Curmudgeon

If the duty of the president is to keep people out of the US who are potentially contagious with fatal diseases, they have consistently done an appalling job of that, starting way back when with the first guy George Washington. In his day, people kept coming in on those boats with all kinds of nasty contagious diseases and lots of people died. Outrageous!

Sounds like a good responsible plan to me. If you are going to run around city streets with weapons, you are decreasing everyone's safety, you should foot the bill. You should be able to get a lower premium if you do not plan on carrying your gun around in urban areas and just use it in restricted areas like a gun range. A higher premium for hunting, because we all know hunters have a habit of shooting each other and the highest premium for those who want to pretend they are Clint Eastwood.

I'll take that bet. BTW, you're wrong, the % of householders with guns is decreasing annually.


Oh, and win, win. Nothing wrong with the insurance industry making a killing out of leisure activities. Very American

Keep guessing. Eventually, you may come up with the right answer. Personally, I am glad that some people recognize and want to help those suffering in West Africa. Good job

Keep guessing. Eventually, you may come up with the right answer. Personally, I am glad that some people recognize and want to help those suffering in West Africa. Good job

Keep guessing. Eventually, you may come up with the right answer. Personally, I am glad that some people recognize and want to help those suffering in West Africa. Good job

Inadequate access to protective equipment was listed as a major factor in that. Driven by lack of money, not lack of protocol.

Is Obolo giving these away free with the next Democratic vote?

How come drivers in Omaha, Nebraska, haven't started driving more so that there is as much congestion in Omaha as there is in Los Angeles? If it were really true that drivers just drive more or less depending on how many roads are available and how much congestion there is, then every road everywhere would have exactly the same amount of congestion. People don't just drive because it's fun and don't stop driving just because it sucks. They drive because they need to get somewhere.
Now, of course there is a fair bit of hysteresis, which is what the article is showing. When traffic is bad, people who can avoid driving will. If traffic is tolerable, the people who want to get somewhere but don't absolutely need to will come out of the woodwork. But that doesn't mean we should start getting rid of roads. At the end of the day, people need to get places.

the well endowed demographic is underrepresented in vj moderation, or so the ladies tell me.

I like the rose for GlaxoSmithKline. Very touching

Don't think it transmits that way but as we are told time and again here, one can never be too careful.
Better put on them goggles when reading on VJ.

Well it's like anything else with the tabloid news media - the constant wall-to-wall sensationalist commentary on every major channel just feeds people's fears. It's always been like that - it's why there are trends on this site. One week we'll have a million threads about racism, the next it will be about ISIS and mexican immigration. It just has no connection with reality - the news is manufactured as much as it actually reports on factual events. We can't have one story about ebola - we have to have a hundred because feeding the panic keeps people on the edge of their seats.
People aren't talking about what is going on as much as being told what they should be talking about.
Is ebola a concern? Sure. Is it going to end the world? Probably not.

A person is not repatriated for kicks and giggles. If they are repatriated for medical treatment, it is because the medical treatment is not available in the place they are currently residing. It may, or may not, interest you to know that the standard of care in an American hospital is a bit better than in a field hospital in West Africa. I don't begrudge any of these people taking advantage of the care they are entitled to and certainly don't think they have taken any unnecessary or stupid risks in allowing them to be repatriated. I can see the headlines now had their repatriation been refused. It don't bear thinking about really.

You have yet to provide a rational reason against same sex couples marrying. The only reason I have ever heard put forward is that sex with someone of the same sex is a sin and therefore those who 'choose to follow this lifestyle' should be prevented from enjoying the benefits of marriage because allowing 'these people' to call their union marriage is an affront to those who do follow religious credo. That's not a rational argument. Care to provide any reason at all that isn't based on a specific right wing religious view on gay sex?

Did you appose the repatriation of the aid workers? We brought four of those back knowing they were infected. You still haven't addressed why you think banning flights between 'Africa' (a rather large continent with many US economic interests) and the US would be more beneficial in seeking to prevent the spread of Ebola than fighting the disease in the affected communities in West Africa. Do you even have a response to that?

The story is that the FAA stopped flights into one airport because of the danger of rocket attack, one landed less than a mile away . Ted Cruz may have decided this was evidence of something else, but his opinion are not facts and nor is his opinion supported by any available facts. What's surprising is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between facts and speculation . I am not so inhibited.

