Englebert

Bill had a GOP Congress forcing him to control spending. Bill shut down the government twice trying to continue his wild spending. And he was impeached. As soon as Smitty gets back from his hunting trip with Dick Cheney I'm sure he'll post a link verifying these facts.

Why don't you bury your head a little further in the sand...we can still see your toes.

In which of the 57 states did they go hunting? If Bill is with them I'm sure they will be going to Orgy Island (and they won't need guns for that type of hunting). If Biden is with them, they would just be firing a couple of rounds off of the porch. If Hillary is with them, the second they fired a gun she would want to hold the gun manufacturer accountable. If Nancy Pelosi is with them you can bet that whatever they shoot will have been provided by her husband and paid for by tax-payer dollars at an inflated price. If Lois Lerner is with them you can bet that any game shot will constitute income violating any tax-exempt status and require extra IRS scrutiny.

And liberals are always stereotyping white people, southern people, Christians...even more so than what minorities get. You included!

And all liberals are pedophiles. I never met a liberal that I didn't see staring at a little boy at one time. Humm, I wonder what y'all were fantasying about. Keep throwing out the insults and I will reciprocate.

We don't need things to get done. We need things to get undone.

We had a government shutdown...twice...under the Clinton presidency and a Republican controlled Congress. I think this was the last time Republicans showed any balls. Me personally, I don't want any cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, because the only time they compromise costs us money in the form of "I will give you this is you give me that". The only comprise I want to see is "I will repeal this if you repeal that".

Liberals need to stop the pedophilia. It's easy throwing out unsubstantiated stereotypes. Say them enough and the feeble minded will start believing them.

Now that Trump is the inevitable Republican nominee, I have a request for the voting poll attendants. Will y'all please place barf bags in the voting booths because I know I am going to throw up a little when I vote for Trump.

Most are good honest people. The problem is we have too many of them. And when you have as many federal agents as we have now, you are bound to have some abuse their power.

Here's an interesting one on the FDA. I have no clue as to the accuracy. [Hidden Content] I have read/heard many stories about government agencies confiscating property and/or money without due cause and refuse to return it even after filing no charges. Had it happen to me. I had to sue to get my money returned...and I received no interest payments. It took me two and a half years to get my money returned after it was confiscated. That was a State case, but I can see where the Federal government can and will abuse their powers in the same manner.

Read about them a few years ago. No, I don't have a link. When I did read them I had no reason to believe they were not true, but they could be. I saw the one about the guy's mountain home in Colorado on one of the science channels...History Channel, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, PBS...one of them. I then did an internet search and found an article that corroborated the story. So I definitely believe that one is accurate. Let me know if you find anything on any of them.

The book was an example of one of the rare times the government does something good, although I feel the situation could have been handled more effectively without federal involvement. (I know that's debatable.) But for every one good thing the government does, you can list ten instances where the government over-reaches and uses their power to coerce and manipulate, or is just plain full of corruption and criminal mischief. How about the couple in California that was bottling their own milk. Their neighbors thought that the milk was better than store-bought milk because it was straight from the cow, and persuaded the couple to sell the milk to them. The FDA then came in and confiscated every thing the couple owned, including the cows. No due process, no warning, no nothing. Left the couple homeless. How about the couple that built their dream home. Had been saving their money all of their life. Bought a nice wooded lot. Got all of the permits and had their dream house built. The EPA later decided that the property was federally protected wetlands, and ordered the couple to tear down the house and restore the land to it's natural state...all at the expense of the homeowners. This was after the couple had paid for and received all of the necessary permits. The EPA started fining the couple $75,000 per day until the land was restored. How about the couple that built their dream home in Colorado. Again, they paid for and received all necessary permits. The EPA decided two years after the house was built that the house was on land now deemed to be federally protected, and ordered the couple to tear down the $800,000 home at the owner's expense. But since the house was now on federally protected land, the EPA decided that the only access road to the house could not be used and must also be restored to it's natural state. So the homeowners were ordered to tear down their house and remove all the debris with no way of getting any equipment to the site, not even their own 4-wheelers. They were given one week to restore the land. I could go on and on, rest a little while, then go on and on some more with examples of corruption and criminal behavior by various agencies of the federal government. Sometimes they do good things, many times they do not. I don't know of anyone that thinks government is not needed, but the government we have now is just overblown and is in need of serious reduction. This country was founded on the principle that the individual states have power to regulate, and the federal government was only for the common defense and to settle disputes between states. It is astonishing how that has changed. So reading "The Jungle" in today's context of the federal government is outdated.

Now that is the ultimate badge of honor.

That doesn't make Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland and Connecticut any less liberal.

Of course. The liberal states are voting. I would be more concerned if he had won.

Thanks for the update. For some reason I thought all three would be tied head-to-head.

Looks like there is a possibility of WOS, HJ and LCM tying for the 3rd and 4th spots with 6-6 records. So I don't think WOS has technically wrapped up a spot yet. If LCM wins out, HJ beats Silsbee, and WOS loses to Silsbee, all three will be tied for 2 spots.

Ask Vatican City if a wall works.

