Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 170: The Title Doesn't Matter

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 10
Corrik 04/25/18 10:49:25 AM #202:	metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900275159] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 10:50:36 AM #203:	Espeon posted... Corrik posted... Espeon posted... Corrik posted... Forceful_Dragon posted... The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm. Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage. But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done. It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place. Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment. . . If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth. On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud. But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID. It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse. Says the middle class white man. Has zero bearing. It actually has quite a bit of bearing. Your demographic isnt the one for whom obtaining an ID is made difficult, so your assessment that obtaining one requires virtually no effort is colored by your own ease of experience. It is not "difficult" on any population. It is just taking maybe at most a few hours out of your day. You are required to have IDs for a ton of things already. I don't see people complaining they need IDs for that. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900275214] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Espeon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Espeon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Forceful_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote>The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm. Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage. But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done. It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place. Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment. . . If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth. On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud. But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.</quote> It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.</quote> Says the middle class white man.</quote> Has zero bearing.</quote> It actually has quite a bit of bearing. Your demographic isnt the one for whom obtaining an ID is made difficult, so your assessment that obtaining one requires virtually no effort is colored by your own ease of experience.</quote> It is not "difficult" on any population. It is just taking maybe at most a few hours out of your day. You are required to have IDs for a ton of things already. I don't see people complaining they need IDs for that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 10:55:28 AM #204:	Those things are privileges Voting is a right --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900275426] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Those things are privileges Voting is a right</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 04/25/18 11:12:58 AM #205:	Corrik posted... It is not "difficult" on any population. Sure it is. "Just take a few hours out of your day, during the hours of operation down at the local DMC--which tends to coincide with normal work hours for everyone else. Of course first you have to get all the necessary proofs of identification--including your birth certificate, which some people don't have. Oh yeah, and you're going to need a ride to the DMV, because you know... you don't have a driver's license because you don't drive." --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:900276291] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not "difficult" on any population. </quote> Sure it is. "Just take a few hours out of your day, during the hours of operation down at the local DMC--which tends to coincide with normal work hours for everyone else. Of course first you have to get all the necessary proofs of identification--including your birth certificate, which some people don't have. Oh yeah, and you're going to need a ride to the DMV, because you know... you don't have a driver's license because you don't drive."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
metroid composite 04/25/18 11:16:08 AM #206:	Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records. --- Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision <cite>metroid composite posted [p:900276452] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 11:17:26 AM #207:	Corrik, you seem overly adamant that the claimed experiences of thousands of other people who arent you are lies. Theres a reason judges rule against Voter ID laws, and its not because theyre corrupt. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900276527] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Corrik, you seem overly adamant that the claimed experiences of thousands of other people who arent you are lies. Theres a reason judges rule against Voter ID laws, and its not because theyre corrupt.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 11:17:28 AM #208:	metroid composite posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records. You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900276531] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.</quote> You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 11:18:58 AM #209:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik, you seem overly adamant that the claimed experiences of thousands of other people who arent you are lies. Theres a reason judges rule against Voter ID laws, and its not because theyre corrupt. Give me the list of instructions of how to get the voter ID and I will explain how to easily to do it. The issues with voter ids isn't the IDs. It is that supposedly voters are not being properly made aware of them and how to get them. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900276586] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik, you seem overly adamant that the claimed experiences of thousands of other people who arent you are lies. Theres a reason judges rule against Voter ID laws, and its not because theyre corrupt.</quote> Give me the list of instructions of how to get the voter ID and I will explain how to easily to do it. The issues with voter ids isn't the IDs. It is that supposedly voters are not being properly made aware of them and how to get them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 11:21:57 AM #210:	Corrik posted... Give me the list of instructions of how to get the voter ID and I will explain how to easily to do it. Its not us you need to explain it to. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900276721] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Give me the list of instructions of how to get the voter ID and I will explain how to easily to do it.</quote> Its not us you need to explain it to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 04/25/18 11:23:46 AM #211:	Nelson_Mandela posted... If being peer reviewed is the only criterion in question then this is 100% good policy. You can't get medications approved on the basis of a peer-reviewed study alone, for example. That's not the policy. They should already only be considering peer-reviewed research. The change is to only allow the EPA to consider research with publicly available data, and there are potentially very good reasons why the data might not be available (most notably if it involves private health data as many studies relevant to potential EPA regulations do). The really pernicious thing about this is that there is a real, well-intentioned movement within the scientific community to increase the availability of the underlying data used in studies, but here Pruitt and his goons are twisting those valid concerns to justify ignoring tons of good science that's inconvenient for them, knowing that it will take a ton of time and money to repeat those studies while conforming to these rules (if they could even get published at all given that they wouldn't be novel work). --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:900276805] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>If being peer reviewed is the only criterion in question then this is 100% good policy. You can't get medications approved on the basis of a peer-reviewed study alone, for example.