Englebert

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.

A well known point is that Politifact plays fast and loose with the truth when evaluating who plays fast and loose with the truth.

I played a benefit softball tournament in Zavalla a few many years ago. The umpire was the town sheriff or constable, and was in full uniform, complete with his pistol strapped in it's holster. In 20 years of playing tournaments, that is the only one I've ever played in where there was not one complaint of a bad call.

Maybe the kids will behave themselves a little better knowing their teacher might be packing. A few school districts in Texas and some in other states have already adopted this practice. As far as I know, each district sets the requirements on training and how/where the guns are carried, but I have faith that the superintendent (or school board) will be able to select the right personnel to receive the training required to protect the little sitting ducks.

I'm curious as to what new laws would make us safer. Getting rid of gun-free zones would be a start. Requiring a minimum number of armed teachers/security on school campuses would help. Encouraging more law abiding citizens to carry...and making it easier to do would be another. Teaching gun safety courses in school. (I would make that a requirement.) What would you propose?

Really? We need a better video? The video illustrates that the person in charge of making laws to protect us has no idea what they are talking about. Guns are not our biggest problem, clueless legislators are the problem...which was very well articulated in the video. This harkens back to clueless voters.

My favorite is a video from a few years back. I tried to find it but couldn't. A state congressman (California I think) was having a press conference about her proposal to ban "assault" rifles. Behind her was a board with about 5 or 6 "scary" looking rifles. Right before the presser, someone hung a hammer on the board and added a banner above that read "Which of these kills more people on a yearly basis?" Obviously the press conference was immediately called off when the congressman's team saw the added items, but not before a video was made that found its way to YouTube.

Again, how is asking someone to identify themselves when voting interpreted as suppression? I don't think anyone has a problem with helping people vote. Case in point, free I.D.s are given to those who need them. Many people give rides to the polls for those that need that help. No outrage rising from these practices. And if voter turnout is lowered when I.D.s are required, could it possibly be that this is due to less illegal votes?

Who are these people that say they really don't want all Americans to vote? Never heard of these people. Maybe you misinterpreted many peoples position, such as mine. I don't want all Americans to vote. It should be your duty as an American to, at a minimum, give a cursory amount of effort to study the issues and candidates that you are voting for/against. If you fail to do this, you should give the courtesy to your fellow Americans by abstaining from voting on issues/candidates you know nothing about. But I will never try to forcibly restrict your right to vote. Obtaining an I.D. is easy...and free. No excuse for not getting one to exercise your right to vote. And why do we want to make it easy for someone to vote but make it so restrictive, complicated and costly to exercise your second amendment right? You know, the one that says "shall not be infringed".