Englebert

I have to slightly disagree with you on the schoolyard bully and narcissist claim. IMO, Obama was a narcissist. No matter how much incontrovertible evidence exists, Obama would still convince himself he was not wrong in any decision. I think Trump will listen and heed outside advice in formulating his decrees, which is not characteristic of an overt narcissist. I would describe it more as overly confident in his ability. Obama on the other hand... As far as a schoolyard bully, that will have to be defined better. I view a schoolyard bully as someone that demands others to be subservient without cause. That is, a schoolyard bully will pick on or humiliate a person just to make himself look good, with no other goal in mind. I think Trump "bullies" people for a purpose. He uses this strategy to accomplish a goal. But this might be just a semantics issue. As far as the rest of your post...I could not agree more or have stated it better. And for the record, I do not like Trump's behavior at all. I, like practically every other person, would prefer a different and more presidential demeanor. But hey, he got elected and doing some good things, so what do I know. Luckily for me, you, and the rest of America, Hillary is not president.

I find it interesting that you feel safe to negatively stereotype the workers at Starbucks who you've never met. I also find it interesting that you feel you are prophetic or intellectually gifted enough to somehow delve deep into the intellectual consciousness of the management of a Starbucks you've never been to, and again, people you've never even met. I also find it interesting that you ran like a frightened schoolgirl every time I've asked you to provide evidence of racial bias in this topic, although you have already convicted multiple people for said bias. I also find it laughingly absurd that you have the unmitigated gall to expect me to admit to something you or I have no proof of. Can you get any lower or sadder? I'm open minded...if you have proof of racial bias, show it. You on the other hand, have convicted people without even the slightest hint of circumstantial evidence. You even tried to invent nonexistent laws to make your point. So since you run from the pertinent questions, why don't we get to the heart of the matter. Why do you hate White people? How come you deflect from the real questions by questioning the motive or morality of the person asking the pertinent questions? Please, please, oh please keep posting. Your hate is becoming readily evident to even the most ardent deniers. And for the fourth time, what evidence do you have that the police or management or workers of Starbucks acted in a racially biased manner. The question is...will you still run like a frightened schoolgirl from the question. The next question should be, should we be laughing at you or feeling sorry for you.

Quit trying to make race the overwhelming part of the problems of your life. That makes you a bigger/biggest part of the problem!

What policies will they review? Will they change their policy so that anyone can loiter in their store without making a purchase? How many homeless people will occupy their tables during inclement weather? Will paying customers even be able to sit down during these times? Since that policy has a purpose, then how would you change it to be fair to everyone? It seems to me the change in policy that you are endorsing is that Black people should be treated the same as White people in this particular establishment. I asked you earlier, and you ignored the question. But I will ask again. What makes you think race played a part in this incident? What evidence do you have that suggests these patrons were asked to leave because of the color of their skin? If you have some evidence, please let us in on it. If you don't, then what policy are you advocating for change? And we know for an absolute fact that you have no clue how any people are.

Again, the reason doesn't matter. The establishment has the RIGHT to kick you out. Please show some evidence of a RIGHT to loiter. I bet you can't. I can make that bet because I know that RIGHT doesn't exist. Maybe that RIGHT exists in those secret history books, but not in the law books. According to you, I can go into any establishment, occupy a table meant for paying customers, and sit there without purchasing anything. If the establishment tells me to leave, I can just say I'm waiting on a friend. And even it is true that I was really waiting on a friend, the establishment still has the RIGHT to kick me out. It is their discretion. You do not have a RIGHT or an expectation to be in an establishment without the establishment's permission.

You do not have a right to loiter. If you are asked to leave, you leave. It is the establishment's discretion on whether or not you can stay. Are you just trying to make up laws? If you think that you are excused from loitering if you are waiting on a friend, what is this mythological time limit? Please, try to answer that question while I cook a roast. I have a feeling I will have plenty of time. (And I will have to teach myself how to cook a roast, which will take even more time.) Now to the salient point. How is the establishment or the police acting in a racist fashion? Is there any proof, or hell, any circumstantial evidence that they were targeting the customers based on skin color? Please, provide this evidence if you think any civil rights were violated. And what makes you think that White people would not have been asked to leave? I've been asked to leave a Starbucks for not ordering. How do you explain that?