</quote> That's not the policy. They should already only be considering peer-reviewed research. The change is to only allow the EPA to consider research with publicly available data, and there are potentially very good reasons why the data might not be available (most notably if it involves private health data as many studies relevant to potential EPA regulations do). The really pernicious thing about this is that there is a real, well-intentioned movement within the scientific community to increase the availability of the underlying data used in studies, but here Pruitt and his goons are twisting those valid concerns to justify ignoring tons of good science that's inconvenient for them, knowing that it will take a ton of time and money to repeat those studies while conforming to these rules (if they could even get published at all given that they wouldn't be novel work).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 11:23:50 AM #212:	Ashethan posted... Corrik posted... It is not "difficult" on any population. Sure it is. "Just take a few hours out of your day, during the hours of operation down at the local DMC--which tends to coincide with normal work hours for everyone else. Of course first you have to get all the necessary proofs of identification--including your birth certificate, which some people don't have. Oh yeah, and you're going to need a ride to the DMV, because you know... you don't have a driver's license because you don't drive." So it's okay to need a birth certificate. But not to get an id to vote. It's okay to need a driver's license or Id to purchase things to verify age but not to vote in an election. Like that's nonsense. Like, just to get your IDs. It isn't hard. If you aren't getting them, it is because you are choosing not to. Democrats and local authorities should be sending out directions to every voter on how to do so. Republicans can take time to drive Amish to PA voter polls. Democrats can take time to go door to door and spread their message. But we can't get just democrats to go get their IDs? Seriously? Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900276808] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ashethan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not "difficult" on any population. </quote> Sure it is. "Just take a few hours out of your day, during the hours of operation down at the local DMC--which tends to coincide with normal work hours for everyone else. Of course first you have to get all the necessary proofs of identification--including your birth certificate, which some people don't have. Oh yeah, and you're going to need a ride to the DMV, because you know... you don't have a driver's license because you don't drive."</quote> So it's okay to need a birth certificate. But not to get an id to vote. It's okay to need a driver's license or Id to purchase things to verify age but not to vote in an election. Like that's nonsense. Like, just to get your IDs. It isn't hard. If you aren't getting them, it is because you are choosing not to. Democrats and local authorities should be sending out directions to every voter on how to do so. Republicans can take time to drive Amish to PA voter polls. Democrats can take time to go door to door and spread their message. But we can't get just democrats to go get their IDs? Seriously? Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 11:26:52 AM #213:	Corrik posted... Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900276964] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. </quote> Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Regaro 04/25/18 11:31:05 AM #214:	I check in occasionally to see if you guys are done arguing with people who have no interest in good-faith discussion. I'm impressed you've kept it up this long. Also, on this particular topic, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/alabama-dmv-closures-voting-rights/index.html is of interest. --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Regaro posted [p:900277144] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>I check in occasionally to see if you guys are done arguing with people who have no interest in good-faith discussion. I'm impressed you've kept it up this long. Also, on this particular topic, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/alabama-dmv-closures-voting-rights/index.html is of interest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HashtagSEP 04/25/18 11:32:13 AM #215:	Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records. You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right? And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying --- #SEP #Awesome #Excellent #Greatness #SteveNash #VitaminWater #SmellingLikeTheVault #Pigeon #Sexy #ActuallyAVeryIntelligentVelociraptor #Heel #CoolSpot #EndOfSig <cite>HashtagSEP posted [p:900277202] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.</quote> You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right?</quote> And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 11:41:51 AM #216:	Regaro posted... I check in occasionally to see if you guys are done arguing with people who have no interest in good-faith discussion. I'm impressed you've kept it up this long. Also, on this particular topic, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/alabama-dmv-closures-voting-rights/index.html is of interest. And the results of that investigation http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/312055-feds-closing-driver-license-offices-in-alabama-violates-civil-rights --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900277645] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Regaro posted...</cite> <quote>I check in occasionally to see if you guys are done arguing with people who have no interest in good-faith discussion. I'm impressed you've kept it up this long. Also, on this particular topic, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/alabama-dmv-closures-voting-rights/index.html is of interest.</quote> And the results of that investigation http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/312055-feds-closing-driver-license-offices-in-alabama-violates-civil-rights</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
charmander6000 04/25/18 12:03:26 PM #217:	I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. It's the same with immigration laws, immigrants are more likely to be conservative. --- Congratulations to BKSheikah for winning the guru <cite>charmander6000 posted [p:900278603] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. It's the same with immigration laws, immigrants are more likely to be conservative.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 04/25/18 12:11:30 PM #218:	charmander6000 posted... I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. It's almost like... Democrats want fair elections that don't disenfranchise anyone. Rather than trying to create policy that keeps them in power by any means necessary. --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:900278935] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>charmander6000 posted...</cite> <quote>I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. </quote> It's almost like... Democrats want fair elections that don't disenfranchise anyone. Rather than trying to create policy that keeps them in power by any means necessary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 12:12:29 PM #219:	I think Democrats believe in a more pure Democracy. Its kind of in the name. Its also a reason I dont identify as Democrat! --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900278976] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>I think Democrats believe in a more pure Democracy. Its kind of in the name. Its also a reason I dont identify as Democrat!