Englebert

I never bring race into the situation, I just follow your lead. We all know it. You are the only one on here that is totally oblivious to your failed thought processes, but still think you are superior with moral authority. That's why we are constantly laughing at you.

So what makes you think this article "doesn't even say what you seem to think it says"? This whole topic was about "climate change" on Mars, and your quote basically says exactly that. So what did we miss? Or what did you miss?

Please enlighten us peons as to what you think it says. You prefaced your remark with a "lol", which can only be in this context a signature of derision. So please explain your heightened sense of intelligence so we can bask in your greatness. But keep in mind, we have the ability to critique your response, and I'm sure we will be able to articulate more than a "lol" in our analysis.

No you wouldn't. You have already stated that your co-workers are racist. That's the only White people you know. Now I will sit back for the wait for the inevitable "I know you are, but what am I". You might as well try the old cat fail again. I'm still laughing at that one.

Again, your comprehension skills are just non-existent.

Now this is funny. You are on here as much as me, but try to insult me about the time I spend on here. The 1st graders are getting a good chuckle now.

Well at least you admitted someone has to read it to you. Admitting it is half the battle. A little bit more work and you can join the adult world. (Well, I don't want to get too carried away.)

Who is this directed at? Better yet, what does it even mean? And what happen to you naming someone on this board that "doesn't want to help anyone"? After all, you threw out the accusation? Is your strategy to insult everyone then throw out some plagiarized childish one-liners?

I see you found the "Big Book Of Kindergarten Insults". Who's reading it to you?

And I'm suppose to even recognize your comprehension skills. You've shown them to be highly deficient, and your retorts don't even reach 1st grade level. That must be some blinding hate distorting you view of reality. What's incredible is how you can twist and turn it into something you think is admirable, while trying (laughably) to admonish every poster on this board. Sometimes you just need to stop and listen for the laughter.

Can you name a single person on this board who does not believe in helping anyone? That is a pathetic statement, a blatant lie, and you know it. Trump would have to work night and day trying to compete with you in the lying category. Everyone on this board has made it crystal clear that they think the Federal systems are ripe with fraud and abuse, even you. But somehow you do your little mental gymnastics to interpret that as "some on this board does not believe in helping anyone". How you can strain yourself so badly to twist simple statements into what you want to hear is incomprehensible to me. You must be incredibly tired writhing in that sea of hate.

Entergy should be able to charge what they want. Then a competitor can swoop in, undercut their prices, and either drive Entergy's prices down or put Entergy out of business. It is a simple concept called Capitalism.

Do you have any clue as to how much money was spent on R&D and manufacturing costs to make that drug? Do you think pharmaceutical companies should work for free, or even take huge losses so that everyone can have access to a product that they developed? Do you think investors would continue to invest in companies that do not show a profit? And when investors quit investing, do you think pharmaceutical companies will continue to spend money they don't have? And when pharmaceutical companies go out of business, who will make the life-saving drugs? You haven't put much thought into your rationale have you.

Did you skip the ethnicity question on the questionnaire? Why is that question on there? What business is it of the government to require that question? The last time I filled out the background check questionnaire I checked all seven ethnicities. The guy told me it would be rejected if I picked more than three, but it went through.

Wow, after the embarrassment six burg went through with his cat fail, you want to jump on that folly? Luckily the 1st graders are getting their laugh today. It's not often kids that young get to witness adults acting more immature than them. I bet you have a bald spot on the top of your head where people pat you when saying "bless his little heart".

My whole question is still being ignored. So I'll try again. What questions need to be added to background checks or mental competency checks that would help determine who is a future risk for gun violence. I hear this rhetoric constantly that we need more and better background checks and to close the loop-holes. Okay, make some suggestions on what would help determine the competency of a (potential) gun-owner. I've asked this question numerous times, and have yet to get any kind of suggestions on what would make competency checks better. The Liberals nut-cases have already offered a few suggestions. One Congressman has tried to introduce a bill that would ban gun ownership from anyone going through a divorce. Dianne Feinstein has proposed banning guns from all military veterans. She has also tried to ban all guns that have a barrel shroud attached. Do these people seem competent enough to enact laws designed to curb gun ownership. Once background checks become mandatory, more and more of the nut-cases will get so many restrictions passed that even the Pope would not qualify to own a gun. Another point of emphasis is who should pay for these background checks and the privilege to own a gun. I read about places like Chicago that charge exorberent yearly fees just to exercise your right to own a gun. Lawmakers will undeniably use this avenue to curtail gun ownership, to the point that only the top 1% can afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. It's already happening. So when contemplating on what needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, don't forget to look long and hard about how our lawmakers will skew and distort sane laws and inject insane laws/regulations just to achieve their goal of total gun bans (except for their own private security of course).

