Englebert

But you want to give them more control over our lives. Why is that?

I would be willing to bet the university would fire him in a second if he reversed roles and tweeted "All I want for Christmas is a minority genocide". Not only would he be fired seconds after he hit send, but the FBI would probably be paying him a visit also. I thought Tucker Carlson handled him nicely last night. Tucker was way more restrained than I could have been to that arrogant condescending...I'll just stop right there.

Breitbart, the website that brings out the vibrant and vivid true colors of the party of hate.

He has a long, long way to go before he can even be nominated for that title, especially when the undisputed title-holder just left office.

It is illegal to shoot someone without cause. Are you implying that no one is ever shot without cause? I'm pretty sure we can deduce who is having problems understanding how wiretapping...and the real world works.

This brings flashbacks of when Joe Biden said that Supreme Court nominees shouldn't receive a vote during the last year of a presidential term, then spouts that Merrick Garland should have received a vote. It is pretty funny when a past comment comes back to bite you. My question is, which of these two men evolved and which one flip-flopped?

What does this have to do with anything in my post...that you quoted?

Oh I do. I was just giving a different possible angle on why he is asking for immunity. I have no idea who knows what and when, but I've seen that a few Liberal commentators have already convicted him just because he is seeking immunity. I think one of them uttered [paraphrased] "If he's seeking immunity, he must be guilty of something", as to definitively state there was no other possible reasoning for the immunity request.

Are you implying he's guilty of something...without a trial? Could it possibly be he's seen up close and personal the underhandedness of the previous administration, and Liberals in general, and wants to ensure he will not be railroaded by corruptness?

I would rather see his grades for myself...which I can't. So answer your own question...what does Obama have to hide? And who are these people "with any sense about that"? Are they the mainstream media that fawned over Obama for 8 years? The same ones that refused to write anything negative about him? Are these the ones you are suggesting I ask for an opinion? Now that deserves the obligatory LOL.

I'm just going to have to reiterate your question...what did Obama have to hide? After all, you did imply that Trump might be trying to hide something by not releasing the White House visitor records. In that same token, what did Obama have to hide by sealing his school records? Did Obama actually get a special rate or special acceptance for claiming to be a foreign student? Did Obama's grades not confirm that he was the scholar the media made him out to be? Did Obama have some secret ties to Communist professors? Did Obama have any class reports that don't conform to American values? These questions seem to be as relevant as questioning the White House visitor logs. And when you say "your grasping for straws"...my response will be "ditto".

Just following your lead. I would call you an idiot but I don't want to plagiarize Big Girl. And your attitude is just symptomatic of someone that can't muster an intelligent retort. The childishness is exposed by like childishness. Who would have guessed. It explains the phenomenon of the emergence of the snowflakes after the Trump election win. Thanks for the validation.

So creating two new jobs somehow equates to cutting thousands of jobs. You actually want to focus on two new ones? Really? And you didn't say a peep about all of the Federal jobs Obama created just to fund his cronies and campaign contributors. No, you want to disparagingly focus on Trump creating two, yes two, jobs. (And I'm not even sure if they're new positions.) And why is Meals On Wheels being funded at all by the Federal government, you know, by those people that don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Now get back on topic. How do you feel about companies selling your browsing history? Do you even have an opinion or will you write some other rant about how corrupt politicians are but want to give them more control over our lives?

Too easy. Exposing your flawed rationale is enough.

So to clarify your answer...you have no answer.

And you are at the very top of the list.

Is there a reason you quoted my post to make this response? Are you trying to refute anything I posted? And I'm finding it more and more odd on why you constantly complain about how corrupt the government has become, but yet advocate for bigger and bigger government with more control. Can you please explain that rationale? Do you think if the government gets big enough the politicians will suddenly turn into moral, wholesome, caring people, or would a bigger government just involve more dirtbag government officials? And is more dirtbag government officials better or worse for the country?

Wouldn't they covered under the "truly needy", to quote you. So does this mean you agree that Medicare and Medicaid is enough and we should repeal Obamacare without a replacement?

I would have to know the details of expanded Medicaid. But this sounds so much better than Obamacare/Hillarycare/Trumpcare/Ryancare/Romneycare/Obamacare Lite/ or whatever other "care" the government wants to implement. From what little I have read about Rand Paul's plan, his seems to be a pretty good idea. It's basically just allowing people that don't get insurance from their employer to be able to bargain with the insurance companies as a group.

Does this mean you agree that Medicare and Medicaid is enough and we should repeal Obamacare without a replacement?

I'm not comparing people, I'm comparing methodology on how to get things done. You seem to prefer the lock-step method in which you vote for your party instead of the merits of the bill. You are trying to disparage Trump's methodology by spouting he is not competent enough to get a deal on a bad bill. I contrasted that to Obama's methodology in which he got something done, which was an extremely bad bill, and very bad for the country. Getting things passed regardless of the merits is not a good way to conduct business. You disparage Trump for not getting a bill passed. But if he did, you would complain about how bad the bill is. We've seen this story a million times.

I agree. I had gotten frustrated enough that I decided a few months ago to feed to the same garbage back at anyone that did it. And I announced I was going to do it. And my previous post on here was me trying to exhibit as much extreme outrage as I could muster about such a silly topic, then pivot to show how that was just mockery. After re-reading it I guess I didn't illustrate the mockery part enough, and it read more as hatred than mockery. The POS word was copied from a previous post on here.

I was playing the part of a Liberal by showing extreme (and fake) outrage. That tactic should be abundantly clear to everyone since Trump's election. We've seen it enough for sure. It's funny seeing the reaction of Liberals when you use their same tactics against them.

I posted this earlier in this thread: [Hidden Content] This is from the New York Times, who is not exactly a Right wing extremist outfit...instead the polar opposite. By this post and lack of comment I'm assuming you missed this article. Do you find it worrisome or just extremely coincidental that many people involved with this deal, including the Russians, made substantial "donations" to the Clinton Foundation during the negotiations? And is it just coincidental that many of the donations have plummeted since Clinton lost the election? Frankly I haven't read enough about the situation to form an opinion, but when the New York Times publishes an article that seemingly goes against one of their fellow Liberals, it makes me think their might be something more than just coincidence.

Really, do you want to play this game? Going on past history, I really don't think you do. But I'll play along because "that's just my game". (The "Well, bye" and "I'm your Huckleberry" lines get quoted so much I figured I would add another quote from Tombstone.) Paul Ryan proposed a healthcare plan. Many members evaluated the plan and individually came to the conclusion that the plan deserved a no vote. Trump met with them to negotiate changes, but after negotiations many members still thought the plan was not in the best interest of the American people. Contrast that to the Democrats/Obama's method. The Democrats proposed a plan which many members didn't like. There was no negotiation of terms of the bill. Obama and Pelosi threatened many by withholding campaign money and support. Obama promised to provide some with various other incentives in exchange for their vote. Many voted for the plan just because Obama told them to, and they did not want to go against a fellow party member. And none of them even read the bill before they voted yes to it. And you seem to have had no problem with this, but try to disparage Trump for not being able to negotiate a healthcare plan with his party members. Thus you support blind following of the party. Even a third grader can see that thought process. Your turn. Please explain your rationale for stating "Couldn't even get his party to get on board". Do you think Trump should have used the same lock-step method employed by the Democrats to whip his party members into shape and to vote on a terrible bill? Or would you rather a method in which members negotiate to come up with a better product that serves the greater good? Please explain how you can make your statement without supporting the lock-step method. You might have to do some rather phenomenal mental gymnastics to come up with an answer.