|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 02 2013 12:52 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 12:18 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 10:49 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Can we just have a thread where Stealth comes in and copy pastes interesting shit? Like just have his own forum no one can post in where he just alerts us to all of the interesting things going on around us. On May 02 2013 10:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 02 2013 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:During the housing bust, taxpayers were forced to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But thanks to the real estate recovery, Fannie Mae could end up paying tens of billions of dollars back to the Treasury this summer.
That's just one of the factors behind a better bottom line for the federal government. This week, the Treasury Department announced it will pay down some of its debt for the first time in six years.
Washington has been so preoccupied with warnings of exploding deficits in recent years that John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute was caught off guard when he checked out the numbers.
"I'm surprised that more people who talk a lot about it haven't looked carefully at where we find ourselves," he says.
The federal deficit is shrinking rather quickly — both in absolute dollars and as a share of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will drop below 4 percent of GDP next year and below 2.5 percent in 2015. Source Time to cut more! The more you cut in an economy the slower that economy can turn it's gears and get running again. It's a fine line between cutting to much and having no consumer trust in your market and it collapse from lack of capital gain. But cuts equals jobs because job creators have confidence in the government's commitment to debt control! That has never once happened at all... Do you think any business owner has confidence in a society cutting its social structure? Less structure, less money in consumers pockets, less sales. Anyone who thinks cuts equal more jobs is foolish at best and anyone who thinks it increases market trust and job creators interest in the specific market is even worse. Perhaps, however, you can name a single time a federal cut in any country has resulted in business confidence : P, I can't think of one. Cut's are designed to stabilize a market which eventually will encourage growth afterwards but during a federal cut your market trust is always going to be at an all time low and generally after it's a slow climb.
I agree with. I've just been playing devil's advocate. 
|
Active shooter drill. Not the boring kind.
Cammie DeCastro, principal of the Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway, Ore., admits that the plan she had to protect her school from an armed gunman is in tatters after two masked men stormed in and appeared to open fire on a meeting room full of teachers last Friday, The Oregonian reports.
Luckily, the bullets were rubber, the gunmen were school staffers, students were not in the building that day, and the whole thing was a drill. But the teachers were surprised.
If the exercise had been real, teacher Morgan Gover told the newspaper, only two of her colleagues would have survived. She said she was "shot" several times in the back and chest.
[snip]
While a national debate raged over gun control and whether teachers should arm themselves, a man stood in a hallway of Cary-Grove High School in Chicago on Jan. 30, firing blanks from a starter pistol as teachers scrambled to secure their rooms and students ducked under their desks, according to FOX 32. NPR member station KLCC reported that helicopters were going to land outside Elmira High School in Oregon to transport fake victims of an active-shooter drill scheduled for April 27.
In El Paso, Texas, screams and gunshots bounced through the hallways of Eastlake High School on May 22 of last year, as an act of terror was simulated without a warning to students, staff or parents.
KFOX 14 reported that students fired off text messages to their parents. Stephanie Belcher told the news station she received a message that read, “I'm not kidding. There's gunshots and people screaming and we were locked in a storage closet."
Parents' opinions are split on whether schools are wisely responding to the threat of real danger or overreacting to past tragedies with productions so realistic that an actual theater would have hidden that violence offstage.
Luckily no school staffers at the meeting were armed.
Source
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 00:50 aksfjh wrote:
Best way to drill, imo.
For military and law enforcement perhaps. Unwitting civilians could get messy. Not against it, just found the multiple reports interesting. Also. Buzzfeed, NBC, and Rawstory all carrying their own versions of this.
WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is investigating a possible case of human trafficking at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic compound in McLean, Virginia, a DHS official confirmed to BuzzFeed on Wednesday.
"I can confirm that DHS did remove two potential trafficking victims this morning," said Brandon Montgomery, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "
The incident was first reported by the local NBC affiliate, which also reported that Fairfax County records show that the building is owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. NBC reports that "one woman reportedly tried to flee by squeezing through a gap in the front gate as it was closing."
