Englebert

I'm guessing here, but I think you might have taken my earlier remarks for more than I meant. I said that I find the thought of socialized healthcare childish, simple-minded, deplorable and some other things. I actually don't believe that, I was trying to make the point that people can be far separated in their beliefs. Who is considered level-headed is probably going to fall with the one whose beliefs best matches "the beholder". It was not meant to be a personal jab.

How do you feel about creating safe zones (in or around their home country) vs importing refugees to the U.S.?

Again, I have no idea what you are saying. What do you mean by over-react. I just though we were having a simple little debate and I was simply making a point.

How many terrorists would you consider a flood? And there is about a billion more innocents out there. We cannot save the world by importing all of the world's needy.

If we dropped a nuclear bomb on a Middle Eastern country, regardless of warning, do you think this might come back to haunt us years later. Keep in mind the 200 years that have past since slavery when forming your opinion. I fully know that Africa was not a threat, but just keep in mind what that Middle Eastern country's children will grow up being taught.

Forgive me, I have no idea what that means. Please explain.

I'm quizzical as to where you are going with this. I simply stated that I disagreed with your assessment that America gave the finger to the Jews during WWII. Trying to equate today's policies with the 1930's isolationist policies needs some proof. During WWII, America did not want to travel to a foreign conflict that would cost millions of American lives. Today, America does not want open the flood gates for our enemies to walk through. I'm not seeing your connection.

Again, there lies the conundrum. You stated earlier that level-headed people can make real progress on an issue. But the definition of "level-headed" is just in the eye of the beholder. So what you are saying seems to be "only like minds can progress on an issue". Is that correct?

Yes, we were in isolationist mode. But your example is a far cry from giving the middle finger to Jews. The U.S. government felt the war would be too costly to American lives, and would overlook (and conceal from the public) many examples of atrocities made against Jews and every country/ethnic group in the world. This was not confined to Jews, and in no way a slight to them. It was an America first attitude. Once the evidence of German atrocities leaked out, it was just a short matter of time in which the American public would be incensed enough to rebel against the Isolationists and demand entry into the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor came at the time when America's entry in the war was all but inevitable. Japan struck when it was still a surprise. They knew the window would not be open much longer.

And who are the level heads? Some people think that socialized healthcare is the "level-headed" way to go, which I think is preposterous and beyond consideration. In fact, I find it childish, simple minded and deplorable. So who is level headed? To make progress on this issue, maybe we need to define what is considered level-headed. And there lies the conundrum.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but you seem to be implying we were letting Jews get slaughtered before we intervened in WWII. Is this really your contention? If not, please explain why you think we "sat back".

Same here. I like her show on FoxNews, but not enough to start watching NBC.

The Big12 has the best defense percentage of all the conferences in the bowl games: (The number in () after Conference name represents the number of teams that qualified for a bowl game) Offense Defense AAC (7) 32.29 35.29 ACC (11) 30.00 22.36 Big10 (10) 23.40 29.80 Big12 (6) 29.00 21.50 CUSA (7) 33.86 32.86 IND (2) 31.00 26.00 MAC (6) 18.83 29.83 MWC (7) 33.86 28.86 Pac12 (6) 21.67 29.17 SEC (12) 26.17 25.42 SBC (6) 32.17 31.17

I'm trying out Liberal tactics. I said I would change the word, but didn't actually go back and do it. LOL.

I'll change the word "whole" to "overwhelmingly majority".

Once you get outside of the urban areas, the whole country is a sanctuary for Conservatism. But we just refer to it as common sense.

You can't be the beneficiary of something non-existent. There is no such thing as Gender Pay Gap or Gender Bias in Pay. Examples exist of men making more for the same job with the same experience, and examples exist for women making more. Studies prove there is absolutely no systemic practice of paying men higher wages. Bill had to be dragged tooth and nail into working together. He shut the government down twice trying to fight Newt. Only after this did not work, did he have the compromise epiphany. See Hillary's work on Watergate. One would have to be incredibly morally deficient to be fired from a Lawyer firm for unethical practices. That's like the LBGT community kicking you out for being too gay.

No, he is spot on. The person to who they are referring fits your description to a tee. He initially stated he is a newbie and moderate, and espousing Left, Right, and moderate ideas. He then gravitated to more and more extreme Liberal ideology, and increasingly became belligerent and condescending. When called out (banned), he disappeared only to re-emerge with a different Username and the same initial attitude...moderate ideas, sometimes Left, sometimes Right, all very nice and chummy and just wants to debate. He has done this a least three times that I know of, and all the while denying his past Usernames. Time will tell.

I will give Bill Clinton some credit for the prosperous times under his reign. But this only came about after Newt Gingrich forced his hand. Bill shut the government down, twice, to continue his wild spending. Only after Newt handed him his rear did Bill finally decide to relent compromise. But Bill is a filthy liar and was impeached for it. As far as Hillary, well nevermind. If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all. But one thing I'm curious about is why the Left (and the Right) doesn't hammer her on the Gender Pay Gap fallacy. She continues to loudly trumpet this lie, but is guilty of the very thing she incredulously defends. It has been known as far back as the 1990s that the Gender Pay Gap exists because women on average work less than men. With many businesses having an experience/seniority driven pay scale, it is just common sense that men would have a higher pay average. But the studies that claimed the Gender Pay Gap existed failed to account for the lower average of time worked. When subsequent studies where done, which included comparing years of experience (apples to apples), unsurprisingly the Gender Pay Gap disappeared. She should know this, which makes her a filthy liar (well, just reaffirms she is a filthy liar). If she doesn't know this, she is a buffoon. And don't get me started on Chelsea. Actually, I don't know a single thing about her other than her last name is Clinton.

This forum will continue, and feel free to interject your views anytime you like. But stating that anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint is drunk on the Righty Kool-Aid dispensed by Fox News is not really an exchange of thoughts and ideas.

I'm all far exchanging ideas. It gets laughable when someone repeatedly states "I'm a centrist", then spouts all of the Lefty talking points. You are the one that is labelling yourself, and quite inaccurately. I'm just stating the obvious. Sounds like you are preparing your farewell speech.

I'm curious as to how you vehemently try to label yourself as a centrist, then spout practically every talking point from the Lefty handbook, then accuse most on this board of drinking too much of the Righty Kool-Aid that has clouded our judgement, then get highly defensive when you get labelled. That screams far Lefty, despite your protests.

You are so far left you can't even see the middle, which is painfully obvious to everyone on the board. It is crystal clear who has the clouded judgement.

How many of these cops unjustly killed a Black person but was not prosecuted?

I've never listened to Rush. I hear Liberals calling him a liar on many occasions but have never seen credible proof of these lies. My comment was entirely about Politifact. They are nowhere near a credible source and I have personally read quite a few lies and truth stretches on that site. I would trust anything on that site as far as I could throw it with both hands tied behind my back.