I'll share a true story with you. I was meeting a client in Houston a while back, and we agreed to meet at a Starbucks. We met there, waited in line, and when we got to the counter, he turned to me and asked what I wanted. I said "nothing", as I do not drink coffee. He laughed because he did not drink coffee either. We found a table without ordering. After about five minutes, a worker asked us to leave if we wasn't going to order anything (the place was pretty busy). And guess what happened next. We got up and left. And no one was handcuffed. True story!

Please explain my version of reality versus yours. This should be good. The more you post, the more evident it is that your reality resides only in your head, and is miles away from normal sane people. So please, give your best shot at differentiating the differences of reality. I'll let your exposition of your true feelings bubble to the surface for everyone to see (that hasn't already come to that conclusion). And don't try and run like a frightened schoolgirl with the excuse that you don't have time for this. You made the accusation, back it up. Why do I feel like you will shamelessly run anyway?

Could you not see that my response was to BlueDove. And your previous posts have illustrated plenty of your shortcomings. You might be in the running to overtake BlueDove for the "Captain Obvious" award.

When you are asked to leave an establishment, you leave. If you don't, the cops will ask you to leave. If you still don't, you get handcuffed and escorted out. Please show me how you can attribute this result to skin color. I've known this simple fact pretty much all of my life. Are you trying to imply that Black people don't have the mental capacity to understand this simple concept? Or is it that you just see a situation that you know nothing about that involves people of different races, and your only conclusion is that "it has to be the White's man fault". Based on your previous posts, we all know the answer.

That is some fantasyland you live in. What a world it must be to live in when you can attribute all of your shortcomings solely on the color of your skin. Shameful.

Please elaborate on what I am denying. (Oops, I can hear the fading sound of footsteps running away from a simple question.) It is abundantly clear who is in denial, who makes up facts, and who runs when questioned about their facts. How are you not embarrassed?

Where did you get your facts? Oh yeah, must be those secret history books I've heard so much about but can't find.

And this would be different than any other day how? I believe you just won the "Best Impersonation of Captain Obvious" award.

Again, why do you feel this way? You spout a lot a rhetoric you cannot or won't backup. The only conclusion that can be made is that you hate White people. Am I correct? See, I can do it also.

The only question stemming from the publishment of this article should be "what punishment should someone receive for blatant race baiting". People are punished all the time for acts of racism (public shaming, ostracizing, loss of employment), but rarely do you ever see anyone punished for false accusations of racism. That should be the topic elicited from this.

Shouldn't we deal with the "countries are bombing other countries as a distraction for Trump" scandal before we move on to other scandals? Is the love child Black? The reason I ask is because Trump has already compared some of his deeds to Ronald Reagan. If he fathered a Black love child, he can now compare himself to Thomas Jefferson.

You are the one throwing out "cock eyed" statements. We are just sitting back laughing (and not with you). In case you forgot, you are actually accusing other countries of bombing another country just so Trump can boost the morale of his administration. Please give that some thought. It only takes about two functioning brain cells to realize how ridiculous that statement is. So please, keep posting. The Liberal media that you parrot is making you look foolish, and providing us some entertainment.

A case of a far, far, far fetched conspiracy theory that could eventually get someone barred from owning a firearm. That should be a question on a background check: Do you think countries will agree to bomb another country just so one country can boost morale of his administration?

Ah, so that's why Britain and France joined in. They also just want to boost morale in the Trump administration. Really?

And the meltdowns continue. How sad.

We have been asking for over a year now for the snowflakes to list the reasons why they think Trump is an "embarrassment". And we are still waiting. But we now have plenty of evidence of why Liberals are an embarrassment filled to the brim with hypocrisy. Please, would you care to expound on your reasons. Please keep in mind that the values you list must hold the same connotation when applied to others.

How many criminal indictments have anything to do with Trump? How about lying to the face of the American people, Russian propaganda payoffs, interns, weaponizing government agencies, rigging elections, accusing the Amercian government of attacking another government based solely as a distraction, etc. Your outraged is based solely on political affiliation. It is abundantly clear who should be embarrassed.

Are you and BLUEDOVE3 watching the same channel? Y'all might want to expand your horizons and find a better source. Better yet, open your eyes to real-world events not based on biased political motivations. A country used chemical weapons, and your response is that the punishment served is just a self-serving political move. Do you actually think France and Britain joined in the airstrikes because they want to help Trump distract the sheeple from the Mueller probe? Are you as embarrassed as BLUEDOVE3 should be?

I see you have been intently glued to your Left wing propaganda machine while simultaneously accusing others of only getting information from biased sources. Embarrassed yet?