Englebert

Enough of this thread. On to the next. What topic would like to continue your embarrassment?

I already won the bet. Are you getting upset? Is it nighty night time. Please don't tell me you are crying again. Don't be upset...just find a sixth grader to explain it to you and it will be alright.

I'm so sorry your analytical skills are not up to par for a simplified and straightforward example. To use condescension in such an obvious manner makes me the winner of the bet. I guess I will have to explain it. Forgive me if I can't clarify on such a simplistic level. You are trying to get Nash to make a bet. You said the bet involves fake money. But you said you will contribute the winnings to charity. Either you are using real money as the reward, or you are donating fake money to a charity. You might want to see if you can find your marbles. The laughter seems only to be just beginning. Care to embarrass yourself some more? If only Pete Rose would have sought out your counsel. He could have claimed he bet fake money on those games.

I would be willing to bet you a substantial amount of money (and I don't gamble) that you will make a childish statement within your next 3 posts. Yes, that surely is the easiest bet ever.

I think it is illegal to give "fake" money to a charity.

Nope, I just enjoy letting you expose your lack of confidence in your own abilities. And as a bonus, you treat us to your lack of comprehension skills. It's just too easy. Would you like to contribute another response revealing even more of your character faults? I actually proposed a wager that I could elicit a childish response from you. I'm not sure why he wouldn't accept that challenge. So I just did it for free. I'm not scared.

Do you actually think you have a "gotcha" proposition here? You keep pressing like a little immature schoolboy, only to make the terms out of scope. If you are such a genius, why not make a gentlemen's wager? I'm still laughing that you tried that tired ol' "I'm too smart to display my skills for free" ploy. That was comical. It seems fairly certain you are scared? Nash has already stated that his work precludes him from wagering. Do you have any reason to doubt that statement? If so, call him out on that statement. Why do you incessantly try to submit an unworkable bet? It's pretty evident that you are scared and this is your way out. It's a common tactic. Go to any Middle School and you will see.

I just noticed you try to blame everything on Trump, but ignore the same actions from others, all in a condescending tone that deserves bewilderment. If interfering in a country's election makes you furious, you should want charges filed on Obama for interfering in the Israeli elections...but I have a feeling you will give him a pass.

How is your description of Trump on the subject of Russian voting interference any different than Obama's handling of Russian voting interference? TDS influenced? How is this board a microcosm of what the Russians hope to accomplish? Did the Russians influence our top DOJ and FBI officials to spy on a presidential candidate? Did the Russians influence top law enforcement officials to abuse the FISA system because the officials disliked the candidate the people chose? Did the Russians strongarm Obama into not rebuking them when evidence was abundant that they had hacked our military systems? Do you really think the political fighting started within the last election?

At 5:00pm on a Friday. Who would have guessed? And yes, let the fun begin. Either way, a lot of people will be sorely disappointed and a lot of people will be ecstatic. The spin doctors will be working overtime when the news is released.

Predicted.

Trump has copied and employs the Liberal style of "debate". It just seems very natural for you...inclusion to a tee.

A well earned monikor. You claim to be "enlightened". (Now that is funny) You try to stifle debate by insulting the other party. You make accusations that have no supporting evidence then run like a frightened schoolgirl when challenged to provide evidence. You practice the "rules for thee but not for me" doctrine. You insult anyone that doesn't share your views. You throw out baseless stereotypes. You attempt generalized insults based solely on one's geographical location. You show absolutely no shame when called out for your obvious mistakes. You whine like a little child when things don't go your way. You will never admit your mistakes, even when everyone around you is laughing at you. You try oh so hard to attempt "gotcha" questions, but fail miserably. (And again you show no shame.) You attempt to insult every GOP position and every person who claims to be Conservative. You don't know the difference between a Liberal and Leftist/Democrat. (Although you still claim to be enlightened.) You exude many, if not most, traits of Liberal "debating" tactics, and still get incensed when labeled a Liberal. You fit this group to a tee. You might as well move to San Francisco, don a mask, and roam the Berkley campus looking for individuals you and your group can attack from behind. Instead of providing evidence that these points are wrong, you will reply to this post in a very childish fashion. Disagree?

More deflection. Who would have guessed?

So again, you won't backup your claims as usual. Why do you run from such a simple question?

