Ten oz

I think commute is a major factor when calculating a work weeks and attempting to relate it to illness and workdays missed. I work with people that have round trip commutes of over 2 hours. That turns ordinary 40hr work weeks into 50 plus hour work weeks. I live in walking distance to my job. I am far more willing to Saturday late, come in early, and work extra days than my co-workers who have commutes.

I meant your position regarding North Korea, not the election. You supported strikes in previous posts.

Does that mean your overall all position has changed, can you elaborate?

The government of North Korean conducted a nuclear detonation on 9 September 2016. That is what I was referring to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_North_Korean_nuclear_test Sept, April, or whenever is all the same far as question I asked. What has changed. What is true today that wasn't true prior to the inauguration?

What is this new capability you reference? I asked what changed, what was true today that wasn't prior to the inauguration. To my knowledge North Korea has done nothing since their last Weapons test in Sept. Are you referencing some new intel Trump has and if so do you have a citiation? My Wyoming comment was meant to be a bit redundant. We have a large base with assets on the DMZ, Bases in Japan, and regular Navy patrols throughout the region. The showy increase Trump brag prior to any assets actually doing anything provides no strategic benefit. We already have more than enough in the region. Correct. North Korea doesn't recognize a divided Korea. One of the big fears has been that North Korea will attack South Korea. Ironically South Korea doesn't like some of the steps we have taken like THAAD and would prefer to deal with North Korea directly.

It is too early in context of understanding what Trump is doing but it isn't too early overall. Bush declared North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" 15yrs ago. That took tensions from about a 6 and brought them up to like an 8.5 on a scale to ten. Since then we have stayed at an 8.5 until Trump bumped us up to a 9.5 a couple weeks back. That I can tell nothing has changed. Nothing new has happened. That isn't to say all is well and perfect but why the escalation? What is true today that wasn't true before the inauguration? Trump has said he is open to speaking with North Korea. I am encouraged by that. Diplomacy is the best option to move forward with first in my opinion. However Trump has moved in THAAD and deployed Navy assests to the region. Such a show of force accomplishes nothing. The U.S. Air Force can launch bombers from Wyoming to strike targets in North Korea. We don't need to physically have Subs and Carriers there for any reason other than to intimidate. I don't feel it is useful to diplomacy.

In fiscal year 2009, which started almost four months before Obama's presidency began and ended eight months into it, the deficit was 9.8 percent of GDP. The 2014 shortfall is 2.8 percent of GDP -- a decrease of 71 percent. So that's where the claim comes from. The situation largely tracks if you use real dollars. Using the same comparison with Congressional Budget Office figures, the deficit fell from $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year to $486 billion in the 2014 fiscal year -- a drop of about 66 percent http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

Trump is playing it by ear. He came to DC without any real plans. He is making it up as he goes. I am sure he must have had some key agendas but we, the public, have no idea what they are. For now the effect is total uncertainty: - After campaigning on some never explained form of govt paid single payer healthcare he has asked house Republicans to come up with a replacement for the ACA and seemingly has no real involvement other than just demanding something get done. - After exhaustively campaigning that he would build a big beautiful single unbroken wall Mexico would pay for he asked for tens of billions in new spending to build a segments of a wall that we will be paying for. - He said he planned to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure but instead is slashing all the Departments that deal with infrastructure and his people are saying his tax cut plan is his jobs plan. - He campaigned that he'd renegotiate NAFTA but he has changed his mind. - He campaigned he'd label China a currency manipulator and renegotiate our trade deals with China but has since changed his mind. - he campaigned against foriegn Military intervention calling Iraq a mistake and repeatedly criticizing Obama for our involvement in Syria. Meanwhile he has increased our role in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and is openly considering a massive intervention into North Korea.

