Englebert

1. Beaumont Central/Port Arthur Memorial 2. Liberty/Woodville 3. West Hardin/Evadale 4. Conroe Caney Creek/New Caney 5. Dayton/Humble 6. Beaumont Ozen/Vidor 7. Lumberton/Livingston 8. Nederland/Baytown Lee 9. Beaumont West Brook/Houston St. Thomas 10. Orangefield/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 11. Bridge City/Newton 12. Hamshire-Fannett/Buna 13. Tarkington/Anahuac 14. Beaumont Kelly Catholic/Hardin-Jefferson 15. Corrigan-Camden/Kountze 16. East Chambers/New Waverly 17. Buffalo/Groveton 18. Kirbyville/San Augustine 19. Warren/Hull-Daisetta 20. West Sabine/Burkeville 21. Orange Community Christian/Apple Springs 22. Kingwood Park/Barbers Hill 23. The Woodlands/Richmond George Ranch 24. Alief Hastings/Montgomery 25. Bryan Rudder/Jasper

We all know Hillary is mentally unfit. Now it looks as if she is possibly physically unfit also. But the sheeple will still vote for her regardless.

Try reading about how your hero Bill Clinton tried to bankrupt the country (like Obama), but was rebuffed by Gingrich. Bill even tried shutting down the government twice to continue his wild spending ways. If we would have had more like Gingrich in Congress these last eight years we wouldn't be $20 trillion in debt.

It's easy to get away with committing crimes when the prosecutors won't convict. You, of all people, should know this, or at least believe this, considering your past posts on racial issues.

Start a damn topic on Trump's lies then. Why hijack a topic to spew your bile!! Do it. I dare you. We can have an endless conversation on who lies more between Trump and Hillary. Please, please, please start that topic. But quit interjecting your off topic comments into places it doesn't belong.

Can you name one person on here trying to make Trump look like the next coming of Reagan? I put a poll on here a while back asking if you will vote for Trump because you like his policies or because you dislike Hillary's policies. I think everyone that said they will vote for Trump will do so because of their dislike of Hillary's policies. And I don't recall anyone on here even praising Trump for much of anything outside of his wealth. You and some on the left keep posting lies about the man, so rebuttal's are necessary. Seems to me your view of the members of this board are very askew. Or maybe you are just guilty of your own accusations. And like I said, posting links about Trump in a topic devoted to Hillary's earpiece is off topic. If you want to continue your assault on Trump, start a new thread instead of hijacking this one.

Too bad they won't receive any training and are just unleashed in the communities to go around slaughtering black people. Do you think that is policy of the Dallas police chief?

And you're hero is Bill Clinton, who committed adultery many, many times and tried to bankrupt the country. Thank goodness Gingrich saved us. Didn't you try to empathically use the term hypocrite in another thread? As I recall, you used all caps.

Politifact, as usual, fails to include the whole story. Where is the link to the shameful video that Bush blamed for the attacks. Where are the families claiming Bush lied to their faces in front of their dead loved ones bodies? Where are any links showing Bush proclaiming the attacks were a direct result of a video weeks after the attacks? And HYPOCRITE and POLITIFACT are very close to synonyms.

I think the term is "willful ignorance".

You posting a link showing a picture of Bill and Trump is not relevant to this topic. And this answer is incomprehensible and would be embarrassing for most folks.

Another stat irrelevant to the topic. Or is it you are trying to say that by showing his taxes and begrudgingly showing a birth certificate qualifies him as one of the greatest presidents ever? Is this what you are using as qualifying arguments? And did you forget to remind us that Obama will be receiving tax payer money for life? Of course, way too many in this country undeservedly receive lifetime stipends also.

This relates to Hillary wearing an earpiece how? And some wonder why we can't have a conversation on here.

Fact: 1 + 1 = 2. Fact: 2 + 2 = 4. I can also state facts that add nothing to the current discussion. What point are you trying to make when you repeatedly state these facts? Or do you even have a point?

Then you must not read very much. If you can't comprehend, don't respond.

Your opinion is that the Conservatives just offer opinions on here, when in reality of many/most of them can and do back up their statements with facts...something you fail to do even when asked. This is not a two-way street you claim to be on.

And when exposed they are ousted rather quickly, as opposed to the other side that ignores the transgressions of their leaders and continue to worship at their corrupt feet.

