StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) Actually...I really think I could. (assuming of course I had some symptoms of having a cold). Antibiotics? No, those require a prescription, at least in this country, to cut down on their use. The "morning after" pill requires a prescription as well under current HHS rules.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) Well, sorry, I don't buy that being forced to talk to a doctor is a "lecture" or "shaming." It's educational. It's a requirement with any other prescription drug you get for the first time. You can't just go to Walgreens and ask for a bottle of anti-biotics because you've read an article on WebMD. If these drugs require a prescription for good, medical reasons, fine. That's different from what these laws require. They require unnecessary procedures and require that a doctor lectures the patient with very specific anti-abortion language. that's a pretty big invasion of privacy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:22 PM) Abortion restrictions aren't about shaming, they're attempting to lessen the number of abortions. via shaming There's a clinic I pass every day on my way to work. More often than not, there's some anti-abortion group protesting out there. But "unnecessary medical procedures where a large wand is shoved up your genitals" is all about shaming as are numerous other reporting requirements.

No, there's an important difference there. The act I don't want people to perform is "gun violence," and gun control is one mean of obtaining that end. There are other ways as well, like addressing poverty. The act you don't want people to perform is "abortions," and you are more than happy to allow the government to override what a patient and a doctor deem to be medically necessary and sufficient. Your end is restricting abortions, so there's not some alternative policy you could hypothetically support that gets around restricting abortions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) So a handgun or assault weapon ban isn't limiting the availability of the guns themselves, it's limiting gun violence? Gotcha. Still confusing direct and indirect effects and means vs. ends. Gun control laws are attempts to limit gun violence via limiting, controlling, or allowing for the tracking of firearms. They are not put in place as punitive laws to discourage gun ownership itself. Not every law that you don't like is intentionally antagonistic to you. Anti-abortion laws, like the proposed law in Indiana or dozens of others passed recently, are intentionally antagonistic.

Credit to George Will for this good column on solitary confinement Our whole penal system is pretty broken, but this is a particularly bad practice.

I want to put restrictions on guns because I want to limit gun violence, not because I want to limit guns themselves. You want to put restrictions on abortions because you want to eliminate abortions themselves. The purpose of these pills or procedures is to get an abortion, which is what you want to stop. Unless you're going to argue that the purpose of owning a gun is to commit gun violence, then your analogy fails. Here's a more explicit difference: I'm not interested in eliminating guns because I have a moral problem with guns themselves. I actually think we could do more to address the gun violence in this country by focusing on poverty and would rather follow those means anyway. This doesn't hold up when you switch to abortions, because your end is to restrict abortions themselves. Means vs. ends, direct vs. indirect. By all means, though, keep comparing a woman's bodily autonomy to purchasing firearms. Convince your congressional candidates to do the same, too.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) You think abortions are fine and guns are evil. I'm the opposite. That's literally the only difference here. Nope. I don't think guns are evil. I think some things done with guns are evil and would like to take steps to address those problems. Some of those steps will result in increased burdens on gun owners. That's distinctly different from these abortion policies which are designed to limit abortions themselves. No, still not the same. The waiting period may seem that way superficially, but not when you dig down into what's actually at stake and what the restrictions actually impose. Buying a material good isn't the same as obtaining medical care, and a (medically unnecessary) waiting period can significantly complicate issues. This is especially true in rural areas where a woman may need to drive several hours to get to the nearest clinic; requiring a waiting period extends this trip into an overnight stay, producing a substantial burden on someone who is young, working, poor or all three. These same restrictions don't apply in the same way to purchasing a gun for a variety of reasons, but a key one would be the density of federal firearms dealers vs. licensed abortion clinics, especially in rural and conservative states. No, you're still confusing direct and indirect.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Right, because in your mind there's no legitimate basis to oppose abortion. I disagree, strongly. It's not a "f*** you" to women, it's a "i feel very strongly that there's a good argument that you're killing life by doing so, and while I respect your ultimate right to make that decision on your own, I have no problem making you wait, making you pay for it on your own, making you have to see a doctor, etc." Nope, still doesn't work. You can argue that it's killing life, but you can't argue that these types of laws are anything but a big, gigantic f*** you to women. They are not medically necessary. They serve no purpose other than to make the process more difficult for women. And, despite statements that you respect their rights, you're a-ok with making it more difficult to exercise those rights simply because you don't like them. There's no justification for these laws outside of a literal "f*** you unnecessarily with a 7" wand" disrespect for a woman's autonomy. Nope, still wrong. Those gun control measures are proposed to address the very real problem of gun violence in this country. You may disagree with their efficacy, but they are not proposed as 'punishment' for gun owners. They're proposed as ways to reduce gun violence in this country, which is a universally accepted goal.

My bathroom demo and rebuild started out with a leak in the drain pipe underneath the tub that was a little difficult to get to.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) Lol, so which is it - everyone should have the right to have kids or everyone should have the right to get rid of their kids? yes.

