COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

I've acknowledged your source. I've asked you for more like I've given you more. Its not that hard. All the scrambling you're doing tells me you dont have any others. Like I said a couple of days ago, this is you waving the white flag and everyone knows it.

---

If the source is unrefuted (which to date it is) then no more is needed. Given that you haven't even checked the first source you are also undeserved of more to boot. I take your surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

If the source is unrefuted (which to date it is) then no more is needed. Given that you haven't even checked the first source you are also undeserved of more to boot. I take your surrender.

---

Its not though. That's the point and there is more evidence that says people support abortion rights than you can provide that people don't. That's what continually eludes you or you just ignore it because you have nothing else.

Wait… this whole argument over sources was about whether more people than not support some form of abortion? Of course they do. Virtually every poll shows more Americans believes some form of abortion should be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Wait… this whole argument over sources was about whether more people than not support some form of abortion? Of course they do. Virtually every poll shows more Americans believes some form of abortion should be legal.

---

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...26c5261deb.jpg
Yeah but these are the same people who think Trump won the election because he has more red


Point is, statistics only matter to them when it supports their point…and they’re too dumb to argue any opposing points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Its not though. That's the point and there is more evidence that says people support abortion rights than you can provide that people don't. That's what continually eludes you or you just ignore it because you have nothing else.

---

No, you have not refuted the data provided.
That's all on you.

You are like a person who lost their keys, finds them, and yet keeps looking for them. Makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Wait… this whole argument over sources was about whether more people than not support some form of abortion? Of course they do. Virtually every poll shows more Americans believes some form of abortion should be legal.

---

Correct. When you factor in those that do not and those that wanted it limited to rape/life threatening that's over 50% of the population. I even provided a source but the left refuses as usual and then complains no source was given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Correct. When you factor in those that do not and those that wanted it limited to rape/life threatening that's over 50% of the population. I even provided a source but the left refuses as usual and then complains no source was given.

---

Not all sources are created equal. What source was it?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Here’s Gallup polls on the matter. 2/3 generally opposed overturning Roe v Wade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Not all sources are created equal. What source was it?

---

It was brought out on a Radio Show a week or two back. The data is what needs to be attacked, not the source of the data. I thought we discussed this already. Perhaps not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Not all sources are created equal. What source was it?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Here’s Gallup polls on the matter. 2/3 generally opposed overturning Roe v Wade.

---

63% none or limited. Huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

It was brought out on a Radio Show a week or two back. The data is what needs to be attacked, not the source of the data. I thought we discussed this already. Perhaps not.

---

You and Mets maybe. Where did the radio show get the data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

63% none or limited. Huh.

---

Yes, but it doesn’t say why those limitations are. Huh.

Roe v Wade had limitations. Again, 2/3 did not want it repealed…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

It was brought out on a Radio Show a week or two back. The data is what needs to be attacked, not the source of the data. I thought we discussed this already. Perhaps not.

---

So you don’t consider sources when consuming info? You just regurgitate without any critical thought? At all? That’s rather reckless and irresponsible.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

-Stork

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

You and Mets maybe. Where did the radio show get the data?

---

Good question for the show, would it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Yes, but it doesn’t say why those limitations are. Huh.

Roe v Wade had limitations. Again, 2/3 did not want it repealed…

---

That's a different topic. There are 63% that want none or limited. That's what I've argued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by themadstork

So you don’t consider sources when consuming info? You just regurgitate without any critical thought? At all? That’s rather reckless and irresponsible.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

-Stork

---

You spun out of control. Makes sense, you are left.

Data is what is to be analyzed, not the source. A two year old comes to you and says 2+2=4 and you spend time refuting the source and ignore the data completely. The source means nothing. The data is all that matters.

You're welcome.