Englebert

Fact: 1 + 1 = 2. Fact: 2 + 2 = 4. I can also state facts that add nothing to the current discussion. What point are you trying to make when you repeatedly state these facts? Or do you even have a point?

Then you must not read very much. If you can't comprehend, don't respond.

Your opinion is that the Conservatives just offer opinions on here, when in reality of many/most of them can and do back up their statements with facts...something you fail to do even when asked. This is not a two-way street you claim to be on.

And when exposed they are ousted rather quickly, as opposed to the other side that ignores the transgressions of their leaders and continue to worship at their corrupt feet.

1. Barbers Hill/Crosby 2. Jasper/Silsbee 3. Evadale/Deweyville 4. Humble/Conroe Caney Creek 5. Splendora/Dayton 6. Baytown Lee/Ozen 7. Livingston/Nederland 8. Port Neches-Groves/Lumberton 9. New Caney/Kingwood Park 10. Willis/Huffman Hargrave 11. Hardin-Jefferson/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 12. West Orange-Stark/Bridge City 13. Coldspring-Oakhurst/Liberty 14. Newton/Diboll 15. Shepherd/Corrigan-Camden 16. Tarkington/Warren 17. Woodville/Orangefield 18. Vidor/Beaumont Central 19. Buna/Anahuac 20. Garrison/Shelbyville 21. Hull-Daisetta/Kountze 22. West Sabine/Hemphill 23. Groveton/San Augustine 24. Orange Community Christian/High Island 25. Beaumont Legacy Christian/Beaumont Kelly Catholic

I bet you can't back up your assertation. All you can do is shake your head. Would you like to debate my point. No? I didn't think so. And how about you give your opinion to the question posed by TxHoops. Are you having trouble finding your opinion on Huffington Post, or Mother Jones, or MSNBC, or Politifact?

I agree with much of what the author says. But he gives examples of some infringements on gun ownership by Conservatives but fails to mention the many, many restrictions instituted by Liberals. If a basketball team wins a game 120-2, you don't really need to concentrate on the 2 points given up like this author is trying to push. And if you want a scorecard to verify this, the NRA rates all politicians as to their adherence to Second Amendment rights. The overwhelming majority of bad grades are on the Democrat side, basically the same ratio as winning a basketball game 120-2.

I absolutely disagree that it will never happen...ask Britains, Canadians and Australians. The question was would Obama sign a bill that prohibits gun ownership if given the opportunity. We can disagree on whether a bill would ever reach a president's desk, but again, hypothetically, if one inexplicitly does, would Obama sign it? I have no doubt as to the answer to that question. What do you think? I agree with you that many Democrats want gun ownership, but I will contend that number is shrinking. The Democrat leaders have adopted the policy of strict gun control and the Democrat constituents are not fighting them on this issue. Case in point, California, New York and pretty much most of the northeastern states and northwestern states. And as for high powered rifles, more people are killed yearly by hammers than by high powered rifles. You, Obama, and the Democrats are trying to solve an imaginative problem when pushing for "assault" (definition needed) rifle bans. The reason the Democrat leadership is so gung ho on banning "assault" rifles because it is a stepping stone leading to total gun control. That is very obvious to many of us. I'm not sure why many of the Democrat members can't see it. How many lives would be saved yearly if "assault" rifles are banned versus handguns? Please answer that question then ask yourself why the Democrat leaders are targeting "assault" rifles instead of handguns. I will go ahead and answer. It's not because they don't want to, it's because they can't. By getting some bans in place, say on "assault" rifles, they can use this as a counter to the "shall not be infringed" argument. Again, very obvious to many of us. Ask Joe Biden as to the reason for not voting on Garland. It's on video, a simple google search will provide you with his explanation. Why do you want government to solve everything? The cost to attend any NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA game is out of control. Should the government step in to "solve the problem". Maybe they can implement an Obamacare style plan in which the object is the reduce prices but the solution ends up raising costs even more. I'm kind of curious as to what would happen to these professional sports if the people showed unity and started boycotting them. How long would it take for the prices to drop versus government intervention. The people have the power to solve these problems, but you want government to do your job...the same government that begs these entities/companies for "campaign" donations.

If you're talking to a person that is undecided between Trump and Johnson, then the "fallacy" is true...a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary. If talking to a person undecided between Hillary and Johnson, then a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. If talking to a person that is either voting for Johnson or will not vote, then he makes no difference. Sounds like more Hillary/Johnson undecideds are waking up to the fact that she is an unconvicted felon and unfit to occupy the office. I did see a poll today where Hillary's lead has shrunk to around 3 points. I didn't see (or it didn't say) what demographics have switched. Could be a mixture.

Based on just these stats, it sounds like the minority vote is becoming more and more monolithic and is responsible for electing Democrats who enslave them into socialist government programs. Is this the same conclusion you draw from these stats?

1. Baytown Sterling 2. Port Arthur Memorial 3. Dayton 4. Crosby 5. New Caney 6. Barbers Hill 7. Humble 8. Lumberton 9. Bridge City 10. Liberty 11. Henderson 12. West Orange-Stark 13. Orangefield 14. Crockett 15. East Chambers 16. Shepherd 17. Newton 18. Woodville 19. Evadale 20. Shelbyville 21. Garrison 22. Beaumont Kelly Catholic 23. Deweyville 24. Hull-Daisetta 25. Beaumont Central

If believe that Politifact tells the truth less than 22% of time.

