brett05

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) It'll be a true test for how effective Jeff Sessions is at limiting who can vote. Excuses in case the vote doesn't go how you want it?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 11:44 AM) The midterm election is 2018 is going to be one of the most important in a long time for this country. I agree as well

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 27, 2017 -> 09:08 AM) Is Mexico going to pay for it? Keep moving the goal posts. Not a single post was moved, but keep believing that it was. Will Mexico pay for it? Right now Trump has been keeping his campaign promises so I have no reason to believe otherwise.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 03:01 PM) Thoughts on the new Wall tax? I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. You thought that prior to each "brick" a "buck" was going to be sent over? Come on now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) This same delusional mindset now runs our country. Yes call what you have no idea on delusional. The only bigoted folks seems to be libs.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 07:19 AM) So you are against Trump having an investigation into voter fraud that ranges from 3-5 million people? Nope. Quite a bit was brought out on the Answer by Joe Walsh yesterday on this.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) How can I respond to: That takes no position. As I said, I am for all scientific investigation. If you want to know my "opinion" it is that whether or not its global "warming", "cooling" whatever I believe that introducing toxins into our environment could cause a negative impact. Because it could cause a negative impact, I believe that we should take proactive steps to prevent that negative impact (whatever it may be.) I see no advantage for our planet's well being in not taking steps to ensure that our planet remains habitable for humans. And the article you quoted does not support your statement. The key difference is (from your article so Im not going to cite again) But that isnt the point I am making, I am not saying that in the next 5 years there will be a catastrophe or in the next 100 years. I am arguing that if there is a 1% chance that it could happen, why would we want not to try to mitigate that 1%? And even then, global warming is just a small part of the equation. The real question is about the overall health of humans, not whether the Earth is going to go through a cataclysmic change relatively soon. And the article you linked is the exact reason why we need more research. Because we simply dont know, and there is simply no reason to stop researching because again the entire point of protecting the environment, isnt that we are relatively close to something bad, its the idea that its impossible to accurately predict exactly where the tipping point may be (if it even exists) so we should take steps to ensure that we never get close to the tipping point. A good example is an animal that goes extinct. Its impossible to determine exactly how many animals need to be saved to ensure that the species doesnt go extinct, but you dont just stop researching, you dont just stop conserving, you keep investigating in the hope that "the animal never goes extinct." You seem to think that I have never even considered the idea that "global warming isnt because of humans." When in fact it is the exact opposite. I have looked into the sun spot correlation theory http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/solact.html and other theories (ice age) to explain why the temperature may be increasing for reasons that are not connected to man. But it all goes back to my initial comment. If you have a 1% chance of dying because you are doing something, and it something that you can easily change/fix, why would you keep doing it? Sure its only 1 out of 100, but is that risk really worth death? Especially if the only barrier to mitigating the risk is "theoretical money" as environmental protection doesnt even necessarily take money of your pocket. Again global warming is just a small part of protecting the environment. Things like mercury in the water (Trump reversing rules on amalgam being released in water supply) etc, are all important. And I dont know how risky it is, I dont know if dentists dumping mercury in your water will cause you or your family problems, but if it costs $1,000 to fix, why take the risk? Especially when the costs of environmental clean up could be far greater. Even if we make this solely about money, many times preventing a problem costs less than fixing a problem. With respect to science, Trump has seemingly suggested that he wants to cut funding to science. That is the equivalent of stopping science. We should be pouring money into science, that is our future. And this comes from someone who makes $0 from science. I would not be in favor of throwing money toward things that have a minute percentage of being accurate. It's not worth it. Our tax dollars can be put to better use. That is not the same as cutting science or stopping science.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) You do not know what I think of the environment, so youre assuming and your politicizing science. Science shoudlnt be political, whether the earth is getting warmer, cooler, whatever is not political. We should be spending money to determine whether it is true. Spending money on exploration is vital to the United States. We cannot fall behind other countries and expect to compete with them in the future. And I dont know what science could potentially lead to a breakthrough. That is why it is important that we fund and promote scientific research. That we dont prejudge outcomes. That we dont stop funding because we are worried that the results may not fit into our opinions. I hope that the people of the United States can see why science is so important. Even if that research leads to my current opinion being incorrect. I am not assuming anything, I even offered to be corrected. You choose to not confirm nor deny. I am not politicizing science. There is talk about the other planets in the solar system going thru climate change, perhaps we are no different. The consensus of 97% or even 99.9% of climate scientists agree it's because of man is pure marketing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012...t/#4aa3a8141690 I have not proposed at all nor has anyone else in this thread proposed we stop doing science.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Brett, Not talking about funding murder. Talking about funding things like research into the environment, research into space exploration and research into how to save unborn children at the earliest possible date. Wouldnt it be great if we could advance so far scientifically that we do not need abortion? That we could simply remove it from the mother safely? And I have no problem if you abstain from the religious part, but if you arent willing to discuss the foundation of Judea-Christian morals, than perhaps we should just abstain from discussing morals at all, which I really have no problem with as I do not believe morality should be legislated. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are talking about funding environment as you see it, not as someone who shuns the previous administrations notion of it. I am against space exploration on government money, something I am happy that the previous administration pared back on based on percentage of federal budget. What objection to saving the lives of unborn children are being rejected?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) Looks like his peak was shortly after election, around early December, and he's been trending down since. He got the typical post-election bounce, but his actual decisions in transition and in power have scared more people off. So as I said, he's trending down, though I thought his peak was a little earlier. Of course he's also been so low all along compared to historical peers, he just doesn't have as much room to wriggle. No, he's up to 57% if you looked at my other link in the same post.