Englebert

I don't know the answer for a fact, but I'm fairly confident that anyone can run while under investigation. The U.S. Justice system is setup as "innocent until proven guilty". Preventing anyone from running for office while under investigation flies in the face of this. Same thing as creating a list to prevent someone from buying a gun that is under investigation. The practice could would be severely abused in short order. For example, if you and I were running for the same office, I could photoshop some photos of you engaging in illegal activity, then present them to law enforcement days before the election (or some other kind of trumped-up evidence that would take a minimum of a few days of investigation.) Even though you would be exonerated, the race would be over. This happens all the time by candidates trying to sway voters opinions, but shouldn't legally prevent someone from running.

And many folks act like he's racist, misogynist, homophobic, deplorable, xenophobic, etc. You have accused Trump of being many of the above mentioned. No one on this site has ever said that Trump is 100% truthful and a saint. I wish I could find one of those brain filters you seem to have. It sure is good at filtering out stuff you don't want to see and letting in information that seems to support your Liberal biased outlook. Do they sell them on Amazon? Or does it just develop over years of reading those secret history books?

If you don't want to see Cheney and Hannity then shut your eyes when you get into bed instead of staring at them on your ceiling. And please elaborate on what you think Cheney did?

You continually post links from Huffington Post and Politifact and all of a sudden you are worried if a site is credible. Did you really just post this or did someone hack your account?

I was wondering myself. I thought I was down by 6 then should be down by 4 after this week. I wasn't complaining though.

If men in this country really wanted to "keep women down", does anyone actually think this would be the route we would take to accomplish that goal? This is one nut-case batty woman. But astonishingly, many will believe her.

And the Russians.

Do you think the speaker was talking metaphorically about the death of Hillary's campaign? Or do you just take the author's biased opinion at face value like a good little sheeple. And why did the author of the article not mention the Vice President declaring his aspirations of causing great physical harm to Trump? Typical Liberal sheeple!

I'm guessing Comey's conscious got the better of him, along with all of the backlash. He knows he initially made the wrong decision (under heavy pressure) and has finally decided to try to absolve his guilt. A second theory is that the Clinton Foundation checked bounced. A third theory is that Obama's hatred for the Clintons boiled back up and he flip-flopped and gave Comey the green light to prosecute Hillary. I doubt this because Obama knows Hillary will carry on his legacy. A fourth theory is that Trump promised Comey a cushy future if he re-opened the investigation. I highly doubt this one, but then again, I used to think the FBI was above reproach. I'm very curious to learn the circumstances involving Anthony Weiner. Huma Abedin has filed for divorce. Did Weiner go to the FBI and tell them he has all of these emails in an effort to retaliate against Huma and Hillary? Did Weiner make a deal with the FBI to hand over this evidence to help him with his own legal troubles? I would not be surprised if it is the former, or possibly even a combination.

You do know that the Whites that burned the Tulsa community were Democrats don't you. Why do you continue to support a political party that has their roots stemmed in the KKK and violent racist acts? You have an awfully convenient and selective way of choosing who flip-flops, who evolves, and who can never change their stripes.

Navasota's cheer squad outnumbers their fans.

1. Kingwood/Baytown Sterling 2. Humble/Crosby 3. New Caney/Porter 4. Baytown Lee/Port Arthur Memorial 5. Livingston/Beaumont Central 6. Lumberton/Nederland 7. Cleveland/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 8. Huffman Hargrave/Silsbee 9. Navasota/Bridge City 10. Rusk/Diboll 11. Liberty/West Orange-Stark 12. Orangefield/Hardin-Jefferson 13. Trinity/Kirbyville 14. Corrigan-Camden/Frankston 15. Crockett/Garrison 16. Newton/Hemphill 17. San Augustine/Joaquin 18. Centerville/Groveton 19. West Sabine/Deweyville 20. Colmesneil/Sabine Pass 21. Evadale/Iola 22. Port Neches-Groves/Beaumont Ozen 23. Bellville/Madisonville 24. Buna/Warren 25. East Chambers/Hitchcock