I'm still just learning the Liberal way but quickly realized I don't need to back up my statements. J/K. I looked for sources but couldn't find it. I remember reading/hearing about it not long (within a few months) after the 2012 elections. When doing searches I was diluted with the current Ohio topic, so I gave up. It could have been an unsubstantiated rumor, but I will still believe it until "proven" otherwise. You win this one.

Romney not receiving a single vote in some precincts doesn't bother me near as much as the fact that Obama received as much as 117% in some precincts.

Crazy crap is when someone tries to criticize a post without giving rhyme or reason as to the criticism. Would you like to expound on your comment or do you just like the tingling sensation of spewing crazy crap?

I'm not a member of West Orange-Stark HS, but I will be attending a football game there in a few weeks. If I feel offended by their State championship banners being shoved in my face (blatant taunting), should I be able to petition the WOS administrators to have them removed prior to my arrival?

Not nearly to the extent of Democrats. Republicans know their voters will hold them (somewhat) accountable. Democrats know their voters won't. Case in point, Hillary Clinton!

If someone in America is offended by the waving of an American flag, the problem definitely does not lie with the waver of the flag!

I tried to participate in that study, but was denied. I argued that I am a lesbian in every way except for the extra Y chromosome. Damn reverse-misogynists. Before leaving, I asked to use the restroom. They all pointed to the one labeled "Men". Damn profilers.

Well let's see, the war on poverty was started over 50 years ago by Democrats with dismal results. We have spent trillions on the "War on Poverty", so yes, both parties have done a considerable amount. Wisely? A resounding No. We could have just given every citizen close to a million dollars in cash and had better results. The (Un)affordable Healthcare act is the cause of the skyrocketing healthcare costs...just getting rid of it will significantly reduce the increases in cost with no Socialistic replacement necessary. Tort reform, less reporting requirements, and repealing out-of-state prohibitions will go a long way in reducing costs. But Democrats will not even consider these measures. Ask any Democrat representative and they will flat out admit it. The epipen was developed by the private market and they are (and should be) allowed to charge anything they want. The cost skyrocketed in conjunction with the government requiring schools/government entities to have them in stock. Just a coincidence? The free market should be allowed to charge whatever they want. Public opinion/patronage should be the influencing factor in a company's price scale. What would be your solution to Mylan's decision to raise the cost? Boycott Mylan? Demand the government intervene? Other ideas? If you petition government regulation, how many investors will become reticent in investing in medical R&D knowing that the government can step in at anytime to keep you from realizing any positive return for your investment? And how detrimental will this be to future R&D on any type of research? And as Nash correctly pointed out in the previous post, competition is undeniably a better solution than government intervention. I think most, if not all, on this board realize most politicians are controlled by big money. We definitely agree on this. Trump is not, but it seems many would rather focus on his un-politically correct speech. I'm not a fan of the pot shots on names either, but this does not bother me near as much as Hillary's corrupt dealings.

If the first thing out of your mouth about any subject is for the government to set things right, then you are a Liberal. And how is it that you are so enlightened that you can conclude who's a Liberal and who's a Conservative, but somehow I don't possess that skill set? Please elaborate on your statement. In fact, I'll start. Based on PamFam's past statements on this forum, would you conclude he is a Liberal or Conservative? I will say he is a Liberal. Please enlightened me as to your diagnosis.

You don't have a point to make. Deny all you want. I know for a fact you have dodged plenty of my questions when I asked you to back up a generalized statement against a group. And I never said I don't have the time to find your past posts illustrating my point...I have plenty of time. I have no interest. Big difference. If I had any interest or inclination that proving my point would mean anything to you and create a change in behavior, then maybe I would indulge in that worthwhile endeavor. But I'm fairly certain it would fall on deaf ears...thus futile. And I've never accused you of being affiliated with a political group. Where are you getting that non-sense? Based on your postings it is painfully clear you are a Liberal (though maybe not clear to you). I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you going to deny that? If so, let's hear some of your objections to any of the Liberal tenants. You know what, disregard my question. I have lost any inclination I might have had with trying to carry on a conversation with you. Based on past history, I know where this will lead.

That is not what I was referring to. You have made sweeping statements directed at Trump, white people, SouthEast Texas people, Republicans in general (I'm not going to go back and look for exact quotes). And when you get challenged to give evidence for these types of statements, you have ignored them. Then you turn around and try to say we can't have a debate on this forum. You, nappyroots and new tobie have all been guilty of this, though new tobie is worse. I don't know about Big Girl because I don't read her comments (sometimes I accidently read them before I look at the name, then realize I don't need to look at the name to know the author). All I'm saying is if you take a pot shot or make a generalized statement, be prepared to back it up. That's how discussions work.

You've ignored some of my questions...which never reached the point of this... (Not nearly as many as new tobie). And these were one's where I quoted you, so the "I didn't see it" excuse doesn't fly", which you used on several occasions. I will admit that you and nappyroots have replied to most of the questions posed by board members, but y'all seem to vanish on some (which is not one or two), especially when the quote was stereotyping.

The article stated on the first page that it was assessing racist tweets as the basis for their list. But all of the captions under the states listed the number of KKK organizations in that state as the reason for the position on the list. I'm not sure the author has the slightest clue for his ridiculous conclusions. If the criteria is indeed racist tweets, I would love to know the criteria that constitutes a racist tweet versus a non-racist tweet. I would love to question that panel of geniuses who think they can categorize the tweets.