Englebert

How about judging others. Is that a sin? Simple question. What percentage of White people do you consider racist?

Or could it be, and more probable, you just see racism where you want to see it. How many White people do you think are actually racist? What percentage?

Can someone please help me out with this simple math problem. For some reason I can't seem to make these simple computations work. We have at least 11 million illegals in this country. We know this because both sides seem to be stuck on this number, although I think it's probably a lot higher. These illegals work the jobs American citizens won't do. We know this because the Liberals tout this notion at every turn. The jobs Americans won't do are low paying jobs. We know this because if they were high paying jobs, American citizens would do them. Illegals are not loners, they have families. We know this because Liberals always say that if we deport the illegals, we will be breaking up families. A person cannot support a family working a low-wage job without government support. We know this because practically every Liberal espoused this notion during the recent “minimum wage” debate. Illegals are not receiving government support. We know this because Liberals have chastised anyone that claims this to be true. Illegals are contributing to the American economy. We know this because the Liberals tell us this is true. So the conundrum is: How can a person working a low wage job with no government assistance support a family while simultaneously contributing to the economy? Bonus question: How does an illegal support his family if he becomes disabled or when he is too old to work?

Baiting? How does an enlightened one...one that is determined to teach the peons their fallible ways...fall prey to such simplistic rhetoric? It seems it is okay for you to insult the intelligence of others, but get extremely agitated when someone responds in kind.

These are pretty much the responses I expected from someone that is thin skinned but a self-described enlightened one that doesn't mind throwing out negative stereotypes based on nothing. Keep wallowing in your hate and we will keep laughing at you.

How about you apologize for calling me and every White person a practicing racist, then I will think about giving two cents about anything you have to say. I have no qualms about breaking out the pedophile card against you after your pathetic revelations. And it's hilarious that you can even think about "winning" a mythical argument that is based on you race baiting, deflecting, then running like a frightened schoolgirl when challenged on your immature but all too common accusations. And I now have zero trust in anything you have to say knowing that your strategy of debate is to blame Whitey.

I had a feeling you would deflect. You make a statement you can't defend then run and hide when confronted. It's what snowflakes do. The laughter continues...and is just getting louder.

Can you translate that? Are you (laughably) parroting many of the snowflake pundits that are actually claiming that Trump has unleased the hate by White Americans to become more prevalent, even after witnessing the hate by the Left in overwhelming fashion? Is this what you are suggesting? I have to ask for a translation because I can't believe anybody can be so stupid or naïve as to actually fall for that crap. Please show me that you are smarter than that.

Somehow I don't feel "educated" by your post. Besides, my issue is with your hate and arrogance, not your beliefs. Was your self-imposed time-out only for two hours? You might need some more time for inner reflection and meditation (or just a plain ol' simple education) to rid yourself of your inner demons of hate and confusion.

The problem is you. That is obvious to pretty much everyone. I still cannot conceive of how you obtained your arrogant persona. I guess when facts don't matter, you can convince yourself of anything. Although you do bring a light-hearted and comical entertainment value to the board, maybe the self-imposed time-out is the best thing for you right now. Don't forget to don your long pointy hat while sitting in the corner.

Why? You can't handle being done to you what you do to everybody else? Pretty pathetic and immature, but somehow you own an imaginary soapbox upon which you perch yourself to "educate" the less enlightened. I don't have to label you...even the 4th graders can see right through your pompous façade.

And your solution is? Oh yeah, blame Whitey for every problem in the world. The 5th graders are now laughing at your obvious "blinded by hate" rhetoric.

You make a pathetic statement justifying a despicable act, you get called out, then you retreat to the act of denial, then jump on the elitist soapbox preaching how us peons cannot understand...just as little feeble minded sheeple have done so often. My question is: How in the world did you ever obtain this elitist attitude. You make pathetic statements that even 6th graders can laugh at, but astoundingly are oblivious to your own sophomoric hyperbole. The next time you post your hate on here, keep in mind the peons are laughing at you. You should be able to hear the thundering laughter all around you. To use condescension in your proclamations just makes it all that more hilarious to normal folks.

Okay, the flu medicine is wearing off. Time to go to bed. I anxiously await the responses...tomorrow.

And furthermore, given the fact that we, as human beings, do not currently possess the capability of predicting who will become violent, and history has shown that Liberal policies are detrimental to the health of a society, shouldn't we dispatch with background checks and just rely on voting records to determine who has the mentally capacity to exercise their second amendment rights?

