Englebert

Sounds to me like he just reads the Liberal talking points for the day and regurgitates them on here.

Do you really think anybody gives any credence to such false stereotypes you are trying to portray? But more importantly, do you feel like you bolstered you perceived intelligence level with your audience when you make these types of statements?

What in the world are you trying to say? Nevermind. Reply tomorrow when you're sober.

Who's speaking? I turned it off. Edit: Nevermind. Lost my buffer to turn it back on. I'm already back to Seinfeld re-runs.

Yeah, he's generous to the tune of $20 trillion dollars of debt. If that's your definition of generosity, then please, let's start drawing up the secession papers. Liberals are always generous with other people's money. That is an odd quote in the context of this topic. Did you even read or understand my post, or did you just want to try to insert an irrelevant jab instead of adding anything to the discussion.

I can't watch this train wreck anymore. Some lady Democrat (I didn't catch her name) congressman just said that Trump's comments today are paramount to treason. Let's see, Hillary hiding an unsecure email server that has classified emails running through it doesn't qualify as a security breach, but Trump asking the Russians to hand over the 30,000 emails Hillary illegally deleted constitutes treason on his part. We've just identified another nutjob congressman. I'm going back to watching Seinfeld re-runs.

Sorry, I try to avoid personal attacks, but it is clear you are not intelligent enough for this discussion. Try taking a basic high school economics course then get back with me.

I and others have repeatedly asked him to provide proof of Trump's racist remarks. He can't do it. But he still tries to claim Trump is a racist. The Left will try to paint Louis Farrakhan as a racist if he put a "R" behind his name. new tobie is just repeating the lies put out by the Democrats. TxHoops is the only one that has provided what could possibly be some evidence. The page would not let me scroll so I couldn't read the article. It was from the Huffington Post so the validity is highly questionable. The statement (I could only read the first paragraph) was from a long time ago and probably hear-say. I'm sure if evidence exists the New York Times would have already published it. But as long as the Democrats keep trying to push the narrative, new tobie will keep pushing it on here, regardless of lack of evidence.

One that tried to prosecute without the ability to prove intent and one that chose to not prosecute but could show intent.

We might have to build a wall around the whole state to keep those left behind out. That could be costly.

I'm sure they will mention it. Although LumRaiderFan provided you some links from like-minded sources, I applaud you for waiting for the "real" no-spin stories.

I highly doubt that. In fact, I don't think we (Texas) would be able to secede without a bunch of other states wanting to secede with us.

When Lois Lerner and her staff were debating whether or not to go after Willie, I'm sure the conversation went something like this: Staffer 1: We need to go after Willie Nelson because he is an angry old white guy. He must be Republican. Staffer 2: Well, I don't know. He is a musician and in the entertainment industry. He must be a Democrat. Staffer 3: He's from Texas so he must be an angry old white racist. All of the staff in unison: Agreed! Lois Lerner: Then it's settled. Go after him.

That still doesn't make us any less in debt. A quick reminder: $20 trillion dollars worth

Debt. Not deficit. Debt. Like in $20 trillion dollars worth. Do you even know the difference between the two? I can explain it but a simple Bing search should give you the answers. And anyone that has a household budget should be knowledgeable of both terms.

I don't take anything from this website seriously. In fact, like this link, the only thing I've ever seen from this website are links someone sent me...just to make fun of. But man I hope this one is true...and serious. [Hidden Content]

I'm sure many on the Left won't believe this since you linked to Fox News. They will have to wait until the story comes out on Huffington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones, or one of their more "reputable" sources.

The Republicans never had a super majority during G.W.'s administration. During his tenure, it took 60 votes to pass anything in the senate (until Harry Reid arbitrarily changed the rules during Obama's term). Although the Republicans held both houses, they were by slim margins. And everything was going okay until the Democrats took over both houses in '07. I'm sure you remember the "crash" in '07. Obama and the Democrats have sure referred to it hundreds of thousands of times over the course of his administration. But they somehow fail to mention that this is when to Democrats took full control of both houses. One thing Bush and the Republicans did not do...they did not bankrupt the country. And if you throw out the "Yeah right" quote, I must assume you disagree with my statement. So how about a rebuttal since you obviously disagree with it. You have on numerous occasions misused the "deflection" argument. You have accused posters of "deflecting" when all they were doing was using examples or analogies to bolster their point. But here you are trying to deflect away from the Clinton topic to a whole other topic. Next time you try and claim someone is deflecting, come back to your post to remind yourself of real deflection.

I find it odd that the Democrats fully accept the theory of the Russians hacking the DNC emails, but won't admit that there is even a chance that the Russians hacked Hillary's server. It's like they think Putin told his government hackers "Go ahead and hack the DNC emails but leave Hillary's server alone."

Thank God for Gingrich. Luckily Bill had to succumb to Gingrich's demands after Bill threw a hissy fit and shut down the government...twice. If it wasn't for Gingrich controlling Wild Bill's spending Bill's legacy would be comparable to Obama's.

It's like a wife gets pictures in the mail of her husband cheating on her, and she start starts screaming "Who took these pictures?"

When my daughter was around 12,13,14 years old, she had a friend spend the night. This friend was a heavy-set gal. We went to pick the friend up, and on the way back home Fat Bottom Girls came on the stereo. After we got home, it all of a sudden hit me. I started thinking "I hope this girl doesn't think I was playing this song in reference to her weight". So I decided the best thing to do was to kind of informally explain the song to let her know it wasn't in reference to her. So I started to explain. And as I just got started, it hit me again...How do you explain to a 13 year old a song that is talking about a man that loves to sleep with fat women because his overweight nanny molested him as a child. I immediately dropped the subject and prayed that she wouldn't run home to her parents saying I was playing fat songs about her. I never heard anything else about it, but the girl never came over to spend the night again. At that age, friendships come and go quickly, so I'm gonna chalk it up to that.

Yeah, the Byrds version is a better listening version. I always try to give more credence to the originator though. I usually get upset when I find out a song I love is a remake, especially when the remake is almost identical to the original. The Byrds did a good version, but if I want to listen to this song, I will usually play Dylan's original version. I love your "jingle jangle" line. Nice reference.

Danger Zone is by Kenny Loggins (formerly with Jim Messina of Loggins & Messina). Danger Zone was a solo song after the duo broke up. Messina was a producer when Loggins was trying to break into the music business. They became friends and Messina decided to help him write some songs. Loggins first album was supposed to be a solo album, but Messina had contributed so much that they decided to release it as a duo, thus the birth of Loggins and Messina. Mr. Tambourine Man is by Bob Dylan. The Byrds version is a remake. Though Dylan has denied it, many people think the song is a reference to drugs, particularly LSD.