Englebert

So basically he is saying he feels the minorities communities are not smart enough to obtain an I.D. that is provided free of charge. Laughable.

But you have not offered a cogent argument of how it suppresses legal votes. If someone is applying for government aid, will the excuse of "I don't want an I.D." be an acceptable position?

And their reasoning was laughable. Do you have one of your own?

Please explain how showing an I.D. is voter suppression? I've heard all of the Liberal positions and each have been laughable. I'm willing to hear yours.

Not one single proposed gun owner suppression measure would have stopped any of the mass shootings. I think it is a universally accepted notion that everyone wants to eliminate mass shootings. It is asinine to propose laws in reaction to an event that will do nothing to stop future like events while at the same time suppresses the rights of law abiding citizens. But that is exactly what many Liberals are attempting. Makes zero sense. I'm not proposing this, but forcing everyone to carry a gun 24/7 would do more to prevent mass shootings than taking away guns from law abiding citizens. Did you notice that none of the mass shootings happened where guns are in abundant supply. And the congressman that proposed banning guns from people going through a divorce was not a knee-jerk reaction to an event. His contention was that the divorce proceedings duration is a highly emotional time for the spouses and we can not trust them to refrain from shooting each other or others. If someone is so emotional to the point of mental insanity as he contends, shouldn't we lock up everyone going through a divorce. Why strip them of their legal right of self-protection at a time when they need it most. It seems the Liberal mentality is that guns are used purely as an offensive weapon and is never used for protection. Not one single Conservative or anybody for that matter has proposed or wants to limit voting. That is another Liberal elitist lie. Conservatives want legal voting. That should be a universal value, but unfortunately the Liberals have convinced their sheeple that Conservatives are trying to suppress votes, while knowing full well that illegal voting favors Liberals.

I'm talking about Liberal mental disease in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but using it to make a point that the "rules" can easily be slanted depending on who is in charge of writing the "rules". I have a Masters degree in Psychology so I know a little about the subject. It is impossible to determine in this day and age who will become violent and who will not, even by trained professionals. Take any standard or measure you want, then use the "Stephen King analysis" (which in not a real methodology). Should Stephen King be stripped of his constitutional rights. I'm sure you are aware of King's writings, but if not, look up some of his works then tell me if a brilliantly twisted mind such as his is not on the brink of mass slaughter. Currently it is impossible to predict violent behavior. Sure, many people will say in hind-sight "we should have seen the warning signs". Well these same warning signs are displayed every day by "normal" citizens. With this in mind, please list some examples of behavior that you think should preclude someone from owning a gun. You mentioned anyone on psychotropic meds. What percentage of the population that is currently on these types of medication pose a threat to other people? Look up the stats then tell me if banning a constitutional right of millions of people is justifiable because a few "might" become violent. I'm curious to hear any proposals/background check questions that will accurately predict future violent behavior without disenfranchising and infringing on people's constitutional rights. And who do we trust to define the rules? As stevenash asked, "Lois Lerner, should she be trusted with this task?" What about Diane Feinstein? What about any congressman from California? What about me? And what happens when these rules do not work. I know, we write more rules. When those fail, we write more rules. Pretty soon even the Pope will not be able to pass a background check. And what about the nut-case zealots who will stoop to unethical a sometimes illegal activities to get their way. And gun control/confiscation is the top priority for many of them. Do you believe that congressmen will abstain from trying to attach riders to popular bills that create increasingly stringent rules to background checks? A congressman recently proposed banning guns from anyone going through a divorce. Diane Feinstein recently proposed banning guns from all military personnel returning from active duty. And you want to put our constitutional rights into the hands of some bureaucrats? I'm surprised some congressman hasn't proposed banning all guns from anyone from Texas. If someone is determined to be "unfit" to own a gun, should that person also be stripped of his right to vote? After all, selecting the wrong president can be severely damaging to hundreds of millions of people as was demonstrated by the last administration. If we can't trust a person with self-protection, should we trust them to elect our representatives? Shouldn't we have background checks for the right to vote? Should we create a department to construct and maintain a "no-vote" list? And who should be privileged with carrying out this task? Hollywood? Our government has already banned/defined private ownership of bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes with basically zero opposition. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that comment.

Really? Please define what constitutes mental illness. And in your definition please include what aspects should preclude a person from exercising their second amendment rights. And please state why a small group of people should have the unchecked ability to strip a person of their constitutional rights without due process. If that ability should exist, shouldn't we have the same ability to add names to a list that prevents a person from voting? I can think of around 65 million people who should be on a non-voting list based on their Liberal mental disease. As far as immigrating from a known enemy region precluding you from exercising your second amendment rights, well then...the Liberals will be all over that one. You will be branded a racist and islamophobe, and will probably lose your job within the hour. And if a person coming from one of these regions is so untrustworthy, why are we letting them in? As far as illegals owing guns, well they shouldn't own anything...they are here illegally and should be deported immediately whether in possession of a firearm or not. That's kind of like saying that people with no license/suspended license can't use a cell phone while driving.

