Englebert

I'll give you the short story. We used to have plenty of mental institutions in the U.S. But many people decided that too many people were being held in these institutions. Families were dumping their problem members into these institutions. Many felt that these people should be cared for/dealt with by their own families, instead of being the ward of the American taxpayer...thus the push to close down the facilities. Now there seems to be a slight push to go back to government run institutions. Will the same issues arise again? You bet. The problem facing America is determining who really needs to be institutionalized, and who is gaming the system. There is currently no clear cut "right" or "wrong" answers.

Do you know why there is not a mental facility in the city or surrounding area? Do you know why most were closed in America?

And you would have been on board with Dems and media screaming at Trump as immoral, deranged, unfit to hold office, blah, blah, blah for doing that. And the wall would still have no funding. Trump has shown that Pelosi and the Dems are willing to hurt the American people in order to prevent him from succeeding on a campaign promise. Does Pelosi's political game sound savvy to you?

Have you read about the history of how we treat mental illness in America? I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I'm just curious if you know about our history. Where is the line for too much regulation? Where is the line for too little regulation? It is not a simple issue. And fyi, we do not have a way of determining who will become violent and who will not.

Would you care to give your analysis on how we keep guns out of the "wrong" hands? Please list your qualifications, or disqualifiers for owning a gun. If we implement your pending suggestions, would guns be allowed to be in the right hands and disallowed to be in the wrong hands?

Trump hasn't caved. He is setting up an end-run around Congress...and end-run that has shown to be justified.

Trump exposed Pelosi and the Dems for who they truly are. If Trump would have just proclaimed a national emergency, Pelosi, Schumer and the complicit Liberal media would be screaming from the rafters that Trump made an unnecessary and unconstitutional end-run around Congress. Now that he has shown the Dems refuse to negotiate, he is justified in going around them. Naturally the Dems and media will still be screaming, but those screams will now sound very, very hollow...and childish. So no, the shut down was not useless. It exposed the childishness of the Dems and took away their excuses for not doing their job. Unfortunately, it seems that both parties do not want to touch the illegal immigration issue. Luckily Trump is not one of those. He actually does want to get something done. Step one, build that big, bad, scary, immoral, monstrosity, eye-sore wall. Make it bigger and stronger than the one Obama built around his house.

Trump does have a "backup" plan. The Dems said they would not negotiate unless the government was open. So he is calling their bluff and daring them to negotiate by opening the government. No more excuses, no more running from the job they are being paid to do. If they don't (as expected), he will declare a national emergency and build the wall. Let's see what happens in three weeks. Do you think Pelosi and her balls will cry? Will you? I'm almost willing to bet that after two or two and half weeks, the dems will start crying that they don't have enough time to get an agreement, demanding that they be given an extension. It really says a lot when you claim Trump closed the government all by himself. He said he would take the blame...because when talking to children...you do stuff like that to further the conversation. All Pelosi and Schumer care about is who will be blamed. They couldn't care less about how many Americans are hurt...as long as they don't get blamed. Power at all cost. And you fell for their childish antics hook, line, and sinker.

I'm curious as to how long it will take some numskull to accuse me of equating illegals with poop.

Walls don't work...just like toilets don't work. Would anybody like to defend Nancy Pelosi and the Liberal position that a wall will not work? Is a wall not technically capable of deterring an invasion? Is better technology the best (and most cost efficient) solution...so much so that centuries old ingenuity is obsolete? Do we need to improve old (but proven) technology with 21st century electronic gadgetry? What about the pea trap? Should this accessory be considered "modern" technology? My question to Liberals would be: If the toilet was non-existent today, how do you think a modern engineer would solve the need for one? Would a computer chip be involved? Would we want Pelosi in charge of dictating the specs of said invention? My shower drain plugged today. After using Drano and Liquid-Plumr to no avail, I thought about sending down my flexible stick camera to access the situation. But the tried and true old fashioned plunger fixed the problem...which led me to this food for thought. Please feel free to respond.

FIFY History has shown over and over and over that is fact and not opinion. But shockingly, more and more people keep clamoring for bigger government...begging to be controlled. I just don't get it. Sorry to butt in on y'alls conversation. Carry on.

