Englebert

Are y'all twins?

The question was who will pay for it?

Nappy might respond, but Big Girl won't.

Ah, you read my question to you but didn't respond. How predictable.

Big Girl has a hard time with her facts. She throws out global statistics when it suits her, then throws out U.S. statistics when it suits her, then tries to give unrelated comparisons. It's actually comical.

I know. I wanted her to read it though.

Who is Trump's target voter base? Americans!

I got a question for you Big Girl. Hillary wants to give free college to everyone. Hillary wants to keep Obamacare and expand it to illegals. Hillary wants to put the coal miners out of business and have the US move to alternative fuels (fuels that are 10 times more costly than coal, crude and natural gas). Hillary wants to spend billions on green energy based on the Man-made Global Warming lie. Hillary wants to give billions to foreign countries base on the Man-made Global Warming lie. Hillary want to expand entitlements. Hillary has no plan to cut into the $264 billion we pay yearly on the national debt. My question is: Who is going to pay for all of this?

I was just making the point that the right to vote is no more sacred than the right to bear arms. Many people are quick to suggest limiting the Second Amendment, but even suggesting having to show identification to vote disenfranchises way too many people. Having to submit to a background check would be unfathomable, as well as having to pass a voting test. Now, let's say we create a "Cannot Vote" list. I contend that we should take away the right to vote for everyone that voted for Obama in 2012. After all, his policies are driving this country into oblivion. How would you feel if we created this "Cannot Vote" list and I was put in charge of writing the criteria for who gets on the list. This is the same way I feel about creating any kind of "Cannot Purchase" terrorist watchlist. It sounds good on the surface, but anti-gun advocates will abuse it in short order...without doubt. The "Do Not Fly" list is a prime example of how screwed up the "Cannot Purchase" list would be at the beginning. Then it would just get worse and worse with varying criteria. We currently do not have any way of distinguishing who will eventually become a mass murderer, or even a murderer. Taking away someone's right based on suspicion is not the way to go.

In that same vein, it is very possible that if many people were carrying that none would be dead. The shooter would have never picked that target.

You said the cops hung her. You have no facts to back that up. Like I said, don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

I would disagree with you on the term "non-violent" drug offenders. Many, many, many acts of violence occur directly and indirectly from drug use. I don't have the data, but you are right, it sure seems like child molesters get less time than drug offenders. I would like to look at comparing first time offenders in each class and see how the sentences stack up. I think first time child molesters should get a lot longer sentence than first time drug offenders. It could be the case that the child molestation cases that we hear of are more first time offenses while the long sentences handed down to drug offenders are after multiple offenses. I have no idea, just one thing I would look at. It's possible that we only hear about the extreme cases also. That is, a long sentence to a child molester might not get any media attention while short ones do. TVC can probably better answer this question. But just going by accounts I hear from the media it sure seems that sex offenders get more lenient sentences.

You might have a preconceived notion of what you think the "far right" believes and you just ignore facts that contradict that notion.

I've never heard anybody disagree with that.

Don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Do you think that if you are investigated multiple times by the FBI that you should be put on a "Cannot Vote" list? I think that there are 65,899,660 people who should be on the "Cannot Vote" list because of their actions in 2012. (Of course, many of them were actually dead in 2012).

I have zero faith in the government's ability to self regulate. The abuse will come and to an extent we can't even imagine. Lois Lerner will look like a model citizen compared to the people lining up to abuse any no-gun list. If a no-gun list is created for terrorists, it won't be long before other behavior will be added. This administration already deems many organizations "right-wing terrorists". These groups will be added to the list. Black Panthers will be added. All of Montana will be added. If you know someone from Montana and give them a call one day, you will be added. Then any type of deemed "aggressive" behavior will become cause to add you to the list. Anything from a threat against someone to slowly leading to any behavior deemed counter-productive to the United States, including critical remarks against the sitting President. The list of types of behaviors that qualify one to be included on the list will grow and grow. I have absolutely no doubt about that. No lawmaker will dare rescind a behavior type once it is used as a criteria. If lawmakers decide to remove a behavior type once it has been added, the lawmakers will be criticized and blamed for any incident that might have been prevented due to a behavior they removed as criteria. Therefore the list will just grow and grow until it will be impractical or impossible for anyone to own a firearm. This is a step anti-gun nutcases are drooling over.

Would you be okay with the government creating a list of people that they deem unfit to vote? Giving the government power to create a list of people that cannot own a firearm, without due process, is just asking for trouble. Hillary Clinton doesn't even acknowledge the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of anti-gun nutcases in places of authority now, especially Feinstein and Schumer. If one of those fruitbags gets the chance to add people to a no-gun list, they will add them regardless of any perceived backlash. We've already seen how government agencies can get political.

You need to read some more...and use a different source.

The United States is $20 trillion dollars in debt. Do you not understand that. If we don't "cut" we will not have a country left to give out entitlements. And all Hillary wants to do is increase spending. What are her solutions?

Just like Obamacare is going to save the average American household $15,000 per year.

This is a five second Bing search and contradicts what you have read. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] If I took a whole minute I could make this list a lot longer.

Not so much if Obama owned and ran multiple businesses employing thousands and thousands of workers, of all ethnic backgrounds.

So Bill getting $850,000 for a speech from a company that has a vested interest in Hillary's decisions as Secretary Of State is perfectly fine in your eyes, not to mention the $2 million dollar "donation" to the Clinton Foundation.

I think the UIL should make a best of three series the default. If for some reason both coaches agree to a one-game series, they can play a one-game series. If either wants a three-game series, then it is a three-game series. I personally prefer that all of the rounds be a three games series, but there might be some instances in which both coaches want a one-gamer.