Englebert

The Big12 will get at least 3 teams in, provided Tech doesn't win the tourney. Texas, Texas Tech, and tourney champion (automatic bid) are all guarantees.

For protection against aforementioned problems. Do you really want to inject your wing-nut, glutted diaper, whiny, un-American Liberal policies into this topic?

That's like saying Telly Savalas had a head full of hair. Or like saying Too Tall Jones was a short man. Or Mama Cass was too skinny. Or James Harden has a clean shaven face. Or Hitler was a great man (ooops, Farrakhan actually did say that.)

George Will is in need of a safe space filled with Play-doh and puppies. That's where one goes when placing heavy emphasis on cherry-picked criteria to further a false narrative. The exposure of true colors continues. And no, I'm not yet tired of winning. Keep it up Trump and Pence, and please accelerate the pace of MAGA. The Liberals hate America so much they can't even celebrate when American captors are rescued...all due to the ideology of the rescuers. All they can do is whine and deflect to personal attacks to prevent acknowledgement of accomplishments. I'm sure the Liberals are hurriedly strategizing on how to give Obama credit for Kim Jong-un's release of the American captors, and naturally concoct new personal attacks on any Conservative. You can focus on a sad, bitter little man's hateful rhetoric. Me, I'll celebrate the many accomplishments of the Trump administration. It's been a long time since I've had anything to celebrate in the political theater (sans the last year of course).

Considering the phrase, men are from Mars, women are from Venus, it seems maybe that woman contribute more to "Climate Change" than men: [Hidden Content] Seriously though, according to all reputable sources, the "Climate Change" debate has been over for a long time, even as more and more controvertible evidence emerges. We haven't even scratched the surface yet of understanding Earth's climate, and this is just another example of that fact. The Man-Made Global Warming theorists (science deniers) will undoubtedly shrug this off as fake news...and will continue to heave barbs and name-calling at those of us who find it interesting and baffling as to why such an abundance of theories get little to no attention if Man is not the main culprit. I did find it comical that the last paragraphs had to throw in the very, very unsubstantiated caveat that Man is still the culprit...while providing zero supporting evidence. I guess the author was trying to save his job or stave off death threats.

I'm curious to know if you used this particular type of retort when responding to Obama's many, many, many actions that were evoked when he was in a position of power. The whole idea of a person being a bully versus a person acting in good faith is one hundred percent subjective, even to a child. For you to try the worn out and condescending ploy of the Webster definition puts you squarely in the realm of childishness. But that's to be expected from a narrow-minded bigot incapable of 6th+ grade thought. Dumbing down a conversation is the only way you can participate. Since you consider the 2nd amendment subject to restrictions (gleaned from other posts) for people incapable of exercising that right, shouldn't we be just as or even more cognizant of those incapable of exercising the 1st amendment. Please, please, please give your best answer. I have a Webster's definition waiting for your reply. And I'm shocked that you dare resurrect you pathetic posts after practically all of your previous posts have been proven to be 100% inaccurate. And that percentage is being nice. But please keep posting so we have some entertainment value. Sorry to be so blunt, but your posts scream for professional help.

Do you actually believe that we can't see your avoidance of the question? The childish deflection is just comical. So let's try this again. What controversial views are you alluding to? Are you actually stating that worshipping on Sunday is a controvertible view in America? Please tell me you have something else. And please, please, please tell me you can back up your statements at least on this one. You are o'fer so far. Please get on the scoreboard and give us a cogent defense of your "controversial" statements.

And somehow you equate that to racism. Wow. Double wow. Why won't you admit your problem, and quit trying to cover it up by saying (laughably mind you) that the problem lies with us? You made a race allegation, cannot back it up, then try to deflect by attacking others. Classic Liberalism. Too bad we've caught on to the tactic. Try that first step. It might unleash all the hate you have bottled up inside and free your mind to see reality. There is an old saying that is very relevant here: When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. Frankly, I don't want you to heed that advice. I want you to keep digging/posting for the off chance someone hasn't realized the extent of your hate, you will leave no doubt. I doubt if there is anyone left, so maybe just for our entertainment value.

Yep, I didn't think you could ascend the intelligence scale. Just admit it, you fanaticize and manufacture racism claims, then get pissed when someone finally calls you on it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step in solving the problem.

Was that directed at me? If so, can you explain what you mean? I have no idea.

You accuse someone of racism, I ask you to provide evidence, you refuse, then deflect to personal attacks on me. I don't mind, and respond in kind, but don't you find it comical that you get so upset for the mere fact that someone dare insult you by asking you to provide evidence of your assertions. You then make statements that you "don't have to prove anything". Sounds like it's time for the old pedophile treatment. You are a pedophile. What age kids do you prefer? What gender do you prefer? How many times can I make baseless allegations before someone starts believing them? And don't you dare have the audacity to ask me for proof. You are a pedophile and that is all there is to it. I don't have to prove anything. How does that treatment feel?

I'm with stevenash, what are the controversial views you allude to?

And Nancy Pelosi said that Trump fired Mueller. Must be from the same source.

But somehow you made it through reading a whole bunch of non-sense of the Christians sinking the Titanic. You must have been sneezing and wheezing a whole lot during that hell you put yourself through. Please tell me you can do a lot better than this childish jab. If you are going to keep responding, I'm hoping I can expect more of an ascension on the intelligence scale, but I'm not very confident.

I guess that's why I was asked to leave a Starbucks...because of their evolving environment. This issue made the national news solely due to that? What's the word I'm looking for? It's not "non-issue", rather...hmmm. I'll have to go back to the beginning of this thread to remember what allegations you made.

And where is the racism? You have been asked plenty of times to defend yourself. Embarrassed yet? It seems there is an agenda to make race an issue where it doesn't exist. Now tell us again who is guilty of that.