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 04/25/18 12:13:25 PM #220:	HashtagSEP posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records. You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right? And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying So Corrik doesnt understand the rule change hes adamantly defending. lmao Classic. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:900279022] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>HashtagSEP posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.</quote> You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right?</quote> And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying</quote> So Corrik doesnt understand the rule change hes adamantly defending. lmao Classic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 12:13:33 PM #221:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900279028] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. </quote> Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout</quote> How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 04/25/18 12:14:02 PM #222:	I'm only a Democrat because the only other viable party is full of people whom I disagree with on almost everything. --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:900279051] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>I'm only a Democrat because the only other viable party is full of people whom I disagree with on almost everything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 12:17:42 PM #223:	Ashethan posted... I'm only a Democrat because the only other viable party is full of people whom I disagree with on almost everything. You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900279223] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ashethan posted...</cite> <quote>I'm only a Democrat because the only other viable party is full of people whom I disagree with on almost everything.</quote> You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paratroopa1 04/25/18 12:18:21 PM #224:	Ashethan posted... charmander6000 posted... I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. It's almost like... Democrats want fair elections that don't disenfranchise anyone. Rather than trying to create policy that keeps them in power by any means necessary. Oh no, let's not get this twisted. Democrats want elections with as many people voting for them as possible, and the majority of disenfranchised voters are minorities. They happen to be on the right side but only as a matter of convenience really. <cite>Paratroopa1 posted [p:900279255] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ashethan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>charmander6000 posted...</cite> <quote>I always found it weird that voter rights are pushed by the left. DMV closures in rural areas hurt the right, though I guess in Alabama's case those were Democratic counties. </quote> It's almost like... Democrats want fair elections that don't disenfranchise anyone. Rather than trying to create policy that keeps them in power by any means necessary.</quote> Oh no, let's not get this twisted. Democrats want elections with as many people voting for them as possible, and the majority of disenfranchised voters are minorities. They happen to be on the right side but only as a matter of convenience really.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 12:20:24 PM #225:	HashtagSEP posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... Corrik posted... metroid composite posted... LordoftheMorons posted... As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters. Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published." You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what? You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records. You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right? And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy. I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency. I mean, if you argue for transparency in the government, you should be all for this. I personally tend to trust the government more than the average Joe schmoe though. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900279342] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>HashtagSEP posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metroid composite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>As a scientist this makes me furious: https://apnews.com/f25e1975b1ea4417a5995cc2b8d87a8e/EPA-chief-signs-proposal-limiting-science-used-in-decisions Scott Pruitt can go fuck himself</quote> <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. Such studies include the Harvard School of Public Healths landmark Six Cities study of 1993, which established links between death rates and dirty air in major U.S. cities. That study was used by EPA to justify tighter air-quality rules opposed by industrial polluters.</quote> Wow, this sounds fucking awful. So America already allows people to get sick first before regulations are put in place to protect people. But now we're no longer allowed to believe doctors telling us that their patients are getting sick. Like...imagine if we applied this to the Ebola outbreak. "Sorry, the CDC can't respond yet. All these patients have doctor patient confidentiality. We'll just do nothing instead until we have patients whose names are published."</quote> You don't have to publish names or identify people to post a review on the person. Like, what?</quote> You can't be serious. I literally quoted the article. "the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws." It is straight up illegal to publish a patient's medical records.</quote> You do realize you can just state an anonymous subject right?</quote> And if you do that your study is no longer accepted as evidence under these changes, is what it appears to be saying</quote> I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy. I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency. I mean, if you argue for transparency in the government, you should be all for this. I personally tend to trust the government more than the average Joe schmoe though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 12:20:36 PM #226:	Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids. Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900279357] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. </quote> Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout</quote> How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids.</quote> Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 12:22:30 PM #227:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids. Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue. Oh. I think I we all know it is just lack of doing it. It isn't a money, time, or location issue. It is just simply getting it done. I don't see anyone at all arguing over having to get a damn ID to get a pack of cigarettes. Because of course it doesn't affect your vote tallies. If you want to vote, go get your ID to vote. It is simple. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900279466] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. </quote> Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout</quote> How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids.</quote> Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue.