Englebert

I'm starting to think that the GOP is approaching problems in the wrong way. It's clear that Liberals have no ideas and only fight against Republicans ideas. Therefore, Republicans should demand no wall be built. Demand free, unlimited, unchecked, borderless immigration policies. Demand businesses and citizens pay substantially more taxes for redistribution of wealth. Demand that every person in the country has a right to free healthcare, free housing, free food, and a guaranteed paycheck, regardless of immigration status. Demand that the U.S. maintains trillions of dollars of debt. Demand the U.S. maintains a substantial spending deficit. Demand that corruption in every facet of government go unchecked. Demand that the military and law enforcement agencies be given zero support or respect. Demand Hollywood actors and music "artists" be given unconditional respect and admiration. Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, and ilk would be clamoring to every camera about how the GOP are just racist, and that we need to muster every fiber of our being to fight these idiotic proposals. The GOP can then acquiesce to their demands, giving them a sense of "winning". I'm guessing we can have the country back on the right track before they ever catch on, and lead to a very interesting future State of the Union address.

I read quite a few Liberal articles today saying that it is un-American for the Republicans to release this memo because the FBI objects to its release. That seems to me like saying, "don't release photos of me cheating on my wife". I have also read a few Liberal articles stating that the memo is full of Right-wing propaganda of misleading information and half-truths. These articles were not written by people who have read the memo, so I'm curious as to how they know. Oh yeah, I forgot, the Left is comprised of the all-knowing enlightened intellectuals with morality beyond reproach. I sure would like to know where the Liberals obtain these crystal balls. I've checked Amazon and eBay, but so far, no luck. Luckily for me I can't find one, because recent history has shown them to be completely and utterly inaccurate. According to Liberal crystal balls, all minorities should be deported or back in chains by now. The economy should be in shambles one year into Trump's inauguration. Gays should all be exterminated, or at least incarcerated. Women should be barefoot, pregnant, and considered too stupid to vote. A nazi-like regime should be firmly in place. World War III should have started months ago. Many lesser crystal balls predicted Trump to be in prison, or at a minimum be impeached by now. On second thought, I really don't think I want to be anointed with the enlightened moniker, unless I can somehow get my hands on the "shameless" inoculation that shelters me from all ridicule. Oops, I guess that cure only works for Liberals.

I have a question for the Left (this question includes Liberals and Democrats..which is becoming more and more synonymous). Many on the Left have questioned the patriotism or the threat to the security of the United States of America by President Trump. I can provide an abundance of evidence, as can any person over the age of three, of this incessant and all-too frequent allegations based on....well, nothing. (Please Leftists, fill in that blank.) The question is "Why can the leader of the free world be so flippantly questioned about loyalty motives, but the second the FBI/DOJ is questioned about ulterior motives, the only thing I hear out of Liberal mouths is "It is treasonous to impugn these organizations." This confuses me. It seems that in the Leftist mind that anyone questioning the motives/actions of agents associated with the FBI/DOJ is paramount to treason (even though evidence exists of corruption), but accusing their boss (President of the USA...Leader of the free world) of mental unstability, racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, etc (y'all get the picture, I'll be here all night repeating the accusations by the Left) is perfectly acceptable behavior. Furthermore, questioning the motives/actions of any other law enforcement agency is also celebrated. Let me restate the question in condensed form: How can you Lefties decry outrage over people questioning the motives of certain FBI and DOJ employees after profusely accusing the President and every other law enforcement entity of every unsubstantiated treasonous act imaginable? Please explain for us unenlightened ones.

Are these the quoted numbers for the sheeple? I'm pretty sure 77 wanted the real numbers. Do you have them?

It's very childish that you would make this post after you had no clue as to what the word meant when I used it to describe the Black voting patterns. You wrongly, and laughably, thought I was trying to impart a negative stereotype, and you emphatically vocalized that misinterpretation. For normal people, this would have been an embarrassing moment in their life. But not only did you seem to not be embarrassed by your ignorance of the meaning of the word, you now try to perch yourself on a pedestal to show outrageous indignation for what you (and only you) was a misinterpreted use of the word. Again, most normal people would be embarrassed, but you quizzically choose to flaunt your shortcomings.

