Soxbadger

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 12:35 PM) This is awesome news. Honestly, this has been so downright insane that the dude might just get impeached. Steve, He wont get impeached. Impeachment would be from the House, and the House is controlled by Republicans. Even if he somehow was impeached, he wont get convicted in the Senate. Its more likely he just quits.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) Must be exhilarating for you to have racist campaign promises coming to fruition. This line isnt going to work, it didnt work before the election, its not going to work now. If you really want to get rid of Trump, you need to stop feeding into exactly what he wants. Focus on his failures, and yes, it will take time and patience for those failures to happen. I mean its just like the his Taj Mahal casino. It didnt file for bankrupcty in the first month, it took a year.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 12:01 PM) You guys having fun yet? Its nice having a President who follows through on campaign promises. First in my lifetime! Im always having fun, thanks for asking.

In real news, it looks like Mexico has decided to cancel the meeting with Trump. The problem for Trump is that this could embolden others because they are going to realize that Trump is all bark no bite.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 11:24 AM) #TrumpsAmerica I've never seen more fear and cowardice than I've seen from the straight white male population of this country over the last few years. Reddy, Playing into it does nothing. Just let him/her have their meltdown. I mean the person who should really be offended here is me. I didnt even make the cut to be b****ed about.

QUOTE (Obama35 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 11:07 AM) Little f***ing b****es. Steve, NSS, little p*****s Too bad they are going to ban you, it would have been fun to see your comeuppance.

QUOTE (Obama35 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) You guys are some cry baby b****es. It's funny reading all these posts. Obama f***ed this country up more than words can describe, yet you little girls are crying and it's only been 5 days for my man Trump to be in office? Gonna be a long 8 years for you ladies. BUT IT WAS A DAMN GOOD POST.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 10:49 AM) The clear lesson should be there for finding a candidate that isn't just the next in line. No one wants the John McCain or Hillary Clinton. People today want to be inspired. It was propelled Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump into office. They had the ability to fire their bases up. Learning the lesson of why she lost is very important if the Dems want to take back the White House in 4 years. In reality that campaign should have already started. I agree, but more I was getting at this is the completely wrong place to be discussing it. I was trying to protect Republican's "safe" space. I kid, but seriously it just seemed like this argument was spilling over into the Republican thread and I thought maybe its time to say something.

Unless it's twitter rumors no one wants to talk hypothetical ideas. Haters gonna hate.

Why are you guys fighting about Clinton in the Republican thread? Fighting about Clinton is about the least important thing that anyone could discuss.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 03:40 PM) And I'm confident that if the Bernie wing and far left hadn't legitimized and parroted the far right talking points and created the false equivalency narrative, she also would have won. Yes if she didnt have to battle Sanders she would have been a better position. But Trump had to battle Republicans too. The difference was Clinton just rarely seemed to "own" her positions. So Trump made her seem wishy-washy. I dont know if she truly was for or against TPP etc. The idea that I wasnt sure what she really believed, should raise huge red flags, because I really dislike Trump and dont think hes qualified to be my assistant.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 03:15 PM) Does voter turn out by state vary significantly when the state is a "battle ground" state. So for example, is voter turn out in Ohio much greater then say voter turn out in California (where maybe you have chunks of the population who don't vote because they already know that who they'd vote for will win, etc). Just curious. Probably not a major difference, but I would think to some extent it plays into account. http://www.electproject.org/2016g These are the stats. Someone else would need to cross reference those stats with voter "restriction" laws. Because from that data there doesnt seem to be a clear correlation. California had really low turnout, IL had pretty average.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) the vast majority of americans can't think for themselves, come on. Youre not going to win many supporters when you say things like this, even if you believe it to be true. Who knows why people didnt get out for Hillary, but I am confident that if she had run a better campaign, she would have won.