</quote> Oh. I think I we all know it is just lack of doing it. It isn't a money, time, or location issue. It is just simply getting it done. I don't see anyone at all arguing over having to get a damn ID to get a pack of cigarettes. Because of course it doesn't affect your vote tallies. If you want to vote, go get your ID to vote. It is simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ashethan 04/25/18 12:24:41 PM #228:	Jakyl25 posted... You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas No, but what other party am I really going to vote for? Libertarians I disagree with as much as Republicans. And even if I didn't, they aren't going to win any elections. Green Party I agree with on a lot of things, but Jill Stein is a whacko who stands no chance of winning anyway. And if I want a say in who's running for office on the party (at least in my state) I have to be a registered member of the party. --- Growing up, I wish some teacher told me "You probably won't ever need this, but if you don't learn it, you might miss out on something really cool." <cite>Ashethan posted [p:900279605] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas </quote> No, but what other party am I really going to vote for? Libertarians I disagree with as much as Republicans. And even if I didn't, they aren't going to win any elections. Green Party I agree with on a lot of things, but Jill Stein is a whacko who stands no chance of winning anyway. And if I want a say in who's running for office on the party (at least in my state) I have to be a registered member of the party.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
charmander6000 04/25/18 12:26:51 PM #229:	Corrik posted... I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency. You are misreading it. --- Congratulations to BKSheikah for winning the guru <cite>charmander6000 posted [p:900279729] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency.</quote> You are misreading it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 04/25/18 12:29:43 PM #230:	Corrik posted... I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy. That's not what it's saying. The requirement is that the underlying data be publicly accessible (as opposed to the statistical analyses etc of the data that would appear in the papers themselves). --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:900279883] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy.</quote> That's not what it's saying. The requirement is that the underlying data be publicly accessible (as opposed to the statistical analyses etc of the data that would appear in the papers themselves).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 12:35:35 PM #231:	Ashethan posted... Jakyl25 posted... You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas No, but what other party am I really going to vote for? Libertarians I disagree with as much as Republicans. And even if I didn't, they aren't going to win any elections. Green Party I agree with on a lot of things, but Jill Stein is a whacko who stands no chance of winning anyway. And if I want a say in who's running for office on the party (at least in my state) I have to be a registered member of the party. That last part is tricky. I agree. But even if you tend to vote Democrat, doesnt mean you have to identify as one --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900280181] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ashethan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>You dont have to be a Democrat to hate Republican policy ideas </quote> No, but what other party am I really going to vote for? Libertarians I disagree with as much as Republicans. And even if I didn't, they aren't going to win any elections. Green Party I agree with on a lot of things, but Jill Stein is a whacko who stands no chance of winning anyway. And if I want a say in who's running for office on the party (at least in my state) I have to be a registered member of the party.</quote> That last part is tricky. I agree. But even if you tend to vote Democrat, doesnt mean you have to identify as one</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Espeon 04/25/18 12:36:12 PM #232:	Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids. Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue. Oh. I think I we all know it is just lack of doing it. It isn't a money, time, or location issue. It is just simply getting it done. I don't see anyone at all arguing over having to get a damn ID to get a pack of cigarettes. Because of course it doesn't affect your vote tallies. If you want to vote, go get your ID to vote. It is simple. One, not everyone drinks or smokes or drives, and none of those things are civic rights. Two, logically it SHOULD be harder for rural Republicans to vote...but for whatever reason, its always the DMVs nearly dense population centers that get closed down or reduced hours. Also, what constitutes voter ID isnt static across the board. Sure, it might be difficult for Republicans to get their drivers license, but dont worry, a handgun license is acceptable. Not a student ID though. Dont want STUDENTS to have an easier time voting. --- Inviso's Most Adorabl-est Eeveelution Ever http://i.imgur.com/SSw6M9E.gif <cite>Espeon posted [p:900280212] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> Since when do voter ID laws have it more strict for Democrats than Republicans. </quote> Since Republicans are the ones who try to make them to suppress turnout</quote> How is this even possible? Bastions of democrats are cities. So easy to get the word out and get to where they need to in order to get the id. Republicans are more rurally located. It should be in fact HARDER for Republicans to get their voter ids.</quote> Everyone arguing with you in this topic is trying to tell you that distance is not the main issue.</quote> Oh. I think I we all know it is just lack of doing it. It isn't a money, time, or location issue. It is just simply getting it done. I don't see anyone at all arguing over having to get a damn ID to get a pack of cigarettes. Because of course it doesn't affect your vote tallies. If you want to vote, go get your ID to vote. It is simple.</quote> One, not everyone drinks or smokes or drives, and none of those things are civic rights. Two, logically it SHOULD be harder for rural Republicans to vote...but for whatever reason, its always the DMVs nearly dense population centers that get closed down or reduced hours. Also, what constitutes voter ID isnt static across the board. Sure, it might be difficult for Republicans to get their drivers license, but dont worry, a handgun license is acceptable. Not a student ID though. Dont want STUDENTS to have an easier time voting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HashtagSEP 04/25/18 12:48:01 PM #233:	Corrik posted... I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy. I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency. You're misreading it It's saying that any data the study uses must be made public, including medical records, or else the study will not be accepted as evidence You can't make private medical records public Which seems to be the point. It kills a lot of studies that they don't like. --- #SEP #Awesome #Excellent #Greatness #SteveNash #VitaminWater #SmellingLikeTheVault #Pigeon #Sexy #ActuallyAVeryIntelligentVelociraptor #Heel #CoolSpot #EndOfSig <cite>HashtagSEP posted [p:900280790] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>I do not think that is what it appears to be saying at all. It appears to be saying that the study just has to be a publically accessible study. That you can't use private studies the average person cannot see in order to make policy. I mean, unless I am misreading it just states that if the study is not accessible to the public then they can't make policy in regards to it. Then you would have to do the private study in a publicly accessible way in order for transparency.