Englebert

I haven't heard this quote before, and you've used it on multiple occasions recently. Is it something you made up? Is it a narrative the liberal press it trying to push? Does it fit a particular agenda (with absolutely no merit)? Please explain. I have a hunch it is an attempt to push a square peg through a round hole, but I'll reserve judgment pending your explanation.

Your attempts at reading comprehension fall way short on this one. You seem to be reading more than is written. Could it be that's what you want to believe so you can fit an agenda? And FYI, you've thrown out some very negative and unsubstantiated personal attacks against Trump. If anyone is filled with hate, the evidence overwhelmingly points directly at you.

So are you implying Obama blew up the levees?

Even Captain Obvious had to respond to your quote with a "Well duh!" Although Hillary might try to appoint him as a Supreme Court judge so he can wreak more havoc on our society while pulling a government paycheck.

Let's see if you change your tune if you have a teenage daughter that is being peeped on (and possibly/probably more) in the bathroom by a some pervert incentivized from no fear of prosecution or even rebuke.

I don't consider equating the bottom of the barrel vs the scum that lives under the barrel a compliment.

Probably not, but if sensible people finally wake up and look at the direction this country is headed, then maybe. I'm praying for Hope and Change we Texans can believe in.

I'm for secession regardless of who wins, but emphatically so if Hillary wins. When a socialist is able to win the last two presidential elections, and when a socialist is leading the polls in the presidential race, and when an admitted socialist comes close to winning the presidential primary, it is time for a major change.

What should they have done? It has been proven over and over and over that when government gets involved, prices rise. The government needs to get the hell out of healthcare, along with college, as well as all education...this list can get long in a hurry. I find it astonishing that anyone can believe the government is the source of solutions when there is an abundance of evidence showing government is the source of the problems. If you want to blame the government, blame Liberals who feel the need to stick their stinking noses is places they shouldn't belong.

The common denominator in the rise of cost of all those things is "more government involvement". Are corporations any more greedy today than they were 20+ years ago? You want to blame greed, but the level of greed has not risen in the past twenty years. Twenty plus years ago hospital care was affordable. This happened while the level of greed stayed the same and government regulations increased. So to get costs back down, are you suggesting we should we try to force corporations to not be so greedy? Is that your solution? And why do you keeping blaming the government's "lack of involvement" for all the ills of America, when the government's amount of involvement is truly to blame for most of our problems?

I've asked you repeatedly to state what offensive things Hannity has said. You have failed miserably to show one single thing. Same thing with Trump being corrupt. Same thing with Trump being a racist. Same thing with Trump being psychotic. Do you just spout out crap and not expect to be challenged? That sounds like someone with an entitled mentality. Have you no shame? Most people will learn from these mistakes and know to provide proof when spewing these lies. Only an entitled untouchable thinks (s)he can get away with such speech and not dare be challenged. Do you fit this category? Seriously, answer the question. Do you think you should be able to repeat lies and not be challenged on the truthfulness of your statements because of some perceived protected status? I'm very curious as to why you think you can repeat lies? Edit: You know, on second though, don't even answer. Democrats will be Democrats. How anyone, and I'm talking about anyone with two or more functional brain cells, can currently call themselves a Democrat after the Progressive Liberals/Socialists have taken over the party is unfathomable. If you or anyone fits that category, I have absolutely no desire to carry on any conversation with that individual.

It has always amazed me how many people accuse umpires/officials/referees of cheating or being just plain stupid/blind/moronic... They go on and on and on about how they cost their team a game. Every single one that I've seen, without exception...and there's been plenty, that have sucked it up and attempted to umpire or officiate themselves all of a sudden have a "Come to Jesus" moment and have a complete change of attitude. I think we can include this guy in that category...although he won't fully admit it.

Let me ask you something new tobie. In your own opinion, do you actually think Trump's comments were a call to assassinate (or even bring harm to) Hillary?

Just more fake outrage from a biased media, and the sheeple follow. Dan Rather lost all credibility ten years ago. And the Huffington Post has never had any credibility.

