eieio

well if it "looks to be" then i guess its all the evidence those who want to go to war with Russia need.

I would like some concrete evidence. I doubt I will ever forget the WMDs that Iraq had.

yaaaaaaa….the children have a voice, wooohooo.  

I am not surprised at all that they found no collusion. Same will happen with Bueller's witch hunt.

21 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Ethanol is a horrible waste.  I can't believe it's still being manufactured.  It takes something like three gallons of water to distill one gallon of fuel.  And that doesn't take into account the water needed to grow the corn - about 70-75 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced.

 

In addition, ethanol is very corrosive, and as such cannot be pumped in our current oil pipelines; it has to be trucked, which is more costly.

 

It might be worth it when distilled for human consumption, but it is very cost prohibitive as fuel,  and is still only in use due to government subsidies.

It blows my mind that this scam is still in effect. It just shows that once you start a government program….no matter how bad it is….it is almost impossible to get rid of. 

At least a few places around here still sell non-ethonal gasoline so I don't have to run it through my boat and other small engines.

2 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

I wear that badge with honor, because usually when I get called that it means that I won the argument and they have nothing left to say. I was arguing with someone about Trumps immigration policies and she c poo horny think of anything else to say I guess so she called me a racist against people of brown skin. 

 

When I heard that it made my day actually because I knew I had won the argument. 

Thats a perfect example. She had nothing, so she resorted to name calling.

Although…..I am not familiar with the phrase "c poo horny". Did she want you?

45 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Well apparently we are all racists so why not?

Racists is a common misused word.....I disagree with you and I don’t have a good counterpoint.....is the most common one.

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Your specific claim was that most mass school shootings are commited by someone raised by a single parent. Repeating this over and over while failing to back it up with any data or proof when asked only weakens your position. 

Suzanne Venker’s recent opinion piece on FoxNews is very, very important, because she points out that almost all of the most recent deadly mass shooters have one thing in common: fatherlessness.

She begins by pointing out a tweet after the terrible shooting in Florida last week. Actor and comedian Michael Ian Black began a series of tweets in this way, “Deeper even than the gun problem is this: boys are broken.”

Venker goes on to describe how his “tweet storm” strayed from the truth:

Unfortunately, Black quickly veered off course. “Men don’t have the language to understand masculinity as anything other than some version of a caveman because no language exists…The language of masculinity is hopelessly entwined with sexuality, and the language of sexuality in hopelessly entwined with power, agency, and self-worth…To step outside those norms is to take a risk most of us are afraid to take. As a result, a lot of guys spend their lives terrified…We’re terrified of being viewed as something other than men. We know ourselves to be men, but don’t know how to be our whole selves. A lot of us (me included) either shut off or experience deep shame or rage. Or all three. Again: men are terrified.”

Mr. Black is not the first to attack masculinity and suggest it’s at the root of all evil. Indeed, the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ has become boilerplate language in America.

It’s not a hard sell, either. After all, it is boys and men who are typically to blame for violent acts of aggression. Ergo, testosterone—the defining hormone of masculinity—must be to blame. But testosterone has been around forever. School shootings have not.

Mr. Black is correct that boys are broken. But they’re not broken as a result of being cavemen who haven’t “evolved” the way women have. They’re broken for another reason.

They are fatherless.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2018/02/27-deadliest-mass-shooters-26-one-thing-common/#73iVZPWph2DrblPu.99

1 hour ago, -Trinity- said:

Agree,  it all falls or succeeds with a supportive network of friends and family. I used mother/father, but it can be also two mother's or two fathers. Or an entire family.

 

Problem what I've seen is with young teenager moms who don't have any support. I personaly only know one who finished her Master after she got pregnant at age of 14. Her mom helped her though, she had lost her husband when the girl was 8 years old. But she supported her and never let her down. 

 

Other girls I knew/know got pregnant and ended up with kids from different fathers, no finished education and no ability to get a decent job. It's just sad to see kids grow up like that.