</quote> You're misreading it It's saying that any data the study uses must be made public, including medical records, or else the study will not be accepted as evidence You can't make private medical records public Which seems to be the point. It kills a lot of studies that they don't like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HashtagSEP 04/25/18 12:49:47 PM #234:	Like, it's right here Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. It's saying the changes are made to restrict any peer-reviewed public health studies that include private patient medical records. --- #SEP #Awesome #Excellent #Greatness #SteveNash #VitaminWater #SmellingLikeTheVault #Pigeon #Sexy #ActuallyAVeryIntelligentVelociraptor #Heel #CoolSpot #EndOfSig <cite>HashtagSEP posted [p:900280884] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Like, it's right here <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws.</quote> It's saying the changes are made to restrict any peer-reviewed public health studies that include private patient medical records.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 12:54:06 PM #235:	HashtagSEP posted... Like, it's right here Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws. It's saying the changes are made to restrict any peer-reviewed public health studies that include private patient medical records. I thought it was saying they just had to not use the patient records. However, the key line I was missing was that they are not allowed to use studies with private "underlying data". I actually just pulled up Reuters to read it from a more unbiased source because the ap source sounds like an environmental activist wrote it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-science/u-s-environment-agency-proposes-limits-to-science-used-in-rulemaking-idUSKBN1HV2DJ I have not finished reading it yet. Edit: Okay. I can see both sides. Basically, if you are all about transparency, you should be for the change. If you are all about government oversight, you should be against it. If you are all about companies and their ability to compete, you should be for it. If you trust being potentially pre-emptive with the environment or health, you should be against it. So a few moving parts there. It comes down to what you weigh more. I trust the government, and I also believe companies should be able to compete, thus not hamstrung on studies they are unable to counter with studies of their own due to not having access to the materials. I guess that makes me indifferent on it. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900281098] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>HashtagSEP posted...</cite> <quote>Like, it's right here <quote>Critics that include former EPA administrators and scientists said the policy shift is designed to restrict the agency from citing peer-reviewed public-health studies that use patient medical records that must be kept confidential under patient privacy laws.</quote> It's saying the changes are made to restrict any peer-reviewed public health studies that include private patient medical records.</quote> I thought it was saying they just had to not use the patient records. However, the key line I was missing was that they are not allowed to use studies with private "underlying data". I actually just pulled up Reuters to read it from a more unbiased source because the ap source sounds like an environmental activist wrote it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-science/u-s-environment-agency-proposes-limits-to-science-used-in-rulemaking-idUSKBN1HV2DJ I have not finished reading it yet. Edit: Okay. I can see both sides. Basically, if you are all about transparency, you should be for the change. If you are all about government oversight, you should be against it. If you are all about companies and their ability to compete, you should be for it. If you trust being potentially pre-emptive with the environment or health, you should be against it. So a few moving parts there. It comes down to what you weigh more. I trust the government, and I also believe companies should be able to compete, thus not hamstrung on studies they are unable to counter with studies of their own due to not having access to the materials. I guess that makes me indifferent on it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HashtagSEP 04/25/18 1:01:38 PM #236:	Yeah. Transparency is a good thing. The problem is that this isn't actual transparency in the usual sense. This is basically just an attempt to disqualify certain medical studies that drive pollution regulation and the like, since it's saying "If your study includes any private data whatsoever, it can no longer be used as evidence." The problem with that is that personal medical records are private because of doctor-patient confidentiality. This new rule says you MUST make those records public for your study to be accepted as evidence. But that's illegal. Thus, the studies can no longer qualify. It's not saying "You can't show the health records." It's saying "You can't use the study UNLESS you show the health records." It's very underhanded. --- #SEP #Awesome #Excellent #Greatness #SteveNash #VitaminWater #SmellingLikeTheVault #Pigeon #Sexy #ActuallyAVeryIntelligentVelociraptor #Heel #CoolSpot #EndOfSig <cite>HashtagSEP posted [p:900281452] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Yeah. Transparency is a good thing. The problem is that this isn't actual transparency in the usual sense. This is basically just an attempt to disqualify certain medical studies that drive pollution regulation and the like, since it's saying "If your study includes any private data whatsoever, it can no longer be used as evidence." The problem with that is that personal medical records are private because of doctor-patient confidentiality. This new rule says you MUST make those records public for your study to be accepted as evidence. But that's illegal. Thus, the studies can no longer qualify. It's not saying "You can't show the health records." It's saying "You can't use the study UNLESS you show the health records." It's very underhanded.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 1:04:39 PM #237:	HashtagSEP posted... Yeah. Transparency is a good thing. The problem is that this isn't actual transparency. This is basically just an attempt to disqualify certain medical studies that drive pollution regulation and the like, since it's saying "If your study includes any private data whatsoever, it can no longer be used as evidence." The problem with that is that personal medical records are private because of doctor-patient confidentiality. This new rule says you MUST make those records public for your study to be accepted as evidence. But that's illegal. Thus, the studies can no longer qualify. It's not saying "You can't show the health records." It's saying "You can't use the study UNLESS you show the health records." It's very underhanded. I figured it just had to be redacted name wise and identifier wise and the conditions that were relevant in the patient had to be given in order to be able to reproduce or be unable to reproduce the study. It isn't clear, but the AP source says all "underlying data" which makes me think the patient records. The Reuters source does not say as much as the AP does which makes it harder to tell. The AP source is definitely biased as hell though. You can tell that when it says later it is replacing all academic scientists with corporation representatives or ones with direct ties to them. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900281617] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>HashtagSEP posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah. Transparency is a good thing. The problem is that this isn't actual transparency. This is basically just an attempt to disqualify certain medical studies that drive pollution regulation and the like, since it's saying "If your study includes any private data whatsoever, it can no longer be used as evidence." The problem with that is that personal medical records are private because of doctor-patient confidentiality. This new rule says you MUST make those records public for your study to be accepted as evidence. But that's illegal. Thus, the studies can no longer qualify. It's not saying "You can't show the health records." It's saying "You can't use the study UNLESS you show the health records." It's very underhanded.