Is the current set up good? Our current set up is far from perfect. However no system ever will be perfect. Anger over taxes in biblical. Even Jesus got mad about taxes, lol. Since the economic collapse we have seen continued growth in home values, GDP, jobs, and reductions in deficits. All the stuff we would like to see. Why rock the boat? Considering the long term consistency of our economic improvement over the last several years I think small modifications would best and not a total overhaul which would have untested results. The massive cuts proposed will 100% increase deficits and spur major cuts to govt services. Both sides of the aisle acknowledge that. Republicans merely add the caveat of "in the short term". Historically a federal reduction in services hasn't led to greater economic growth. The opposite has been true. Govt spending money helps which is why every recession is fought with federal spending. Meanwhile tax cut have seemingly always produced temporary bumps in private sector bullishness which later gave way to recessions. Life is also full of wildcards. Trump hasn't had a 9/11, Katrina, billion dollar wall street Ponzi scheme, massive oil spill, earthquake, or etc.....yet. Just like I have a savings account and credit cards I keep empty for unforseen emergencies our govt needs to be flexible. sh!* happens. Our economic environment is akin to an ecosystem and not merely a dog that needs to be unleashed. Long story short is that the system we currently have has been serving us better than other interpretations of it had for a awhile. Best not to make any major changes for now.

Many people don't like to eat their vegetable either. At lot of what managing govt involves is tough choices. In a perfect world numerous things like police, courts, prisons, and etc would not be needed. In a perfect world no industries would put carcinogens in public water. This is a perfect world though. In my opinion Republican rhetoric basically demands to have things free. Conservates want a strong military, border protection, roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, insurance, clean water, and etc but then don't want to pay any tax. Every lone dollar spent of something Republicans don't like makes them blind to the hundred dollars spent of things which are essential. The below is an example of a multi dimensional problem that the govt is trying to resolve that many people view as overreach & freedom limiting or. I use this example because the economic benefits of roads and bridges is too on the nose. This example is meant to be nuanced and a little out of left field for this conversation. I was reading about the National Park Service (NPS) work to save the California Condor in the Grand Canyon recently. In the early 80's Condors were down to 22 individuals. Lead poisoning was killing them. Condors fly around looking for carcasses of dead animals to eat. Most of the carcasses were left by hunters who had uses lead bullets. iN the 90's the NPS caputured and tagged the remaining and then realeased and monitored them. Leaving lead free carcasses near their nests. Numbers rose to a couple of hundred. Then a few years back groups started pushing for limits on lead ammo. The National Rifle Association (NRA), of course, called it an assualt on freedom or whatever. Places like California were successful in forcing some different martials used for bullets. One of Obama's last acts was to ban lead bullets, not hunting, on wildlife refugees. Today Condor numbers are nearing 500. One of Trump's Interior Sec. first act was to repeal the ban calling it an assualt on gun owners. Lead is a heavier material than copper and the other alternatives. Lead bullets travel further and are more accurate. At what cost? There are long term impacts and at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of hunters are just out there for recreation and not for survival. Trump's only dog in this fight is that NRA members voted for him. http://e360.yale.edu/features/will_lead_in_bullets_finally_kill_off_california_condor https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2017/03/02/trump-administration-revokes-lead-bullet-ban-but-californias-may-hold/

Cable news is ratings driven. Trump's tweets get better ratings than civil war in Syria. People have grown accustomed to short black and white headlines. Anything that requires lengthy reading, has nuanced pros and cons, or difficult solutions gets ignored by most people. That is just the reality of it. If Syria got ratings CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, and etc would report on it around the clock.

Conservatives have spend years convincing themselves of many things. One major belief is that every dollar the govt spends on anything besides the military is counterproductive to capitalism and restricts individual freedom. That the Constitution was more meant keep govt out of peoples lives than it was meant to establish a govt per se. So it isn't surprising Trump's supporters are not put off by his lack of knowlegde, lying, and overall incompetence. To them Trump is mocking the system. Many supported him for that very reason, they reject govt. Add in racism and a sense of religious superiority and it is clear why Trump's supporters don't care. They want him to ruin things. The govt should be involved in healthcare, education, evironmental protection, or civil rights. So why should they care Trump is incompetent. The worse of a job POTUS does the more liberty they believe they'll have.

135.7 million people voted in 2016. Whites made up 70% of all voters, 95 million. Trump received 58%, 55 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 87% of Trump's voters were white. Blacks made up 12% of all voters, 16.3 million. Trump received 8%, 1.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 2% of Trump's voters were black. Hispanic made up 11% of all voters, 14.9 million. Trump received 29%, 4.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 7% of Trump's voters were Hispanic. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 Clintion received 37% of the total White vote, 35.1 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 53% of Clinton voters were White. Clintion received 88% of the total Black vote, 14.3 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 22% of Clinton voters were Black. Clintion received 65% of the total Hispanic vote, 9.7 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 15% of Clinton voters were Hispanic.