I would say yes, most people have...indirectly. We have allowed the EPA to enforce stringent (sometimes strangling) environmental laws without a fight. We've allowed the government to direct billions and billions of our tax-payer dollars to the "green" agenda without so much as a peep of protest. We are allowing billions and billions of our tax-payer dollars to be given away to other countries in the name of a "green planet" and no one bats an eye. That is the goal of man-made global warming theorists, and so far it is working like a charm. The ends justify the means. This has been done, and is being done, without one iota of a tiny shred of evidence that man's activities have any detrimental effect on the global weather patterns.

So your answer is no, you can't provide any proof of man's harmful contributions to catastrophic global warming. Somehow I knew my question was rhetorical.

So if close to a billion scientists agree that man is the cause of catastrophic global warming, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence floating around. Can you produce just one article, paper, journal or any sort of irrefutable evidence showing man's harmful contributions to this so-called catastrophic warming?

After cancelling a concert in Mississippi, Bryan Adams issued a statement saying the Mississippi law was incomprehensible and he cannot “in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights due to their sexual orientation.” This statement came just weeks after he performed a concert in Pakistan, where homosexuality is illegal under the law. He also performed in Dubai and other countries that do not allow homosexuality. His hypocrisy shows no bounds.

If you believe this, then what should be the consequences for bad actors profiting from misleading people the other way...like the man-made global warming profit Mr. Al Gore. Shouldn't he be in jail by now. Obama has said many times that the debate was over. Shouldn't he share a cell with Gore. I also find it astonishing that you are accusing others on here of "towing the line" of deniers when everything you've stated so far is right down the line of the man-made global warming gloom and doom prognosticators. (Who have been wildly wrong in every one of their predictions). And like you said in an earlier post, it is evident how much research YOU have done on the subject. Please enlightened us with proof of the detrimental effects of man on the global climate patterns. Since I'm fairly certain you haven't done the research, I can save you some time. It doesn't exist. While you're doing research on this, please enlightened us on the effect of volcanos on Earth's climate. Add in sea fissures, earthquakes, glacial solar glare, glacial movements, solar hot spots, solar flares, solar mass thermal ejections, sun hibernation, the moon's gravitational pull, the variations of Earth's axis tilt, the variations of Earth's orbit, the variations of the moon's orbit, cow flatulence (thanks Nash for reminding me of that one) and so on and so on. When you can answer all of these things, you may be a 1,000,000th of the way of answering man's effect on global warming. Again, I can save you some time. You won't find anything.

If you want to talk about flawed arguments, let's look at the whole man-made global warming theory. The government says the Earth is warming at a catastrophic rate. The data we used to calculate this has been altered, manipulated and even pulled out of thin air, so no one actually knows if the Earth is really warming. We say the warming is catastrophic but in reality we really don't have a clue as to what the effect will be. Now that we have told you that we all agree on our doomed future, let's figure out the cause. Well...since we have no clue, let's just blame humans. Wait, what. What role does Mother Nature play in this settled science (gotta keep reminding the folks that the debate is over). What effect do volcanos play, thermal sea fissures, glacial sun glare, glacial movements, ever changing (and not understood) weather patterns. Hell, we don't even have a clue as to why lightning appears before and after earthquakes. What about solar flares and mass thermal ejections, sun spots, sun hibernation, changes in Earth's axis tilt, the moon's gravitational pull, and the other countless effects that might contribute to Earth's weather patterns. Forget about all of those things, the debate is settled. Now let's propose plans on how to reverse man's ruinous activities. Any suggestions. No. Let's just throw out some proposals, don't worry about testing them, and throw a lot of money at them. Before anyone starts throwing money at a problem, there are a few things that need to be addressed. Step 1. Identify the problem. Step 2. Propose solutions to the problems. Step 3. Empirically test these proposals to find best solution. Step 4. Implement solution. The government thinks we are at Step 4, but anyone that has spent one hour or less of research can quickly ascertain that we are at Step 1. And even if we somehow get to the point that we all agree that Step 1 is reality, then we should move to Step 2, not Step 4. Hence, the crisis. Since this so-called warming is so catastrophic, we need to start implementing solutions that we have no idea what effect (good or bad) they will have on the Earth. Before we uncover the effects of man-made global warming, how about we study why man-made global warming theories are at the forefront of this administrations' list of problems. One theory is that making it into a catastrophic scenario then Americans will be more willing to dish out a lot of money to help clean the environment. Americans will be more agreeable to stricter and stricter EPA regulations. These things will be beneficial to the longevity of man and earth, but to get them implemented we have to create a doomsday scenario. The ends justify the means. Another theory, and one that runs congruent with the first, is that we need to spend tons of money on third world countries to bring them up to par with us. The American people will not agree to just give our wealth to these countries, so we have to create a doomsday scenario. Trick the people into thinking that the only way to save mankind is to redistribute our wealth to the poorer nations under the guise of saving the planet. The ends justify the means. I don't have a problem with America investing money in keeping our environment clean. But I do have a problem with our government spending trillions of our hard earned tax payer dollars on a solution to a problem that has never been defined.