</quote> I figured it just had to be redacted name wise and identifier wise and the conditions that were relevant in the patient had to be given in order to be able to reproduce or be unable to reproduce the study. It isn't clear, but the AP source says all "underlying data" which makes me think the patient records. The Reuters source does not say as much as the AP does which makes it harder to tell. The AP source is definitely biased as hell though. You can tell that when it says later it is replacing all academic scientists with corporation representatives or ones with direct ties to them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HashtagSEP 04/25/18 1:14:54 PM #238:	Actually, the Reuters source has the "underlying data" line, too, just with slightly different wording: Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data. It just says "underpinned" instead of "underlying" --- #SEP #Awesome #Excellent #Greatness #SteveNash #VitaminWater #SmellingLikeTheVault #Pigeon #Sexy #ActuallyAVeryIntelligentVelociraptor #Heel #CoolSpot #EndOfSig <cite>HashtagSEP posted [p:900282184] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Actually, the Reuters source has the "underlying data" line, too, just with slightly different wording: <quote>Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.</quote> It just says "underpinned" instead of "underlying"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 1:20:30 PM #239:	HashtagSEP posted... Actually, the Reuters source has the "underlying data" line, too, just with slightly different wording: Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data. It just says "underpinned" instead of "underlying" Yeah, I saw it. I just don't know if that means relevant information not revealing identifiers or identity or all data. I am assuming all. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900282493] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>HashtagSEP posted...</cite> <quote>Actually, the Reuters source has the "underlying data" line, too, just with slightly different wording: <quote>Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.</quote> It just says "underpinned" instead of "underlying"</quote> Yeah, I saw it. I just don't know if that means relevant information not revealing identifiers or identity or all data. I am assuming all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 04/25/18 2:41:51 PM #240:	Corrik posted... It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse. Do you STILL believe this is true for all americans? That is a shame. I'll cover this again and I'll try to be brief. Ahem. 1) In many states it takes MONEY to get an official ID. It isn't always a lot of money (it's around 30 where I live), but for the poorest americans it can be the difference between buying some much needed groceries, or a bus pass, or some other vital expense that will help them to continue providing for themselves in some small way that is more important than spending 30 bucks on a piece of plastic with their picture on it that they don't need for literally anything else. It's not as direct as a straight up pay-to-vote poll tax, but the effect is similar. It's a barrier to entry that excludes some of the poorest Americans. You should NOT lose your right to vote on the basis of being very poor. . 2) In many locations it takes a long TIME to wait at the DMV to get your ID. This is important for much the sames reasons as point number 1. Time is money. If your choice it so spend 3 hours at work making money, or 3 hours waiting at the DMV spending money, most people will opt for the one that doesn't waste their time and money. . 3) In addition to the amount of time it takes to wait at the DMV, there are also some locations where DMV access is either sparse or has very limited days/hours that they are open. So not only do you have to spend money you might not be able to afford, and spend time you might not have, some people also have to try to fit their schedule into the very limited window that their distant DMV is open. And of course DMVs cutting their hours of availability only increases the wait time because now the same amount of people have to get stuff done during a smaller window of time. . Now none of these points particularly affected me, but that's no reason not to understand the points or have empathy for people who are affected. Just because I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford a state ID even before I was driving, or just because I'm fortunate enough to have 2 DMVs within 10 miles, or just because I'm fortunate enough to be have local DMVs that allow online appointments and have the availability to attend them... Just because that stuff all works for me, doesn't mean I can just ignore the fact that it doesn't work for everyone. Combine all this with the fact that it "fixes" a non issue. -You register to vote using your social security number. -You register to vote using a proof of address of some kind (utility bill, etc) That is an difficult 1-2 punch to get around. Only people with SSNs and proof of address can register in the first place and someone would have to know exactly where that persons polling place is to vote instead of them. It simply doesn't happen very much at all. But hey, let's pretend it's a bigger deal so we can exclude many more poor votes than potentially fraudulent ones! There is a reason that strict voter ID laws are being struck down, and with any luck will continue to be struck down. You are on the wrong side of this issue if you are supporting a poll tax of any kind, even an indirect one like this. --- ~C~ FD http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:900286612] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.</quote> Do you STILL believe this is true for all americans? That is a shame. I'll cover this again and I'll try to be brief. Ahem. 1) In many states it takes MONEY to get an official ID. It isn't always a lot of money (it's around 30 where I live), but for the poorest americans it can be the difference between buying some much needed groceries, or a bus pass, or some other vital expense that will help them to continue providing for themselves in some small way that is more important than spending 30 bucks on a piece of plastic with their picture on it that they don't need for literally anything else. It's not as direct as a straight up pay-to-vote poll tax, but the effect is similar. It's a barrier to entry that excludes some of the poorest Americans. You should NOT lose your right to vote on the basis of being very poor. . 2) In many locations it takes a long TIME to wait at the DMV to get your ID. This is important for much the sames reasons as point number 1. Time is money. If your choice it so spend 3 hours at work making money, or 3 hours waiting at the DMV spending money, most people will opt for the one that doesn't waste their time and money. . 