"We don't know anything about that," said a spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy when reached by phone on Wednesday. "The report that we got is that the house belongs to the Saudi armed forces, like the military office."
Should be a interesting story to see resolution(over time).
|
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's decision to appeal a court order lifting age limits on purchasers of the morning-after pill set off a storm of criticism from reproductive rights groups, who denounced it as politically motivated and a step backward for women's health.
"We are profoundly disappointed. This appeal takes away the promise of all women having timely access to emergency contraception," Susannah Baruch, Interim President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said in a statement late Wednesday.
"It is especially troubling in light of the Food and Drug Administration's move yesterday to continue age restrictions and ID requirements, despite a court order to make emergency contraception accessible for women of all ages. Both announcements, particularly in tandem, highlight the administration's corner-cutting on women's health," Baruch said. "It's a sad day for women's health when politics prevails."
The FDA on Tuesday had lowered the age at which people can buy the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill without a prescription to 15 – younger than the current limit of 17 – and decided that the pill could be sold on drugstore shelves near the condoms, instead of locked behind pharmacy counters. It appeared to be a stab at compromise that just made both sides angrier.
After the appeal was announced late Wednesday, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "The prevention of unwanted pregnancy, particularly in adolescents, should not be obstructed by politicians." She called it a "step backwards for women's health."
Last week, O'Neill noted, President Barack Obama was applauded when he addressed members of Planned Parenthood and spoke of the organization's "core principle" that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their health.
"President Obama should practice what he preaches," O'Neill said.
Source
|
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill?
|
On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill?
Why should parents need to be involved. At the age of 16 you can go live on your own if you want. So for 1 year you can't buy the morning after pill even if you live on your own. Secondly, it's none of your parents concern if you are sexually active or not, that's personnel. As long as you are practising safe sex it should be fine. And if by accident you throw up a pill you should be able to take the morning after pill.
Parents have a role in children lives, but children will mess around and society should have a fall back net. It's often easier to talk to your health problems to a nurse or a health worker then your parents, and adolescents should have access to thoses services too.
I just think anything sex health related should be accessible to everyone, and that they are informed and have ressources at their disposal to make informed decisions (like a sex health hotline with trained nurses)
|
On May 03 2013 04:14 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? Why should parents need to be involved. At the age of 16 you can go live on your own if you want. So for 1 year you can't buy the morning after pill even if you live on your own. Secondly, it's none of your parents concern if you are sexually active or not, that's personnel. As long as you are practising safe sex it should be fine. And if by accident you throw up a pill you should be able to take the morning after pill. Parents have a role in children lives, but children will mess around and society should have a fall back net. It's often easier to talk to your health problems to a nurse or a health worker then your parents, and adolescents should have access to thoses services too. I just think anything sex health related should be accessible to everyone, and that they are informed and have ressources at their disposal to make informed decisions (like a sex health hotline with trained nurses)
Actually, at 16 you need for a judge to emancipate you from your parents before a full separation is recognized by law (in the US of course). Furthermore, if you get pregnant at 16, who do you think is going to care for that child come birth time?
|
On May 03 2013 04:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:14 NPF wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? Why should parents need to be involved. At the age of 16 you can go live on your own if you want. So for 1 year you can't buy the morning after pill even if you live on your own. Secondly, it's none of your parents concern if you are sexually active or not, that's personnel. As long as you are practising safe sex it should be fine. And if by accident you throw up a pill you should be able to take the morning after pill. Parents have a role in children lives, but children will mess around and society should have a fall back net. It's often easier to talk to your health problems to a nurse or a health worker then your parents, and adolescents should have access to thoses services too. I just think anything sex health related should be accessible to everyone, and that they are informed and have ressources at their disposal to make informed decisions (like a sex health hotline with trained nurses) Actually, at 16 you need for a judge to emancipate you from your parents before a full separation is recognized by law (in the US of course). Furthermore, if you get pregnant at 16, who do you think is going to care for that child come birth time?