That's hilarious. Anybody that studies 600 hours of footage of a presidential candidate should be the one considered psychotic. I do agree with the author that both Obama and Trump are narcissistic. But then the author concludes that Trump is psychotic but Obama is smart. I had to quit reading at that point. (My laughter was impeding my reading ability.) Sometimes it's easy to spot bias bull. I'm still surprised you fall for this kind of stuff.

And yet you fail to answer the questions, so I will ask you again. Your attempt at avoiding the question is about as bad as your acceptance of the Left propaganda machine. What do you consider examples of Trump's psychotic and totally out of control behavior? And include examples of his stupidity, since you threw that one in too.

All this fake outrage is comical. Hillary actually puts lives at stake by putting classified material in an unsecure location, resulting in zero outrage from the Left. Trump just says things he's been saying for the last year or so and the left are foaming at the mouth calling for his ouster. Such phony and comical behavior. And the Leftist sheeple gobble it up like candy. And please explain what you consider as Trump's psychotic and totally out of control behavior. And also explain why Trump's not racist now. Is it perhaps that the left wing media has decided that lie didn't stick?

I'm not sure why all of these Clinton "associates" keep mysteriously dying. Hillary can just rub them out herself. After all, the FBI and DOJ are not going bring charges against her. This has been proven.

I appreciate your quip and for most normal topics on this forum this would be a good cagey answer, but I am desperately trying to keep this thread on topic. Please, anyone, articulate what questions should be asked on a background check to prevent criminals from getting guns but not infringe on legal citizens second amendment right. Like I stated in the original post, I have a feeling there won't be much, if any response from the anti-gun side. I still want to give them a chance to respond without getting sidetracked.

The original questions have yet to be answered. So again, what questions should be asked on a background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights? And who has the auspicious task of determining what questions are actually asked to determine if one qualifies to exercise their constitutional right? The intent of this topic is to determine what qualifications should be applied to determine if one is qualified to exercise their second amendment rights. By your answer here, I gather that you feel that the current background checks are not sufficiently working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So please expound on this idea and tell us how you think background checks can keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on legal citizens exercising their second amendment rights. And while your at it, please answer these questions. Is a criminal allowed to vote? Does a criminal have to pass a background check to cast a ballot? Does a criminal have to pass a six hour course on how to safely vote (and pay a substantial fee) to exercise their right to vote? And why does the second amendment include the phrase "shall not be infringed" pertaining to the right to bear arms, but not one of the other rights bear this caveat?

I'm more worried about her infection with PLD (Progressive Liberal Disease) than this.

Thanks. I think we might be moving back to the intent of this topic. These questions are for everyone, not just 77. Why does the government need this information? Who decides what questions make up a background check? Should the government require you to also share this information when you register to vote? If current background checks verify that the purchaser has felonies or warrants, should that preclude that purchaser from owning a gun? If a home owner is selling a house, should he have to run a background check on the potential buyer to see if that person has felonies or warrants? Should the gun purchaser also be given this same background check to vote? And lastly, who will get to decide what (more) questions are asked, and who appoints these omnipotent deciders?

What do these background checks entail? That is, what questions are asked now? What questions should be asked? And who gets to decide what questions get asked to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

So if background checks are a good idea, what questions should be asked on the background check to determine if you are qualified to exercise your second amendment rights?

You're exactly right. They have no clue what they're doing but yet feel the need to tell people what to do. I have much respect for some Congressmen. Some need never be allowed to be in charge of anything more than Kindergarten nap time. Some are just corrupt to the bone and need to be in prison. I saw a video a while back in which some anti-gun group (can't remember who) was trying to imitate Diane Feinstein's town hall assault gun presentation. Feinstein had several firearms placed on a pegboard in the background, all ominous looking "assault rifles", while proposing an assault gun ban. This group tried to duplicate her stunt. But someone snuck a hammer onto the pegboard. When the leader of the presentation started speaking, someone stood up in the crowd and hollered, "Which weapon on that pegboard was used in more murders in the last 5 years?" The presenter turned around and saw the hammer. (She apparently knew the stats.) She stumbled and bumbled halfway through a clearly unrehearsed and untruthful answer. It was one of the most comical things I have ever saw. I tried to find the video but to no avail.