Englebert

You started it. Don't blame that crap on me. I have the audacity to challenge you on your obvious blunder, and you try to make me the "bad guy". You chose to engage in the pissing contest by challenging my comprehension skills, then want to play victim when confronted in kind. It's pretty sad when you can't own up to your own statements, and really ridiculous when you try to blame others for your childishness. I could have chosen the high road, but I no longer feel that does any good. Attacking probably doesn't either, so...

Maybe it's your comprehension skills. I started off with "I guess you feel" because that is what you said was the way you feel. I could have been blunt and direct, but considering your reaction... You said that Trump should act better towards people here. I asked why should he. You then blew up and tried to accuse me of inaccurately portraying your feelings...the feelings you put on full display all by yourself. Would you like to clarify how you think I inaccurately portrayed your comment or continue the deflection of your faux pas?

Wow, comprehension is not your friend. Let's try this one more time. I did not portray what you said inaccurately. You said Trump should treat people here better. I asked why should he, considering the way he is treated by them. What is so hard to understand about that? Considering your displayed lack of comprehension, do you really feel qualified to get into a pissing contest? I'm game if that is where you want to go.

So what was inaccurate about it? How did I embellish? All I did was clarify your own statement about how you, yourself stated you feel. You said Trump should act more respectful of others here. I remarked "Why should he", considering the way they treat him. And that embellishes or misrepresents your statement how?

No, it was very accurate. You said you wished Trump would show more decorum. I illustrated the "decorum" that has been shown to him does not deserve a respectful response. What part of that do you think is an inaccurate picture.

I'm guessing you feel that the members of Congress and others that regularly direct vile comments at Trump, call for his impeachment, analyze his motives as a wanna-be dictator, spew hateful rhetoric, etc, etc, etc...are deserving of tasteful and respectful adulation from Trump.

Like what? Can you give some examples?

Your choice of "evidence" of racism illustrates an over reliance and utter dependency on Liberal propaganda. But yet you will undoubtedly accuse us of blinding following Conservative talking points, even after you laughably coughed up these gems. Remind us again of who started the "birther" movement. Was it the same person that called half of America "deplorables"?

You are a pedophile. I don't have to back up my accusations, I can just levy them. And don't dare try to claim I'm lying or this is fake news. Sounds pathetically silly doesn't it.

The downgrade happened in 2011, three years into Obama's reign. Standard & Poors issued the downgrade because of the poor outlook of American policies and RISING debt, not the crash perpetuated by the housing crisis. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] What policies did Obama enact that kept the economy from burning?

I'll agree with Kountzer and UT alum on this one. I for one am still pissed about the rising debt (or any debt), but too many Republicans don't ever mention it when they have control. At least the Democrats don't try to hide the fact that they have zero fiscal responsibility. It's seems to be just all talk with the Republicans. The Republicans simply have no backbone. They are scared to cut pork spending because they are afraid the Liberal media will trash them for it. (And the media surely will.) That is one thing I like about Trump...he doesn't care what the media will say. I wish he would focus a lot more attention to government waste, fraud, and abuse. The problem though is that neither side is willing to do what needs to be done. Maybe he knows it is a insurmountable task due to unwillingness on both sides, but I sure would like to see him call out each and every fiscally irresponsible Congressman (all 99% of them). Then again, it would probably lead to his impeachment.

How about knocking yourself out with getting to the task of providing data that shows that Man is the main cause for so-called global warming. It's easy to see why you want to get bogged down in the "who's lying, who's telling the truth" antics, because that deflects from the main question of who/what is the cause. It deflects from the question of whether or not the so-called global warming is destructive, and totally ignores other causal factors. Again, you cannot provide one iota of evidence, but yet want to continually spout the crap that Man has to be the cause. How about focusing on the main questions. It's not a hard concept, but oh so hard to prove. If you can provide that evidence, then we can debate the truthfulness of your links.