We need to monitor the polls. In fact, we should get people dressed in white sheets holding nightsticks to stand outside of them. And when we win the election, appoint an Attorney General that will drop all charges on these "poll watchers". And while we are at it, we can instruct the IRS to target Democrat organizations. And we can pass laws designed to enslave Americans by feeding Americans falsified data, blatant lying, and enticing Congressmen with payoffs and kickbacks in return for their vote. We can get away with crimes such a gunrunning because we have the Attorney General and head of the FBI in our back pocket. We can avoid FOI laws by using illegal methods, afterall, we control the enforcing agents. There's so much illegal crap we can do by just studying the past administration.

If the insurance companies are taking advantage of people by stealing their money, why don't you open your own insurance company and charge a fair price. Instead of running your mouth complaining, you have every opportunity in this great country to solve the problem yourself instead of relying on the government to solve your problems. Which path will you choose...working on a solution yourself or whining to the government?

I'm sure the media is hiding this fact. I don't think they would want to show the American public anything like that. (I don't think it is possible to be more sarcastic than this.) If this was actually true even your boyfriend Hannity would have reported it on his show. You seem have a lot of racism living in your head. And what were you doing at a Trump rally to witness this behavior? Were you one of those being paid to attend and harass the Trump supporters?

Man you are fixated on Hannity. Anyone fixated that much has to be in love. Just admit it, you're in love with Hannity. I bet you have a poster of him over your bed...right beside your Rush Limbaugh picture.

And even though you've been asked repeatedly, you still can't name a single lie by Hannity. What does this make you?

Yes I do need more proof than that. You are saying the temperature of Earth has risen since Man starting emitting CO2. That is a correlation, and correlations do not prove causation. When the stock market rises, women's skirt lengths rise. Do you think the stock market caused woman's skirts to get shorter? And how do you explain Earth's rise in temperature before man existed? And do you know how much CO2 is released in one volcano eruption versus how much CO2 man has emitted in his existence on Earth? And common logic, if you are in the mezzanine section in the south end of the end zone of Cowboy Stadium, and I'm in the mezzanine of the north end, if you light a cigarette do you really think I will get cancer from second hand smoke? And please answer how much increased CO2 the Earth can handle before detrimental effects occur. After all, the human body can handle certain amounts of poison. Once you cross a certain limit, the poison will have adverse effects on your body. In fact, the way to immune your body from certain things is to inoculate yourself with small amounts. So how do you know that man emitting CO2 in the atmosphere is even harmful? Please show me the proof. And again, I don't know the answer. And the scientists don't know the answer. So why do the politicians want to shut down the debate?

You left out the most plausible scenario. It is a movement by the government and others to convince Americans to invest trillions of dollars into cleaning our environment, and to give trillions to other countries for them to clean their environments. To invest money that Americans would be unwilling to give up unless a crisis existed. So if 97% of environmental scientists agree that CO2 is killing the planet, and that man is responsible, why won't (can't) they show the human linkage? Why won't (can't) they show how this warming is catastrophic...or even detrimental? Why do the supporters say the debate is over and call everyone else deniers? Who are these people denying anything? Why won't these environmental leaders debate? And like most people on my side of the debate, I don't know if the scientists are lying. I do know for a fact that the debate is not over. I don't have a problem with the pursuit of alternative energy. I think that is a good thing. I don't have a problem with some regulations designed to keep or country as clean as possible. But I'm not willing to spend trillions of dollars on unproven theories in which the "solutions" are even more unproven. And who really cares? Every American should. You won't be able to hold on to your wallet tight enough to keep them out.

In that same vein, every time we have an "unusual" weather event the Man-Made Global Warming thieves point to a warmer earth. But when asked to prove their theory that man is to blame, they run and hide while screaming 97% of the scientists agree. I don't think that I've ever heard of a theory that has 97% agreement among specialists in their field being so hard to prove. A simple Bing search should provide this causal link for everybody to see. Why won't the "scientists" prove man is the cause? Is it because they can't?

