illinilaw08

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:18 PM) 1) It speaks of waiting and the benefits there of. It also speaks of the issues that need to be addressed for some. 2) just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it shouldn't be happening. 3) What makes it antiquated? What determines morality? 1) That article talks about men who make a personal choice to be abstinent and the impact that has on their relationships. It does not talk about the societal benefits of only teaching abstinence, nor does it talk about what impact abstinence only policies have on teen pregnancy or abortion - the whole point of this discussion. 2 and 3 run together. It's antiquated because it doesn't work as policy. When access to affordable contraception increases, teen pregnancy and abortions go down. Abstinence only education assumes that sex before marriage is immoral - a belief that comes from the Bible, but not one that reflects reality. People have sex outside of marriage. Without proper protection, STDs and unplanned pregnancies are real risks. People can choose to be abstinent. I don't really care. But when it's policy to push abstinence, it's a bad policy that negatively impacts society as a whole.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:15 PM) A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster. B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women. Dude. The Vox article didn't say anything about women dying in America. It's about Trump's gag order - preventing NGOs from talking about abortion period to access federal funding. NGOs provide aid to foreign countries. All empirical evidence shows that the gag order has led to increased female deaths IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/male-a...4b0e66ad4c812f6 Speaks of it, the issues with it as well. That link, at no point, says that abstinence only education is effective. To the contrary, it discusses the impact of men who adhere to abstinence only pledges on future married life. So, try again. For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that voluntary abstinence is a bad thing. As cited in your link, however, 85% of men have sex before marriage. Thus, abstinence before people are ready to have kids simply isn't happening. If people are going to have sex prior to being ready for kids, access to affordable contraception is the best policy to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Anything else is legislating based on an antiquated version of morality.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:59 AM) Teaching about birth control is helpful You literally just said abstinence only education is effective. Abstinence only, by definition, means no birth control.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:57 AM) Lots of research done by the religious community says otherwise. Source? Because I have some really good real world evidence that says the contrary. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ng-success.html

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) I assume you were equally as excited about the precipitous drops in teen pregnancy and abortions under Obama. If you want to decrease abortions, increase access to contraception. Being anti both is a ridiculous policy position. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ccess.html?_r=0

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 02:54 PM) $400 hardly seems like a make or break amount of money on the purchase of a home. Not saying it isn't s***ty, but lets put it into perspective when we make claims like it's going to screw poor people and stop them from buying homes. The value of $400 varies pretty greatly as you move down the financial spectrum. $400 with an annual gross income of $30,000 is substantial. $400 with an annual gross income of $200,000 is pretty insubstantial. The point here is that it's pulling a benefit from the lower end of the spectrum. I haven't seen a policy reason for it yet, so can't speak to the motivation behind it. For the record, I'm glad to see that Jenks has come out firmly against tax breaks over the last couple weeks. First, the shrug reaction to the small band of the upper middle class whose taxes will go up under Trump's tax plan. Now, the shrug reaction to the Trump administration taking a $400 benefit away from the lower income homeowners...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 01:22 PM) Oh and Republicans are also laying the groundwork to give away hundreds of millions of acres of public federal lands for pennies on the dollar. I honestly cannot comprehend what gets people to support this sort of ideology. Yep. I understand the ideology that says "return the land to the states" or "allow industry on the federal lands." Both of those are (potentially) productive uses of the land (I disagree with both of those ideologies, but I can understand the arguments). But government giving away assets to private individuals or industry for pennies on the dollar provides no benefit to taxpayers, and no benefit to the federal government.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 05:09 PM) That's pretty subjective. Which part is subjective? It's objective that African-Americans are still discriminated in hiring. It's objectively true that discriminatory policies against African Americans over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans, as a demographic, to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. It is objectively true that the dictionary definition of discrimination defines discrimination as "unjust."