I never said all of that. Humans do change the world to a greater degree and are capable of many things, like language, that no other animal aren't. However we are an animal. We share the same biology and almost all the same genetic code (DNA). Our brain power, intelligence, smarts, or whatever you want to call it is an adaptation just as a giaffe's long neck is. Amongst ourselve their are differences. Some humans can speak 10 languages while other just one, or even none. Does speaking 10 languages make someone more sentient than someone who just speaks one? What is the measurement of a more capable mind amongst humans? These things all exist in degrees. Animals other than humans do many things we do they just do them to lesser degrees and vice versa. Humans run, but to a lesser degree than a horse. I don't see where the line in the sand is. The point when something is done a such a degree better that we must recategorize; sentient human v non sentient animal.

Natural selection is about who lives to reproduce. It isn't about intelligence. To say we are the pinnacle implies a linear path from worst to best. To imply that means you do not understand how evolution. As for modify the quality of our lives, don't Ants modify the quaity of their lives by building colonies? A beaver modifies the quality of their lives and the lives of other animals by building a dam.

Humans cannot chase down and kill an elk without tools, wolves can. As such if humans were going to catch and eat elks we needed to develop tools. Wolves simply haven't had a use for our level of intelligence. Humans needed to be more intelligent. By "need" and "use" I mean it spared us from extinction. Humans were on the brink of extinct at several times during our evoliution and only humans with advantageous mutations survived. We have the ability to do the things you listed because we'd be extinct otherwise. That is how it works. Different traits have been advantageous to different species. Sharks evolved almost 500 million years ago and haven't changed much because they have had healthy populations and reproduction rates. Comparing the capabilities of brains across species isn't an apples to apples comparison. Different species have evolved to do different things. We evolved to build and construct tools. Our brains are more capable of performing doing that. However that isn't the exclusive purpose of a brain. As for your early post in this thread I already responded to that, see post #51.

Capable of what? A dog's brain can process their 300 million olfactory receptors. Their small is 40 times superior to ours (humans). Dogs can also hear up to 45,000hz, 4 times the distance of humans. While it is physical parts of the nose and ear that receive information the processing of all that information is done in the brain. The human brain isn't capable of pocessinng sound and odor the way a dog's brain is. What the brain of any animal is capable of is relative to what was evolutionarily advantageous. You seem to be implying that brains exist to process inofrmation logically and thus the more logical an animal is the more capable in general their brain. That isn't the case. Different anaimals evolved to excel at different things and the brain follows suit. Human brains can't echo locate but a bats brain can. I think you are treating human evolutionary traits as superior. A cheetah's shoulder blades aren't attached to their collar bone. Such traits allow them the flexibility to run at 70mph/112kmh. In my opinion that is as uniquely and highly an evolved trait as the hyoid bone in humans that allow us to produce a wide range of sounds, speak. There is no pinnacle of evolution. No best. When humans are all dead and gone, extinct, Tardigrades will still be around.

What infastructure spending has Trump actually presented? Parties are made up of thousands of politicians. There will also be loose qoutes to use to trying and make a point. Just a couple weeks back Paul Ryan said he didn't want Trump to work with Democrats on Healthcare. Ultimately Trump has only been in 100 days and he can't even get his own party to support many of his proposals. I see no point in going tit for tat regarding compromise with Trump when his own party sunk his healthcare plan and won't even bring his other promises like term limits up for Congress members up for a vote. For examples of compromises lets look at Bush's first term. He got Democratic support on Tax cuts, Education, Healthcare, and etc. In 2001 Bush's Tax cut saw 14 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170 In 2001 Bush's No Child left Behind education bill saw 43 Democratic senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371 In 2001 only a single lone Democrat voted against the Patriot Act which actually gave Bush more power. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 in 2003 Bush's tax cut saw 3 Democrat Senators vote "yea". This is significant because the bill would have failed with those 3 votes. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00179 In 2003 Bush's Iraq Resolution saw 29 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate In 2003 Bush's Medicare drug plan saw 10 Democrat senators vote "yea". https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459 Yes, Democrats are inclusive. Democrats have a considerably more diverse voting base amongst races, religions, genders, education, income, etc, etc, etc. I won't even both with a citiation here because it is too obvious. Democrats have a large umbrella.