Oh, klahoma Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs…and Get an A in Science Class!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) Gun requirements some liberals want add all of those. More time (background checks, wait periods), more expense (training classes/certification/registration/possibly insurance), and humiliation (having to disclose medical records even if you suffer from something "minor" like anxiety/depression) - all of which are unnecessary and with little to no proof they would result in ANY change and probably would effect the poor more than the rich. Buying a gun isn't analogous to a woman's choices over her own body. There are legitimate goals behind all of those that aren't simply meant as a "f*** you" to someone trying to buy a gun.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) Do you REALLY think that's a terrible position to have? WTF is this country coming to when someone expects people to not be irresponsible in BRINGING A LIFE INTO THIS WORLD WITHOUT THE MEANS TO DO IT? I think it's terrible to: 1) oppose egalitarian policies that would do something about the massive economic inequalities in this country that make it so that the median American family can barely afford to raise a kid or two 2) also oppose widespread access to birth control 3) also oppose abortion and attempt to make it as difficult as possible 4) also oppose adequate social welfare programs for children procreation shouldn't be a luxury good reserved for the well-to-do.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) It's not tit for tat, it's calling out poor liberal logic when it comes to issues they care about versus issues conservatives care about. No, it's a terrible argument. You're not calling out any "poor logic" there. Oh? There have been a huge number of state-level anti-abortion bills passed since the "small government! freedom and individual liberty!" tea party conservatives swept into office in 2011. This bill is already out of committee. Similar bills actually passed in Virginia last year, but were modified to be slightly-less-horrible after national pushback. See, this is where your calling out of "poor liberal logic" falls apart. I don't want stronger background checks for gun purchases because I think owning a gun is a bad thing. I don't want that process in place because I want to make it as onerous and as difficult as possible to purchase again simply as a punitive measure to dissuade someone from getting a gun. On the other hand, that's exactly why this mandatory ultrasound bills are put in place: to punish those evil sluts who can't just keep their legs closed. It's sexist to assume that women don't know what pregnancy is and what it entails and that it's only after they're forced to have a doctor shove a wand up their crotch that they'll truly understand. I'm not going to spare you my bulls*** that a woman should be free to control her own body without having to undergo unnecessary and invasive medical procedures. I don't care why a woman is choosing an abortion, and I unconditionally oppose any unnecessary and purely punitive barriers that are put in place by anti-abortion lawmakers designed specifically to slow the process down and discourage a woman from seeking the medical care she desires. Yes, it is. There's no other way to perform the procedure that would be required by this law at the stages where a pill would be effective. Over-the-stomach ultrasounds just don't work at those early stages, which means you're left with having to have a large wand shoved into your genitals. Not for any real medical reason related to the abortion, of course, just because.

It adds time, expense and humiliation for absolutely no medical reason. It's entirely a punitive measure designed to make abortions more expensive and more difficult to get. It leads to less clinics offering these services and less access, especially for poorer women. Should you be required to undergo a 7" rectal probe if you want to get checked out for high blood pressure? It's just an extra step, right??

Hired someone to keep the project length to a minimum. The contractor was hired through the kitchen store, but this was who we used: http://www.honeaconstruction.com/2.html

The subtext remains text

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode85 edit: they were testing one bullet at a time, not a magazine full of them. still, why would anyone ever keep bullets in a device that's meant to heat up to several hundred degrees?

Mythbusters did this years ago

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) We need more poor women having babies they can't afford. I'm sure everyone will be glad to chip in to help raise them. jenks has told us that the poors and even median-income families shouldn't be 'irresponsible' and have children they 'can't afford.'

Why do conservatives always see things in punitive, tit-for-tat ways? "You want more restrictions on guns? Fine, then I want medically unnecessary and incredibly invasive and pointless procedures for women!" How on earth does that make any sense to someone? No, I'm not going to spare you any "bulls***" about your sexist views on female reproductive rights and your made-up stats that just happen to confirm your pre-conceived notions or your complete lack of understanding of what these procedures are, why they're being required and when they're applicable.

1) you've got that backwards, regular ultrasounds don't work early on. neither are in any way medically necessary for what they're being required for. 2) f*** off with your "Close your legs!" bulls***. Here's an idea: stop trying to control female sexuality.

Grassley believes that Native Americans are incapable of fairly trying a non-Indian: so should we throw out all minority convictions if the jury is all-white?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 21, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) It says in the article it doesn't actually specify a vaginal ultrasound. And then it totally fails to explain why that person thinks it's a requirement, but makes sure to give a nice visual of the invasive "procedure!" Basically this is a - if you're going to have an abortion, you need to get checked out first. The horror! They might show a woman a beating heart and she might change her mind! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Yeah, it's pretty horrible to force women to undergo an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure under the paternalistic and misogynistic assumption that the woman hasn't already thought this over. You don't need a wand shoved up your crotch in order to take a pill. Basically, this is a - if you want an abortion, we're going to make it as invasive and humiliating as possible, oh, and more expensive, too! edit: it's a transvaginal because that's the only method of performing what the bill would require at that stage of pregnancy.