AR Husker Fan

Wrong again. Looking at election results, the last elections that truly deserve the name (November 1932) saw the NSDAP as the front runner with 33% of the vote. They had actually lost 4% compared to the last election. So, by that margin, about a third of Germans supported the Nazis and their policies. In March 1933, the next election was already under chancellor Hitler. Communists and Social democrats were harassed. The burning of the Reichstag was used for maximum propaganda purposes. In this climate, the NSDAP made just under 44%. So, a *lot* of Germans supported the Nazis. Then again, a majority of Germans very decidedly did *not*. So Hitler ordered another election, this time with the NSDAP as the only party on the ballot. That was in November 1933. There were no polls on popular opinion during the Nazi regime. What was there was a well-crafted propaganda machine that pushed the Nazi agenda. In actuality, the majority of Germans did not support Hitler; the majority simply did not oppose him.

I am sorry CM but your problem in many posts is you don't have any facts correct. You think quite logically most of the time but don't get the critical facts correct. Stop listening to any liberal 'news' sources as they make up facts to support their positions out of thin air and ignore the truth most of the time. You asked for a fact. I pointed out a huge one on 'inflation' vs. wages in my long post. Wages have been half the increase in the price of cars. I also didn't mention that in many ways the cars that we pay such highly inflated prices for today are not as much 'car' as the ones back in the day. They are now filled with 'electronics' and computers and so on but frankly the gas mileage has certainly not increased significantly considering the decline in size and strength and relative safety. We pay more, after inflation adjustments, today for less car in many ways. They have lots of fancy features and 'comforts' and luxury accessories (arguably unnecessary and wasteful in environmental terms in my view) but gas mileage has not even doubled with all the excess crap. A new car today is hardly affordable to most unskilled workers and many are now driving cars that are 10 or 15 years old. Those were literally a few hundred dollars in the 1960s and 1970s and even into the 1980s. Today, thousands. People used to pay for a car with cash or financing upto 36 or 48 months (new) and 18 or 24 for used. Housing is incredibly expensive and but for the government's incredibly stupid manipulation of interest rates to near zero with long term mortgages at 4% or so, people could not afford to buy a home. Interest rates cannot economically remain at this artificially low levels indefinitely. Once they return to a more historically normal level, we will see a housing collapse (bubble burst) of staggering proportions, worse than 2008 certainly. None of the 'recovery' of housing prices since then has been real and is nearly all the direct consequence of government driving down mortgage rates. An 7.5% to 9% mortgage rate area will lower the purchase price of the typical home by about 40% or more. Speaking of facts... Are cars today more expensive? Nope... LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 3 Are cars today less safe? Nope... LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 3

Moving from Rumorville to the main forum - will probably get more responses in that location.

Do you have statistics to support this claim? A quick google check of terror attacks in the period Jan 2016 through June 2016 shows the following: January 97 attacks February 68 March 108 April 150 May 197 June 212. It took me long enough to search this and even I was surprised to find that there are this many. I would have guessed perhaps the number would be in the 30 to 45 per month but this is far beyond that. I did not bother to go back a few years or to take all the trouble to do an annual check, although perhaps somebody has already done this and could find the right site to have more numbers, but I would be uncomfortable trusting the federal government in DC to provide any accurate figures in recent years for obvious reasons. This should be enough for even the most liberal amongst you all to say "we must do something and quit all the denial and head up our arses pretending or ignoring. We must act - it is without question world war 3. There are literally thousands of dead and many thousands more being injured and the lives of far too many millions are being adversely impacted by all this terrorist jihad (war). Quite easy to find, and actual data doesn't support your claim that the "terror problem is growing exponentially". LINK 1 LINK 2

REUTERS: Trump tweet attacking Clinton employs image of Jewish star LINK

Abortion Laws Tumble Across the Country LINK

Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to 9 points: Reuters/Ipsos LINK

Gingrich, Christie lead Trump field of U.S. vice presidential possibilities LINK

Indiana's Mike Pence 'In Play' as Possible Trump VP Pick

Fox News Poll: Clinton extends lead over Trump

It's coming from the video player that's embedded on the page. It's not supposed to do that. I've reached out to the vendor to ask that they disable auto playing the audio. Also, moving this to Board Feedback.

Gotcha. Thanks.

To be fair he didn't test very well at all at The Opening this spring neither. So, kind of form over substance? To a coaching eye, in actual games, he's legit. But to a scouting service that relies more on measurable, not so much. That kind of thing?

Yeah, my first guess would be that it's faked. But I can also see how it could just as easily be a campaign member sending a mass email from a non-sanitized contact list. It's happens. Now, if someone can prove it WAS from the campaign and it INTENDED to solicit foreign-based contributions...wow.

Fixed it for you...

