kelpdiver

We see enough cases where people forget they have a handgun in their brief cases or purse, make it past TSA inspection, and then inform the plane mid flight. Which leads to a gross overreaction where they divert the flight. For every time this occurs, figure at least 10 more sensible people saved the plane (and themselves the hassle) and kept their mouth shut, and learned a lesson. People forget fruit or food all the time, particularly after an international flight. So long as it gets tossed in the terminal, who cares? Will all people know they have been exposed to Ebola? Given its difficulty of transmission, generally yes. But absolutely? No. You could come into contact with someone who has just turned symtomatic without noticing. Looks feverish? Hell, in Africa I look like I'm sweating to death every hour of the day. But again, for all this drama - AIDS is killing a million Africans every year. The common flu, nevermind the exotic types, is killing at least tens of thousands of Americans each year. I worry a lot more about drunk drivers than I do ebola.

It's hard to hijack a rudderless thread. Rush posts that a second term president is unpopular. Wow - like just about every other one we've had: Shrub- highly unpopular in last 2 years Clinton- being impeached Reagan- threatened with being impeached, senile Nixon- quit before being impeached LBJ- didn't even run due to unpopularity over Vietnam Eisenhower goes back too far for me and is not deeply covered in political science or history, but the voters did (narrowly) opt to change parties in 1960.

OK, so what did the 4 guys before him "accomplish" by whatever definition you like to use. (hopefully the definition isn't dependent on the party membership of each)

If they do it'll be a 5-4 decision. there has been a long running trend that the fruits of innocent error are admissible evidence. Particularly if the guy consented to the search (that article did not say), tough luck for him. it does stretch credibility that a LEO didn't know a basic aspect of the vehicle code - certainly feel like a pretext to go on a fishing expedition.

People who are interested in how things work? People read these memoirs for the same reason why people are interested in declassified documents from the US/USSR during the Cold War. A lot of detail is not disclosed at the time, or in the years after. For example, Obama can't really talk about what goes on behind closed doors with Putin right now - both are still leading their countries and such disclosure could damage relations. In 20 years, we might hear a lot more. Political wonks want to know the nitty gritty of how shit actually happens. Not the bullshit 3 branches, checks and balances nonsense you learn in grade school, but how the sausage actually gets made. And then you have the fanboys (esp the Fox ones) who won't actually read the book, but just buy it to defend their master. Or vice versa. In this case, Panetta looks to be trying to sell to the other side, the ones that hate the current Administration.

Vietnam started with a small US troop presence to advise the local military. How did that work out? If you look at most of our involvements that blew up into large scale deployments, they show the same pattern. Forgive me if I ignore Panetta's claim here that things would have been different. It defies common sense - if a large military force can't solve a broken situation, how is a tiny force going to? A strong dictator type can keep order in a nation with critical sectarian divide, generally via the use of brute force. But if he is deposed, either internally or by an outside force, that controlling force is gone and chaos ensues until there is a new balance. The most common US (or Brit or Russian or X] answer is to install a new ruthless dictator. Short of that, not fuck all we can do to make everyone in Iraq happy and to not shoot each other to try to win.

It appears to have occurred only at a single hotel, rather than a home office directive. So a broad penalty is not really called for, and in the aggregate would be worse for the customers.

I think his rationalization is that since he's asymtomatic, he's not putting anyone at risk and he improves his chances substantially. And if (and very likely) no one on the plane gets sick, that is proven out. But the actions with the ER show a bit less care and thinking. Or really none at all. If there are additional cases, I would expect it to center around that.

do we have forum rules on war crimes? He is highly entertaining at times. And confusing as hell at other times, a mix of language quirks and ranting.

I suppose he isn't as protected when he speaks his mind. He isn't a good friend of te moderators, and doesn't share their political views. So when the rules are breached he doesn't get a pass like others. was that not true earlier? You said he waited for this opportunity.

ridiculous cost/benefit ratio aside, quarantines "over there" are not effective for protecting US soil. They're not going to be in an isolation chamber, they then are going to the airport somehow and interacting with even more people, and then they're getting on that crowded plane with 17" seat width. Plenty of opportunity for exposure. So all you've created is considerable expense and a false sense of security (which means the TSA would be wildly in favor)

You started this thread with a rant that the people didn't get a chance to vote for Obamacare. This sort of direct vote by the masses was explicitly what the Framers did not want. They feared pure democracy.

You're mad because we don't individually vote on all federal decisions? Sounds like Switzerland is right for you then, but this is how America has operated for well over 200 years.

Even a great leader would have had trouble getting reelected after that term. The financial shocks from post Vietnam and the rise of OPEC would have happened regardless and no one is going to be happen in a term of high inflation. Tea Party types should bear in mind the one decision Carter did have control over was to keep deficit spending very low, the lowest we had seen in the post WW2 era aside from the last few of the Clinton Administration. Reagan spent our way out of that with IOUs and every President since has taken the same route to poor economies. The EU as a rule took the austerity route in response to 2008 and continues to limp along.

