Englebert

Really? Are you whining about mistreatment? Do you feel like you have endured the same level of biased regimental abuse as Trump? One little (wrongly) perceived injustice and you cry like a baby. Do you fit the definition of what you would call a "Trumper"?

If you can't keep up, admit it. We understand.
If you can't find an adult, try to find a schoolkid (they are on summer break right now) to explain the links for you.

So you can't answer a simple question? It takes a "special" person to run from such simplicity while hurling insults.
Please answer the question. Show us the proof that children and grandchildren of that picture not only are related, but also failed to mature as the country has in the last 60 years. Do you know any of these children/grandchildren?
Do you unequivocally mimic what your grandparents believed in? Are you really this "special"? Please elaborate on your pathetic attempt of ridicule...thus opening up yourself to your own deserved ridicule. I bet you run and hide in a futile attempt to save face.

Yes.
Are you okay with a person voting without knowledge of the candidates? Should we have voter training?

Yes.
Are you okay with a person voting without knowledge of the candidates? Should we have voter training?

I came up with the idea for this forum several days ago when there were a bunch of interesting local stories, and there wasn’t really anywhere to talk about them.  This is a place for local news discussion.  I think we’ll have some really interesting conversations in here.  

I don't look at it that way at all. My opinion is that many people are baffled/exacerbated/pissed that an officer that kills a Black person is held to one standard, but an officer that kills a White person is held to a completely different standard. I don't want to speak for others, but that is my opinion of why this is an issue.
(Sorry for the late reply, but I haven't been keeping up with the topics here lately. My reply might have already been discussed further in this topic, considering I'm just now reading the first page.)

Does regression ring a bell when thinking of Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the current hysteria driven name is? That is Scientific regression. We actually have people taking pot shots aimed at people that adhere to scientific methodology, by insinuating that we are "Neanderthals" (thanks for the analogy Biden) for asking for proof of a "theory" that has less evidential proof than the United States faking the moon landing. Or less evidence than the "theory" that Steven King was the one that actually shot John Lennon. Or that the Holocaust never happened. Or that Katy Perry is actually Jonbenet Ramsey. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same exact job with the same experience as a man.
When do we start turning the tables by calling out the "Neanderthals" (thanks again Biden) for making such belittling statements. I guess I will start. If you believe what the media/politicians/fake climatologists have told you about Man Made Global Warming, and you are in favor of spending hard earned tax dollars to solve a problem that has never been proven to exist, then you are an Un-American deplorable (thanks Hillary) that has no business weighing in on a topic that is way beyond your comprehension. You are a detriment to the American (and the world) way of life. You need to learn your station and admit you are not capable of discussing issues with people of even moderate intellectual means. If you are offended...good. You deserve it. Put up or shut up. Show me the proof of your Climate Change religion. I bet none of you will. You've been challenged...and all I foresee is tails tucking between legs and running from the topic like a frightened schoolgirl.
I have no doubt that the Al Gore disciples will be totally silent and will not dare respond to this challenge, but will reappear in a later topic to continually ridicule people that simply ask for the proof, pretending that this challenge never existed. Anyone care to take that bet? 

Does regression ring a bell when thinking of Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the current hysteria driven name is? That is Scientific regression. We actually have people taking pot shots aimed at people that adhere to scientific methodology, by insinuating that we are "Neanderthals" (thanks for the analogy Biden) for asking for proof of a "theory" that has less evidential proof than the United States faking the moon landing. Or less evidence than the "theory" that Steven King was the one that actually shot John Lennon. Or that the Holocaust never happened. Or that Katy Perry is actually Jonbenet Ramsey. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same exact job with the same experience as a man.
When do we start turning the tables by calling out the "Neanderthals" (thanks again Biden) for making such belittling statements. I guess I will start. If you believe what the media/politicians/fake climatologists have told you about Man Made Global Warming, and you are in favor of spending hard earned tax dollars to solve a problem that has never been proven to exist, then you are an Un-American deplorable (thanks Hillary) that has no business weighing in on a topic that is way beyond your comprehension. You are a detriment to the American (and the world) way of life. You need to learn your station and admit you are not capable of discussing issues with people of even moderate intellectual means. If you are offended...good. You deserve it. Put up or shut up. Show me the proof of your Climate Change religion. I bet none of you will. You've been challenged...and all I foresee is tails tucking between legs and running from the topic like a frightened schoolgirl.
I have no doubt that the Al Gore disciples will be totally silent and will not dare respond to this challenge, but will reappear in a later topic to continually ridicule people that simply ask for the proof, pretending that this challenge never existed. Anyone care to take that bet? 