Well Luke conceivably is the "last Jedi" to receive any formal training from a true Jedi master. With all of the books being non-canon I am not sure that Luke ever trained anyone to the level of Jedi Knight, which is generally seen as the prerequisite to being considered a "Jedi Master." Its hard to tell because the last movie doesnt go into how far Luke got in establishing a new Jedi order. That being said, Kylo could still be considered "The Last Jedi" because last has multiple meanings, and it merely could be a reference to the fact that as of now Kylo is the "last" Jedi to receive any formal training. And Steve Im pretty confident that Kylo will have his "good guy" moment, much like Vader.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 01:21 PM) Not sure how it could get worse. But I agree that the crime/criminals could disperse. I believe in the conspiracy theory that the city/county and surrounding municipalities purposefully allow some of that stuff to happen in those pockets so it won't spill out and affect the whole region. Could get worse if you have gangs targeting whatever federal officers Trump sends. The strange (conspiracy) part about all of this is that in the last 6 years, no Chicago police officer has been killed due to the violence. Not one. https://www.odmp.org/agency/657-chicago-pol...rtment-illinois So if you start to believe the conspiracy theories, there is some sort of deal about targeting police. And if all of a sudden Trump disrupts that deal, where does it go? It could easily lead to the gangs targeting the feds, and now you have battles between gangs, turning into a war on the police. This is really why I am not sure what the solution is because there seems to be something more going on here.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) Trump's tweet about Chicago crime is kind of funny. It's sad that the reaction from Chicago politicians has been "we're fine, go away." No, it's clearly not fine. Outside assistance would probably be a beneficial thing. It could be, or it could turn a battle into a war. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/ When you look at the map, youll notice a good majority of the shootings are in a few areas. Some believe that if you were to really police those areas, it would result in the criminals dispersing to the other areas and cause a decline in property values etc. Now I dont know if its true or not. Obviously I am not going to turn away a free handout, but when it comes to my dealings with Trump, I know that nothing is ever "free". Rahm trolled Trump about federal assistance (great wed love to have you enforce gun laws at the federal level) and part of me just believes that this "offer" is nothing more than some sort of political game. Who knows, but I am always very suspicious of "great offers" from people who seemingly disagree with me. If he can solve the problem great, but it could also turn into a quagmire.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 10:46 AM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 10:11 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 06:26 AM) Please address that your moral code says brett05 is no longer needed. 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. QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 06:32 AM) It's been a blessing so far and my daughters are happy with the decisions being made. People can have different opinions. But the part that I just cant agree with (irrespective of what side is doing it) is trying to shut down opposition research. Our society should welcome beliefs being challenged. If we do not question, if we do not strive for more knowledge, where would we be? I would think that this is a universally held belief in the Judea-Christian world, as in all of those religions the great leaders of the past questioned authority and demanded accountability, whether it was Moses, Jesus or Luther. And even if you support Trump, you should still demand accountability.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:26 PM) You have far more faith in the goodness of this country than I do after this year. When your ancestors have been persecuted for thousands of years, you dont fret the cowards like Trump. He is a disaster and has more colossal failures than successes. People like him dont make it in the real world.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:12 PM) Steve, why are you surprised? Did you see the responses he got on his campaign trail? Your faith in your fellow man is admirable, but sadly misplaced. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:33 PM) I have no faith in my fellow man. I thought maybe the clowns elected to care about my fellow man would do so. I thought Trump would be normalized. Instead he's simply signing every piece of paper out in front of him and smiling like an imbecile. If you dont have belief in the goodness of other people, then what is the point of liberalism at all? No matter how much progress, there will always be times when humanity takes a step back. But we must persevere. Sometimes we forget that human existence has been a relatively short amount of time. But in that short amount of time we have created some truly magnificent things. And yes, humanity has done terrible things, but life before society was as Hobbes would say "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." And that sentence was merely describing how much better humans had it with Kings, aristocrats, etc. Less than 200 years ago, hundreds of thousands of Americans died because a large portion of our nation believed that slavery was okay. In the last 100 years, millions have died fighting over invisible lines and religion. Irrespective of Trump, we are moving forward. He is merely the last scream of a dying belief, its their Battle of the Bulge, and in the end, they will never recover from their losses. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 09:34 PM) And how many will die? Balta, We are on the same side, but comments like this only feed fuel to Trump supporters (not saying that Northside is one). The best way to win this battle, is to strike them at their very core. Republican's have destroyed their foundation, and eventually they will collapse on themselves. It is how society works, the many eventually beat the few.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:56 PM) That's the question for all of us, isn't it? 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.

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. People have different opinions on things, sometimes evidence isnt enough. The church did not allow books that said the Earth revolved around the sun to be printed in Rome until 1822. Many believe the first scientist, Aristarchus of Samos, theorized this idea in 270 BC. Copernicus was in the 1500s. QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) Thanks. I honestly meant no harm to you or anyone else. OK, so if society thinks we don;t need brett05 anymore is that morally right since it is society? Morals must have a standard else they aren't really morals at all and just whims of people. Basically just because 50+ percent of people think pre-marital sex is ok does not mean that it is morally. There are no standards for morality. Morals were an attempt to codify behavior, somewhat like laws. Most "morality" was actually law at some point. If you want to go back further than Christianity (to its predecessor Judaism) you can see how "morality" evolved as a way to "control" people. What is even more interesting is that most of the heavy hitters of Judaism did things that today Christianity considers "immoral." Damn Abraham and his lack of morals. I mean, he had sex with Hagar out of wedlock...

Rabbit, No problem. People can disagree on foreign aid and whether it is worth it.