I believe we are on the same page on most things but just disagree as to the amount of the government's role. I hate putting labels on people, but sometimes feel the need to call a spade a spade. Based on my limited knowledge of your views, I can honestly say you fit no profile, and me labeling you a Democrat was meant as a compliment rather than insult. You might be the best thing that can happen to this forum...that is bringing the Democrat or big government point of view in having a rationale discussion. We have a few good big government guys on here, but they have shied away from engaging in debate here. That is my long winded way of saying welcome to forum. It can be as nasty or civil as you want it to be. One thing I've noticed through the years is that two people can be in agreement on 99% of an issue, but debate fiercely on the 1% difference. This miniscule difference and unwillingness to acknowledge the points of agreement creates an exacerbated animosity in the eyes of each (and observers), and creates the illusion of contempt for each other and a reluctance to engage or even participate in debate. Having said that, I look forward to pounding common sense into your thick skull how every one of your imbecile thoughts are to the point of absurdity. I expect nothing less in return.

Yes, for around the last 30 years I've become increasingly sickened by the way too many on the Left portray everyone that doesn't agree with them, and this has increased exponentially in the last 8 years. And the "it goes both ways" does not apply. That's like saying the basketball score was 127-6, but focusing on the point that both teams scored. I think we agree on many of these issues, just disagree on the amount of acceptable government involvement. But I'm disturbed, but not surprised, that I have to explain my positions. You seem to be projecting many of the Liberal elitist talking points, without giving the benefit of the doubt or even inquiring as to what my beliefs are. I don't blame the Federal government with all of the problems of public schools. I do believe they've caused more harm than good. I do believe that personal responsibility is a huge point, if not the biggest point, in the unacceptable rates of our schools. That is the position of most non-Liberals. But the elitists will spew the belief that all non-Liberals blame everything on government. Having said that, I do think you are light years above my generalized beliefs of Liberals. You stick to the issues and don't try to resort to personal attacks. That's rare in today's society. But I will state that I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Liberals own that type of "discussion". You sound to me more like a Democrat and much less like a Liberal. In case your wondering, I classify a Liberal as someone who overwhelmingly believes in social justice no matter the cost to the Union. A Democrat is someone that believes government intervention to solve problems is more acceptable than less intervention.

What do you mean by "anti-college level textbook"? I have a college degree but am unfamiliar with that term. I do know there is a plethora of textbooks, college and all levels, that profoundly state that slavery was not one of the contentious points of the Civil War. I also know there are a plethora of books that say slavery was the main cause. I also know that most say that slavery was not the leading cause, but disagree on the level to which slavery was an issue. After reading some of these books in college, and some after college, I've drawn my own conclusion that the Civil War would have been fought regardless of the slavery issue, therefore, not a contentious one.

Why would you think I would not believe that there are some real people being hurt. And why would you possibly think that I would believe that most people that are poor are just lazy and living off the rest of us. This is exactly how the Left elitists try to portray everyone not in lockstep with their socialist beliefs. There are some that believe these things, but there are much more on the Left that believes all on the Right believes these things. Most believe that an unacceptable amount of people are receiving undeserved "help" through fraudulent means. Most believe in "giving a helping hand" through taxation, but are sick of countless instances of fraud. The Left elitists interpret that as "The Right are just greedy people looking out for themselves and could care less about the less fortunate." They also pour out the propaganda lies of "The Right wants dirty air and dirty water, wants to throw grandma over the cliff, if you get sick die early, every company just wants to make obscene profits at the expense of the worker, etc., etc., etc. If every person in this country was given a free Yugo, do you think the other car companies could survive. I'm curious as to how many innovations would have evolved out of these car companies when profits would be minimal. Do you think car companies would invest billions of dollars on luxury and safety issues when their only market would be the top 1%. And I find it odd that our educational level, in comparison with other countries, has declined in an exact correlation with increased government funding and involvement. Hummm!

I'm also for a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism, with the pendulum being on the Capitalism side. That's what our Founding Fathers believed. Again, I don't know of a single person that believes in or wants a pure Capitalistic system. The Liberal elites claim that is gospel to the Right though. And how can you be socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative, especially when every solution to social injustices involves vast amounts of money? When the Civil war began, and for the years leading up to it, the South was becoming more and more enraged at Federal Governmental control. The issue of slavery was not one of the contentious points. If slavery did not exist and the rest of the issues being the same, the Civil War would have still been fought. And what was the "DUDE...come on buddy" comment about? I have no idea what you are trying to imply with that comment. Please explain.