BEING DEAD AINT A HEALTHY WAY TO LIVE EITHER LIB. NOW GO BACK TO EATING YER HEALTHY CARROTS LIB. MAKE MOOSHELL PROUD. LOLOL!

Addressing the disease at source does make the most sense, yes. That's what the WHO have been saying for quite some time. If there is a mass outbreak of Ebola in the US, it will not be because Obama stopped allowing US planes to operate in and out of West Africa, even if he could, which is a bit dubious given that these are private companies you are asking Obama to interfere with.

Seems that being quite so angry at Obama is a dangerous disease reaching epidemic proportions
Seriously, I don't get why people are so blinkered as to look at this and blame it on domestic politics. The real tragedy is that this was swept under the carpet until people from the US caught the disease. Now, people want to do something about it. Good, attack it at its source, send much more medical aid to West Africa, contain it, get it under control and the chance of it spreading outside of the affected area and turning into an epidemic outside of West Africa are reduced exponentially. Yet, for these misguided souls it's more important to blame Obama and close up the borders. Unbelievable really.
So, rather than getting all hot under the collar because you don't like Obama, why do you not support measures that would actually prevent its spread outside of West Africa, which is not close it off and let them get on with it, but fight the disease at source?

Did you appose the repatriation of the 4 health care workers who were returned to the US in the full knowledge that they had the disease for treatment? Quite. Spreading uninformed hysteria to make out that Obama is failing the US on this issue is just nonsense. The Liberian man did not break any US laws, the US is not going to stop flights in and out of West Africa and suggesting that Obama thinks it's 'all good' is quite frankly rubbish. What is being said is, that the current risk of a mass Ebola outbreak in the US is extremely small. However, you may want to take on board the fact that if the current spread of the disease in West Africa continues unabated, the risk for a mass Ebola outbreak in the US will increase greatly, regardless of what border measures the US may take. Get them facts on board and you might face this crisis head on. I doubt you will though, it seems it's a lot more fun to play games with the name Obama than actually take the crisis seriously and address it where it's going to matter most.

Addressing the disease at source does make the most sense, yes. That's what the WHO have been saying for quite some time. If there is a mass outbreak of Ebola in the US, it will not be because Obama stopped allowing US planes to operate in and out of West Africa, even if he could, which is a bit dubious given that these are private companies you are asking Obama to interfere with.

Did you appose the repatriation of the 4 health care workers who were returned to the US in the full knowledge that they had the disease for treatment? Quite. Spreading uninformed hysteria to make out that Obama is failing the US on this issue is just nonsense. The Liberian man did not break any US laws, the US is not going to stop flights in and out of West Africa and suggesting that Obama thinks it's 'all good' is quite frankly rubbish. What is being said is, that the current risk of a mass Ebola outbreak in the US is extremely small. However, you may want to take on board the fact that if the current spread of the disease in West Africa continues unabated, the risk for a mass Ebola outbreak in the US will increase greatly, regardless of what border measures the US may take. Get them facts on board and you might face this crisis head on. I doubt you will though, it seems it's a lot more fun to play games with the name Obama than actually take the crisis seriously and address it where it's going to matter most.

The discussion over marriage has been going on for years. The arguments today remain the same from back when Prop. 8 was made it to the ballot. Years later and no one can come up with a rational reason. In fact, the arguments against marriage remain very much the same as they were in the wake of Loving v. Virginia, which indicates they are fueled by ignorance and bigotry alone.

So you're saying Obama knew about Ebola?

I bet Michelle grew Ebola in her garden then sent it back to Africa with Barack's family.

Seems that being quite so angry at Obama is a dangerous disease reaching epidemic proportions
Seriously, I don't get why people are so blinkered as to look at this and blame it on domestic politics. The real tragedy is that this was swept under the carpet until people from the US caught the disease. Now, people want to do something about it. Good, attack it at its source, send much more medical aid to West Africa, contain it, get it under control and the chance of it spreading outside of the affected area and turning into an epidemic outside of West Africa are reduced exponentially. Yet, for these misguided souls it's more important to blame Obama and close up the borders. Unbelievable really.
So, rather than getting all hot under the collar because you don't like Obama, why do you not support measures that would actually prevent its spread outside of West Africa, which is not close it off and let them get on with it, but fight the disease at source?