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 04:51 PM) That's a stretch to say the least. You're making it easier for one group of people to get a job than another group of people. That's discrimination. Simple and plain. If African Americans (your example) were being desegregated in 2010 your argument would be relevant. African Americans are still being discriminated against in hiring. Discriminatory housing (and other) policies over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans as a demographic to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. Society has a moral obligation to level that playing field. Remedying discrimination by providing opportunities to the group that was discriminated against is not discrimination (that sentence made my head hurt). ETA: The point here is that an act needs to be unjust to be discriminatory. Thus, policies that provide greater employment and educational opportunities to minorities are not, in fact, discriminatory.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 04:30 PM) It discriminates white people when these policies give minorities preference over white people or when opportunities are afforded to a minority group only as opposed to anyone interested. It's discrimination when minorities have laxed standards relative to their white counterparts. When I was a kid we used to say two wrongs don't make a right. Now a days, two wrongs do make a right and I am not allowed to talk about it because of my skin color and lack of understanding. By that logic, the very act of integrating schools was a discriminatory act. After all, allowing African-Americans admission to previously all white schools caused some white student to not get admitted...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 04:13 PM) When you create specific policies that mandate that only people of X color or X religion qualify, it is the definition of discrimination. You can justify it all you want, but it's a discriminatory policy that we're ok with. But affirmative action doesn't say no whites allowed. It doesn't say only people of X color, or X religion qualify. It says that, hey, some people of X color, or X gender, or X religion who are under represented and have historically been denied access on the basis of prejudice have to be allowed in. That's not discriminating against white people...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) Discrimination is the classic #itsdifferent from the liberal crowd. But affirmative action isn't discrimination against whites. It's leveling an uneven playing field by providing greater opportunities to minorities who have historically been denied those opportunities. So it is different, because they are two entirely different things... You can argue that the playing field has been leveled and attempts to level the playing field are no longer necessary (stats would not back you up on that, but you could make that argument), but to call it "discrimination" is just flat out wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 11:46 AM) Didn't the ACA lower copays for annual checkups to $0? Yes.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) For sure. And I think that's a problem that hasn't been fixed. I'm more concerned these days with just low-to-mid-level medical needs. People aren't flocking to the doctor any more in fear they might need x-rays and a few tests. Would you agree that a phrase such as "ahh, I'm probably ok" is used more since ACA and the introduction of $3000 deducts? I would say more people are self-medicating and interent-diagnosing more than ever and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Honestly, I think it happened more previously when 16M fewer people had health insurance, and physicals weren't completely covered. The ACA "fixed" the problem of low dollar catastrophe policies, or low dollar, low deductible plans that weren't adequate to cover a person if they ultimately had cancer or another catastrophic illness. The goal of insurance in this country should be (1) greater access; and (2) lower cost. The ACA addressed (1), it did not adequately address (2).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 07:52 PM) I wonder how many people stayed home because of the media narrative over the last few weeks that Trump had no chance of winning? Vox had a post that people who were unfavorable to both Trump and Clinton voted Trump 47/30. You would expect that to be closer to 50/50. It's a very interesting metric that probably shifted the election to Trump.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) Let's hope the new health care plan is good. I don't want people to suffer obviously. As far as the election and not voting for either ... we agree to disagree only because you guys think Hillary was an OK choice considering the opponent was Trump. I, meanwhile, think both were equally bad. I can't change your minds on Hillary's horribleness so go ahead and think I'm an uncaring beast when I merely consider Hillary also unfit to lead hence the no vote. The new healthcare plan might be OK. You never know. Right now, there is no new healthcare plan. It has been 8 years and there is still no replacement option from the GOP.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) And you took away top health coverage from my family and millions of others. Your vote for Obama caused insurance companies to tell millions and millions to go f*** themselves in regards to hospital and doctor choices, we are barely even covered anymore. Your votes are responsible for putting my family's health at risk. Could you flesh that out? What do you mean by "barely even covered anymore?" The ACA requires health care plans to provide a threshold level of care that previously didn't exist. Is it just higher deductible? Higher premium? Doctors not accepting the exchange policies?