Pelosi and Biden are "enlightened", so nothing else matters.

Why would you say you must have touched a nerve? I did not imply anything other than wanting an explanation of your statement. You stated that "'WE' have been pulling the life out of her for years". I'm assuming you mean Man has been pulling...implying Man is the culprit of seemingly climate change. If that was your contention, then I would like further evidence to substantiate that claim. What would you like to be enlightened about? You make an assertion, then ask me to clarify? I don't recall "debate" working that way. If you want to blame Man for perceived disruption of the climate, then by all means...back it up. I hope I didn't touch a nerve for having the audacity to ask you to clarify one of your own statements.

I don't know how to interpret that statement in any other way than accusing Man as the causation of every climate fluctuation of Earth. I would like to get a clarification.

What factors has Man perpetuated that leads you to believe we've been "pulling the life out of [Earth] for years" which will cause the Earth to blow? I would like to know these factors as they relate to an increase in volcanic activity and polar migration (the topics of this post). We can venture into other phenomenons as well, but let's stick to the topic at hand first. So please elaborate on what you think is the Man-made casual factors of these two things.

Maybe we can buy carbon credits to stall the pending eruption. Yeah, that should work. Or maybe we can send billions of American taxpayer dollars to foreign countries. Yep, that should also work. If not, we can always just pass a law forbidding the eruption.

You are just too funny. I'm surprised you try to engage in psychoanalysis when you have no training, and you are incredibly bad at it. Apparently you have zero insight into your own shortcomings (lack of self-awareness). It doesn't take formal training to see that. You make pathetic statements and I challenge you to back them up or simply call out the incorrect or untruthfulness of them. You lash out or deflect because you cannot justify you own statements. You get mad because I have the audacity to call you out on your own statements. So, I challenge you to justify your statements about me. Show were I am stuck and afraid of change. Show where I think my shortcomings are perfect. Show where I think I'm better than everyone else. These are just prime examples of your naive, immature, childish statements that you cannot defend. It seems these evolve from a vain attempt to "save face" by lashing out at the one that challenges you. So give some examples that lead to your conclusions (we are in need of some more laughs). And fyi, I did not call you a moron. I cloaked a statement in an analogy to show the absurdity of your statements. You (predicatively) misinterpreted that as a direct descriptor. Now given your subsequent posts, was the analogy prophetic? Is it still opinion or is it now fact? Given your demonstrated inability to distinguish between the two, this might be a tough one for you. Giving a forum for someone to show their true colors is all I've done. You childishly engaged in such admission, and predicatively lashed out when you cannot defend your own pathetic statements. You don't seem to be having any fun...and it's easy to see why. Embarrassed yet? If not, you should be.

That is definitely an opinion. Since you don't know the difference...you're welcome.

You trying to take the high road...now that's entertainment. Coming from someone that doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion, you are quite amusing. Maybe the United States Attorney General can explain the difference to you. And it's probably best you refrain from responding. Each post you offer shows your lack of intelligence.

The toddlers are laughing at you again. Let's see if we can attempt an explanation this way: You are a moron. Your posts leave no shadow of a doubt that you are a moron. Is that a fact or an opinion?

And you have been proven wrong. It is your opinion, just as I stated in my first post on this...one that you tried to argue. Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? Your previous posts emphatically scream "NO".

So it's all opinion, not "fact"...which was my only point. Why are you trying to argue against the obvious?

Do you think the millions of Russian citizens consider their own country a threat to the U.S.? Do you think many Russian citizens consider the U.S. a threat to Russia? Do you consider the U.S. a threat to Russia? Is this your opinion or is it fact?

You definitely quoted the correct post on this one. And it is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to have a "debate" with someone that doesn't know fact from opinion, which is the only thing I was challenging. Do you really think you possess debating skills? Now that is funny.

I highly doubt that. Then again, you tend to read what you want to read, then employ mental gymnastics to make everything fit into your own alternate reality...so then again, maybe you did enjoy it. I know we enjoyed laughing at you.