Sh**hole Countries

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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: 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

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.

So no to my proposal.  Got it.  And likewise, I say no to the kiddie test.  But thanks for playing.  See that was easy!  (And it would have accomplished more than amusement.  It would have made mine and the money holder's pockets significantly heavier.  But like I said, if you didn't back out beforehand, you would have backed out when that part of the wager came up.)  So no worries - like I said, no shame in just saying you're not interested.  I, and some others, aren't surprised.  Have a good day, champ!

[Englebert]

39 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

So no to my proposal.  Got it.  And likewise, I say no to the kiddie test.  But thanks for playing.  See that was easy!  (And it would have accomplished more than amusement.  It would have made mine and the money holder's pockets significantly heavier.  But like I said, if you didn't back out beforehand, you would have backed out when that part of the wager came up.)  So no worries - like I said, no shame in just saying you're not interested.  I, and some others, aren't surprised.  Have a good day, champ!

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.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.

No interest in taking it for funsies.  Done that before.  And since apparently you can add reading comprehension to your list of deficiencies, I was clear from the get go it would be for a substantial amount of money (worth my time).  I thought reading comprehension was my weakness since it dropped my score from the 99th to the 98th percentile when I took the test (OMG - that's where those numbers come from!!!).

So based on my original proposal and your aversion to a wager, it was never going to happen anyway.  That was my supposition but glad I wasted several minutes of my life in this discussion.  As to your perplexity, you are the one who constantly wants to deride my "analytical skills (as you have done on several occasions), despite the fact you continually demonstrate a severe deficiency there to anyone who understands the concept.  It's okay, you also seem to be absorbed with "psychological testing" since you "took several classes in college."  Kudos for that and I could happily put you in touch with my nephew who is a professor of psychology so you can further your "intellectual stimulation" there. 

The bottom line sport is you continually run your mouth and insult others while claiming you only do it because they do it to you.  I, on the other hand, and quite friendly with many of the posters on this site who happen to hold some philosophical differences to me (I could name them but if you are able to read between any lines, which is maybe questionable), you probably already know who they are.  We've never insulted one another, enjoy each other's company, and I consider them friends.  But you have difficulty doing that for some reason, and feel the need to constantly deride anyone who disagrees with you.  It's a decidedly sad existence and I actually pity you for it.  I once thought you were an asset to this site; I have come to realize I was sadly mistaken.  But continue to deflect and project, which you not only continually do in your ramblings, you have consistently done that ITT.  It's boring and tiresome and it's obvious to many, even some on your side of the political debate.

As for me, I'm done with this conversation.  The only reason I ever started it was to see how confident you were in your analytical superiority, and was quite content to issue a financial punishing for your over-confidence.  We won't ever know because you aren't interested in that and to be honest, that is an exceedingly wise choice on your part.  Continue posting your verbal assaults on this board and pat yourself on the back because "you are only doing it because the libs do it."  Very mindful of arguments my children gave me when they were much younger, and neither is out of high school yet.  How sad.  I will let you have your fun and have no intention of engaging in this mindless oneupmanship anymore.  In the end, that's all it was apparently going to be anyway.  Some people's mouths are bigger than their willingness to prove it, or maybe bigger than their wallets.  Either way, I could sincerely care less

[baddog]

Let me get this straight..... It's ok for Madonna to threaten to blow up the WH, laster night hosts to imply that Trump is sexually pleasuring Putin, comics to take pics depicting ab headless Trump, De Niro aand countless others can say F*#@ Trump, but if Trump take down about third world countries, these same people will condemn Trump for offensive language. What a bunch of two-faced POS s.

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, baddog said:

Let me get this straight..... It's ok for Madonna to threaten to blow up the WH, laster night hosts to imply that Trump is sexually pleasuring Putin, comics to take pics depicting ab headless Trump, De Niro aand countless others can say F*#@ Trump, but if Trump take down about third world countries, these same people will condemn Trump for offensive language. What a bunch of two-faced POS s.

You make a valid point and most everything you mentioned above is equally displeasing to me (the jokes about pleasuring Putin are just funny though).  I find most of that highly offensive as well.  I obviously don't agree with much of what he does (and I know you don't agree with some), but to behave as some have is juvenile at best.  However, we have to expect more out of our President than we do Kathy F'in Griffin.  We all know she's a clown, we don't expect our leader (and the leader of the free world to be one).  And to be honest, I am not as offended as some by what he said.  It was dumb (and I absolutely think he's lying about it now) but it's far from the dumbest thing that's come out of his mouth (or his fingers while typing).  And I know how you're an anti-PC guy (and I am as well to a certain extent) so I can completely see how you (as well as others such as PhatMack) simply see it as calling a skunk, a skunk.  Again it was just dumb and had the appearance of other undertones in the manner in which he said it.