I agree.There are a few reasons for this. For starters Democrats as a matter of platform believe in compromise while Republicans do not. Democrat philosophy also accepts that change can be slow and incremental while Republcans believe the righteous (themselves) deserve what they deserve right now at this minute and always. Race plays a big factor too. It is simply easier to ignore minorities and women in our society. This is still a society that listens more closely, takes more seriously, pays more attention to, and etc things white males say and want. Lastly Democrats are inclusive and attempt to not to alienate anyone while Republicans are exclusive and proudly alienate people. It is actually comical to me. I so often hear Democrats talking about the need to reach out to coal miners and rural males in the Mid West. Dems have conceded that messaging over the last few years has alienated people in the dust bowl. Meaningwhile Republican aren't afraid of their messaging. They aren't affraid chanting "drill baby drill" will alienate environmentalists, aren't afraid chanting "build the wall" will alienate hispanics, aren't afraid chanting "all lives matter" will alienate black lives matters, aren't afraid "grab them by the p#@!$" will alienate women. Democrats consistantly get more votes overall yet accept that they are somehow out of touch. Dems suffer from low self esteem while the republican's self esteem is through the roof. Even during Obama's years it was this way. Obama was a popular and successful President yet many Democrats were afraid of being too supportive of the ACA allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and label it Obamacare. Same goes for everything from the GM bailout to Iran deal. Dems were lukewarm at best and afraid to be too strong in their support. Republcans were very loud in their opposition and it clearly intimidated Democrats in my opinion.

in 2004 after Bush was re-elected I was sitting in my car listening to the news on the radio.Flipping through the stations I heard Sean Hannity telling his audience not to celebrate too long because they were needed back in the trenches asap to stop Hillary Clinton in 2008, "the Battle to stop Hillary starts right now!" I heard similar statements from Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Conservatives are good at the long game. They are good at spending years attacking someones character so that they seem too damaged overtime. I preferred Obama to Clinton but in all honestly I must admit that the constant drumming of Hillary Clinton helped Obama in the primary. He was new and the right hadn't spent years assassinating his character. The water wasn't dirty around Obama like it already was around Clinton. I think the same can be said for Bernie Sanders in 2016. The Right had not and did not invest in impugning Sanders which allow Sanders to seem more honest, new, and clean. People grow fatigued of the same old arguments. The right takes advantage of that. Currently the right see Warren as trouble. They see her as formidable in 2020 so they are beating it into their supporter heads now that she is bad. They will surely throw loads of money against her in 2018 hoping to damage her senate re-election bid.By the time 2020 rolls around they (the right) hope Warran will seem divissive and scandal ridden. I think it is also worth considering that Trump and his people seldom to never attack Bernie Sanders. When they do mention Sanders it is normally in the context of how poorly he was treated by the DNC. This is intentional. They want Sanders to remain an unsoiled scandal free character that hopefully will divide progressives.

How does things contribute to this discussion? The topic whether or not Jesus was a real historical person.

@Paymander, "A wealth of evidence does not necessarily settle matters, when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts." that is a good qoute. One of the major hurdles to the historicity of Jesus is that to Christians as a matter of faith Jesus simply had to have existed. Without a physical Jesus Christianity's teachings can't be true. As stated previously though lots of religions exist with made up origins. Christians exist, that is a fact. Whether or not Jesus existed is a different question yet for a Christian impossible to separate. If I started a thread specifically asking about of the historicity of Moses or Noah I think it would have spurred less debate. Moses and Noah are important to Christianity but don't need to be lierally affirmed. Many more people are open to viewing the story of Moses and Noah as parables. Jesus however, in Christian belief, cannot be a parable. He must be literal. That makes this discussion hard because so many are unwilling to separate Jesus from the Bible. The story of Jesus says he was born of a virgin birth, is both God's son and God in human form, perfect, lived a sinless life, was killed and then resurrected. Jesus perfomed miracles, had visions, was the realization of prophecy, with return again, and etc, etc,etc. NONE of that is what this thread is about yet obviously in a literal sense none could have happened unless Jesus was first a real person. So it is tough. The question I am asking about Jesus doesn't attempt to answer any religious questions yet to a Christian it absolutely does. Christianity exists, that is a modern fact, that isn't changed the historicity of Jesus. So this discussion is stuck a loop. Non contemporary religious texts from Chrsitian writings keep being brought up as evidence that Jesus was real. However if we look back to the OP the question isn't about Chrsitian writings. Jesus is real because the gospels say so simply isn't good evidence. Constantines converting to Christianity and venerating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre some 300 years after Jesus is said to have lived and no archeologists have verified the site isn't good evidence. Atleast not of a real life man. Perhaps of a storied religios tradition but the 2 simply are not the same. You keep bring up Edgar Cayce and I am trying to ignore it for the most part. As with Atlantis Cayce would require his own thread. I do not believe Cayce, Nostradamus, Jean Dixon, Miss Cleo, or etc could see, know, or predict anything. If I wrote down hundreds of predictions a day for 30yrs I think it is fair to assume thousands of them would come true provided those predictions were grounded in what I already know about history and human nature. Cayce is not proved and there for can't be used to prove Jesus, Atlantis, or anything else.