C'mon... The Cosby Show, the show that had Erkel, 227, Jackee', the Fresh Prince, Good Times, The Jeffersons, have all been around for decades.  I don't watch TV anymore, but I have caught an episode or two of Blackish and Empire.  
White History isn't "celebrated" every month... in fact, it's not celebrated at all.  
Your kid wasn't paying attention if that's all he learned about.  All I have is my high school diploma and a junky ol' business degree from Lamar and I can tell you all about Frederick Douglass, the Tuskegee Airmen, Harriet Tubman, Booker T Washington, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka, Martin Luther King, Jr, Thurgood Marshall, Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks, etc, etc, etc.... stop pretending that black History has been somehow ignored.  
My problem is this... If you want to have a Congressional Black Caucus, go right ahead.  But you can't be upset if somebody wants to have a group of White congressman.  That's just an example, but it's representative of the problem as a whole.  If somebody wants to form a black student union, it's all fine and dandy... but the instant that someone proposes a group to support white people, they're immediately branded as supremacists, white nationalists, racists, etc..... the double standard is appalling.  The idea that it's okay to celebrate your heritage only if you're black is preposterous and will ultimately lead to worse relations between the races.  I firmly believe that the constant demonization of the white segment of our society by the left is going to lead to results that none of us want.  
Serious question, though... how did your kid get into Baylor?  I'd have liked to send mine, but it wasn't in the cards.  You either a) have a lot more money than I do or b) have athletic gifts that enabled him to get an athletic scholarship or c) he's a preacher's kid or perhaps even got admission to fill some sort of quota based on his skin color. Either way, your kid got an opportunity that mine didn't.  That's just how it goes, though.... I'm glad that your kid got that chance and I hope he's taken full advantage of it.  Don't you think it's ironic that a kid who has had "privileges" that my kids didn't is still lying about how "he only learned about 3 black people in those traditional classes" as if he's somehow been oppressed?  

Why is Subway hiring a bully to try to sell their sandwiches? Can you imagine a scenario when you are about to enjoy your lunch, and some big bad bully knocks your food out of your hand? Should this person be allowed to be spokesperson for a company? Should this person be cancelled...fired from her job? After all, her job requires her to be a representative of the United States of America. Should we, as a country, condone this bullying behavior? Should Subway be cancelled for thrusting this behavior onto our society? (Sometimes it's fun to think like a Liberal.) Will Subway and the soccer "star" get a pass from the Liberals?
I go to Subway roughly about once a week for lunch. I think I will skip a few weeks. Will any anti-bullying Liberal join me in this protest? I'm betting a resounding no. But if Trump would have been the star in this commercial, Subways around the country would be burnt to the ground by now. Just another example of the Liberal hypocrisy that will be ignored. Am I the only one thinks this commercial is hilarious because of the hypocrisy?

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  

Looked up the Spainish Flu.  Shows 1918-19.   That’s two years for any of y’all intellectually stunted 😂.   So this Covid should be History about Jan of 2022.   But somehow, someway, I’ve a feeling the MSM via the Dem Party, will keep it alive and well.   They’re like a dog with a bone when it comes to power.  They covet it. They love it.  They abuse it.  And why not?  If we’ve learned anything from Covid, their power (edicts) are for regular folks, not for them.  They take “Do as I say, not as I do” to a whole new level.

I've posted this topic before, and got zero responses from the anti-gun nuts. Let's try this again, since the anti-gun nut administration is in charge.
Biden has said that universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. What does he mean? What is the Liberal agenda for this? Registration? Confiscation? Let's begin.
What questions should be asked on a background check that prohibits guns from being in the hands of criminals but lets law abiding citizens exercise their 2nd amendment right? Please outline these inquiries that distinguishes who qualifies and who is prohibited?
Furthermore, and just importantly, who gets to add/delete/edit these questions on the background check? Do any edits/adds/deletes require a vote from a particular governing body? If someone (who knows who) decides that a speeding ticket should prohibit one from owning a gun, can that "czar" add this provision to the background checklist? Who oversees the questions asked on the form? Are these people elected?
What provisions do we have to stop abuse of the background check interrogation? What questions determine qualification, what questions determine disqualification? I'm not asking what is the current format, I'm asking what is the future format...and who has authority to alter it? And as a reminder, a certain Senator has already stated that United States veterans, who have been trained in gun safety, should be disqualified. Another Senator has stated that anyone going through a divorce should be disqualified. So I'm highly interested in hearing other brain-dead rationale for disqualifications, as well as rational disqualifications.
Furthermore, if someone is deemed to be too unstable as to have their constitutional right to own a firearm revoked, is that person also too unstable to vote? Should ethnicity/race continue to be one of the questions?
Please outline the questions that should be asked that determines your ability to exercise your right to own a firearm? As a bonus (LOL), please specify how often a person must submit to the background check? And how much should he have to pay for the privilege of this interrogation. (I'm not even going to mention Jim Crow...the liberal dog whistle)

