zapatos

It's your proposal. Do some research and find out.

Do you ever investigate anything or do you just make up whatever you like? https://www.planetizen.com/node/1224

I still don't know what in the hell you are talking about. This thread is about fitness in school. Who is talking about the death penalty?

Yes, like 2016. Can you please provide some support for your assertion that internet comments are better than scientific polls? Otherwise you are wasting our time with your personal bias.

Can you link to one of these documentaries please? Frankly I don't believe the claim that they build houses to shoot from. You sure you're not looking at the battle of Stalingrad? Come on. Seriously? Yes, I've heard being shot in the head with an AK-47 can wreck havoc on safety glasses.

Ike is my Republican hero! 😃

I'm not sure it is a good idea to collect soldiers in so obvious a location. It's just asking for an artillery shell once everyone is inside. May as well paint a big target on it while you are at it. Perhaps you can tell us. I'm guessing eye bullet wounds are not that common.

I'm also very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I used to be what would be called Independent and voted for Republicans more often than Democrats, back when Republicans were more serious about fiscal responsibility. I hate that the Republican party is going so far right that people like McCain are considered RINOs and ridiculed by people in their own party. I was ready to vote for McCain until he trashed the bottom half of his ticket. If the Republicans changed back the clock I'm sure I'd vote for them again. Although I'd have to turn right socially to meet them in the middle.

There is always room for improvement but I'm afraid there are too many areas of conflict that won't likely ever be resolved. In general... Gun control will be opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals. Liberals will fight for the disenfranchised and conservatives will fight to limit their access to the polls. Liberals will stand up for the marginalized that the conservatives find objectionable (mostly having to do with sex/gender/etc.) and conservatives will be angry at them for "shoving their agenda down our throats". Conservatives will prioritize individual rights, liberals will prioritize society. Conservatives will want to limit support of those in need, liberals will maximize support of those in need. Conservatives put business first, liberals put individuals first. As long as red areas are more religious, uniformly white and lack first hand exposure to the rest of the world, I believe they will continue to be red for the foreseeable future, regardless of how democrats work to engage them. As Democrats will not give up their fundamental nature in order to appeal to conservatives, there is only so much reaching that can be done. Personally I think it would be great if Republicans made meaningful outreach to blue areas. Maybe instead of moving further and further right they can lean toward those they are currently moving away from. If Republicans start to address the grievances of urban voters, they might color some of those large concentrations of blue areas red.

No need to be snide about it.

Fixed that for you.

But it's not 350 any longer, and is way higher than 2000. If you kept the population at 350 it would not be viable.

Well there you have it. What more proof would one need?

Quick. Give me the name of one of the guilds.

This never ceases to amuse me. "You silly people think God works THAT way when in reality he works THIS way."

In the old days when we used "natural discovery", the way we would "vaccinate" people for small pox would be to purposely infect black people with cowpox, then cut open their skin lesions, scrape out the pus, and put the pus on a scrape on the person to be inoculated. Of course if the black person had syphilis or something, the person being inoculated might find they have other new problems. Now that we use science, we develop a vaccine for a pandemic in less than one year and start giving out the inoculations by the millions, knowing its efficacy ahead of time. Your ideas leave me speechless.

Calm down. Is natural discovery better than or equal to science with respect to quality? What do you mean by "natural discovery is of a higher order than science"?

That is not really true. Near me for example you can no longer get building permits for homes in flood plains. You can still live there, but if there is a flood you cannot rebuild. I'd say the government is already doing exactly what you are proposing. The only debate is where to put in the restrictions and to what extent. You cannot reasonably stop people from living in all areas that are prone to one disaster or another as that is a significant portion of the country. In large part it means decisions have to be made by the people who supply the funding in coordination with the people they wish to control. Each situation is unique and needs a unique solution.

I assume because you feel a rigid scientific restraint makes the data worse than a natural discovery. Is that correct? Can you give me an example of a rigid scientific restraint that has a negative impact on the observation?

Can you tell me what "natural discovery" is? Do you mean observations?

A scientific poll is always better than the comments section on Youtube. Always. So perhaps you are not dishonest but are instead simply uninformed but speaking as if you were informed. Either way your contribution will be minimal and suspect, as you are unable to tell the difference between good data and bad.

On the other hand they could represent a fraction that is minuscule and will have absolutely no impact at all on key elections. Why are you implying they could be a "significant" number of voters if you are not going to bother showing us any real data? Your debate style is dishonest and is getting old.

Who are you talking about? Who did this here? Then why are you bringing it up?!?! Pulling random stuff out of your lower orifice is a waste of everyone's time. If it is an issue, cite it and make an argument. Otherwise don't bring it up. It is just so much static.

We already have mass transit. Subways or elevated trains in NY, Chicago, Boston, Washington. Trains between Boston, NY and Washington. But do you know what they have in common? Population density. The US has tried to expand and make Amtrak more successful but it is hard to justify the infrastructure between Springfield and Columbia Missouri. How big is England compared to the United States? Comparing European success to US success only works if the situations are similar.