Englebert

Why were you not upset when foreign governments hacked into practically every department of our government, and every branch of our military? Why were you not livid about undisclosed contacts between the Hillary team and Russia? Why were you not upset that the Obama administration meddled in the Israeli elections? This is a whole bunch of fake outrage based on nothing but unnamed sources. So yeah, they have found absolutely nothing. It's funny and quizzical that with all of the leaks coming out the government, not one leak showing any evidence of "collusion" between the Trump team and Russia. But I guess y'all have to hold on to some hope no matter how stupid it makes y'all look.

I'm guessing the title meant to say "shifts East".

This coming from someone who posted a link from foreignpolicy.com. Who reads that crap? And how did you find it?

And some are greatly more effective at filtering out facts versus fiction than others. And many have a very biased way of using mental gymnastics to skew facts to what they want to believe...but not everybody, and definitely not to the same degree. Don't try to blame differences entirely on what news source someone watches or doesn't watch. You don't know which and how many sources any of us on this site watch/read. This post is typical of the Liberal agenda of attempting to remove all personal responsibility from an individual.

Well then keep trying to pull them. You've been unsuccessful so far.

I've witnessed your analytical skills, so I take no offense to your condescending attitude. And your posts are revealing your unsubstantiated hate towards people that don't tow the wing-nut Liberal/Socialist agenda.

I simply asked you to defend your comments, to which you refuse or can't defend. You made a highly substantial accusation against the President of the United States. Frankly I don't care about that. What I do care about is the blind following of the sheeple pushing the hateful, spiteful, and dangerous agenda of the looney Liberal Socialists. I find it very ironic that one can come to the conclusion that someone is dangerous because of unusual behavior, but claim to belong to the party of all-inclusiveness and intolerance. Doesn't the Liberals get all up in arms, to the point of rioting, when confronted with someone they feel is intolerant of others behaviors? Are Liberals really inclusive and intolerant, or is that just a fake persona that's being torn down by Trump?

No, it's a total lie based on untruthful stereotypes dreamed up in the hateful minds of intolerant Liberals. It allows the Liberal sheeple to express their true colors while keeping their defense of deniability intact.

This just reeks of selective outrage. You feel Trump is unstable because he tweets at 3:00am. Really? That's your analytical and interpretive skills at work? What makes you feel Trump can't stay focused? Would you care to explain this...and please give some examples. And please give some examples of Trump's childish temper tantrums. If you think childish temper tantrums makes one dangerous, you should be very, very scared of Liberals.

If this is true, why do the Liberals always shout the stupidest things and can never defend their nasty and vile comments. This picture more actually illustrates that someone seems to have a high opinion of himself...almost elitist, but definitely delusional.

Why do you feel Trump is dangerous? Dangerous how? And dangerous to who? I'm guessing I will just keep getting deflections instead of answers. After all, it is the Liberal way.

And your point? Why didn't you address the fact that Democrats have lost 1100 seats during Obama's reign? That's a more salient point than debating the technicalities of whether Obama actually had a supermajority for a few less months. And I never said he had a supermajority for a full two years. I just said he had a supermajority. You are trying to argue a point that exists only in your head, then have the nerve to add the condescending qualifier that ironically seems to fit you way better than us. And would you like to discuss secession? I've stated on here numerous times I'm highly in favor of it, and wish it would happen immediately. I have little hope in America righting the ship from the looney path of Liberalism/Socialism. This is extremely evident right now listening to Conservatives debating on how they want to socialize our healthcare system. And it's typical of a Liberal to try to ridicule a topic through a silly meme. That's the surest way of trying to reveal your feelings without revealing your feelings. You have to have that defense of deniability.

Your meme says Trump is dangerous. Please explain why you feel he is dangerous. Dangerous how? And dangerous to who? It's fun to watch Liberals spew hate and nonsense through childish antics, but none will ever explain their thought processes that leads them to these ridiculous conclusions. Maybe you will.

Is this supposed to mean something? Please tell me you have a point with this post other than to show you can't express your biased thoughts through words, but can only rely on unrelated context to bolster an incomprehensible thought process predicated on Liberal hate. I would love to debate you on why you think Trump is "dangerous".

We've seen the end results of Liberal debauchery in the last decade, culminating in Obama's election with a super majority in Congress. America overwhelming rejected this looney, pathetic, and sanctimonious agenda and is now somewhat righting itself. The evidence is the Liberal agenda losing over 1100 seats since the midterms of Bush II.Nobody was laughing during the lunatic Liberal reign perpetuated by Obama...too much suffering. Now it's just good ol' American values re-asserting itself, stymied by self-righteous elitists pulling the puppet strings of the naïve and ignorant. Thank God the adults are now in charge...although I hold no optimism that the current regime is much better...just enough to right the ship to get us back on the right track. I fear that this track will be short lived, and is not even close to the optimal path. I therefore reiterate my desire for secession, in the strongest possible sense.

Highway To Hell is a very simplistic lyrically...it basically just says "I am a sinner and will pay for it in the end." I always laugh when someone brings up this song trying to link it to "devil worshiping". I think many feel that AC/DC was trying to glorify and influence people into bad behavior, thus the attack as anti-religious. Black Sabbath was probably the band most inaccurately labeled as "devil worshipers". Many of their songs spoke of mysticism and evil characters, which were described as evil, and where inaccurately construed as anti-Christian. I think the label came mostly from their band name combined with their audacity of "saying what should not be mentioned". Most of their critics did not bother to listen to the songs as a whole. If they did, they should have realized that the lyrics were describing evil, not condoning it. Jethro Tull's Aqualung album was wildly criticized as anti-Christian, but the lyrics are describing Man abandoning God's teachings. Many of the 1970s rock bands spoke about religious issues, and most were just pointing out the flaws of Man or spoken from the evil side. Many of these same bands had other songs in which the lyrics were interpreted as glorifying "bad boy" behavior, which led many people to conflate the two to mistakenly conclude the bands were "devil worshipers". Some 1970-1980s bands played up the "anti-Christian" angle just for the publicity. After his split with Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne became a master at this, as did Ronnie James Dio. Many bands did not delve into the spiritual realm at all, but still were labeled as anti-Christian. I think this article is just pointing out that many Christian bands/groups try to write lyrics that include their own interpretations of God's teachings, which in turn get interpreted by others. Whereas "Highway To Hell" is just a flat out admission of the simplistic concept of "evil doers go to hell", which frankly is not in dispute according to the Bible.

TCU leads A&M 4-1 after 8.

TCU leads A&M 4-1 after 7. Sorry, didn't see your post.

TCU leads A&M 4-1 after 6.

TCU leads A&M 4-0 after 5.

TCU leads A&M 4-0 after 4.

TCU leads A&M 4-0 after 3.

TCU up 1-0 after 2. 6 of the first 7 batters down on strikes for A&M.

Why did you name Gingrich?

Yes, those Democrats are hypocrites. How dare they plan a bill in total secret, lock out all Republicans, trade kickbacks and favors for votes, then demand the Republicans be completely open, transparent, and inclusive when they are in power. Sounds just like when the hypocrites screamed about the nuclear option when they were the first to use it. You are totally correct new tobie, the Democrats couldn't be bigger hypocrites. And guess what, Schumer said he and the Democrats would obstruct the Republicans in every way. Wasn't it you that was adamant and very vocal about your opposition to such tactics when the Republicans were blocking Obama. Are you now going to whine like a little baby that's just had his candy stolen?