America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

What does the number have to be in order for it to change your mind?

One. When the hypothetical was presented, it was presented as being such a likely scenario that the school had to reasonably forsee it as a possible consequence.

What do you think of the policy at Ryan Gibbon's school, that prevented him from carrying an inhaler because some big forehead decided it was best to keep all the inhalers in the office?

I'd say you're getting half the story. The school would keep inhalers - like EpiPens - in the office as a redundancy. But it would be expected that a student also keeps one on their person, and it would be expected that their equipment is maintained properly.

And are you telling me that my government has been lying to me about paying elementary and secondary school teachers $94,000 a year and that they actually work for next to nothing?

There are some benefits to private education. In the town I grew up in, private education is pretty much your only choice because the Catholic schools are so well-run and the state schools are less so (but having worked in them, they're getting better). There is no one hard and fast rule that says private is better than public or vice versa. My school does well because the teaching staff are pretty much hand-picked by each faculty and we have really good teaching programmes. But if you go to some of the more affluent areas on the North Shore, the public system isn't great because it's filled with the kids who were let go by the big private schools.

When I quoted the $250, that was the yearly school fee. We charge parents for the cost of school uniforms and a basic starter kit of books and stationery. School fees in the private system are considerably higher - and that's after the government subsidies designed to make it affordable for the everyday citizen.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The American Medical Association votes to BAN direct to consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. Obviously, the vote has to be enacted by Congress to become law, but as things stand now, if the ban is enacted, New Zealand would be the only country in the world to allow direct to consumer advertisements of drugs.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/513791597666643968

 

[squadops]

I'm in big favour of this, not only for moral reasons but I get sick and tired of seeing some old man throw a football through a tyre swing signifying his penis erectness.

 

[DG_Silva]

About time too. It's your doctor who should tell you which tablets to take, not the other way around...

 

[Johnnypenso]

The American Medical Association votes to BAN direct to consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. Obviously, the vote has to be enacted by Congress to become law, but as things stand now, if the ban is enacted, New Zealand would be the only country in the world to allow direct to consumer advertisements of drugs.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/513791597666643968

I imagine that the television and cable networks, print media etc. along with the drug manufacturers themselves, will lobby hard against this. Billions of dollars in advertising revenue are on the line and they won't go down without a fight.

 

[LeMansAid]

There's some reason why the ban would not be counter to a purist libertarian and free market set up?

There's the prescription aspect, but isn't that anti-freedom itself anyway?

 

[Pupik]

The American Medical Association votes to BAN direct to consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. Obviously, the vote has to be enacted by Congress to become law, but as things stand now, if the ban is enacted, New Zealand would be the only country in the world to allow direct to consumer advertisements of drugs.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/513791597666643968

I'm in big favour of this, not only for moral reasons but I get sick and tired of seeing some old man throw a football through a tyre swing signifying his penis erectness.

My favorite part is when they quietly mention "rare cases of death" for a drug that attempts to cure an itchy kneecap.

On one hand, people may not be aware of a possible cure for something, but there's kind of that awkward feeling that hypochondriacs now have a problem they didn't know they had. I guess it washes out, but the former case is a far stronger argument for keeping it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm in big favour of this, not only for moral reasons but I get sick and tired of seeing some old man throw a football through a tyre swing signifying his penis erectness.

What's the moral reason?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I get sick and tired of seeing some old man throw a football through a tyre swing signifying his penis erectness.

This is the first time in history that anyone has ever said this sentence.

 

[squadops]

What's the moral reason?

If every tv owner was educated enough to choose their medications then why the need for them to be prescription only?

I'd like to see some advos for oxycontin

 

[LeMansAid]

If every tv owner was educated enough to choose their medications then why the need for them to be prescription only?

So you agree with there being laws in place to protect the uneducated from their own decisions?

 

[squadops]

Either one, or the other 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

If every tv owner was educated enough to choose their medications then why the need for them to be prescription only?

I'd like to see some advos for oxycontin

I don't see any morality based reasoning there.

 

[squadops]

OK, exploiting illness then, not to mention baiting. I don't see how you can have it both ways tbh.

BTW. I don't think there needs to be a law, I'm smart enough to take my doctor's advice, the same way I'm smart enough to listen to my lawyer or accountant. I hire qualified people to do it for me.

You see, it's all part of personal responsibilities. Much the same as how libertarians think, our government was formed only for a responsible people and unfortunately that is not what we currently are.

 

[LeMansAid]

You see, it's all part of personal responsibilities.

I don't see how you can have it both ways tbh.

I'm finding your responses confusing, and it appears that YOU (from what I understand, a libertarian) want to have it both ways. How can you reconcile asking for personal responsibility to reign in regards to recreational drugs (I assume you do), but not with medical drugs? I ask the same of @Noob616, and @BobK. Where's the consistency? If we were to make all drugs equal according to your apparent ethos on medical ones, we'd need written permission to buy designated amounts of alcohol, and there would be no tv advertising allowed by law. But maybe I'm missing something.

Side question - do you live, or have you lived, in New Mexico?

 

[Johnnypenso]

OK, exploiting illness then, not to mention baiting. I don't see how you can have it both ways tbh.

BTW. I don't think there needs to be a law, I'm smart enough to take my doctor's advice, the same way I'm smart enough to listen to my lawyer or accountant. I hire qualified people to do it for me.

You see, it's all part of personal responsibilities. Much the same as how libertarians think, our government was formed only for a responsible people and unfortunately that is not what we currently are.

