Neches-Groves 7. Nederland 8. Buna 9. Liberty 10. Jasper 11. Hardin-Jefferson 12. Woodville 13. Anahuac 14. Diboll 15. Huntington 16. Orangefield 17. East Chambers 18. Newton 19. San Augustine 20. West Hardin 21. Hull-Daisetta 22. Joaquin 23. West Sabine 24. Beaumont Kelly 25. Splendora

Will you post the scores Friday night? 😊 I haven't seen this "debate" so far this year, so I figured I would get the ball rolling on it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anyone who ventures into a Walmart and claims they can smell the candidate of choice must be possessed by something.

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.

I just now read UT Alum's post, and was all set to reply with a short, stinging exposure of his glaring TDS statement...but then read your reply. Mine was almost identical. In fact...yours is probably better, in that I was probably going to add the TDS aspect in schoolboy fashion. 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.

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?

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?

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.

He did that how? Can you elaborate on how your analytical skills guided you to this conclusion? Is that more laughter?

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.

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.

If all you see are snowflake tears then you are obviously staring at a mirror. Why do you think I'm crying? What tidbit of evidence led you to this conclusion? Was it the voices in your head? Where does ABC, CBS, and NBC rank? Did you purposely leave those off in order to move Fox News up to #1...in essence, manufacturing fake news? I'm guessing someone pulled your puppet strings and fed you those stats, knowing you were not bright enough to catch on to the real picture. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? Is it natural stupidity, or stupidity brought on by extreme hatred?

I got a question you are sure to run from. When you posted the viewership numbers, did you think the board members where so stupid that they/we would not noticed that you left off the bigger mainstream media outlets? Were you intentionally attempting to manufacture a false narrative in the hopes that we would fall hook, line, and sinker to such propaganda? Or was the real reason you posted misleading data was that you yourself didn't understand the context...and though you had a "gotcha" moment. I'm leaning towards the latter, and am curious as to your feelings of why the laughter continues. And I am very surprised that you would bring this topic back to the top, considering it contains your blunder and obvious humiliation.

Thanks for beating me to a response of his claims. Due to the condescending tone in his post, my response would have included a whole lot of colorful words.

I'm not necessarily highly offended (offended, yes) by her "someone did something" line. It was crude, ill-advised, and dismissive about a deeply hurtful attack on our country, but I think her point was that the attack was perpetrated by individuals, not representatives of Muslims. If this her position, I still wholeheartedly disagree with it, as the attacks were carry out in the name of Islam. And she should be extremely criticized for making that statement, especially as a sitting member of Congress. What troubles me more is her next line...which is a flat out lie. She said that Muslims "are starting to lose our civil liberties". This statement highly offends me. She should be ordered to prove which civil liberties Muslims have lost...and if/when she can't prove it, be removed from office. Not censured, removed. She uses an unprovoked attack on the United States to play victim. That is truly disgusting.

Don't lie. You read it. Someone so vain could not help themself. You could not formulate even an adolescent response, so your response seems to be your go-to self-defense mechanism. Again, how are you not embarrassed? I planned on moving on, because history has shown you childishly MUST have the last word. But I have to ask before dropping this topic. Do you feel you are "yanking my chain"? I have no doubt you will try to claim such at a later date, so let's just get this out of the way now. Do you claim intellectual superiority, moral superiority, or comical relief for the entertainment of the board? You've tried this type of proclamation before (which was hysterical by the way), but I would like to get you on record so you can reference this post at an appropriate time. After thoroughly embarrassing yourself for your lack creativity, intellect, or analytical abilities, will you later claim you were just "yanking my chain". I'm laughing so hard right now it's hard to type...but you will probably draw the silly conclusion that I am "triggered" by your "chain yanking". No need for a response, we all know the depths of your abilities. See you on the next topic you are sure to scuttle.