You get it. Its not that kids can't be productive being raised by a single parent, but rather the data shows that these children are at the greatest risk of ending up as unproductive members of society,in prison, etc.. 

11 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

if single mothers weren't good for society, then single mothers wouldn't be allowed to adopt/foster children in need.

the celebration of single motherhood my dear. 

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Do you know what study/studies Ann Coulter used for that. You said she had the data. Do you know from where?

 

 

I'm mostly interested in the fact that you claim a distinction between a "single mother planning to be a single mother" and a couple that get divorced (or various other reasons to end up a single parent household).

 

Does the data actually separate those, or is that just your opinion? My understanding is the risk factor is a single parent household, it doesn't matter how that comes about. I'm not aware that anyone has ever broken it down like that.

If i claimed there was a distinction in results…..i never meant it that way. I believe I said there is a difference between mothers who plan on being a single parent vs. mothers who ended up single via divorce, death of spouse etc. The main point is that celebration of single motherhood is not good for society. 

51 minutes ago, bcking said:

Do you know what study/studies Ann Coulter used for that. You said she had the data. Do you know from where?

 

 

I'm mostly interested in the fact that you claim a distinction between a "single mother planning to be a single mother" and a couple that get divorced (or various other reasons to end up a single parent household).

 

Does the data actually separate those, or is that just your opinion? My understanding is the risk factor is a single parent household, it doesn't matter how that comes about. I'm not aware that anyone has ever broken it down like that.

49 minutes ago, Merle said:

Watching her operate that grinder reminds me of a story I once heard about a monkey and a football. Luckily she didn't maim herself.

 

 

 

I assume her "husband/pet" was filming her and is just as big a moron as her.  She was lucky she didn't end up in the emergency room.

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I would like to remind everyone today is International Women's Day, anybody know when the Mens day is?

Happy women's day!

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

blaming feminists and single motherhood is laughable. as is coulter, a joke. 

she had the stats to back it up. 

One of the most frequent common denominators to these schools shooters is that they came from single parent households.  I saw a clip of Ann Coultier saying the main predictor of whether someone was going to end up in prison is if they were raised in a single parent household. Of course…all the feminists promoting single motherhood were up in arms. It is one thing to end up in a divorce…but quite another to get pregnant with the plan of being a single mother. Not good for our society and it does contribute to many of our problems.  I blame the feminists for promoting single motherhood and at the same time blaming men for any perceived problems.

Another main factor in these school shootings is the media.  I don't blame the media for the shootings as they are actually covering the news. But, now we have instant breaking news about any school shooting.  This leads to a copycat scenario where it is the new thing for depressed angry kids to take out as many or more than the last one….and become instantly famous while doing it. The whole world will know who they are now. 

What a moron!     Truth to power

Quote

The illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children – known as Dreamers – say that they have been failed by Democrats who are more interested in blaming President Trump and Republicans than delivering a congressional measure that would protect the young people from deportation as they await a path to legal residency.

Dreamers are done giving Dems a pass.

“They don’t walk their talk,” said Cata Santiago, a 20-year-old Dreamer who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico when she was just 8 years old. “We’re tired of it. We’re tired of believing them when they say ‘It’s the Republicans.’ They make promises when they’re in an election, and when it’s over they’re done and don’t do anything.”

 

 

Even the dreamers are starting to understand what frauds the democrats are.  Even the "dreamers" are starting to Make America Great Again.

We need to apply the outrage to refugees. They have never visited the US before so it would be devastating to them to come here. Ripping them away from their home country and putting them in great fear and uncertainty.

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Helen Keller could spot this load of hoarse feathers at 100 yards 

No doubt. Throw it in the worthless pile.

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Just rereading your post I think we should be clear on one thing -

 

There was nothing "predetermined" about the outcomes. They had a hypothesis, that is normal in science. They were testing that hypothesis.