Clinton leads Trump by 11 points in U.S. presidential race: Reuters/Ipsos

Trump's Muslim ban: From simple clarity to plain confusion

And as a follow up to the Court's decision...

Not that it matters what I "feel comfortable" with, or you, or anyone other than the Justices, but yes, that is correct. The odds of that happening are relatively small if whomever is appointed honors the doctrine of stare decisis upon which the Court is based, but it could. To say that the evidence "conflicts" is to say that there is no proof that there is fetal pain at 20 weeks, as I pointed out. Your question is unclear. If you are asking me whether it is legal, then the answer is no - what is legal is what was determined by the Court. If you are asking me what I believe should be the standard, then my first response is to refer you to my answer immediately above - it does not matter. I do believe that the Roe decision utilized a flawed legal reasoning. Not on the issue of a right to abortion, but on the framework for determining the "balancing point" between a woman's right to choose and the state's interest. All rights are finite - they must be weighed in relation to all other rights, and at times the balance falls in favor of one right than another. In the case of abortion, I have no problem with the concept that the state has an interest in regulating abortion. But that regulation should be limited to ensuring that the abortion is performed in a manner that is safe and that uses medically appropriate means, both of which means presenting the woman with the requisite knowledge of the risks of whatever procedure is to be used. So long as those parameters are met, the state's interest should end and the woman's interest should take precedence. If that allows abortions at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks, then that would be fine with me.

You're right, women are people. So is the baby inside of them. If they choose for that person whether they live or die, that by definition is murder. Wrong. The woman has a right to abort under the holdings of the Supreme Court. So, by definition, it is NOT murder. Murder is defined by law; the law permits abortions.

No, that's not what you stated. What you stated was, "Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional (sic) clause." Now, as to missing points, you missed three. First, it doesn't matter from where in the Constitution the right is derived. Whether the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Amendments, or interpretation of the rights specified. Every single right enumerated in the Constitution is, and has been, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The right of Free Speech? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude speech that endangers people - the old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" standard, even though no such limitation exists in the Constitution. Right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude felons, even though no such exclusion exists in the Constitution. So, in short, interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court determines the extent of a right - and in the case of abortion, that interpretation is that a woman has a right to choose, balanced against the state's interest. Second, and following the first, all such rights are "equal"; they carry the same Constitutional weight. Third, and derived from the first two, as the Supreme Court interprets all Constitutional rights, it can restrict or expand gun ownership by re-interpreting the Amendment, just as it could the privacy right upon which abortion rests. The only difference - and it makes NO difference as to the validity of the current right of abortion - between the 2nd Amendment and the right to abortion is that the former could only be completely eliminated via Amendment, while the latter could be completely eliminated by the Court. But, again - and most germane to this discussion - it makes no difference as to the current validity of the right. So, the fact that the Constitution does not expressly state a right to abortion, the right is as valid as the right conferred by the 2nd Amendment. Which leads back to my earlier statement - it's a Constitutional right despite your opinion. More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. There have been a handful of studies that have addressed the issue of fetal pain. And in each study, the issue of fetal pain was peripheral to the actual study being conducted. Not a single study done to date has conclusively proven that a fetus experiences pain. Not one study that has undergone peer review or that meets the accepted standard of medical evidence. Studies have shown that a fetus reacts to stimulus - but so does a plant or any other form of life. But "more of the science is heading" that way? Simply not true. First, medical ethics generally prohibits that kind of a study; that's one reason that there has never been a study explicitly and expressly to determine the issue. Second, there is no funding to engage in it; until someone comes up with a way to objectively measure "pain" it can't be done. All that can be done is to look at the development of the physical structures that we know are necessary to experience pain. And on that, science is most definitely NOT moving toward it. All that is happening are doctors expressing opinions; for each claiming fetal pain, there is at least one that claims otherwise. So, no, science is not moving that way. No. Re-read my comments. I addressed two errors you made. I did so very narrowly. When you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never broached the subject of late-term pregnancy.

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with. Sometimes people mistake "socialism" for "civilization." And Fox for news.

While I agree that other countries need to be improved, America is in the position it is in precisely because environmentalist were able to get laws passed that improved the environment. The problem is that there is now a movement to undue those laws and those protections. If the U.S. is to maintain that standing in your graph, constant vigilance is required. But, yes, other countries need it as well.

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes. Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution. While it's not 100% alignment, I will guarantee you that most who staunchly believe in gun control also believe in the right to kill the pre-born. It's no different than saying Republicans are against gun control...I'm sure there are some who are in favor of it, but a high majority will always side with the 2nd amendment. As for the Constituation, I was referring to an amendment specifically calling out the right to an abortion. Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional clause. The right to bear arms is listed as the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech, religion, press, etc... Ah, I see. It's a constitutional right so long as you think it is. Fortunately, that's not the way it works. It's a constitutional right despite your opinion. That's how it works.