I'm not trying to intimidate you at all. Your interpretation skills are in need of a serious overhaul.

So you think guns should be less available. My question is who should be denied the right to defend themselves, family and property based on an arbitrary set of rules that have no measurable set of statistical results. That is, how the hell do you think you, or anyone else, can determine who should be denied the right of self protection. Please enlightened us on this set of criteria that you would implement that would determine who is competent versus who is incompetent to own a means of self protection. Keep in mind, when you list these qualifications, use the simple test of "would Stephen King be disqualified" with your qualification test. I've asked this question on this site at multiple times, and not one single person can come up with a comprehensive, or even partial set of qualifications that indicate the slightest evidence of future violence. To be fair, no one on this Earth has done any better. Forgive me, but I've just heard a few incompetent Liberal nut-cases spouting off about more gun control, and I apologize for attacking your post. Yours was the first I saw on this topic, and I would have started my own topic if I couldn't find a thread to attack. Having said that, let me restate my question. What laws would you enact to disqualify someone from self-protection? (This is not directed specifically at Fee Dee, but an open question for everyone on this board.)

So you conveniently forgot that Obama went after FoxNews and AP reporters, but somehow concocted out of thin air that Trump wants to do away with the media. I hope you didn't include yourself when you said "smart people".

You've never been accused of being racist because you don't go along with the majority. That is just absolutely ridiculous, and a loud and overused cry of victimhood. You get on here and deride practically every member, and now want to cry that nonsense of an excuse of not going along with the majority. Shovel that line of victimhood BS somewhere else...we've heard it too many times, and I am frankly sick of it.

It's hilarious that your only defense is to try to label me. Spoken like a true Liberal. If you would spend more time analyzing the biased media's descriptions of Trump rather than trying to pigeon-hole me you might come to the realization that you are being played like the good little sheeple that you are. To spout that Trump is ignorant just shows your ignorance. To focus on Trump's non-PC mannerisms and his past dalliances instead of his policies, and the effects of those policies just shows you are gullible and prime fodder for Liberal picking. It's easy to pick out a Liberal, just look at their point of focus. Liberals always choose personal attacks over policy debates. Do you hear that bell ringing in your ear?

I've asked him that many, many times, but he refuses to answer. I'm fairly certain the answer lies strictly with party affiliation (as you, I, and everyone on this board already knows), though he won't admit it. But let's give it another try. new tobie, can you answer stevenash's question? This is probably the 20th or 50th time you've been asked. Why do you run from such a simple question?

That might be the irony to top all ironies.

I don't know. Why didn't he include Saudi Arabia? Why did he choose the same exact countries Obama selected in his Terrorist Travel Prevention Act?

Again, so much wrong. You have some very selective criteria for who gets classified as immoral, unscrupulous, or evil...which seems to be based entirely on political affiliation. That's just sad. And Trump said he wants a temporary ban on immigration from countries where many of the population have outspokenly said they want to kill us. This temporary ban is until we can fix our vetting procedures. That's his approach, but somehow your Liberal leaders have burned it into your brain that this makes him evil, and a sign of a blatant disregard for human life. How any sane person can come to that conclusion is just baffling. Your assertion that Trump is dismissing them like dogs comes straight from the looney Liberal talking points, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Your assertion that anyone restricting access to this country is somehow incompassionate is another fable straight from the Liberal talking points. Setting up safe zones for refugees in their own country would be an unacceptable solution for your line of thinking...no, we must bring them here while disregarding our own safety. That's what happens when you worship at the feet of Liberal ideology. Your third paragraph is just an indecipherable rant. You need to work on your analytical skills. Your judgement is clouded to the point of ridiculousness from basking in the filth that is Liberal logic. Deny all you want, but the obvious is just that...obvious.