Both background checks and red flag laws are based on the premise that we have the capability of predicting behavior based on a set of arbitrary criteria. The premise is that we can prevent crime by disarming those who we think will commit a future crime. Who posses this capability? (That is rhetorical.) If you know the criteria, please lay it down on print...right here...right now. 
As with "no fly" lists, how do we stop abuse of these programs? All are ripe for abuse and have zero oversight for fairness. All can be good if applied by Andy Griffith, but would be suspect if applied by Barney Fife. Can you image the abuse that could happen if applied by a raging Liberal (Pelosi, Schumer, AOC)...especially the rare Liberal over-achiever that has a double digit IQ (Can't come up with an example...but I assume they exist)? 
And as always, when you are finished defining the qualifications of those incapable of determining their own self protection (LOL), please explain: If someone "qualifies" as incapable of practicing his constitutionally guaranteed rights, should that person qualify as incapable of determining our elected officials?
 
 

He dropped a F bomb. Then put LOL behind it. That in itself deserves a LOL.
I still can't believed he lasted this long. Anybody that immature will eventually show their true colors. I'll still sleep fine tonight, but yeah...the comedic relief he provided will be missed (although I still feel somewhat bad about laughing at people that intellectually stunted).

Both background checks and red flag laws are based on the premise that we have the capability of predicting behavior based on a set of arbitrary criteria. The premise is that we can prevent crime by disarming those who we think will commit a future crime. Who posses this capability? (That is rhetorical.) If you know the criteria, please lay it down on print...right here...right now. 
As with "no fly" lists, how do we stop abuse of these programs? All are ripe for abuse and have zero oversight for fairness. All can be good if applied by Andy Griffith, but would be suspect if applied by Barney Fife. Can you image the abuse that could happen if applied by a raging Liberal (Pelosi, Schumer, AOC)...especially the rare Liberal over-achiever that has a double digit IQ (Can't come up with an example...but I assume they exist)? 
And as always, when you are finished defining the qualifications of those incapable of determining their own self protection (LOL), please explain: If someone "qualifies" as incapable of practicing his constitutionally guaranteed rights, should that person qualify as incapable of determining our elected officials?
 
 

I've posted this topic before, and got zero responses from the anti-gun nuts. Let's try this again, since the anti-gun nut administration is in charge.
Biden has said that universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. What does he mean? What is the Liberal agenda for this? Registration? Confiscation? Let's begin.
What questions should be asked on a background check that prohibits guns from being in the hands of criminals but lets law abiding citizens exercise their 2nd amendment right? Please outline these inquiries that distinguishes who qualifies and who is prohibited?
Furthermore, and just importantly, who gets to add/delete/edit these questions on the background check? Do any edits/adds/deletes require a vote from a particular governing body? If someone (who knows who) decides that a speeding ticket should prohibit one from owning a gun, can that "czar" add this provision to the background checklist? Who oversees the questions asked on the form? Are these people elected?
What provisions do we have to stop abuse of the background check interrogation? What questions determine qualification, what questions determine disqualification? I'm not asking what is the current format, I'm asking what is the future format...and who has authority to alter it? And as a reminder, a certain Senator has already stated that United States veterans, who have been trained in gun safety, should be disqualified. Another Senator has stated that anyone going through a divorce should be disqualified. So I'm highly interested in hearing other brain-dead rationale for disqualifications, as well as rational disqualifications.
Furthermore, if someone is deemed to be too unstable as to have their constitutional right to own a firearm revoked, is that person also too unstable to vote? Should ethnicity/race continue to be one of the questions?
Please outline the questions that should be asked that determines your ability to exercise your right to own a firearm? As a bonus (LOL), please specify how often a person must submit to the background check? And how much should he have to pay for the privilege of this interrogation. (I'm not even going to mention Jim Crow...the liberal dog whistle)