3) In addition to the amount of time it takes to wait at the DMV, there are also some locations where DMV access is either sparse or has very limited days/hours that they are open. So not only do you have to spend money you might not be able to afford, and spend time you might not have, some people also have to try to fit their schedule into the very limited window that their distant DMV is open. And of course DMVs cutting their hours of availability only increases the wait time because now the same amount of people have to get stuff done during a smaller window of time. . Now none of these points particularly affected me, but that's no reason not to understand the points or have empathy for people who are affected. Just because I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford a state ID even before I was driving, or just because I'm fortunate enough to have 2 DMVs within 10 miles, or just because I'm fortunate enough to be have local DMVs that allow online appointments and have the availability to attend them... Just because that stuff all works for me, doesn't mean I can just ignore the fact that it doesn't work for everyone. Combine all this with the fact that it "fixes" a non issue. -You register to vote using your social security number. -You register to vote using a proof of address of some kind (utility bill, etc) That is an difficult 1-2 punch to get around. Only people with SSNs and proof of address can register in the first place and someone would have to know exactly where that persons polling place is to vote instead of them. It simply doesn't happen very much at all. But hey, let's pretend it's a bigger deal so we can exclude many more poor votes than potentially fraudulent ones! There is a reason that strict voter ID laws are being struck down, and with any luck will continue to be struck down. You are on the wrong side of this issue if you are supporting a poll tax of any kind, even an indirect one like this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 2:52:29 PM #241:	It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse. You act like being poor is a Democrat exclusive thing. It is a simple doing a normal thing in life. Democrats not being able to get their voters IDs is simply a lack of party planning. It is a common sense measure that should exist. The fact of the matter is that the reason democrats have issues with getting their voters IDs is that the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young! Who break democrat. Which also unsurprisingly is why Democrats get mislabeled as always winning the poor vote so often (they prob still do but not as drastically) because it is counting younger voters who are still in college or haven't found a career path yet. If you eliminate 18-22 year olds and compared the poor vote, it would be pretty different. But anyways. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900287180] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse. You act like being poor is a Democrat exclusive thing. It is a simple doing a normal thing in life. Democrats not being able to get their voters IDs is simply a lack of party planning. It is a common sense measure that should exist. The fact of the matter is that the reason democrats have issues with getting their voters IDs is that the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young! Who break democrat. Which also unsurprisingly is why Democrats get mislabeled as always winning the poor vote so often (they prob still do but not as drastically) because it is counting younger voters who are still in college or haven't found a career path yet. If you eliminate 18-22 year olds and compared the poor vote, it would be pretty different. But anyways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 04/25/18 2:53:42 PM #242:	Ah, I had just woken up and didn't see the new page with many voter ID posts. Good job everyone else for saying what I said before I said it :D Paratroopa1 posted... Oh no, let's not get this twisted. Democrats want elections with as many people voting for them as possible, and the majority of disenfranchised voters are minorities. They happen to be on the right side but only as a matter of convenience really. This is also a very good point. It's important to realize that even when your elected official of choice is agreeing with you, they aren't necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart. I'm staunchly anti restrictive voting laws because I think everyone should be able to vote, but I'm sure many elected democrats fall into the category of not wanting to disenfranchise a sub section of americans that is historically more likely to vote for them. . Many are are very upset that trump has appointed "foxes" like Pruitt to guard the "hen houses" like the EPA. (see DeVos as secrety of education for another great example) But it's important to realize that even if we are able to effect a change of who is in charge that we're might simply be replacing foxes for coyotes who's only difference of opinion is on what particular methods they are going to use to eat the hens. --- ~C~ FD http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:900287251] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>Ah, I had just woken up and didn't see the new page with many voter ID posts. Good job everyone else for saying what I said before I said it :D <cite>Paratroopa1 posted...</cite> <quote>Oh no, let's not get this twisted. Democrats want elections with as many people voting for them as possible, and the majority of disenfranchised voters are minorities. They happen to be on the right side but only as a matter of convenience really. </quote> This is also a very good point. It's important to realize that even when your elected official of choice is agreeing with you, they aren't necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart. I'm staunchly anti restrictive voting laws because I think everyone should be able to vote, but I'm sure many elected democrats fall into the category of not wanting to disenfranchise a sub section of americans that is historically more likely to vote for them. . Many are are very upset that trump has appointed "foxes" like Pruitt to guard the "hen houses" like the EPA. (see DeVos as secrety of education for another great example) But it's important to realize that even if we are able to effect a change of who is in charge that we're might simply be replacing foxes for coyotes who's only difference of opinion is on what particular methods they are going to use to eat the hens.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 04/25/18 2:54:49 PM #243:	corrik demonstrating the prime example of privilege --- http://i.imgur.com/U7qSWmn.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:900287327] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>corrik demonstrating the prime example of privilege</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 04/25/18 2:58:51 PM #244:	Corrik posted... It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse. I just gave several excuses. Several is more than zero. I am quite confident in that. Corrik posted... the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. And? You think we should disenfranchise people because they are apathetic except when it's time to vote? Corrik posted... Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young! Young people should be allowed to vote as well. . I don't care what demographic someone falls into or who they are more likely to vote for, there should not be an unreasonable barrier of entry to voting. Not when it already requires SSN and proof of address just to register. I also don't care their YOUR definition of "unreasonable barrier of entry to voting" isn't the same as mine. --- ~C~ FD http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:900287558] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse.</quote> I just gave several excuses. Several is more than zero. I am quite confident in that. <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. </quote> And? You think we should disenfranchise people because they are apathetic except when it's time to vote? <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young!</quote> Young people should be allowed to vote as well. . I don't care what demographic someone falls into or who they are more likely to vote for, there should not be an unreasonable barrier of entry to voting. Not when it already requires SSN and proof of address just to register. I also don't care their YOUR definition of "unreasonable barrier of entry to voting" isn't the same as mine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 04/25/18 2:59:14 PM #245:	Corrik posted... It is not hard to get an id. You can scream this from your perch all you want. It doesn't make it correct. It isn't hard to parallel park, or to create a probabilistic model in excel, or to ride a bike, or to memorize all the words to Lost Ones by Lauryn Hill. But those all require some level of time investment that not everyone can afford to devote. