Englebert

No true conservative would have passed the budget that was just passed. Period. A true conservative would have rather "shut the government down" than vote for that. A true conservative would not make deals with other congressmen in which they pass each other bills no matter how crappy the bills are. The GOP is light years better than the Democrats, but they still pass pork filled budgets that would make a pure conservative puke. So no, the current GOP is not conservative.

The Budget!!!! No debate necessary.

We would definitely have to come up with a better name than the "Nation Of Texas" because the acronym for that is "NOT".

Yes, Texas could make it own it's own, without a doubt. In fact, we would be much better off than we are now, as long as we don't elect the same type of politicians that currently comprise the federal government. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution. The breakdown is based solely on the people implementing it. If the Nation of Texas elects politicians that stick to the constitution, we will prosper. If not, we will fail.

I wonder if both of the Al Jazeera followers will now start watching MSNBC. MSNBC's ratings could double overnight.

He had six scholarship offers to choose from but he chose the "Mean Machine".

So is your definition of a crazy rant defined as one that tries to imagine what the anti-gun nuts will come up with to control who qualifies to own a gun? One governing body has already proposed outlawing guns for anyone involved in a divorce. Do you not think this is just one of many solutions to disqualify people of the right to bear arms? I mentioned a case in which a boy was expelled from elementary school for eating his bread into the shape of a gun. Can you not think of a case in which a like-minded individual would someday be in charge of writing prohibitions of gun ownership through background checks? Same for the frat boy. I have no faith in this administration when it comes to guns. I have no doubt that they will try to use background checks to tighten the noose on who is allowed to own guns. You can define this as a crazy rant, doesn't bother me. I'm convinced that as long as this administration is in power, gun confiscation is the ultimate goal. The fact that guns sales skyrocket every time Obama talks about guns leads me to believe I'm not alone, or in the minority.

Evolution my friend. Evolution. No, it hasn't happened...yet. I can't even imagine the rules that will eventually be included on background checks. But I can bet they will be more and more restrictive. I noticed that you didn't address the ethnicity question. Was that not a concern for you? I know it ticked me off to no end. Can you tell me why you think that question is included? And how do you define gun nut? I define an anti-gun nut as anyone that wants to infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. How do you define a gun nut?

You didn't mind the question of ethnicity? I mean, why ask the question if it is not relevant? And what about future questions. We just had a state legislator (forgot what state) is proposing that anyone going through a divorce should not be allowed to purchase a gun. What about the 3rd grade teacher that sees a kid eating his bread into the shape of a gun? Will that kid now be banned for life from ever owning a gun since he's shown a propinquity for violent behavior? What about the college frat guy that gets too drunk and makes an ass of himself in front of witnesses? Is he now forever banned from owning a gun for inappropriate behavior? I have zero doubt that anti-gun nuts will fight and fight until practically everyone is banned from owning a gun for one reason or another...no matter how lame that reason is.

How so?

But 90% of people polled believe the economy is in full recovery.

The last poll I saw was that 60 something percent favored increased background checks, and that poll was taken right after San Bernardino. Obama is lying when he says that 90% favor increased background checks. And I would love to see how the questions are worded on any of the polls. And if Obama is so enamored about polls, he should immediately repeal Obamacare, since an overwhelming majority dislikes the law. And the quote I posted above came from the same exact conversation you posted.

This was on The Kelly File last night: "Did we participate in CNN's event tonight? No, we didn't," Cox told Megyn Kelly. "We were offered one pre-screened question. Megyn, I know that you don't send your questions over to the White House, so I'd rather have a conversation with you that's intellectually honest than sit through a lecture and get one opportunity to ask a pre-screened question." [Hidden Content]

I'll start the conspiracy theory. Obama ordered the stock market to drop to distract from his outright lie yesterday.

I wonder if George Soros is financing this protest.

I believe that all laws passed limiting gun ownership should equally apply to the right to vote. To vote you must pass a background check. To vote you must pass a 5 hour course on how to vote. You must pay for the privilege to attend the class, bring the necessary documents and provide a valid ID. And before anyone says apples and oranges, I believe that an incompetent/uneducated voter does more harm than an uneducated gun owner.

If asked, would you participate in a "debate" in which you can only ask one prescreened question?

The only difference between a socialist and a progressive liberal is that a socialist will admit being a socialist.

His words were: "There's a reason why the NRA is not here. You'd think that they would be prepared to have a debate with the president." That's word for word. Here's the link: [Hidden Content] He did say in response to Cooper's question that the White House has invited them. I would bet the farm that the White House has never invited the NRA to a equal-footing debate. Obama can him-haw all around, but he unmistakably said that the NRA was not there because they don't want to debate him. That is a blatant lie. The truth is he wasn't going to allow a debate. I would love to see his reaction if FoxNews said that they were gonna have a live debate on national TV about Obamacare and would like for him to show up for a debate, but he could only ask one pre-screened question with no rebuttal questions. He definitely would not show up and he would let everyone know that is not how debates work. He would go on and on for an hour about how deceitful and misleading the show would be.

Obama stated on national TV that "we've invited the NRA to have a debate", when in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal. That is not a "debate" according to anyone's standards. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe anything this guy says.

This is not new news. Many real climatologists have pointed this out as far back as the 90s. The media just chooses to ignore facts. I'm surprised this one got published.

They showed up in my driveway about 2 months ago with this same story. I didn't say a word, walked in my house, grabbed my shotgun and walked back outside. They left quite abruptly.

Liberals label anyone who doesn't tow the liberal line a racist or bigot who are clinging to their guns and religion.

None. How many voted for a war, based on the same intelligence that everyone else saw, then lied by saying they were lied to.

Or lied about classified emails, or intentionally and unlawfully deleted government documents, or was fired from legal counsel because of unethical behavior, and...oh nevermind. This list would get too long too fast.