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) If you're Hitler I think that I can say confidently that you are no longer needed. Or according to the moral code of God in the old testament, if you were a first born Egyptian. I know what rabbit hole you are trying to go down here, abortion is immoral. The problem (and we have had this argument before) is that you and I disagree on what is considered "living". As such to me there is nothing immoral about an abortion, because it is no different than any other medical procedure. I have gone over where I believe the line between protecting/not protecting is, and we simply disagree. We do disagree. Most states see it as a human life, unborn but human. Shutting down the funding of murder I have no issues with. If that is equated to shutting down opposition this is opposition that should be shut down. I'll abstain from the religious aspect.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 09:57 AM) That graph also shows Trump's current approval rating at 41.8% (and has trended down since a peak of 44.5% in mid-December) with Rasmussen's polls as an outlier... And we all know about those outliers from election night don't we? EDIT: The graph stops at Jan 20.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 09:28 AM) The Colorado program started in 2009. What leaps in education occurred between 2008 and 2009 that would have had a massive impact on pregnancy and abortion rates? Social Media and it's ease of access comes right to mind.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 08:48 AM) Not sure why anyone continues to interact with you. You are 100% anti-science and facts. This is my last reply to you. Promise? (Why do I doubt it.) I am pro-science and pro-fact. The issue is many pass off opinions and faith as both of these. I am not in favor of that at all.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 08:20 AM) Yeah no. He's at 45% in the latest one I see, that's true. And he's the only modern President to be below 50% at this stage. Except of course he wasn't 38% on election day, as he got 48% of the votes. Also his 45% disapproval rating is dramatically higher than any other at this stage, most of whom have been around 15% on that number. He is not doing well, so far, in the eyes of the voting public. The 38 number I cannot find anywhere, where did you get it? Link? Source? I can't find my original link but here is a different one and as you can see, 38 range on election day http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...rable-5493.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 07:00 AM) This is the first time a president has received an initial approval rating under 50% in the history of the poll, which dates back to Dwight Eisenhower's first term in 1953. Oh look, I am including a source: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-first...resident-2017-1 Great, the comment was it is getting worse and it's not, it is getting better. Current Approval http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ In fact he's now at 57%. Moving up rapidly from the 38 on election night.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:47 PM) --A majority of voters didn't want him to be President, and since he was elected his support has been plummeting - which indicates how things may go for him Just the opposite. His approval has gone from 38 on election day to 45 on Jan 23 with 10 percent undecided.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:03 PM) Are there absolutely no people on the right who actually care about the evil that's already happened? It's been 5 days. Every day delivers more awful news of mandates being brought down that make me ashamed to be American. I am ashamed to have to explain this to my daughter. It's been a blessing so far and my daughters are happy with the decisions being made.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 04:44 PM) I linked it twice already earlier in the thread (and previously). In CO, when they provided free IUDs across the state, teen pregnancy fell by 42% and abortions fells by 40% statewide. Unmarried women without college degrees, aged 25 and under, saw pregnancy rates fall at a similar rate. This was based on a program, funded by a private grant, that impacted the entire state. The only variable that changed was the access to IUDs. Thus, in this example, free IUDs did correlate to both a lower teen pregnancy rate and a lower abortion rate. Sorry, education has increased as well. And that's just a quick one. Sorry, I stand by my earlier statement.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 04:04 PM) NO, it's the question for YOU to answer if you're going to make judgments about what is and isn't moral! Haha come ON. I did not bring up morality to this. I questioned the one that did bring it in. Come on now.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 03:40 PM) If you believe morality is necessary, it's only purpose should be to "police" our own actions. If my moral code says that its wrong to eat meat, then I dont eat meat. But I shouldnt force you not to eat meat as well. Please address that your moral code says brett05 is no longer needed.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) It didn't change the point, though. Yeah, I goofed, but the comparison of the two administrations remained exactly the same. I see you cherry picked the data which was wrong, but ignored all the information that was correct and refuted every one of your bozo points. You did not. You put up unemployment stats which are corrupt instead of workforce employment as yet another example on how wrong you are. Our last president ran debt higher than all Presidents before him combined sans a few bucks. Yeah, not the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) That's essentially saying we should throw our hands in the air and we can't ever really know anything. Solipsism isn't a solid basis for policy, either. We can look at places that have implemented abstinence-only education and compare them to those who haven't. We can then compare what the teen pregnancy and STD rates are both before certain policies are implemented or changed and between the different policies in different places. From that, we can make a very well educated conclusion. In this particular case, the evidence is entirely on the side of abstinence-only education having worse outcomes, if you define "higher teen pregnancy and STD rates" as a worse outcome. The school prayer example actually hurts your case rather than helps it. School prayer was found to be unconstitutional in 62 and 63. Crime rates were already climbing prior to that, which is the first strong point against the idea that school prayer tamps down crime rate. The second is that the crime rate rose to a peak late 80's/early 90's and has since steadily declined despite a lack of change in school prayer policy. 1) You are only guessing and have missed so many variables. We just have to agree to disagree 2) School Prayer actually is the point that the two are unrelated. Other factors can help reduce the crime rate which goes back to my point in #1 you can't possibly know.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:28 PM) who, in your mind, gets to decide the standard for morality? That's the question for all of us, isn't it?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:20 PM) I'm trying to tread carefully here. This disagreement frustrates me. On one side, we have evidence from Colorado that expanded access to affordable contraception significantly reduced both the teen pregnancy rate and, necessarily, the abortion rate as well. On the other side, we have an argument that boils down to "premarital sex is bad." "Premarital sex is bad" is a bad basis for policy because there are no facts that support it having any tangible impact on results - reduced teen pregnancy rates. Allowing more access to contraceptives and the lower teen pregnancy rate do not necessarily correlate. It's a correlation that more than likely cannot be proven. Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.