Do you actually believe that Ty Cobb's post above is advocating for White supremacy like you seem to claim?

Why would the NFL ban a name that doesn't seem to offend the very people it is named after: [Hidden Content] I could see them banning the name if ratings start dropping because of it, but that hasn't been the case.

Republicans do the same at a lot, lot, lot lower rate. In fact, if a basketball team beats another team 126-7, it would be like saying "both teams scored".

I didn't specifically accuse you of being a Liberal. I'm not willing to levy that horrible moniker on anyone until their actions proved they deserve it, unlike Liberals who throw out every disparaging name in the book at anyone that is not 100% in lock-step with their fascist agenda. Is that the silent majority you speak of? How can 36% actually beat 64%? Yes Trump, keep exposing the Liberal sheeple for who they are. That's what fires up your base, along with the other free-thinking voters.

No you're not. Quit fooling yourself. You are just too proud to tuck tail and run. I guess the excuse today for refusing to own up to your obvious misstatements is to "take your ball and go home" attitude. Are you really going to embarrass yourself like that? I knew you wouldn't even attempt to explain your obvious and obnoxious jabs at who you mistakenly think I am. The reason you run is obvious, despite your hollow objections. That is definitely a sign of a defiency or deteriorating analytical skills...ooops, I mean "your slipping". And do you realize how childish your "divide and conquer" strategy is? Are you really trying to employ this here? Now that says all I need to know about your comprehension skills. I'm assuming the next strategy is to play victim. Edit: To clarify, I used the phrase "to play victim" meaning a Liberal strategy, not as a racial component. To my knowledge you have never engaged in the racial angle and my sentence was not to inject that component, but I can see where it might get construed that way devoid of clarification.

Wow, I get to use the word bloviating again. That fits precisely. And I highly doubt you would have actually made the bet. I could be wrong, but I would be very skeptical of the mental competency of anybody that would. You can admit it, but I'm confident you won't. I'm more than willing to wager a dollar, but for obvious reasons you insist on the monetary non-starter because you know precisely that it is a non-starter. That sounds like your scared. I have a few questions you won't answer because you can't. Point out where I ever stated or hinted or eluded to an over-confidence of my analytical skills. Point out where I even said anything about my analytical skills or intelligence on any subject. That's your domain. Transference much? You are the one that has consistently bragged about your analytical skills, and you seem very butt-hurt when challenged on your competency in said skills (ever after an obvious faux paux). I guess I should conceal the sentiment by using phrase "you're slipping" when pointing these out. Would that make you feel better about yourself? Show me where I was the one instigating the insults on any topic. I can recall doing it twice, and apologized both times. I have started the insults on some topics that were carryovers from other topics. And you think my comprehension are lacking. This is an appropriate place for the obligatory LOL. Show me where I have difficulty engaging with people with differences in opinion and deride anyone that disagrees with me. See prior paragraph. And I do love your condescending attitude coupled with a superiority complex. I guess you use the combo so much you must think others engage in the same tactic. And again, you think my comprehension skills are lacking. And again, LOL. You seem to have an (apparently unknowing) obsession with injecting words and attitudes I never said or implied or inferred. Unfortunately that seems all too common nowadays. But somehow I'm the clown. That's rich. As far as you abstaining from engaging in this mindless oneupmanship anymore...yeah you will. You can't help yourself, although you won't own up to some of your misstatements outlined above because...well, you can't.

I don't gamble for money. Never have. Well, I think I might have wagered a bet of one dollar on occasion. I would have accepted, and still will, a gentlemen's wager, or one dollar. So no to my proposal? Got it. I didn't think you would go through with it. It was an assuredly absurd challenge. Anybody that knows anything about psychological testing knows that. And your dismissiveness of the GRE only reassures your ignorance or naivete of psychological testing. I'm really perplexed by your doggedness for attempting to parade your self-described analytical skills. Is it an inferiority complex? Is it a superiority complex, or a combination of both? Did you purposely try to make the rules to a point you knew I would not accept, only to then attempt to declare a win (i.e. bluffing)? Is it an compulsory need to engage in stimulating challenges? Is it some way to fill a void brought one by earlier bullying or maybe some other psychological trauma? I have no idea. And frankly, won't give it another thought. But I might go take the GRE anyway. I've been thinking about retaking it for a few years, just to see. The test is very different now than when I took it, so the two will not be very comparable. You are more than welcome to take it with me.