Your second part is a terrible argument because the morning after pill prevents that... the two scenarios aren't even comparable.
|
On May 03 2013 04:36 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:16 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 04:14 NPF wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? Why should parents need to be involved. At the age of 16 you can go live on your own if you want. So for 1 year you can't buy the morning after pill even if you live on your own. Secondly, it's none of your parents concern if you are sexually active or not, that's personnel. As long as you are practising safe sex it should be fine. And if by accident you throw up a pill you should be able to take the morning after pill. Parents have a role in children lives, but children will mess around and society should have a fall back net. It's often easier to talk to your health problems to a nurse or a health worker then your parents, and adolescents should have access to thoses services too. I just think anything sex health related should be accessible to everyone, and that they are informed and have ressources at their disposal to make informed decisions (like a sex health hotline with trained nurses) Actually, at 16 you need for a judge to emancipate you from your parents before a full separation is recognized by law (in the US of course). Furthermore, if you get pregnant at 16, who do you think is going to care for that child come birth time? Your second part is a terrible argument because the morning after pill prevents that... the two scenarios aren't even comparable.
The scenarios are not meant to be equitable, rather that they show the role parents play in the possible pregnancy of a minor under their parentage.
|
That role exists though after a certain point of time after the pregnancy (a point much further down the road then when the morning after pill is effective).
|
On May 03 2013 04:49 Livelovedie wrote:
That role exists though after a certain point of time after the pregnancy (a point much further down the road then when the morning after pill is effective).
Just because the care for a baby doesn't start until 9 months after conception does not mean that all decisions in regards to the immediate aftermath of a possible pregnancy are solely the minors. If an unemancipated minor has or is going to have a baby, the parents are automatically involved via how the law recognizes parental responsibility.
|
On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill?
We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD?
Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control.
|
On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control.
I have no idea how one goes about equating any old bit of OTC medicine with the morning after pill. Abusing OTC meds is one thing, making the decision to prevent a pregnancy, an event that necessarily has legal implication for the parents, is another.
Edit: Just so I'm clear, I'm not decided on the topic, and I despise the manner with which social conservatives use topics such as this to further their agenda. I'm just not convinced that parents should have no say over something like this when they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes.
|
On May 03 2013 05:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control. I have no idea how one goes about equating any old bit of OTC medicine with the morning after pill. Abusing OTC meds is one thing, making the decision to prevent a pregnancy, an event that necessarily has legal implication for the parents, is another. Edit: Just so I'm clear, I'm not decided on the topic, and I despise the manner with which social conservatives use topics such as this to further their agenda. I'm just not convinced that parents should have no say over something like this when they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes.
My point is that many medicines have legal implications for parents. After all, a child could seriously harm or kill themselves, or do the same to others. Shouldn't parents have a say over something like this when "they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes"?
|
On May 03 2013 05:31 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:22 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control. I have no idea how one goes about equating any old bit of OTC medicine with the morning after pill. Abusing OTC meds is one thing, making the decision to prevent a pregnancy, an event that necessarily has legal implication for the parents, is another. Edit: Just so I'm clear, I'm not decided on the topic, and I despise the manner with which social conservatives use topics such as this to further their agenda. I'm just not convinced that parents should have no say over something like this when they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes. My point is that many medicines have legal implications for parents. After all, a child could seriously harm or kill themselves, or do the same to others. Shouldn't parents have a say over something like this when "they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes"?
The difference maker is the possibility of another human being introduced into the equation and the relative impact of the medical treatment being spoken to. Did you know that it is illegal for a doctor to perform surgery on a minor without parental consent? Granted, exceptions are made in life-threatening cases or when the religious beliefs of a parent might conflict with a minor's desire to receive appropriate care, but in general, the law recognizes the parents as arbiters of medical consent for minors under their parentage. Also, it is illegal for schools to give children even OTC drugs without parental consent.
With that in mind, prove to me that a pregnancy is equitable with a cold.
|
United States43803 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control.
I agree. Furthermore this is an absurd limitation to place, it limits the ability of teenagers who are attempting to be responsible and avoid pregnancy to do so. It does nothing to help irresponsible teenagers from becoming parents but forces the ones who need least help to involve their parents in their sex lives.
|
In my opinion I am fine with there being a consent on contraception since it has implications of risk associated to it although I feel it should be everything under 15 which requires such protections.
