Englebert

I responded to his post by asking him the same question 3 weeks ago, and he conveniently skipped over it. I'm sure he will just skip over yours also. It must be nice to live in a world where you can spout any ol' thing you want without having to face any detractors. Then again, that's a world I don't want to live in.

I have no clue what you are trying to convey. If you actually think the media doesn't scrutinize everyone surrounding Trump way more than they did with Obama's administration, then I would have to say you have been in a coma for the last eight years. Can you name some of the goofy tweets or stupid quotes from Trump's administration? Your whole post was about his administration, but you seem now to pivot to "all about Trump". Let's stick with your original contention of criticizing his administration and see if "that will work" on you.

I'm not a Trump fan either, but I think he has surrounded himself with people that are heads and tails above the last administration. I also think Trump's administration is more scrutinized that any from the previous administration.

I didn't call you a Liberal. But since labeling, generalizing and stereotyping people, accusing others of wanting to leave the poor out on the streets to die, accusing others of hating Muslims and gays with no basis, etc. etc. etc. is the purview of the Liberals, I think I will stick to the notion you lean far to the Left.

You keep providing the material, we will keep responding.

I'm still curious as to how this judge thinks requiring proof of who you are is purposefully discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. I would pose this question to her: How would you ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, and is eligible to vote, without putting some burden on the person that could be construed as discriminatory. I bet she can't come up with an answer, except for maybe "Show an ID". Her notion that the poor and/or minorities don't have the capability of obtaining an ID is just flat out insulting.

I watched a video a while back (the link might have come from a post on this site) in which a person was interviewing people on the street. I think it was Harlem. He asked the person if they agreed with voter ID laws and are these laws designed to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities. Each one (if I remember correctly) said they resented and were offended by the idea that showing an ID was discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. They felt (the same way that I do) that obtaining an ID is not an undue burden to prevent fraud and abuse, and were offended by people thinking that many minorities did not have the ability to accomplish such a simplistic feat. Granted this was a video and we have no way of knowing how many people agreed and/or disagreed...through selective editing. I'm in no way implying this was some sort of proof, but it does parallel my feelings about how minorities are looked at by many people.

I see your point, and agree with it. This would work in Mayberry. But I think the Legislators want (and need) uniformity and stricter guidelines. I have little trouble imagining a scenario where someone shows some form of proof and is allowed to vote, and the next person in line shows a highly sketchy form of proof and is rejected. I can easily see that person shouting "racism" or "BS" or whatever, and even suing the poll workers, the county, the state, and whoever else his lawyer will think of. And they would probably win because the judge will state that there is no uniformity or strict guidelines in what is acceptable proof of ID.

I'm curious as to why you think the measures are to make it more difficult for the poor and/or minorities to vote. What specific measures are you referring? Is having to show ID/proof to sign up for food stamps (or any government benefit) an undue burden placed on the poor and minorities designed to discriminate against them. What about showing an ID to gain admittance to the DNC convention? Were they trying to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities? And does the minor inconvenience of having to go through the paperwork to obtain an ID such an undue burden as to discriminate against somebody? So much of a burden that we have to open up our Voting system to easy fraud and abuse? Now if you want to talk about undue burdens in order to exercise your constitutional rights, let's have a discussion on License To Carry regulations.

I do have issues with people that try backhanded insults then runs and hides when called out. And it is not something I need help with. It is abundantly clear who needs help. And you are still hiding from a simple explanation.

Really? Are you really asking someone to defend their comments when you won't dare defend yours? That is rich.

Obama gave us more material than any president in the history of the United States to deem him the worst president ever. That is undeniable by any sane person. All the Left can do now is try to demonize anyone on the Right to try to save face. Your comment is exhibit A.

That is just a sad and absolutely pathetic comment after your ridiculously pathetic earlier comment. No wonder you purposely avoided my simple request to defend your comment. It's hard to defend the indefensible. So let me ask again, so everyone is absolutely clear on whether you are avoiding the question or "didn't see it". Why do you feel the need to pray for a Republican based on the original post? And furthermore, why are your afraid to explain your true feelings after clearly revealing them in a (which you thought was a) masked manner? Your hate is on full display...no need to try to transfer that to others.

Would you care to explain your post. I bet you won't. And I bet you don't. Just to help you out on clarification, why do you feel the need to pray for a Republican based on this post? And what elitist and condescending podium do you place yourself upon to feel this need? Go ahead, explain yourself.

No, your Liberal fake news leaders, who you worship as godlike, just made an ass out of you. You should have waited for the facts to come out, but you treat your leaders as infallible and just parrot everything they say. The euphoria of possibly having a "gotcha" on Trump is blinding, and makes you and your ilk look so foolish. And what is so sad is you will not learn from this. You will continue to parrot every nutcase Liberal loon who has a mic in front of them.