You've made this same accusation (directly in the other cases) on multiple occasions about me, stevenash, and the entire board. You have been asked repeatedly to show what has led you to this conclusion...and you always run from the question. This instance was just a continuation of all the other instances. So once again, can you backup your claims that we blindly follow any party? Will you continue to levy this accusation with zero evidence?

Would you care to show evidence of why you think stevenash blindly follows either party? What led you to this conclusion? History has shown that no answer will be forthcoming.

This "judge" needs to be held accountable. I suggest he must prove to his own court that Man-Made Global Warming is detrimental to Earth's health. Maybe he is the one that needs to be halted. It is really sickening to have a person in his position using an unproven theory on which to base his decisions. Maybe a 30 day timeout is in order for him to do a little soul searching on the importance of his job. Me personally, I think he needs to be removed from the bench immediately and permanently.

I'm not saying rampant fraud exists, I'm saying you can't infer that voter fraud does not exist because you only see a few cases of convictions. That is your argument, not mine. What evidence suggests "otherwise"? Again, you can't suggest voter fraud is statistically insignificant based on the fact a very few convictions exist. If you have other evidence that voter fraud is an anomaly, please share.

I guess the best way to pose this question is to create a mathematical equation: A = Number of people who committed voter fraud and were convicted of voter fraud B = Number of people who committed voter fraud but were not caught/not convicted of voter fraud C = Total number of people who committed voter fraud A + B = C Please solve this equation. We can use your number for A. You contend that we can infer C by knowing A, but we have no idea of B. Please solve this equation based on your logic. When you realize this is not solvable, please try an attempt to reiterate your reasoning for knowing that voter fraud is statistically insignificant when you have no idea how many people have successfully committed voter fraud (B).

No, these are not false comparisons. These are very much equivalent comparisons. I contend that many, many crimes were committed by Whites against Blacks, but were never brought to trial because the failure of pursuit by the authorities to bring said crimes to a courtroom. Same with voter fraud...the low instances of conviction rates is due to lackadaisical or even complete failure to investigate/bring charges of any instance of said crime. This will necessarily lead to low conviction rates...not that the crime is not in abundance. So no, there would not be a statistical correlation as you contend. You can only get results from something that you study. If you ignore a problem, no stats exist. Let's try another example...if parents choose to ignore bad behavior from their child, and administer no punishment as a result of ignoring this bad behavior, does this indicate that the child is a snow white angel incapable of bad behavior? Does the bad behavior mysteriously disappear because the parents can claim that they never have to punish their child? Does the lack of convictions of voter fraud indicate that voter fraud doesn't exist or does it indicate that instances of voter fraud has not been diligently pursued. Just like the lack of speeding tickets versus the number of speeders, just like the lack of convictions of White crimes against Blacks, voter fraud can rampantly exist when it is ignored...with low conviction rates. How about one more example: If 20 people are caught illegally crossing the border, does this in any way indicate how many people tried to cross the border? How can you infer how many people successfully crossed the border when you have no idea how many attempted?

Really? You are thinking of safe driving. You made the claim that since a "small" number of convictions of voter fraud exist, that this is somehow an indication that very few occasions of voter fraud exists. Let's try this another way. Back in the olden days, if very few White people were convicted of crimes against Black people, does this indicate that very few instances of crimes were perpetrated on Black people by White people?

If millions and millions of people drive on the road, and only 1000 speeding tickets are issued, is this a sign that very, very few speeders exist?

Ditto on your post. I'm flabbergasted (not really) that you don't understand the relationship baddog pointed out between "Russian collusion" and illegals voting. Why do the Liberals think that Russia trying to influence an election is tantamount to a declaration of war, but others that try to influence our elections by illegally voting is not even frowned upon? I'm sure a pithy "comeback" is in the works. One that will glean with enlightenment that will allow all of us peons to realize that your comment of not knowing what baddog was talking about was our own misinterpretation of your statement, and your explanation will provide the help we need. So please, enlighten us with a response.

Maybe you are baffled because you haven't given any thought as to how the extremist are trying to use an unproven theory for power and wealth re-distribution. These so called enlightened leaders know the average American will not willingly give away our wealth...unless a doomsday crisis is created to persuade the people into believing we are "saving the planet". It's not a hard concept to grasp. Have you read the Paris Agreement? Was converting to reusable grocery bags the main goal of this agreement? Was being economically friendly the main focus? Was basic lifestyle changes a centerpoint of discussion? Or was wealth re-distribution the main and underlining reasoning for this "treaty"? If you don't know the obvious answers, please try to read it then get back to us.