And furthermore, given the fact that religion is responsible for more deaths in history than anything (I know this because Liberals posture this idea at every turn), should we ban all religions?

And furthermore, given the fact that less people are proficient in gun accuracy (I actually don't know if this is fact, but let's assume), should unskilled gun owners be given larger clips to stop an assault? Back when many people hunted for food, a ten round clip would be sufficient in stopping an attack, and multiple attackers. But in today's atmosphere, is it plausible that the average person can hit an attacker with limited opportunities? Shouldn't we be increasing the magazine capabilities to accommodate for deficient accuracy skills?

And furthermore, given the fact that many more unborn lives have been taken due to unwanted teen pregnancies than "assault weapons", what should the age of consent be for people engaging in the act of procreation? Does sex education help with this issue? Liberals think this subject should be taken from the parents and taught in the classroom. Why is "sensible" gun ownership not taught in the classroom?

And furthermore, given that stats show many more teen lives are taken due to car accidents than "assault weapons", what should the age be for someone to have the privilege to own and/or operate these killing machines? Based on last weekend's revelations, I'm still stuck on 35.

And furthermore, many of these mentally challenged excrements have stated that they need to be protected from tools that have the capability of slaughtering them. Well, stats show that many, many, many (can't have too many "manys" in this sentence) more youth are killed by texting than by "assault guns". Given that absolute fact, and given the fact that these morons feel that we should raise the age for possession of tools of death, shouldn't we raise the age of owning a smart phone to 35? What do y'all think the mentally developed age to safely own a smart phone should be?

After listening to the mentally stunted youth speak about how the constitution is outdated and is in need of change, I find myself in total agreement with that assessment. When the constitution was written, most people 18 years old were married, with a child or two, and had life and survival skills foreign to todays peers. Based on that, the constitutional elders determined that an 18 year old was mature enough to vote for their representative. I find that no longer the case. This is backed up by the Liberals who insist that 18 year olds are too immature to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. So I feel it is time to change the voting age to 35. What do y'all think? What should the voting age be?

If a reporter writes an article discounting the Man-Made Global Warming Theory, would this be considered "fake news"? Banning "fake news" is just a different way of advocating for censorship. If censorship is the solution (and it never is), who gets to decide what is fake? Who gets to decide who to appoint to decide what is fake? Who gets to decide who can appoint? And so on, and so on.

So any weapon that holds 16 bullets is a killing machine that should be banned. All others are legal. Yeah, that will solve the problem. What crystal ball do you are anyone own that can predict who will go into a school and randomly shoot innocent children, or predict who will kill anyone? Where is this technology? Who has this ability? Oh yeah, that only exists in fantasyland. Who gets to decide who is mentally impaired? It's a serious topic in which you have no clue and probably should not be part of the discussion. Luckily for you this is America and you can't be banned from discussing on a subject, no matter how short-sided, immature, and deficient in common sense your rationale may be. Instead of focusing on the mental health of gun owners, maybe we should concentrate on changing the laws for those who abuse the first amendment?

I literally pulled a LOL when I heard this moron speak. I don't remember what station I was watching, but the lead-in stated that this guy was the face of the movement and that his statements are "going viral". So I stayed tuned to see what he had to say. If I was his dad I could emphatically state that this would be the most embarrassing day of my life...that a child I raised could be so immature. I guess I would remind him of why he is not allowed to vote.

Please explain your definition of an "assault gun". Then please explain your definition of a "mentally impaired" person. I bet you won't...because once you try to define your stereotypical generalizations, your asinine, short-sighted and mentally stunted definitions will then be open to ridicule by those possessing more than two functioning brain cells. So please, give your best "old college try" at a pathetic rationalization for such a pathetic statement so we can bask in amusement of your feeble mindedness when assessing a subject you have clearly given zero original thought. You seem (from past posts) to have the answers to question that us peons cannot fathom, and yet you articulate these revelations in condescending fashion...but somehow and mysteriously proffer such an immature statement. Shouldn't these two things be the ones that should be kept apart? I bet you run. Let's make this easy on you. A new law is passed that bans assault weapons and bans mentally impaired persons from owning a firearm. The Police Chief holds a meeting to inform his officers of the new law. One officer asks what qualifies as an assault weapon. Another officer inquires as to who qualifies as a mentally impaired person. You are the Police Chief. How do you respond?