Assad using poison gas on his people caused the change. Most people call them WMDs, but your definition seems to differ. Either way, using poison gas crossed Trump's red line. And unlike what we are used to, Trump backed up his talk. And Senator Rubio articulated why Trump was well within his rights and duty as U.S. President to order this strike. And are you implying that Trump actually fired the missiles himself? Do you think Trump flew out to the ship, loaded the missiles, then ran up to the bridge and pressed the fire button all by himself? I seem to recall you making that same type of assertion on a different subject. Looking at it from the another point of view sheds a bright light on just how stupid that sounds.

Wow, what an short sighted and just flat out lie you just posted Big Girl. When the government gives tax breaks to job creators, it is to enable these businesses to expand, thus putting people to work. This serves as dual purpose: to provide a paycheck to many and concurrently getting them off of the government dole, saving the taxpayer money and raking in more tax dollars. The American tax payer does not foot the bill. When Democrats try to help, they confiscate money from hard working tax payers to form an agency that wastes most of the leveraged money through incompetence and corruption. They then throw what money is left over at a problem in which they perform no oversight on who is qualified and in need of these services, and who is gaming the system. Read you history books if you don't believe me.

This substantiates the Liberals claims that he is unqualified. Rooting out corruption, holding people accountable, and saving money for the American taxpayer is a no-no. Use it or lose it is the budgeting mantra for Liberals. Hurting someone's feelings by uncovering incompetence or corruption is just not done. How dare he bring sanity to a government entity. Fire him and then prosecute him immediately. I think Hillary is in need of a job. She can replace him and restore the business as usual.

You are an embarrassment to you and your profession if you think you are qualified to diagnose all that you claim about Trump. And what is really sad is you are basing your armchair "diagnosis" on what you read/hear from looney Left wing websites. No qualified psychologist or doctor or even an RN would dare attempt a diagnosis based on these scarce and highly questionable data. It is shocking that you are allowed anywhere near a hospital/clinic with that attitude.

Aren't the Liberals the party that accuses everyone of disparaging a whole group because of one or a few incidents, but are the first to accuse a whole group because of one incident? I distinctly recall hearing over and over and over Liberals screaming "not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Muslims are terrorists", but are the first to accuse all FoxNews male employees as being sexual predators. I will assume all Liberals that don't disavow this assumption believes it to be true.

I could not agree more. Of course, they wouldn't have to face any backlash since it is now precedent, which doesn't really matter considering the Liberal media wouldn't have said a word even if the Republicans would have refrained from using the nuclear option.

I'm willing to state with a high degree of confidence that the Republicans would not have used to nuclear option if not for Harry Reid opening the can. In my opinion what the Republicans are saying is that "Harry Reid changed the way the Senate conducts business, we are just following the same rules."

You are a prime example of someone who accusers others of doing exactly what themselves are guilty of. I wish we had a word for it...oh yeah...it's called hypocrite. I have not said a word about O'Reilly because I have not read/heard much about it. As usual I will try to wait for the facts to fully come out without prematurely passing judgment. These kind of stories (sexual dalliances) don't interest me much. I could care less if Bill Clinton slept with every intern he ever met, and I didn't disparage him for his sexual transgressions. I do bring it up when a worshipper of Clinton tries to smear the other side for doing the same or less. So your analysis is off the mark. You are trying to equate my silence with condoning. I just pointed out your attempted disparaging comment exemplifies you to a tee. And as for your other attempts at smear, I back up my statements when criticizing Obama or Hillary. I have never, let me repeat that slowly for you, I have never criticized Islam. Maybe if you would spend less time trying to stereotype people you would realize that. Ooops, I guess we just found another thing you accuse others of doing that is exactly what themselves are guilty of.

I was glad the Republicans were blocking Obama's lower court nominees. In fact, at the time I was even thinking many of his nominees where included just so the Republicans would block them, thus he could cry foul...which he/they did. For the few nominees I looked at, the Republicans were just doing their due diligence, but the Liberal media was painting the Republicans as partisan obstructionists...per usual. Harry Reid was warned repeatedly not to use the nuclear option, but did it anyway. I am rejoicing the payback, and don't feel one ounce of guilt. I'm also fully aware that the Democrats will use this option when available in the future, as will the Republicans. Once Harry Reid opened the door, either party was going to use it at first opportunity. Let me ask you for the purpose of assigning blame, would the Republicans have used this option if Harry Reid would have abstained from using it? I'm also fully aware that Chuck Schumer purposely forced the Republicans to use this option, thus trying to spread more divide between the parties. His motives were 100% political. And he's banking on the Liberal media's all-out smear campaign against the Republicans.

So is this exactly what you tell yourself when deliberately about Obama?