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You make a valid point and most everything you mentioned above is equally displeasing to me (the jokes about pleasuring Putin are just funny though).  I find most of that highly offensive as well.  I obviously don't agree with much of what he does (and I know you don't agree with some), but to behave as some have is juvenile at best.  However, we have to expect more out of our President than we do Kathy F'in Griffin.  We all know she's a clown, we don't expect our leader (and the leader of the free world to be one).  And to be honest, I am not as offended as some by what he said.  It was dumb (and I absolutely think he's lying about it now) but it's far from the dumbest thing that's come out of his mouth (or his fingers while typing).  And I know how you're an anti-PC guy (and I am as well to a certain extent) so I can completely see how you (as well as others such as PhatMack) simply see it as calling a skunk, a skunk.  Again it was just dumb and had the appearance of other undertones in the manner in which he said it.

I'll go back to my previous post and ask why these s- hole countries are referred to as third world? That is degrading in and of itself. If Trump actually said this, it was childish and he could have chosen a better adjective. However, he would have been crucified for a third world reference too. I wonder how many of these celebrities have visited any of the referred to countries...... Probably none. Why, are they too good?

BTW, good post Hoops. There is hope for you yet. Lol

[Englebert]

33 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No interest in taking it for funsies.  Done that before.  And since apparently you can add reading comprehension to your list of deficiencies, I was clear from the get go it would be for a substantial amount of money (worth my time).  I thought reading comprehension was my weakness since it dropped my score from the 99th to the 98th percentile when I took the test (OMG - that's where those numbers come from!!!).

So based on my original proposal and your aversion to a wager, it was never going to happen anyway.  That was my supposition but glad I wasted several minutes of my life in this discussion.  As to your perplexity, you are the one who constantly wants to deride my "analytical skills (as you have done on several occasions), despite the fact you continually demonstrate a severe deficiency there to anyone who understands the concept.  It's okay, you also seem to be absorbed with "psychological testing" since you "took several classes in college."  Kudos for that and I could happily put you in touch with my nephew who is a professor of psychology so you can further your "intellectual stimulation" there. 

The bottom line sport is you continually run your mouth and insult others while claiming you only do it because they do it to you.  I, on the other hand, and quite friendly with many of the posters on this site who happen to hold some philosophical differences to me (I could name them but if you are able to read between any lines, which is maybe questionable), you probably already know who they are.  We've never insulted one another, enjoy each other's company, and I consider them friends.  But you have difficulty doing that for some reason, and feel the need to constantly deride anyone who disagrees with you.  It's a decidedly sad existence and I actually pity you for it.  I once thought you were an asset to this site; I have come to realize I was sadly mistaken.  But continue to deflect and project, which you not only continually do in your ramblings, you have consistently done that ITT.  It's boring and tiresome and it's obvious to many, even some on your side of the political debate.

As for me, I'm done with this conversation.  The only reason I ever started it was to see how confident you were in your analytical superiority, and was quite content to issue a financial punishing for your over-confidence.  We won't ever know because you aren't interested in that and to be honest, that is an exceedingly wise choice on your part.  Continue posting your verbal assaults on this board and pat yourself on the back because "you are only doing it because the libs do it."  Very mindful of arguments my children gave me when they were much younger, and neither is out of high school yet.  How sad.  I will let you have your fun and have no intention of engaging in this mindless oneupmanship anymore.  In the end, that's all it was apparently going to be anyway.  Some people's mouths are bigger than their willingness to prove it, or maybe bigger than their wallets.  Either way, I could sincerely care less

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.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, baddog said:

I'll go back to my previous post and ask why these s- hole countries are referred to as third world? That is degrading in and of itself. If Trump actually said this, it was childish and he could have chosen a better adjective. However, he would have been crucified for a third world reference too. I wonder how many of these celebrities have visited any of the referred to countries...... Probably none. Why, are they too good?

BTW, good post Hoops. There is hope for you yet. Lol

Valid point about "third world."  Same meaning I believe when most people use it.  Sounds better obviously and a little less harsh, especially considering who much of your base is.