I dunno why I feel like this though... Maybe it's because if a kid ever died from over dosing on the pill, or rather if I had a kid who did, I would be outraged. I'd have no issue with my daughter having sex, as long as it's safe etc but taking pills that alter your body without speaking to a trained professional always kinda erks me a bit but my knowledge, as I may have hinted at, isn't very abundant and this is off kilter for me since I'm very progressive and socialistic in mind and ideology.
My gut feeling is that condoms and plan B are not relative in any sense just as birth control and plan B arent (obviously the parallel is between birth control and condoms) and I feel any sexually active minor should be eligible to obtain birth control without consent but I feel like Plan B is a different category entirely since it isn't preventative as much as it is reversing.
|
United States43803 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:31 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control. I have no idea how one goes about equating any old bit of OTC medicine with the morning after pill. Abusing OTC meds is one thing, making the decision to prevent a pregnancy, an event that necessarily has legal implication for the parents, is another. Edit: Just so I'm clear, I'm not decided on the topic, and I despise the manner with which social conservatives use topics such as this to further their agenda. I'm just not convinced that parents should have no say over something like this when they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes. My point is that many medicines have legal implications for parents. After all, a child could seriously harm or kill themselves, or do the same to others. Shouldn't parents have a say over something like this when "they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes"? The difference maker is the possibility of another human being introduced into the equation and the relative impact of the medical treatment being spoken to. Did you know that it is illegal for a doctor to perform surgery on a minor without parental consent? Granted, exceptions are made in life-threatening cases or when the religious beliefs of a parent might conflict with a minor's desire to receive appropriate care, but in general, the law recognizes the parents as arbiters of medical consent for minors under their parentage. Also, it is illegal for schools to give children even OTC drugs without parental consent. With that in mind, prove to me that a pregnancy is equitable with a cold.
Plan B is the morning after pill, unless you're a really, really staunch Catholic you would not typically consider someone to be pregnant in the first few hours after sex.
|
On May 03 2013 05:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:31 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 05:17 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote:
I'm ambivalent on the topic of the morning after pill's availability to underage girls. Is it really hypocritical for Obama to suggest that parents ought to be involved when a minor under their parentage seeks the morning after pill? We could easily make the argument that parents should be involved when their minor purchases any sort of drug. After all, what's to stop a 16-year-old boy from buying a bottle of cold medicine and committing suicide by OD? Either there has to be a minimum age where we can sell medication of any sort to minors without parental involvement, or there doesn't. Singling out the morning after pill is simply a way for social conservatives to oppose and limit the availability of birth control. I have no idea how one goes about equating any old bit of OTC medicine with the morning after pill. Abusing OTC meds is one thing, making the decision to prevent a pregnancy, an event that necessarily has legal implication for the parents, is another. Edit: Just so I'm clear, I'm not decided on the topic, and I despise the manner with which social conservatives use topics such as this to further their agenda. I'm just not convinced that parents should have no say over something like this when they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes. My point is that many medicines have legal implications for parents. After all, a child could seriously harm or kill themselves, or do the same to others. Shouldn't parents have a say over something like this when "they are responsible for practically any other decision a minor makes"? The difference maker is the possibility of another human being introduced into the equation and the relative impact of the medical treatment being spoken to. Did you know that it is illegal for a doctor to perform surgery on a minor without parental consent? Granted, exceptions are made in life-threatening cases or when the religious beliefs of a parent might conflict with a minor's desire to receive appropriate care, but in general, the law recognizes the parents as arbiters of medical consent for minors under their parentage. Also, it is illegal for schools to give children even OTC drugs without parental consent.
Which reinforces my point. By your logic, the loophole appears to be that minors can get medication of any sort without parental consent, despite requiring parental consent for other forms of treatment such as surgery.
On May 03 2013 05:37 farvacola wrote:
With that in mind, prove to me that a pregnancy is equitable with a cold.
The treatment for a potential pregnancy the day after conception is equitable with the treatment for a cold (or many other common illnesses): an OTC medication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