I was pretty confident no Liberal would respond to this. I'm also confident that any Liberal who reads this will realize the fallacy of their position, but will maintain their rabid support of background checks. The hypocrisy will be lost (or ignored).
I don't know how many sane people have given thought to background checks. My fear is that these checks are simply a gateway for gun registration, restriction, then ultimately confiscation.
Registration: I have no doubt the registration data (background check data) is currently being saved. No doubt. No proof other than past history...like Google claiming they don't save personal data. (Yes, they claimed this for years, and paid billions of dollars in fines...but still kept doing it.) Once established (practically there now), how much burden of time and cost will it become to continually register...I mean, consent to a background check. Will these checks become annual, monthly, weekly? How much will you have to pay for the privilege of registering your constitutionally protected right? Who gets to decide? Biden? AOC?
Restriction: Like in my initial post, who gets to decide what qualifies as revocation criteria? Who gets to modify these qualifications, and how easy will it become for additional restrictions? Will Biden get to add restrictions? Pelosi? Schumer? Joe Blow who is unelected but serves a vital role as hallway monitor in FBI headquarters?
Confiscation: You register (background check) your gun, you then get put on the restriction list...you then lose your ability to exercise your second amendment right. Not a hard path to navigate.
Anti-gun nuts are coming at all angles. From terrorizing gun and ammo manufactures through litigation liability, to financial terrorism by forcing banks not to associate in any form or fashion with gun and ammo manufactures, to slowly introducing limitations to the type and capabilities of guns, to publicly demonizing gun owners, to forcing registration and restrictions on gun owners. I hope we are paying attention...and act accordingly. If I wanted to get rid of guns in the United States, establishing, mandating, then abusing background checks would be my first route.

He dropped a F bomb. Then put LOL behind it. That in itself deserves a LOL.
I still can't believed he lasted this long. Anybody that immature will eventually show their true colors. I'll still sleep fine tonight, but yeah...the comedic relief he provided will be missed (although I still feel somewhat bad about laughing at people that intellectually stunted).

You haven’t said “Yikes” since the SillyWilly days!

And it seems the only way to combat this nonsense is to have a candidate that is very polite and hurts no feelings.
#growapairyousnowflakelosers

The self described "elitists" do love attempting to denigrate others while failing to recognize their own limited cognitive abilities, contributing to the comic relief for the masses...I will give you that.
I have no doubt that you have no comprehension of my reply. Grade schoolers will get a chuckle, but you...well, you are bewildered by the complexity of the "tone and timbre" of my reply. So to be clear, I am mocking you. Once you do an internet search on the meaning of the word "mocking", you will undoubtedly be confronted with your shame of being "disrespected". Your only choice is to lash out. But since your limited intelligence only allows you to respond in childish insults, I anticipate your reply to bring us straight into elementary banter. Unlike normal folks, I will follow you down there...just to see how far you will go. So please respond in the manner you feel most comfortable with. I will respond in kind.
I'm guessing that you will concede your inability to read my post due to it's length, and will try to run away from such a challenge using this dismissive (although childish) tactic.

The self described "elitists" do love attempting to denigrate others while failing to recognize their own limited cognitive abilities, contributing to the comic relief for the masses...I will give you that.
I have no doubt that you have no comprehension of my reply. Grade schoolers will get a chuckle, but you...well, you are bewildered by the complexity of the "tone and timbre" of my reply. So to be clear, I am mocking you. Once you do an internet search on the meaning of the word "mocking", you will undoubtedly be confronted with your shame of being "disrespected". Your only choice is to lash out. But since your limited intelligence only allows you to respond in childish insults, I anticipate your reply to bring us straight into elementary banter. Unlike normal folks, I will follow you down there...just to see how far you will go. So please respond in the manner you feel most comfortable with. I will respond in kind.
I'm guessing that you will concede your inability to read my post due to it's length, and will try to run away from such a challenge using this dismissive (although childish) tactic.

After battling a tough bout with cancer, our very own stevenash passed away today. Stan was a great man and a valued member of this site.
Condolences to his family and loved ones.
Site will not be the same without him.

Wow, you can count to five. That is impressive. But then you go and ruin it with your last comment. Can you please explain why you feel posting consecutively would be evidence of mental instability? Is falsely accusing someone of mental illness actually a sign of their own mental illness?