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 12:23 PM) On pure upside the Rockies proposal would be very strong David Dahl is a very good OF prospect 2015 Scouting grades for Dahl Scouting grades: Hit: 60 | Power: 55 | Run: 60 | Arm: 55 | Field: 60 | Overall: 55 Rodgers is a top 10 prospect I doubt the Rockies would offer up both Dahl and Rodgers. If they do Sox should accept. Dahl had an .859 OPS is 222 MLB at bats last year. The Rockies are not moving him, and they certainly aren't moving him + Rodgers. But if that offer ever somehow made it to the table, the Sox should take it and run.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 11:30 AM) I disagree. I think you play Albies at SS in the minor leagues if you acquire him. There's no reason to move him from there until you have to. That wasn't my point though. I'm not worried about Albies being able to play either 2B or SS. His bat probably doesn't play at 3B, and he has no OF experience at any level that I'm aware of. This comes down to picking a position for Moncada and putting in the effort to make him a capable defender at that position.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 11:22 AM) Albies has a 60 arm, is there any reason to believe he couldn't play 3rd? CF? Having too many super athletic infielders that can hit seems like a real problem. But also, we can't get any DH/1b types for pitchers of Quintanas worth. Oh, but if we get an outfielder they must already have developed power and be patient hitters, and plus fielders. And no pitchers, we have too many. But we all agree that defensive catchers with no hit tools MUST be included. Seems like we should find a trade that satisfies all any minute now. I think Balta hit the point on Moncada perfectly above. Given that he's really raw defensively, the Sox need to focus on teaching him a single position defensively. Maybe that's 3B, maybe that's 2B, maybe that's CF, but it needs to start in ST this year. I'm actually very ok with Albies as a headliner if it happens today. If Albies is the headliner, I hope the Sox start working Moncada at 3B this Spring Training. That way there's a clear path for Moncada, Albies and Anderson to all feature in the Sox IF in 2018.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) I don't honestly care which position they put him at, I believe he's athletic enough to play both. However, if you want to get me annoyed and complaining, the way to do that is to change course midway. All that matters to me is the team picks the best position they think will work for him defensively and physically, puts him there, and starts coaching him there. No creative moving him around, no brilliant ideas about him being a super utility guy, no comparisons to Baez, just put him at a position and find someone to tell him how to put his feet and read balls off the bat. This post needs all the stars. And honestly, it's part of the problem with getting something done with Atlanta. If you get something done with Albies as the position player headliner, then you almost have to move Moncada off of 2B right away. Albies doesn't seem to be that far away since he hit AAA last year, and Anderson is locked in at SS for the foreseeable future. It doesn't make sense to drill Moncada at 2B to then effectively block Albies - the prize of the Q trade...

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Rivers traded to Denver for 2nd round pick. Romo traded to Chargers for 2nd round pick. Seems fair, unless the Chargers want to get younger. Can't imagine the Chargers trading Rivers within the division without getting a giant premium.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 03:59 PM) I don't know what they are waiting for at this point Quintana's pricetag is not going to drop, and they can replace the players they lose in the next 3 seasons Take Bell out of the deal, fine Put Meadows + Sox choice of Glasnow or Keller as a centerpiece + Newman + one more player and get a deal done That would not impact the current Pirates roster at all, and land them 4 cheap seasons of Quintana in his prime If I am the Pirates I strongly consider making that move. That's a better return (based on prospect rankings) than Sale got. IF the Sox continue to demand Meadows or nothing, the deal probably ends up as Meadows, Keller, Hayes/Craig. That's a reasonable package for Q if Meadows is in the deal based on the Sale and Eaton returns. But for the love guys, the Sox aren't getting 3 top 20 prospects for Q.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 11:21 AM) The nature of the system makes it true. These are professional politicians/parties. They've sold their souls to be in the positions they are in. They have no morals or ethics. There are more likable figures than others, that's absolutely true, but all make decisions based on their own self interests, all are inconsistent in the positions they hold, and all make whatever promises or statements they think will get them elected. In the case of Trump, yes, he's abhorrent and certainly worse than anything the Dems have right now. But that's right now, in this moment, as the election just ended. I'm just over the "the GOP is so much better with scare tactics and getting dumb people to vote for them." Democrats play the same game (Wall Street! Racists! Homophobs!) to the same dumb voters. I think there are some distinctions to the arguments above, but this is the R thread, so I'm going to stay out of that. Throughout our nation's history, we have had individual Senators and Reps who put country over party. I am encouraged on Russia by Rubio's questions to Tillerson, and by the (alleged) 10 Republican Senators that are also pushing for increased sanctions on Russia over interference with the election. IF Trump is in Russia's pocket, I am more optimistic today than I was a week ago that we will see Republicans break ranks.