1. Barbers Hill/Crosby 2. Jasper/Silsbee 3. Evadale/Deweyville 4. Humble/Conroe Caney Creek 5. Splendora/Dayton 6. Baytown Lee/Ozen 7. Livingston/Nederland 8. Port Neches-Groves/Lumberton 9. New Caney/Kingwood Park 10. Willis/Huffman Hargrave 11. Hardin-Jefferson/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 12. West Orange-Stark/Bridge City 13. Coldspring-Oakhurst/Liberty 14. Newton/Diboll 15. Shepherd/Corrigan-Camden 16. Tarkington/Warren 17. Woodville/Orangefield 18. Vidor/Beaumont Central 19. Buna/Anahuac 20. Garrison/Shelbyville 21. Hull-Daisetta/Kountze 22. West Sabine/Hemphill 23. Groveton/San Augustine 24. Orange Community Christian/High Island 25. Beaumont Legacy Christian/Beaumont Kelly Catholic

I bet you can't back up your assertation. All you can do is shake your head. Would you like to debate my point. No? I didn't think so. And how about you give your opinion to the question posed by TxHoops. Are you having trouble finding your opinion on Huffington Post, or Mother Jones, or MSNBC, or Politifact?

I agree with much of what the author says. But he gives examples of some infringements on gun ownership by Conservatives but fails to mention the many, many restrictions instituted by Liberals. If a basketball team wins a game 120-2, you don't really need to concentrate on the 2 points given up like this author is trying to push. And if you want a scorecard to verify this, the NRA rates all politicians as to their adherence to Second Amendment rights. The overwhelming majority of bad grades are on the Democrat side, basically the same ratio as winning a basketball game 120-2.

I absolutely disagree that it will never happen...ask Britains, Canadians and Australians. The question was would Obama sign a bill that prohibits gun ownership if given the opportunity. We can disagree on whether a bill would ever reach a president's desk, but again, hypothetically, if one inexplicitly does, would Obama sign it? I have no doubt as to the answer to that question. What do you think? I agree with you that many Democrats want gun ownership, but I will contend that number is shrinking. The Democrat leaders have adopted the policy of strict gun control and the Democrat constituents are not fighting them on this issue. Case in point, California, New York and pretty much most of the northeastern states and northwestern states. And as for high powered rifles, more people are killed yearly by hammers than by high powered rifles. You, Obama, and the Democrats are trying to solve an imaginative problem when pushing for "assault" (definition needed) rifle bans. The reason the Democrat leadership is so gung ho on banning "assault" rifles because it is a stepping stone leading to total gun control. That is very obvious to many of us. I'm not sure why many of the Democrat members can't see it. How many lives would be saved yearly if "assault" rifles are banned versus handguns? Please answer that question then ask yourself why the Democrat leaders are targeting "assault" rifles instead of handguns. I will go ahead and answer. It's not because they don't want to, it's because they can't. By getting some bans in place, say on "assault" rifles, they can use this as a counter to the "shall not be infringed" argument. Again, very obvious to many of us. Ask Joe Biden as to the reason for not voting on Garland. It's on video, a simple google search will provide you with his explanation. Why do you want government to solve everything? The cost to attend any NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA game is out of control. Should the government step in to "solve the problem". Maybe they can implement an Obamacare style plan in which the object is the reduce prices but the solution ends up raising costs even more. I'm kind of curious as to what would happen to these professional sports if the people showed unity and started boycotting them. How long would it take for the prices to drop versus government intervention. The people have the power to solve these problems, but you want government to do your job...the same government that begs these entities/companies for "campaign" donations.

If you're talking to a person that is undecided between Trump and Johnson, then the "fallacy" is true...a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary. If talking to a person undecided between Hillary and Johnson, then a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. If talking to a person that is either voting for Johnson or will not vote, then he makes no difference. Sounds like more Hillary/Johnson undecideds are waking up to the fact that she is an unconvicted felon and unfit to occupy the office. I did see a poll today where Hillary's lead has shrunk to around 3 points. I didn't see (or it didn't say) what demographics have switched. Could be a mixture.

Based on just these stats, it sounds like the minority vote is becoming more and more monolithic and is responsible for electing Democrats who enslave them into socialist government programs. Is this the same conclusion you draw from these stats?

1. Baytown Sterling 2. Port Arthur Memorial 3. Dayton 4. Crosby 5. New Caney 6. Barbers Hill 7. Humble 8. Lumberton 9. Bridge City 10. Liberty 11. Henderson 12. West Orange-Stark 13. Orangefield 14. Crockett 15. East Chambers 16. Shepherd 17. Newton 18. Woodville 19. Evadale 20. Shelbyville 21. Garrison 22. Beaumont Kelly Catholic 23. Deweyville 24. Hull-Daisetta 25. Beaumont Central

If believe that Politifact tells the truth less than 22% of time.