[TxHoops]

17 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.

Again, not going to engage in the ridiculous.  Read 90 percent of your posts talking to people you are arguing with.  Again, I not only know it, many of the conservatives on this board know it as well.  I won't call anyone out but it's the truth.  The rest of the jibberish above is childish "no you!" that is your calling card.  Sorry not going to engage.

The mental competency you question in making such a bet merely shows you're an amateur at this psychology you seem so focused on.  Why would someone's competency be an issue on a test that they KNOW they are likely to not miss a single question?  I would question the competency of someone who would be unwilling to take free money, which is exactly what it would be.   Quite simply, you were drawing dead to a push before the test even began.  And as for me being scared, I put in one of the posts exactly what I was proposing to wager but not surprisingly, that flew over your head (i.e., i didn't exactly spell it out but simple math would have given you the answer).  And I could have that in cash to the money holder today.  But again, it's all hypothetical.

Now I'm done

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Again, not going to engage in the ridiculous.  Read 90 percent of your posts talking to people you are arguing with.  Again, I not only know it, many of the conservatives on this board know it as well.  I won't call anyone out but it's the truth.  The rest of the jibberish above is childish "no you!" that is your calling card.  Sorry not going to engage.

The mental competency you question in making such a bet merely shows you're an amateur at this psychology you seem so focused on.  Why would someone's competency be an issue on a test that they KNOW they are likely to not miss a single question?  I would question the competency of someone who would be unwilling to take free money, which is exactly what it would be.   Quite simply, you were drawing dead to a push before the test even began.  And as for me being scared, I put in one of the posts exactly what I was proposing to wager but not surprisingly, that flew over your head (i.e., i didn't exactly spell it out but simple math would have given you the answer).  And I could have that in cash to the money holder today.  But again, it's all hypothetical.

Now I'm done

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.

[Reagan]

From the article: " Durbin allegedly has a history of

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

about private White House meetings."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

Hillarious Clintonista got on the bandwagon concerning what Trump "supposedly" said concerning Haiti and other places.  James Woods blasted Bill Clinton, which INCLUDED Hillarious, for looting Haiti.  Again, no shortages of hypocrites on the commie-pinko side of the aisle!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Kountzer]

Immigrants from Africa do extremely well in the USA

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[ladybug33]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 7:46 PM, Englebert said:

IMO what many don't realize is that every time Trump opens his mouth the true colors of the Liberals are exposed. Keep it up Trump. And definitely keep tweeting. It makes Liberals lose what little mind they have left.

I'm not a Liberal! Yes Trump keep talking and tweeting! Feed your base of 36% or less.

[Englebert]

45 minutes ago, ladybug33 said:

I'm not a Liberal! Yes Trump keep talking and tweeting! Feed your base of 36% or less.

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.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, ladybug33 said:

I'm not a Liberal! Yes Trump keep talking and tweeting! Feed your base of 36% or less.

I think Mrs. Clinton and all of the oddsmakers felt the same way you do/did.

[ladybug33]

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

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.

And Republicans do the same. Unlike Independents we observe both parties and sometimes we cannot believe the things that comes out of each party lines. I don't post here too often because, I have never read an independent viewpoint on here. I could care less how you guys feel about the liberal base what so ever, and I do share some of Trumps ideas, i.e. the Obama mandate; I hate the idea of forcing someone to pay a fee for not having insurance. I also approve of the ban on certain countries coming to this country with limited vetting. I do not like the name calling, and singling out groups of people because of their race. Enough said.

[Englebert]

45 minutes ago, ladybug33 said:

And Republicans do the same. Unlike Independents we observe both parties and sometimes we cannot believe the things that comes out of each party lines. I don't post here too often because, I have never read an independent viewpoint on here. I could care less how you guys feel about the liberal base what so ever, and I do share some of Trumps ideas, i.e. the Obama mandate; I hate the idea of forcing someone to pay a fee for not having insurance. I also approve of the ban on certain countries coming to this country with limited vetting. I do not like the name calling, and singling out groups of people because of their race. Enough said.

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".

[Hagar]

And look what the stump jumper Linsey "better than thou" Graham said about Mexico.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

The Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee that were questioning Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen are laughable.

Their fake outrage over what Trump said is simply pathetic...and if the outrage isn't fake, they are the weakest of the snowflakes.

Why would you spend so much time on nonsense like this?

I see crap like this and all I can think is, Lord, help us.

 

[77]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up