Englebert

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?

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.