The first link you posted is just hilarious. We can skip the fact that these statistics are based on altered/manipulated data and that many scientists disagree with these "findings". Let's just focus on what is missing in this propaganda garbage that you find compelling (like a good little sheeple). Where is any evidence that Man is the source of the so-called warming? Where is the evidence that natural factors (volcanos, plate techtonics, lunar factors, solar factors, etc.) are not the overwhelmingly major factors in the so-called warming? No scientist worth a grain of salt would dare declare a causal effect until mitigating factors are taken into account. But since the audience seems to be capitulating sheeple that can't think for themselves, the propagandists feel empowered to trample all over scientific methodology. And that statement is directed straight towards you, considering I'm still laughing at the last sentence of your post. So instead of regurgitating propaganda, please offer some evidence of a link between Man's activity and a rise in Earth's temperature. When you fail miserably at that task, you can attempt to provide evidence that an increase in Earth's temperature is necessarily detrimental and destructive to Earth's health. Would you like to embarrass yourself with this endeavor? Or you can just admit you are a tin-foil hat wearing sheeple that likes to regurgitate mind numbing dribble...dribble that a free thinking person can quickly and easily discern. It seems you have a daunting task ahead in order to save face. I bet you fail miserably.

The last time you were challenged to a debate on this topic you ran like a frightened schoolgirl. You now attempt to insult sane people, then cower off again when called out. And I fully admit the childish insults will be flying. I fully admit I will stoop to your level and "debate" in kind. It is you that hilariously tries to flaunt dignity when throwing a childish temper tantrum.

I'm guessing your post is directed at Man Made Global Warming skeptics, and is some sort of childish attempt to demean our stance. It sure seems that you are laughably trying to argue that MMGW skeptics are the science deniers, while the tin foil hat doom and gloom sheeple are on the side of tried and true scientific methodology. Do I have this assumption correct? Would you like to debate who is actually the science deniers in this topic? Fair warning, it can only get even more embarrassing for you.

You don't see any "facts" in MMGW so-called "scientific" papers either. Just a bunch of opinions based on altered/manipulated data.

It shows. And it makes you look foolish. Well...more foolish. And your post was a horrible attempt at justification and deflection. Do you think the readers on this board are so stupid that they would fall for such mindless dribble? Or is it just a case of "the best you could do"?

When that subject was posted on this forum, the posters on here condemned that act. I guess you just read what you want to read. In fact, it sounds like your post was just a diatribe of self-reflection.

Maybe if we tell the Dems that we will build an elevated high speed rail train along the border, with supporting beams 6 inches apart, they will allocate as much money as needed...and then some.

Can we add Adam Schiff? After all, he is a Congressman on the committee that investigated the Trump/Russia collusion theory. He said that "there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight". He actually says this with a straight face, but yet when pressed to offer that evidence, he continually runs. For that stone-faced lie, I contend he should at least get a nomination.

Don't forget the whopper she told of her landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. She claimed she was too tired to remember correctly...and the Dems cheered her claims (lies). One can only imagine if Trump had the audacity to pull something like this.

Do you like throwing out generalized stereotypes in protest of what you think is a generalized stereotyped statement? What is the word for someone like that? Reagan mentioned 3 people in his statement. These three have some things in common, such as gender and Liberal ideology. You laughably contend that Reagan's ire is directed at gender, even after his last sentence clearly showed the contrary. Are you proud of yourself for engaging in such misleading slander...or did you not "get it".

I was literally laughing out loud when I saw a clip of his speech. While he was obfuscating about the absurdity of "walls", the wall behind him was in full view. I'm curious as to what would happen to an "undocumented" attendee who would have the audacity to scale his wall. Would his security team give that person free health care, a guaranteed wage, free college tuition, etc., for invading his rally? Would Beto want that person evicted? Would he offer him a MAGA hat?

I came to that same conclusion about two years ago, and decided to fight back with like tactics. It sure drives the Socialists (former Democrat party) mad.

I suggest you continue. I undoubtedly will induce a gutter brawl...after all, I aspire to entice one to share (admit) their inner most feelings through less than admirable (Liberal) tactics. You are much better at debating the issue. I would still like UT alum to answer my question though.