"Desire" is a tricky term here - As I said they had a hypothesis, and they were testing the hypothesis. Did they want the hypothesis to be true? Probably but that isn't a bad thing, on its own. Most scientists care strongly about the topic they study, because they devote a large portion of their career to it. If they have a hypothesis that will help further their study, they will want that hypothesis to be true because of their interest in furthering the subject, and also for more "selfish" reasons (many scientist's careers depend on grand funding and support, which only continues to flow if you have results that are meaningful and warrant further study). That on it's own is just human nature, and it isn't automatically a bad thing. They just need to create methodology that ensures that their bias (desiring an outcome) doesn't influence the results. 

 

With that in mind a couple of other things that the writers should have mentioned would be:

 

- Who conducted the phone interviews? The investigators or othersw? Were they prerecorded? Just like with any survey, the way things are asked can impact the results so they should attempt to minimize that risk in some way. Many political surveys these days use precorded messages so that the inflection, tone and way the questions are read is consistent among all conversations. At the very least have volunteers who don't know the purpose of the study conduct the phone interviews, so their bias doesn't potentially influence how they speak and how they act on the phone

- They should have included a power analysis in their methodology, though some would say it isn't as important since their result is statistically significant. Some of their results weren't significant though, so it would be important to know if they even had the power required to find statistically significant differences based on their number of participants. It doesn't impact the finding that is significant (even if you don't have the power expected to find a significant result, a significant result is still significant. It just means your chances of finding a significant result, if it existed, was low), assuming it truly is significant (see my issue with not reporting their statistical test). But for example perhaps the differences between responses for democrats is also significant, they just don't have the power to detect it. That would change their overall interpretation of the results.

 

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

Just rereading your post I think we should be clear on one thing -

 

There was nothing "predetermined" about the outcomes. They had a hypothesis, that is normal in science. They were testing that hypothesis.

"Desire" is a tricky term here - As I said they had a hypothesis, and they were testing the hypothesis. Did they want the hypothesis to be true? Probably but that isn't a bad thing, on its own. Most scientists care strongly about the topic they study, because they devote a large portion of their career to it. If they have a hypothesis that will help further their study, they will want that hypothesis to be true because of their interest in furthering the subject, and also for more "selfish" reasons (many scientist's careers depend on grand funding and support, which only continues to flow if you have results that are meaningful and warrant further study). That on it's own is just human nature, and it isn't automatically a bad thing. They just need to create methodology that ensures that their bias (desiring an outcome) doesn't influence the results. 

 

With that in mind a couple of other things that the writers should have mentioned would be:

 

- Who conducted the phone interviews? The investigators or othersw? Were they prerecorded? Just like with any survey, the way things are asked can impact the results so they should attempt to minimize that risk in some way. Many political surveys these days use precorded messages so that the inflection, tone and way the questions are read is consistent among all conversations. At the very least have volunteers who don't know the purpose of the study conduct the phone interviews, so their bias doesn't potentially influence how they speak and how they act on the phone

- They should have included a power analysis in their methodology, though some would say it isn't as important since their result is statistically significant. Some of their results weren't significant though, so it would be important to know if they even had the power required to find statistically significant differences based on their number of participants. It doesn't impact the finding that is significant (even if you don't have the power expected to find a significant result, a significant result is still significant. It just means your chances of finding a significant result, if it existed, was low), assuming it truly is significant (see my issue with not reporting their statistical test). But for example perhaps the differences between responses for democrats is also significant, they just don't have the power to detect it. That would change their overall interpretation of the results.

 

I find it hard to believe that any scientists were involved in this. Political hacks would be my guess. 

Quote

according to three people familiar with the encounters.

Quote

 ethics lawyers

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Well sure if by "expert" you mean "any person posting on an internet forum", then you have a point, albeit a weak one. 

They also are called pundits,reporters,journalists,analyst,talk show hosts, celebrities,ex presidents, candidates etc. All pretending they know what they are talking about.

The study is garbage!

Of course….I will wait to see what our resident "study guy" becker…thinks of the methodology and the value of the data acquired from such an incredible phone survey with predetermined outcomes desired.