I guess I need to translate again: Blah blah blah blah blah. You are the one so confident in your skills. We can pick another test, one in which neither of us are familiar. I would like to take the GRE again so I can compare my scores from when I took it 30 years ago. For you to peruse: [Hidden Content] And no, I don't want to accept an absurd challenge. Like I said earlier, these tests do not, repeat DO NOT indicate superiority between scores. A battery of tests will give a good range, which can be used to differentiate people per ranges. You seem to be laughably under the false impression that one test will determine something. I will agree to taking one only because you seem substantially over-confident in your own narrative. But one thing I fully understand, having taking multiple graduate level classes on psychological testing, that this will only serve at best as amusement. It is clearly evident that you absurdly think you can accomplish your seemingly goal of superiority, which I have never even challenged. Somehow you seem to have gotten butt-hurt and need to lash out. I'll waste a Saturday just to see if you can back up your superiority claims. I make no such claims, but am interested to see if you are up to the challenge.

Clarification: You won't accept a challenge with me on the GRE. Going from your earlier posts, I'm not prepared to drop down for that level of schooling. You've displayed your analytical and logical reasoning skills enough tonight. I just hope you don't have too many board members confused as to your lack of skills tonight, along with the superiority complex you seem to harbor. And you sure did back out awfully fast.

If we are going to do just one, then the GRE. It is considered by many to be the superior test. We can just take the analytical portion. From the sounds of your earlier braggadocious posts, you must be real familiar with the LSAT to beat all of those people you claim. (How does that feel?) I've taken the GRE and so have you, that makes it more even. The pot shots I was taking were in response to yours. As usual, you seem to be employing transference again.

Set it up. We take the LSAT, then the GRE. Highest combination of scores declared fictitious "winner". Maybe this will prompt you to educate yourself on the fallacy of single test scores.

Again, why do you keep attributing your inflated ego onto me? Where have I ever claimed to be a genius? Where have I even claimed to be smart. Oh yeah, those are your claims. What do you think the phrase "bring it on" means. To use your words, do you need it spoon-fed? Has your comprehension skills degraded so much that you are confused by this? See, I can be condescending also, but without the enlightened superiority attitude, although I'm sure you will falsely read that in somehow.

Such condescension based on imaginative and wholly non-existent elements. You stated that my ego was over-inflated. Please point out where you deduce this little tidbit of knowledge. Where I have stated, or even hinted, that I thought I was superior? These are traits you espoused about yourself. Even people not adept with refined analytical skills can see your fallacy of attributing/transferring your self-described traits onto me. I point out your wrongly attributed attributes, but yet you still continue with this outlandish practice. Who was it again that said they were in the top 1%? Was it me? I don't think so. In fact, show me where I ever referred to my skills. Oh yeah, that was your assessment. I surely hope this is just a case of liquor talking for you, because your analytical skills are pretty deficient tonight, while your imagination seems to be running wild. And please point out what I failed to deduce. I feel pretty confident in assuming this is just another case of transference you seem so proficient in. Your post might be a good place to attached that video you keep misplacing. I'm vaguely familiar with the LSAT test. I never took it but we discussed it a little bit in college, along with many other tests. There is nothing special/superior about this test over some others with higher reliability and validity scores, like the Graduate Records Exam (GRE). And I noticed you failed to provide your comments on what knowledge you expect to gain from a single score. If you had any formal education/training in psychological testing, you would realize that scores do not indicate precise measurements, only ranges. I'm not going to sit here and attempt an educational tutorial on psychological testing, but I'm amused you think that a single test score would prove who was superior. That's like saying when the Astros lost a game to the Dodgers, this proves the Dodgers are the superior team. But since you seem as adamant with this as you do with polygraphs (where studies have clearly shown their pitfalls), then bring it on. We can add a rider to the signature line of the "loser". Maybe we can go double or nothing on who can "beat" the polygraph machine.

