Englebert

Does Green and the ones advocating this asinine proposal really think people are just that stupid? Does anyone believe that the owner of a business "owns" the people that work for him? This is even dumber than the adage that people can't obtain an ID to vote. The unmitigated elitism of some is just downright appalling, but the willingness of too many to give credence to such pathetic notions is shocking. You've been called "stupid" directly to your face, and far too many do not even realize it. Maybe Green should change his name, because there are people that might actually think his skin color is green. Same dumb logic...for a dumb society.

I didn't say the lawyers on the Trump probe where not his fans. I asked if you would be comfortable with knowing people investigating you were not fans of yours. Based on the fact that the Mueller team where Democrat donors, the perception of a biased team was apparent. Having to endure all of the pathetic rhetoric flung Trump's way, especially from Democrats, to have 20 high-priced lawyers that donated to Clinton must have been unsettling for him, and for a lot of people. It would be like a Black man on trial with 12 card-carrying KKK members as the jurors. Or a White man on trial with 12 antifa members as the jurors. Maybe they would be fair, maybe not. The perception is not favorable to that outcome. That was my whole point. Why did Mueller choose a team with most, if not all, Clinton donors? If he thought these were the best, so be it. But the perception is that such a partisan looking team would probably not be fair. Why bring that element into the equation? And the report does not provide evidence whether they were biased or not. Since you have indicated you are okay with the Mueller team, are you okay with other homogeneous groups in charge of investigating/judging others who are not like them? Are perceived partisan groups okay in all situations, or just when it involves Trump? Your question of my posts makes your last statement mute. But even if my interpretation was as you guessed, I would not have a lot of explaining to do. Trump donated to both sides, in my opinion to curry favor. Did the lawyers donate to Hillary (and just Hillary/Democrats) in an attempt to gain favoritism? And even if Trump donated to Democrats only, considering he lived in New York that would not be a big deal. Trump has never been a true Conservative.

You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you? Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.

So you agree that a homogeneous group can be fair and unbiased when judging someone that "doesn't look like them". The person being judged should have no worries that the group of "judges" will be fair despite their differences/attitude towards the person being judged.

If a jury is made up of twelve White guys judging the guilt/innocence of a Black defendant, you find no problem with that? If so, I'm with you. Don't let stereotypes or past history of the "judges" or prosecutors influence their abilities to do their jobs. Judge each person by their abilities, not the color of their skin...or their ideological leanings. Kudos Coach Frey, we agree that diversity is a non-issue and that a homogeneous group does have the ability to conclude unbiased judgements. Agree?

Anyone who ventures into a Walmart and claims they can smell the candidate of choice must be possessed by something.

If I had around 20 high-priced veteran lawyers ready to pounce on my every word, and who I knew were not fans, and had a history of perjury traps, my number of "I don't recall" answers would be equal to the number of questions asked.

I just now read UT Alum's post, and was all set to reply with a short, stinging exposure of his glaring TDS statement...but then read your reply. Mine was almost identical. In fact...yours is probably better, in that I was probably going to add the TDS aspect in schoolboy fashion. UT Alum, please answer Nash's pertinent question and explain how Trump can be a clown by forgetting 37 times, but Comey can plead ignorance 200+ times without such retribution or suspicion? In fact, please refute your obvious TDS symptoms by laying out a basis for your "clown" comment. Keep in mind that your "evidence" must apply across the board...in which your analysis will be understandably ridiculed.

I'm sure you've heard that saying a whole lot in your lifetime. It's not surprising you would use it inappropriately though. I'm guessing an extreme case of TDS can bring this on, or is it just natural for you?

Source? Do you have any credible evidence for that statement? Do you think anyone can take you serious with such crude and unimaginative accusations that you formulate out of thin air?

Can I get this guys address? Maybe I will help myself to $749 worth of his "necessary" stuff. And I guess I should brings some "friends in need" with me. We can each get $749 worth of his stuff.

He did that how? Can you elaborate on how your analytical skills guided you to this conclusion? Is that more laughter?

I can understand the first part of your post. Unintelligent people often laugh to mask their lack of understanding. The second part of your post is a flat out lie. You make stuff up all the time. After all of your blunders, illogical and baseless rationale displayed on this thread alone, you still feel embolden with the condescending attitude? Now that is entertainment.

Let's see if we can dumb this down for you: ABC Liberal NBC Liberal CBS Liberal MSNBC Liberal CNN Liberal Fox News Conservative Did you purposely leave off ABC, NBC and CBS? Or did you conveniently forget that those channels exist? Who did you refer to as stupid? It's like a kindergartner calling his teacher stupid. How embarrassing that you can't understand simple math.