You original position was that this was a race issue. I asked you to back up that claim. You did not, and still won't (can't). I never once argued that this situation was handled correctly or incorrectly. The only comments I made was to ask you and Kountzer to back up your allegations of racism. And I'm still waiting...and laughing at your "disillusionment". It's comical when you try to chastise, berate, insult a person for asking you to defend your own statement. Maybe this is why I decided to join in on the fun...only, I can and will defend my statements.

You never answered the question. In fact you ran from it, was challenged again (and again), and you still won't answer the question. But somehow you feel shameless enough to keep posting. This is normally what happens when someone is forced to actually defend what they post. They can't, so they either run or deflect. We are used to this type of dribble, but I still sometimes feel the need to point out the blatant bias. Keep wallowing in your hate, we will keep pointing it out. Just for giggles, I'll ask again for the umpteenth time. Can you show evidence of racism in this situation? You made the allegation, so please back it up. Why are you so scared to answer a simple little question based entirely on your own postulation? Or we can talk about your feelings towards me some more.

The claims of lead in water pipes causing insanity/criminality have been going on since at least the 1960s. One of the more prevalent theories of the fall of the Roman Empire is due to lead pipes. I have no idea if your links have any merit, but history has shown little chance. I will flat out admit I did not give a thorough reading to either article, so I will not comment as to the validity of evidence. I will only say I'm highly skeptical of any conclusions because this same theory has been floated for at least a minimum of 50+ years with no substantiated merit. I will equate these allegations as similar to allegations of rampant racism. If these hypotheses hit the main stream media or evoke national attention, then I will give a more thorough examination.

The thing that scares me more than the ability to create false "evidence", is the increasing tendency for people to react to information that has no substance or verification. The Starbucks situation happening right now is a prime example. Sane people will seek evidence before formulating an opinion. But not only are people formulating opinions based on no evidence, they are acting out on these flawed opinions before actual facts can even be scrutinized or debated. The practice of negative stereotyping is rampant on the Liberal side, which is ironic considering that is one practice they pretend to abhor. If a situation occurs (fake video/pictures) that seems to conform to the Liberal stereotypes, then outrage must be immediate, overt and loud. Again, so ironic. And this mentality can lead to chaos with easily faked "evidence" as suggested. It is scary. I'm not trying to insinuate that the Right can't be fooled with such tactics, but it seems that the Liberals are much, much more susceptible to pounce without any ponderance of evidence versus the prudence of the Right. Will any Liberal on here stand up and defend your side against my blatant attacks to your side's sanity? I know, I know, you can't right now after the pathetic confirmation of the biased attack on Starbucks...which fits this narrative to a tee. Come back to defend your honor when you think we have forgotten your massive faux pas, because it is clearly evident your minds will not be swayed from repeated slams of your flawed but absolute beliefs.

Please explain what is so bad about Christians supporting Trump. Do you want to be embarrassed even more?

I haven't read/heard much on this yet, but what little I have heard is that Gorsuch voted against because the law was too vague...not that the law was wrong. If that is true, I'm with him. But I will have to read more on this before forming an opinion. For example, when riding JetSkis you have to obey the 50-50-50 law (obviously that is the slang term and not the actual term). This means that you have to idle when within 50 feet of any swimmer, boat, or structure. But that is not exactly how the law reads. The law includes the word "object" as one of the things you must idle by when within 50 feet. Well, a fish is an object. The law is well intentioned, but is worded in a way that a rogue Game Warden can actually give you a ticket for riding a JetSki over 5mph anywhere. I don't know of this happening, but is technically possible. I'm am a stickler for getting the wording as correct as possible, and many laws are just plain pathetic in their wording.

Who told you that? Did the people that put him in power do so based solely on religious beliefs? What are some of the other mitigating factors that held weight on his hand-picked support? Do these factors outweigh the religious aspects? Please show your expertise on this subject so we can laugh then shred your arguments.

I am mystified that you keep trying to argue that if you are waiting for someone that somehow laws or protocol seems to magically vanish. Once again, the establishment can ask you to leave at their discretion. They can make this decision based on occupancy at the time, ignore their own regulations, or enforce their regulations. The establishment has that right, and can regulate as they deem necessary. You, as a customer, do not have the right to trespass. Why this concept seems foreign to you is just befuddling. But that is not the major issue here. The current protests, including your response, was never about an over-reaction as you state. You and the protesters have one agenda...y'all are protesting about race. PERIOD! Everyone knows that, and to deny it is just pathetic. But let's just digress and reiterate. It seems you have now turned tail (due to lack of evidence) and are trying to profit an "over-reaction" defense that is mysteriously not based on race. Are the thousands of Starbucks being closed so that their management can receive "over-reaction" training... or is the management receiving "racial bias" training (as publically stated)? Please don't insult me with your dull rhetoric. It is definitely true that there is an over-reaction being played out in this scenario, and that over-reaction is Starbucks over-reacting to an obvious but expected over-reaction by the race-baiting Liberals. The next time your get feverish about past mistreatment, keep in mind that thousands of innocent Starbucks employees have to endure ridicule and accusations of being racist because Liberals have nothing better to do than accuse everyone of being racist without ever providing one shred of proof. This type of "over-reaction" does nothing but sow the seeds of discourse and allows real racism to propagate and flourish. Maybe it's time that "race baiting" classes should become mandatory training.

It is very obvious of who is need of a mental competency test. Since you consider yourself enlightened enough to make a judgment about mental competency of others, do you think that a person who makes an accusation then runs when challenged to provide supporting evidence is mentally competent? I'm curious to get a diagnosis from an undocumented psychologist.