That sure was a lot a bloviating to not answer a single question I posed. It is clear that all you have is just that...bloviating. Name the test along with the reliability and validity scores. Then give a little synopsis of what an individual score means. I am confident (as confident as you think you are of your analytical skills) that you have no formal knowledge in psychological testing, and what results render. Do you think you might be engaging is this bloviation to compensate for your deficiency in said skills. I don't know. I do know you have engaged in practices that highly analytical people do not engage in, thus me pointing this out. I'm curious as to why someone so (supposedly) skilled in a talent, and surprisingly overly confident in such abilities, seems to get perturbed when said skills are questioned (especially when accurately questioned due to flawed and contradictory uses). But alas, I'm not here to analyze. I just point out the facts when I see them. And again, you try that same ol' crap of pulling out of thin air some quality attributed to me that exists only in your head. I never said or even hinted in the slightest way that I would not accept your challenge. But in typical fashion, and highly contrary to analytical thinking, you seem to want to attribute "facts" that are conjured up and securely stored in your mind only. Seeing the evidence on that skill, I'm sure you would blow me away on an imaginativeness test.

Wow, you keep proving my posts to be 100% accurate. You are "confident" you can "win" based on what? Only someone deficient in analytical skills could draw a definitive conclusion base on unknown evidence. And more evidence of flawed logic can be garnered from the fact that you think this type of thinking can be considered flawless logic. I see now how you got fooled by the Man-Made Global Warming fallacy. You might want to get checked for TDS. That has been going around for the last year or so. The symptoms seem to be a loss of analytical ability and an enlightened but flawed sense of one's intellectual superiority based on one simple comparison of political affiliation, not to mention incorporating perceived derogatory personal attacks when discovering the analytical skills have diminished to the point of uselessness. I'm hopeful that self-reflection and introspective therapy can serve as a cure, but as to date I've yet to see anyone recover. And more evidence of flawed logic, though I'm curious to know. What is this infallible test of analytical ability you speak of? What are the reliability and validity scores? Is this a standalone test or a series of tests? Are results less or more accurate than polygraph tests? I'm guessing you have no formal background in the accuracy of these tests based on the fact that you actually tried to con us into to believing polygraphs are accurate. What do you suppose a truly analytical person could conclude from results of an intellectual test of any kind? (Hint: The answer is taught in an Introductory to Psychology course.)

You are the one showing your defiencies in this department. You draw conclusions from unknown variables...not very analytical. I'm just pointing these facts out. Luckily I try not to deduce "facts" from unknowns, otherwise I would be forced to conclude it would be easy money. The scant knowledge gained from a little ol' message board points that direction. I'm curious, what clues have you garnered about me that leads you to believe you have "way the best of it". I'm interested to hear what leads you to this conclusion. It must be some awfully good analytical skills to be so confident about something that is unmistakably an unknown.

We might be the leaders in the field of witnessing sheeple. I'm curious, do sheeple scream at the sky to convey their unmitigated devotion to their Liberal gods? Oh wait, we might have a video or two of that practice.

I'm not the one drawing conclusions on hear-say and agenda driven platitudes. Your continual protests just once again proves my post was accurate. And your analytical skills are just plain non-existent. Where in any of my posts am I trying to prove I know more than real scientists. I'm just asking for proof (like I've stated over and over...and over and over). For my audacity of asking just simple questions I get the reward of silly little labels. Disheartening, but expected.

Wow. Did you actually think that was an appropriate use of that video clip? It positively proves my post was 100% accurate, and that is something every real scientist can agree that enough proof has been shown to announce "the debate is over" (no skewing of data required).

I'm not worried about the source of the link. Most people would question the source of the accusation. Like I said, I will wait for proof instead of being led like a good little sheeple susceptible to the will of the self-anointed elitists. I'm baffled how a person who follows the long-adhered scientific method of proof would be labeled a doofus...but we've become accustomed to these silly little labels.