If all you see are snowflake tears then you are obviously staring at a mirror. Why do you think I'm crying? What tidbit of evidence led you to this conclusion? Was it the voices in your head? Where does ABC, CBS, and NBC rank? Did you purposely leave those off in order to move Fox News up to #1...in essence, manufacturing fake news? I'm guessing someone pulled your puppet strings and fed you those stats, knowing you were not bright enough to catch on to the real picture. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? Is it natural stupidity, or stupidity brought on by extreme hatred?

I got a question you are sure to run from. When you posted the viewership numbers, did you think the board members where so stupid that they/we would not noticed that you left off the bigger mainstream media outlets? Were you intentionally attempting to manufacture a false narrative in the hopes that we would fall hook, line, and sinker to such propaganda? Or was the real reason you posted misleading data was that you yourself didn't understand the context...and though you had a "gotcha" moment. I'm leaning towards the latter, and am curious as to your feelings of why the laughter continues. And I am very surprised that you would bring this topic back to the top, considering it contains your blunder and obvious humiliation.

Thanks for beating me to a response of his claims. Due to the condescending tone in his post, my response would have included a whole lot of colorful words.

I'm not necessarily highly offended (offended, yes) by her "someone did something" line. It was crude, ill-advised, and dismissive about a deeply hurtful attack on our country, but I think her point was that the attack was perpetrated by individuals, not representatives of Muslims. If this her position, I still wholeheartedly disagree with it, as the attacks were carry out in the name of Islam. And she should be extremely criticized for making that statement, especially as a sitting member of Congress. What troubles me more is her next line...which is a flat out lie. She said that Muslims "are starting to lose our civil liberties". This statement highly offends me. She should be ordered to prove which civil liberties Muslims have lost...and if/when she can't prove it, be removed from office. Not censured, removed. She uses an unprovoked attack on the United States to play victim. That is truly disgusting.

Don't lie. You read it. Someone so vain could not help themself. You could not formulate even an adolescent response, so your response seems to be your go-to self-defense mechanism. Again, how are you not embarrassed? I planned on moving on, because history has shown you childishly MUST have the last word. But I have to ask before dropping this topic. Do you feel you are "yanking my chain"? I have no doubt you will try to claim such at a later date, so let's just get this out of the way now. Do you claim intellectual superiority, moral superiority, or comical relief for the entertainment of the board? You've tried this type of proclamation before (which was hysterical by the way), but I would like to get you on record so you can reference this post at an appropriate time. After thoroughly embarrassing yourself for your lack creativity, intellect, or analytical abilities, will you later claim you were just "yanking my chain". I'm laughing so hard right now it's hard to type...but you will probably draw the silly conclusion that I am "triggered" by your "chain yanking". No need for a response, we all know the depths of your abilities. See you on the next topic you are sure to scuttle.

Yes yours was. You obviously won't answer the question (which was rhetorical anyway), but you have exposed (again) your inability to offer any insightful comments for this board. You can only pronounce judgmental proclamations from you self-proclaimed but imaginative pedestal. The entertainment value is priceless though. Carry on with your childish ways. See you on the next topic you bring into the gutter.

No, again you show your lack of analytical abilities. Everyone can easily see my post was a critique of your allegation...but in true oblivious fashion, you cannot muster a response so you resort to personal attacks in self defense. Do you not hear the laughter? Everyone else does. These are overly simplistic concepts that you cannot comprehend, so your fallback is unimaginative, boring, boiler plate Liberal attacks. Seriously, how are you not embarrassed? Let's see if you can muster a unique, thoughtful, or even sophomoric answer. I've asked this previously, so you've had time to ponder. But please, take all the time you need to offer an insightful response. Do you think you are intellectually capable of judging GOP voters? This should be good.

You insult "superiors", I call you out on it...and you come to the conclusion I am triggered. You are comical. Do you think your analytical skills are up to par with GOP voters? Really? Do you? Please, let the laughter continue.

It's hilarious that you've analyzed millions of GOP voters, and concluded that they are low IQ. This coming from someone who has displayed his inadequacies in simple analytical skills...but yet can somehow judge others. Will the entertainment value ever end? The laughter at such moronic/baseless/stereotyped conclusions is fodder for the sane. Please keep trying, so we can keep laughing.

Your analysis is worth...how much? Your attempts to stereotype are priceless, and clueless. Would you care to elaborate on your innermost thoughts of Southeast Texas? Do you want to reveal even more to the board of your true colors? Please continue with your condescension attempts. Never enough entertainment on this board.

Show me your skills. Oh wait, you have already...for free...and I still didn't get my money's worth.