Cuba having better healthcare is a myth. Another lie perpetrated by the elitist Left. And when you take away the ability to make profits in the medical profession, we can kiss goodbye the chances of new cures being developed. Do you think Viagra would have been "invented" if there was no possibility of generating a profit? The American Values I'm referring to should be universal throughout the country, and were at one time. Hard work, whether physical or mental preparedness, and the desire for self-reliance was the key to advancement. The victimhood mentality was not acceptable. The "this country owes me" was also unacceptable. These were never regional values. And I do not know of anyone that thinks building a wall will fix the immigration problem. Most, if not all, of the people I know are not that stupid. But many on the Left seem to think so. There are sheeple on both sides, but the Left have more than a hundred to one ratio. No equivalence.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery so I don't know why it would embody painful memories for Blacks. Perhaps it is because many White racist hate groups adopted the flag. I am anti-Union and have a strong desire to secede from the United States. The reason for my wanting to secede is because of Liberals moving us away from the founding ideas of this nation. Top of the list is progressive social issues. So yes, I do want Conservatives fighting for progressive social issues. This whole country, not just Texas, was founded on independence and self-reliance. For some reason, the Liberals want to move us to a socialistic style governance. Considering nowhere in history has this ever worked, I would label that a mental disease and the very definition of insanity.

Anyone that thinks the common sense pendulum is currently in the middle is lacking common sense. The hatred displayed by the Left for practically every American value is on full display and unparalleled with anything on the Right. The downright arrogance and elitism displayed by the Left is undeniable. The lies the Leftist elitists have propagated on their sheeple (Man-Made Global Warming, Gender Pay Gap, Socialized Medicine, etc.) is unfathomable. No equivalence.

I don't know about lucky. Trump would have won the popular vote in that scenario. Is it odd that most of the people that believe in Man-Made Global Warming are the same ones living in the areas most prone to devastation due to sea level rise?

Can you name examples of mental illness on the Conservative side? I can name of few, but for every one you have about a hundred on the Liberal side. Not equivalent. That's like saying the I.R.S. targeted both parties when 120+ Conservative groups where targeted and only 5 or so where held up on the Democrat side. If this was a basketball game and you see a score of 126-7 you wouldn't say "Well both sides scored points."

Once I found out 8 years ago that Obama was a big supporter of Man-Made Global Warming Theory I knew he was as big a fraud as Al Gore. They both should be in prison for treason for perpetuating this hoax on the American Taxpayer. Throw in Hillary and about 90% of the Liberals with them. And if anyone doesn't think it is a hoax, please point to evidence where Man is the cause of global warming and this warming is catastrophic to Earth's health. This should be a simple task for any subject that has 97% agreement amongst the experts in that field. I loved the comment in the link that Rebgp posted (and the same comment I've used on many occasions). When asked if you are frightened of Climate Change, the best answer is "I'm not frightened of Climate Change, I'm frightened of Climate Change solutions."

The DNC talking heads are going around saying "The Russians influenced the election. Every intelligence agency says so. Trust me." (I trust no one that says "Trust me".) I find it very odd that these same people are saying "Trust us" without providing any proof, then lambast Israel for not providing proof when Israel says that Obama orchestrated the U.N. resolution against them. And the DNC won't even mention Obama trying to influence the Israeli elections. Hypocritical is a word becoming entirely synonymous with the DNC. But please keep spitting out those completely false and derogatory remarks about the GOP base, it helps show the most ardent Democrats your true Liberal colors. And I find it extremely hilarious that Democrats are focusing on Russia instead of the content of the leaked emails. If you received photos of your spouse having sex with another person, is your reaction going to be "I must punish whoever took these photos."

The SEC's lone win came via Mississippi St blocking a chip shot field goal by Miami (OH) as time expired to preserve a 17-16 win. If not for that play, the SEC would by 0-5 right now. The state of North Carolina is doing the best among states at this point at 3-0 with one game remaining. Alabama is 1-0 with 3 games left. Florida is at 2-1 with 2 games left. Oklahoma is 2-0 with 1 game left. California and Kentucky are both 1-0 with 2 games left. Texas is sitting at 1-4 with one game remaining. Ohio and Tennessee are both 0-3 with one game remaining. Michigan is 0-2 with 2 games remaining.

Just another swing and a miss. Hell, you can't even get a foul tip. You might want to try bunting.

And yet you never answered my question posed to you numerous times. Are you outraged at Obama for trying to interfere in the Israeli elections? Why won't you answer a simple question? You seem perturbed at Russia for allegedly interfering in the U.S. elections, but you can't bring yourself to condemn your almighty God Obama for doing precisely the same thing. Why not? Is this the definitive definition of hypocrite?

Me too.

And many on the Left still try to claim Obama was treated harshly. Obama has been and still is the most coddled president in American history. Trump hasn't even taken office and has already endured more crass and pathetic treatment than any other president in American history. Unlike Man-Made Global Warming, this is indisputable.

I had a feeling it wouldn't last long. I got that post in just under the wire.