There is also evidence of Ice Sheets getting significantly larger in other parts of the world. And this gives no credible evidence of Man being the cause and that Earth is in crisis mode.

I vehemently do not agree that earth's warming is settled science. The data is flawed, and admittedly skewed and manipulated. That is undeniable. But this is the exact thing that Climate Change "scientists" want...for people to get bogged down in this part of the debate...preventing points two and three from even being discussed. When those two points can be discussed, it is painfully clear that these "scientists" have zero clue as to what effect man really has on earth's climate, and more importantly, if man's "solutions" are negligible, helpful or hurtful to the health of earth. This so-called agreement basically stems down to more CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. For argument's sake, let's just concede that and agree that is the cause of a conceded rise in earth's temperature. That's a lot of conceding on my part, but I want to get through the minutia of point 1 and focus on points 2 and 3. The scientists say that increased levels of CO2 has to be attributable to man. I have read a lot of these studies, and none (well a few that draw their unwanted conclusions) have even considered the idea that maybe the higher levels of CO2 are naturally occurring. None look at volcanoes as a viable attributable source, which should immediately lead one to be highly skeptical of any conclusions drawn. None look to the sun as a attributable candidate, which again, even though it is known but not understood about solar flares, solar hot spots, solar cold spots, solar hibernation, etc., this lack of inclusion of the sun should probably make one high skeptical of the competence and legitimacy of their conclusions. None look to earth's variable tilting and ever changing orbit around the sun. None look to the effects of the moon's variable tug on earth. This should raise red flags and have warning bells creating a deafening sound. There are plenty more factors that need to be studied...but no, the debate is over. Consensus says man is the cause and don't dare question us. Now, why would scientists and politicians push this narrative. Power and money. Simple as that. Now let's move to point 3, which is probably moot but maybe should be discussed. Is the so-called warming of earth catastrophic or even detrimental? History has shown that earth has thrived during its warmest times. So who is to say that man is not saving the planet, and that any attempt to manipulate this warming trend is actually destructive to earth's health. Better yet, how much impact will any "solution" have? I have recently heard some treasonous politicians talking about their support of the Kyoto Protocol, and gave details about some of the benefits it will have on earth's future. As outlined above, they have absolutely no clue as to what any "preventative" measures will do. And as usual, Americans will be footing the bill. And there you have it. Our politicians want China and other countries to "clean up" their act. They know the countries will demand that the U.S. pay for these measures. They also know that the American people will not willingly just hand over billions and trillions of dollars. Hence, the crisis! I'm all for cleaning up our earth and limiting the amount of pollutants in our waters and atmosphere. But I'm not willing to destroy our economy in a pursuit of unproven solutions to an unknown and (non)understood problem.

When did I try this, and what happened? Are you reading those secret history books again?

I'm still holding out hope.

I recently read (on a different forum) that someone has a scientific based opinion on Man-Made Global Warming. I'm not going to name names, but I believe the name had something to do with the greatest state in the Union and possibly something to do with basketball...or maybe hula girls, I don't know. (smileyface) Considering I have much respect for this anonymous poster, this revelation propelled me to open the topic for the umpteenth time for debate, and I encourage input from anyone and everyone. I put this topic in the Political forum since this "debate" is just a political one anyway. So here is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming (recently known as Climate Change): 1. The Earth is warming 2. This warming is caused by Man 3. This warming is catastrophic For debate's sake, let's just skip assumption 1. There is a plethora of "evidence" for and against this one. Global Warming Liars Affirmatives will try to bog the debate down on this issue. Let's just concentrate on assumption 2 and 3. Please show where the supposedly (and possible) rise in Earth's global temperature is attributable solely, or even mainly, or even remotely to Man. And, possibly even more important, show where this warming is catastrophic or even detrimental. I will happily submit my views, rebuttals, objections, retorts, etc. to any credible reply. I will even provide my irrefutable rationale (again) for the political posturing on this topic.