How is it exploiting illness? There's a mutual benefit. The drug company gets profits, the consumer gets wood. Who is exploited? And how do you know your doctor is impartial? How do you know he isn't pushing one drug or the other?

"Your doctor may be a bought man or woman, and owe more allegiance to the pharmaceutical industry than to you," says Dr. Schwartz. "Unfortunately, most doctors define success by how much money they make, how quickly they can perform a procedure, or how many publications carry their names, rather than by how connected, caring, and profound their relationships with their patients are," says Dr. Schwartz, chief medical officer at the Age Management Institute in New York City.

Source

 

[squadops]

@LeMansAid, I am not a Libertarian. If I thought people would take on the task then I prolly would be but as it stands, I am what is referred to as a compassionate conservative or some sort of not needed label.

@Johnnypenso, see below 👍

We'll see what they have to say then...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

And this guy exactly?

http://usat.ly/1SZXS8w Thanks to @prousonhairy

 

[TenEightyOne]

Justice Scalia has reportedly died. BBC.

 

[polysmut]

Justice Scalia has reportedly died. BBC.

The ability of a president to shape the Supreme Court for years if not decades has been an important consideration for many voters in US presidential campaigns - but it is usually an abstract concern. With the passing of conservative firebrand Scalia, that is no longer the case.

Even if Mr Obama gets a nominee confirmed, the power his successor will hold is now crystal clear. Three of the eight remaining justices are over the age of 70.

I don't expect it to affect many people's voting decisions very much in the Presidential Election though. If they're left or right leaning then surely they'd vote as such anyway?

 

[Liquid]

I'll bet the thing most people know about "Anthony" Scalia, as Michelle Bachmann called him, is that Bender robbed him.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Two bullet points:

- Justice Scalia's death was officially caused by a heart attack. However, the body was embalmed before any autopsy will be conducted or performed. Under Texas state law, the body has to be embalmed before being transported across state lines, which in Justice Scalia's case the body would probably go to Virginia. Source

- Any attempt by Obama to fill Scalia's seat while the Senate is in recess will fail. According to the research arm of the Washington Post, in 1960, the Democrat Senate passed Resolution S.RES.334, which states:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.

The Post goes on and says that, "Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time."

 

[Chrunch Houston]

- Any attempt by Obama to fill Scalia's seat while the Senate is in recess will fail. According to the research arm of the Washington Post, in 1960, the Democrat Senate passed Resolution S.RES.334, which states:



The Post goes on and says that, "Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time."

I was looking for this resolution and found this.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
It says the resolution didn't pass. I am not sure that I trust the information on that website so I went to congress.gov. But it only goes back to 1973.

Regardless of that resolution, given their track record of the past five years, I'm sure the Democrats will do anything and everything they can to get a new jurist on the Supreme Court before the November elections.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I was looking for this resolution and found this.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
It says the resolution didn't pass. I am not sure that I trust the information on that website so I went to congress.gov. But it only goes back to 1973.

Actually, that vote was a motion to recommit vote, which would have sent the resolution back to committee (and hopefully die). It did fail 33-52.

 

[x3ra]

Justice Scalia has reportedly died. BBC.

Probably murdered.

 

[Pupik]

Most Supreme Court cases aren't argued this time of year, so having a SCOTUS judge immediately isn't actually necessary at this time. The hearings and election procedure usually takes a few weeks anyhow, moreso if there's some sort of questionable* issue with the nomination.

* Mmmm...Burger.

I'm sure the Democrats will do anything and everything they can to get a new jurist on the Supreme Court before the November elections.

As well Senators should; why should the normal election process affect the nomination of a Judge? May-June is when most cases are heard, and to prevent deadlocks, they should fill the vacancy...delaying the process nine months could be harmful to the judicial process. However, if there should be another vacancy, or a vote abstention, then it wouldn't be necessary; that would be a less-likely scenario, and shouldn't be planned for.

I will grant that up until vaguely 30 years ago, the Senate was pretty good about filling voids in an order that varied from liberal to conservative, averaging out as necessary, without regards to packing the court too much one way or another. Despite biased changes to that process, why does a Republican-majority Senate trouble you? Is a moderate really the worst-case scenario?

Probably murdered.

Probably by Cersei Lannister.

 

[Liquid]

Is there a maximum amount of time whereby a new associate justice must be nominated?

 

[Dotini]

Most of the appellate court judges at the level just below the supreme court were Democrat appointments. So it should suit Democrats for the supreme court to stay at the current 4 Democrat appointees and 4 Republican appointees.

In 1960 the senate resolved to make no supreme court appointments in an election year.

But eventually the president must make a nomination and the senate act to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, the constitution stands violated.

Edit: Supposedly, Scalia was found with a pillow covering his head. If it was murder, then the suspect must be Varys.

 

[BobK]

Otherwise, the constitution stands violated.

Your point?

Like, they don 't routinely do that now?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think the Republicans should worry if they are confident in a win in November. I wouldn't be surprised to see three or four deaths in the next 4-8 years. They're getting old.

 

[Biggles]

I don't think the Republicans should worry if they are confident in a win in November. I wouldn't be surprised to see three or four deaths in the next 4-8 years. They're getting old.

I don't think they are that confident - & what if the new Republican President is Trump? How could they be sure that a President Trump wouldn't nominate Gary Busey ... or Meatloaf?

There also seems to be some talk of Obama being a possible candidate. Either way, the key for each party is to ensure that they are the winner in the upcoming General.