Of course it requires full international cooperation & coordination. The guy connected thru Brussels. US Customs should have the full flight history available, so those who fly home via Europe (most common) should be identifiable. But the sheer number of travelers has to be considered, along with the number of potential diseases of concern. Houston, Atlanta, Newark, SFO, LA would need massive compounds of individual rooms and the staff to feed/clean. Completely inpractical, particularly for the actual risk and the best expected outcome (unsuccessful, and putting all travelers together just increases the spread of undesirable pathogens). Ebola brings out a very extreme emotional response, but let's compare the toll of this outbreak to the annual million deaths in Africa to HIV, or the death toll every year to the common flu and the potential deaths to one of the super flus (swine, bird, etc).

46 more white people with Ebola before the cure (the Onion).

Tell you what - you agree that it would be hypocritical to have tried to used recent years violence as to support your claim that the 2nd Amendment is bad for Chicago, and I'll waste the time to find your postings that do exactly that. The only valid response to this would be "yes" or "never you mind," Translation: kelpdiver made a claim which he is unable to back up with any proof. if you said yes, I would have backed it up. But since you instead took the extra effort to write 15 other words, it's pretty obvious the intent is to waste my time. All the regulars know your history all too well. If it looks like a hypocrite and talks like one....

Holder won't be missed, even if he's just the messenger most of the time.

I don't think these laws are aimed at carbon footprint, but rather than issue of garbage in the landfills and in that collection point in the Pacific where currents tend to push them. Reaction to these sort of laws is a rational acceptance, and irrational irritation at being nanny'd, particularly the excessive 10 cent punitive tax, and a rational analysis that it's about 50% full of shit. But other nations went this route long before us. I had a lot of reuse patterns for these paper and plastic bags. plastic wrapped meat should continue to be bagged as well; it doesn't seem to be in the exception list. Sounds like a good way to spread pathogens.

Tell you what - you agree that it would be hypocritical to have tried to used recent years violence as to support your claim that the 2nd Amendment is bad for Chicago, and I'll waste the time to find your postings that do exactly that. The only valid response to this would be "yes" or "never you mind,"

Much as it pains you to think of as a dad of 3 girls, ladies do make bad decisions when drunk, and many are just as horny as the men and make conscious decisions to jump in bed. I have little sympathy for their next morning regrets, much of it coming from our instilled Puritan beliefs. So I can't favor laws that attack these men in an effort to get easier school expulsions against the actual rapists. The fact that we still see ~20,000 deaths a year due to drunk driving demonstrates that we'll "avoiding being drunk" is not a practical expectation to have of people. It's the nature of it - you might say I'll only have 2 drinks and then stop, but the buzz of 2 drinks leads you to reconsider and next thing you know you're downed 6. One can avoid the temptation to then drive home by having planned to use a cab/bus/train/Uber in the first place. Going to parties in groups is a similar defensive move, though that may be more about avoiding roofies and other serious attacks.

Mirage, no one (I believe) is making personal judgments on you in this thread based on your postings. But you're wrong on this matter. Flat out wrong. As Skydekker points out, why if two people get drunk and fuck, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim? You want this to be about passed out women, but this bill covers much greater ground. A lousy law is not a good start to solving a problem. Particularly unconstitutional ones (since the law explicitly ignore actual rape charges in the criminal system, it might stand up, but that again proves how inappropriate it actually is). What can you tell your three daughters? You can tell them that drinking leads to poor decisions, that men have used social lubricants to get some, that it's a good idea to have a wingwoman at a Frat party. Along with that they are the victim in a forcible rape event and yes, the situation is a bit unfair to them.

I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals. Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant. This. Though the lack of citizenship isn't a valid complaint. I've taken many Canadians to shoot at the range. Valid ID is a legit requirement, but they don't need to be citizens.

I've denied you one of your favorite talking points every time Chicago sees a surge in murders (basically every other Tuesday). While it's a waste of time trying to look up your tens of thousands of posts on the subject, it's a lot easier to find my own.

This law won't hold up. Note that it doesn't apply to criminal courts, just the school admin boards. The first time a kid gets put on probation or expelled from Cal because he can't prove she said yes, it's going to trial. Sorry, Mirage, you can't sacrifice presumption of innocence just because college kids behave poorly. It does remind me of Elsinore practice to video tape all jumpers reading the waiver aloud. That's about the only level of proof that would actually improve the problem. With smart phones all having video, it would be pretty easy to crank out an app that records "yes I want to fuck you" testimonials. Though even then I can see problems if she happens to slur her speech a little, so unless it's coupled with a BAC analyzer, we're still forcing the defendant to prove he's innocent.