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:900287590] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not hard to get an id.</quote> You can scream this from your perch all you want. It doesn't make it correct. It isn't hard to parallel park, or to create a probabilistic model in excel, or to ride a bike, or to memorize all the words to Lost Ones by Lauryn Hill. But those all require some level of time investment that not everyone can afford to devote.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 04/25/18 3:00:36 PM #246:	Peace___Frog posted... not everyone can afford to devote. All the voting talk had me reading this as de-vote and had me wondering why people were trying to UN vote for things :/ --- ~C~ FD http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:900287682] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Peace___Frog posted...</cite> <quote>not everyone can afford to devote.</quote> All the voting talk had me reading this as de-vote and had me wondering why people were trying to UN vote for things :/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 04/25/18 3:02:51 PM #247:	Forceful_Dragon posted... Corrik posted... It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse. I just gave several excuses. Several is more than zero. I am quite confident in that. Corrik posted... the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. And? You think we should disenfranchise people because they are apathetic except when it's time to vote? Corrik posted... Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young! Young people should be allowed to vote as well. . I don't care what demographic someone falls into or who they are more likely to vote for, there should not be an unreasonable barrier of entry to voting. Not when it already requires SSN and proof of address just to register. I also don't care their YOUR definition of "unreasonable barrier of entry to voting" isn't the same as mine. 1. No. You gave bullshit excuses. There is zero actual excuses. It is not like any polling stations are treating democrats any different than Republicans. That is like saying I can't shop for groceries because I have to wait in a line. It is a ridiculous reason. The wait and money is not the reason people are not having their IDs. 2. People should have a responsibility to prove who they are to vote. If you do not want to, you obviously are not caring to vote. This is no different than the myriad of other times you need certain documents to do certain things. You need IDs to have guns. A constitutional right. Guess what? 3. Everyone should have the right to vote and everyone does. The EXACT SAME equal opportunity. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:900287812] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Forceful_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not hard to get an id. You need one for a myriad of things. There is zero excuse.</quote> I just gave several excuses. Several is more than zero. I am quite confident in that. <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>the average voter doesn't give a shit about elections until the election is upon you. </quote> And? You think we should disenfranchise people because they are apathetic except when it's time to vote? <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Which isn't an issue for most of the demographic usually because they already have IDs. Except for first time voters who are usually young!</quote> Young people should be allowed to vote as well. . I don't care what demographic someone falls into or who they are more likely to vote for, there should not be an unreasonable barrier of entry to voting. Not when it already requires SSN and proof of address just to register. I also don't care their YOUR definition of "unreasonable barrier of entry to voting" isn't the same as mine.</quote> 1. No. You gave bullshit excuses. There is zero actual excuses. It is not like any polling stations are treating democrats any different than Republicans. That is like saying I can't shop for groceries because I have to wait in a line. It is a ridiculous reason. The wait and money is not the reason people are not having their IDs. 2. People should have a responsibility to prove who they are to vote. If you do not want to, you obviously are not caring to vote. This is no different than the myriad of other times you need certain documents to do certain things. You need IDs to have guns. A constitutional right. Guess what? 3. Everyone should have the right to vote and everyone does. The EXACT SAME equal opportunity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog 04/25/18 3:02:57 PM #248:	I do know a handful of people who regret their vote for trump. But they're still not going to vote for a Democrat in the midterms. They're just going to abstain. Pisses me off. --- ~Peaf~ <cite>Peace___Frog posted [p:900287817] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote>I do know a handful of people who regret their vote for trump. But they're still not going to vote for a Democrat in the midterms. They're just going to abstain. Pisses me off.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 3:05:36 PM #249:	Corrik posted... The fact of the matter is that the reason democrats have issues with getting their voters IDs is that the average voter doesn't give a s* about elections until the election is upon you. [Citation needed] You disagree with the legal decisions of a lot of judges. What happened to Lawful Neutral Corrik?? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900287956] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> The fact of the matter is that the reason democrats have issues with getting their voters IDs is that the average voter doesn't give a s* about elections until the election is upon you. </quote> [Citation needed] You disagree with the legal decisions of a lot of judges. What happened to Lawful Neutral Corrik??</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 04/25/18 3:07:02 PM #250:	Corrik posted... 3. Everyone should have the right to vote and everyone does. The EXACT SAME equal opportunity. Your opinion on felon disenfranchisement? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:900288024] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote> 3. Everyone should have the right to vote and everyone does. The EXACT SAME equal opportunity. </quote> Your opinion on felon disenfranchisement?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 04/25/18 3:12:41 PM #251:	Corrik posted... It is not like any polling stations are treating democrats any different than Republicans. No one is arguing that is the case. If it was really a matter of "proving who you are when you vote" then any form of photo ID should be sufficient. Costco card? Boom, has picture on the back, feel free to vote. College ID card? Picture. Vote. But no, even in places where they put a picture ID requirement they've decide it wasn't far enough and decided it had to be very specific picture IDs. --- ~C~ FD http://i.imgur.com/dGDfxaw.png <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:900288315] in Politics C... [t:76539419]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>It is not like any polling stations are treating democrats any different than Republicans.</quote> No one is arguing that is the case. If it was really a matter of "proving who you are when you vote" then any form of photo ID should be sufficient. Costco card? Boom, has picture on the back, feel free to vote. College ID card? Picture. Vote. But no, even in places where they put a picture ID requirement they've decide it wasn't far enough and decided it had to be very specific picture IDs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 170: The Title Doesn't Matter (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 170: The Title Doesn't Matter