@Raider5678, how are we evaluating logical ability vs instinct? Do you have a ideal example/model for either? I think it can be argued that human's are not logical. While we are really good at problem solving we are equally as bad at it. With the knowledge we have at our disposal things like hunger and war shouldn't exist. We have the know how to ensure safety and security for every human on earth and don't. Humans make illogical choices for themselves and others constantly. Every time we drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, assault one another, kill, and etc. We error so greatly because of emotions/instinct? Despite or knowledge attainment we still are destroying the very environment we need to exist. It is very illogical. We value the skills we (humans) excel at. So we assume we are the most intelligent and logical because we can built tools and have language but those are things we care about. Other intelligent life may value others things which we do not. They may consider us to be purely instinct driven. It is all relative to a large extent. All life which we are aware of is confined to a physical body. We all have basic needs determined by our physical bodies. We all inherit natural characteristics and behaviors (instincts) as a result. It isn't always clear when one is operating with individual choice vs instinct. Because of that I don't think intelligence/logic vs instinct is a good measuring stick for being sentient. Additionally, in my opinion, being aware of self and being aware of the reasons behind every action and or choice aren't one in the same. From addiction, attention deficit, to acts of rage humans have many behaviors we are unable to consciously control or full understand. I don't believe free will is a requirement of being self aware. In my opinion to be sentient the only requirement is to be aware and to be aware the only requirement is an independent concept (instinct, emotion, logical, etc) of self.

Now, in an interview with the associated press released Sunday, Trump set a new standard of hubris even for himself — comparing his ratings prowess to one of the darkest days in U.S. history: Sept. 11, 2001. “It's the highest for 'Face the Nation' or as I call it, 'Deface the Nation,' " Trump told the AP's Julie Pace, referring to the CBS News Sunday political talk show. “It's the highest for 'Deface the Nation' since the World Trade Center — since the World Trade Center came down.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/24/trump-boasts-of-highest-tv-ratings-since-the-world-trade-center-came-down/?utm_term=.e31da377792c#comments Inboasting about his TV ratings Trump is provided strong anecdotal evidence for a point I attempted to make a couple months ago. Fact checking Trump doesn't work. All press is good press. So long as Trump can control the topic he doesn't care if the headlines are positive or negative. Rather than the meida giving Trump headline after headline when he lies about wiretaps, Susan Rice,and etc the media should just ignore it. By reporting on it they are allowing Trump to control the narrative. There are so many issues that simply get zero attention because everyone is too busy giving their type to Trump lies. Meanwhile Trump loves it!!!

"While it is archaeologically impossible to say that the tomb recently uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the burial site of an individual Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, there is indirect evidence to suggest that the identification of the site by representatives of the Roman emperor Constantine some 300 years later may be a reasonable one. The earliest accounts of Jesus' burial come from the Canonical Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, which are believed to have been composed decades after Christ's crucifixion around A.D. 30. While there are variations in the details, the accounts consistently describe how Christ was buried in a rock-cut tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jewish follower of Jesus. Archaeologists have identified more than a thousand such rock-cut tombs in the area around Jerusalem, says archaeologist and National Geographic grantee Jodi Magness. Each one of these family tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers with long niches cut into the sides of the rock to accommodate individual bodies." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/jesus-christ-tomb-burial-church-holy-sepulchre/ Researchers haven't been provided full access to investigate the site. If the site is verified it would be terrific evidence. However, it currently isn't verified. The site hasn't even been dated. I am sure you are aware most of the Church was built some 300yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived by Constantine. Additionally it isn't the only site thought to be the possible burial site. There is also "The Garden Tomb". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb