Englebert

Do you ever get tired of being wrong when you throw out your stereotypical attacks that you yourself are in fact the one guilty of such? Luckily the New York Times is a bastion of truth that never shows any bias towards Trump. Are their sources Robert De Niro, Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, and Joy Behar?

I thought you knew the Left was immune from criticism of acts that mirror the Right's actions that evoke extreme moral outrage.

Show me the evidence. It's not really hard. Go to your source, highlight the evidence, click <ctl> <C>, click in the reply box, then click <ctl> <V>. I really would love to see what you consider credible information. And let's delve down even deeper. What if Cohen had secret meetings with Russians? So what. Did any vote get changed? What could these meetings possibly accomplish when Obama himself publically stated that our elections could not be rigged by anyone. I can easily find the video in case your mind has blocked that fact from your consciousness. Please, elaborate on your fantasyland imaginary scenarios (i.e. Liberal talking points) that could have resulted in a Hillary loss due to Russians. While you are explaining this point, please include why you think the Russians have just now tried to influence our elections. And please differentiate why it was okay for Obama to meddle in Israeli elections, but somehow now find the motivation to generate fake moral outrage over "possible" evidence of Russians acting in kind. Please calculate who spent more of their taxpayers money: The U.S. meddling in the Israeli elections or Russians meddling in the U.S. elections. And since you are so worried about "collusion", are you not worried that Hillary paid for Russian intelligence as a cover for our Federal government to spy on an opposition campaign? Please explain your silence on that plethora of evidence.

I have no fantasies about being perfectly unbiased, but I'm highly curious as to which comments I've made that you consider biased. Can you please point them out?

Please keep posting. The insights to your internal rationalizations should be evident to everyone by now. But just in case someone in the far reaches of the Sahara haven't caught on, please keep providing the obvious evidence. To save some embarrassment, you might want to have a friend or loved one scan your posts before hitting the submit button. Scratch that, keep posting your obvious and extremely biased diatribes. It just adds to the entertainment value of this site. When you start making moral comparisons between having consensual sex with a porn star versus having sex with a person you have power over, then you've lost it. And what's even worse, we can all see the fake moral outrage. I think even Westend1 would give the proverbial LOL on this one.

It's evident your moral indignation is based solely on political affiliation. How sad is that!

Do the real news sources include those secret history books I've heard so much about, but have yet able to get my hands on?

Says who? Do you think Nancy Pelosi sits atop that pole? And since someone has convinced you to believe that, why do you think he deserves the unmitigated hatred thrown his way? I noticed you ran from the question and just deflected to Liberal talking points. What are some actions performed by Trump that leads you to think he deserves this uncivilized behavior directed at him? Since you think Trump is dumb, therefore "deserves it", are you really trying to convey the message that dumb people deserve ridicule and hate? You must have some rationale for your jab, otherwise you are just another Liberal in need of a safe space to scream at the sky. Please enlighten us.

Although the scoreboard says A&M won 6-5, I will not accept the results of this game. Texas outhit A&M 12-9. Every hit should count. Texas is the true winner, regardless of Texas committing more errors. Russia colluded. Wait. Sorry, wrong forum. Carry on.

I'm curious as to why Congress is trying to blame Zuckerberg for a breach of personal data. The Facebook agreement flat out says they can sell your data. One congressman (I just saw a short clip) said that Zuckerberg's user agreement sucks. So why is he questioning Zuckerberg? Why is he not chastising his constituents that signed an agreement that sucks? Does he think he is so much of an elitist that he is the only one that understands a plain English agreement, and that he needs to coddle the little peons who are too stupid to comprehend this simple language? Does he not understand that by not holding Americans accountable for their own actions that he is encouraging more lazy behavior. I fully understand and agree with going after people that engage in fraudulent business practices, but the Facebook User Agreement is not fraudulent at all. I read the agreement about 10 years ago, and I can say I have never been a member...solely due to that agreement. If anyone should have to appear before Congress, it should be the members of Facebook. I can't stand Zuckerberg's business model, and especially Facebook's seemingly targeting of Conservatives. But to target the User Agreement is just elitist, condescending, and another failure of the "adults" holding their "children" accountable. Granted, I did not watch any of the hearings, and I view Zuckerberg as writhing at the bottom of the barrel in moral turpitude. (I don't view him underneath the barrel where many Liberals reside.) I think he is pathetic in his promise to root out "hate speech", when anyone with a semblance of cognitive ability knows "hate speech" is merely a matter of perspective. He is actually advocating for censorship of ideas based on a biased formula. So I have no sympathy for him being in the "hotseat". But to misplace blame like this I find highly offensive and detrimental to the survival of this country. Again, I don't have the foggiest idea of why Zuckerberg is even before Congress. Can someone please elaborate and possibly ease my unease about the intelligence of our elitist Congress?

If you are correct then I'm sure Affirmative Action, Civil Rights Legislation, and all of the money directed toward minority programs will come to a screeching halt. All of us Southern White racists will be marching in the streets demanding that Black people should no longer have the right to vote or own land, or even be in this country. We will succeed because we have the majority on our side. All White people, or the vast majority, will gladly and enthusiastically join the chorus of hatred while clinging to our guns or religion or antipathy of people that aren't like us. Did I pinpoint your beliefs?

Would you care to expound on why you think he deserves it?

Kinda similar to that phrase "they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" isn't it.

Are you just deflecting or do you still not get my point? How do you know we didn't share your experiences? If I'm not capable of understanding your plight, how are you capable of understanding my plight? Slightly off topic but an expansion of my point: If you want to start a company that sells a better tampon, would you want to hire a man or a woman for R&D? The better choice would be the man. A woman is more likely to bring her own experiences and biases into the development, whereas a man has no experience and must rely solely on the research data. The woman would be more likely to develop a product that is comfortable for her body type, while the man would rely solely on the data to develop a product that is comfortable for a variety of body types. Disclaimer: This is a simplistic example not to be taken too seriously, just to elicit thought. Anyone offended can easily come up their own example that reverses gender roles.

You could possibly be spot on with your analysis that Johnny was a bigot. Or it could possibly be he used the N word just to agitate people...to get under their skin. Most, and I do mean most, people will learn and use strategies that will get them what they want, even if it is contrary to their beliefs. Most, and again most, will have an internal/personal line that they will only occasionally cross if the reward is great. Some don't have much of a line at all. And some are just plain bigoted.

Can I use this as "evidence of permission" at my hearing? This is something Elizabeth Warren doesn't have.

Interesting, but can't see how it is relevant to the topic. In Little League and Pony League baseball my family traded rides with a Black family. When I rode with them I was the only White person in the car. When he rode with us he was the only Black person in the car. True story!!

I'm curious as to how many Conservative viewpoints are considered "threats" compared to how many Liberal viewpoints are considered the same. I would be willing to bet the targeting is similar to what the IRS did, or even modeled after.

Not at my house, or any of my family's. We always have sweet potato pie. I guess I can check the minority box on my next application.

The topic is who has the ability to understand/evaluate differences between the cultures. I hear the phrase "you can't understand because you have never walked a mile in my shoes". How is that a valid statement when it is a comparative statement. If I have never walked a mile in your shoes, it stands to reason that you have never walked a mile in my shoes. Therefore, how can you say I can't compare the two but somehow you have that ability. If you are trying to say that because Black folks waited on/served White folks in the past...that this lends some insight to the culture of White folks, then you are the one that deserves the obligatory LOL. I've watched the Super Bowl for many years but I've never actually played in one. I've been on the sidelines for a couple of college football games, does that give me more insight to the football culture than people in the stands? And have you or Kountzer actually "walked one foot in a White man's shoes" to give you a believe that you have inside knowledge...knowledge that no White man can achieve. If Black folks have been living in White culture for years, how is it that only Black people have the ability to garner that knowledge into comparative assertations, but White people cannot think in kind? And do you think that many White folks feel uncomfortable in situations where they are the minority because many, many, many people have constantly reminded them of how their ancestors have treated minorities in the past...and that some of these minorities...who now outnumber them...might hold a grudge. Hmmm. And what leads you to the conclusion that White folks feel any more uncomfortable in minority crowds than minorities feel in White crowds?

Haven't White people engaged in this same observation? If you can somehow know a thing or two about White culture, shouldn't White people be capable of knowing a thing or two about Black culture? Are you suggesting this intellectual capability is only present in Black people?

Please explain the difference between Black and White culture. Since this is a comparison, how do you know anything about White culture? How do you compare the two when you know absolutely nothing about one half. And if you are prophetic enough to know about both cultures for this comparison (even though you've never walked a step in a White man's shoes), how is it that a White man somehow cannot do the same? Are you implying that Black people can analyze both cultures for a comparison but White people are incapable of such analysis?

Did we run them off or did they choose to run when challenged to back up their claims? You are not the first to try that erroneous analysis. The archives prove it (to anyone that has fundamental reading skills).

Really? Apparently you are the only one on the board that can't see your blatant hypocrisy. And hate.

Your refusal to answer says a lot. Your posts on here are clear enough though. I'm curious to know if you feel that blatant hypocrisy is a sin.