What SHOULD HAVE happened:
Normal commercial travel for the general public should have been suspended weeks (months) ago.
Healthcare workers and other qualified and authorized people who are being dispatched to assist in the affected region in west Africa should have been informed in advance that they would be quarantined upon return.
Special controlled military charter flights should have been established to handle all transportation.
Extensive arrangements should have been made to quarantine these authorized personnel in great comfort and style upon their return, with the best possible medical care and all reasonable amenities; including hazard pay and reimbursement of all expenses. As a taxpayer, I would be only too happy to have as much of my tax money as necessary spent in this manner; to take care of these appropriately authorized people. Maybe the IRS or DOE would have to cut back on their eggnog and hooker budget for their Christmas parties to help offset the cost.
This is actually pretty simple and straight forward. Why was our government NOT intelligent enough to figure this out????
October 26, 2014 at 6:19 p.m.
Why have our government and CDC officials NOT banned travelers from the affected areas of West Africa from entering the USA? No one is able to answer this question because there is no satisfactory answer. There is no logical reason to not ban travelers from this area of the world; none at all. The only reasons for not doing this are motivated entirely by cheap illogical political correctness and ideology.
If our government had any sense at all, we would allow a grace period for American citizens already there to return home under controlled travel arrangements, and immediately ban all other travelers.
In a press conference the head of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden said….> "Though we might wish we can seal ourselves off from the world, there are Americans who have the right of return and many other people that have the right to enter this country,"<……
Other people have the “RIGHT” to enter this country???!!! It is frightening that a government official of this stature would make a statement so ignorant, inane, and false. Other than US citizens, no other person on the face of this Earth (NO ONE) has the “RIGHT” to enter this country. Everyone else is a guest that can be invited or dis-invited at any time.
October 5, 2014 at 2:59 p.m.
>....“We’ve created a General Assembly that mirrors the U.S. House of Representatives with every idea from the minority party is wrong and every idea from the majority party is right,' he said." ,............
As opposed to the prior situation in the US House from 2007-2010 when every idea from the minority party was wrong and every idea from the majority party was right, except the majority party was the Democrats.......which is the only "change" that Gerberry or anyone else is trying to accomplish.
October 4, 2014 at 9:22 a.m.
Presumably at Lima he was granted the PRIVILEGE of getting out of his cell for exercise, meals, recreation, visitors, medical care, etc. Taking advantage of this by escaping proves that he no longer deserves this PRIVILEGE. Lock him in an 6x10 cell, weld the cage bars closed, and keep him there until he dies; which we can only hope will be soon.
September 13, 2014 at 12:26 p.m.
So the 13 other states that offer NO early voting considerations (and never have), some of which are original colonial states and some of which lean very Democrat, are being even more unfair and restrictive towards their voters than Ohio.....right??
September 10, 2014 at 9:18 p.m.
Considering that 13 other states offer NO early voting considerations and require specific excuses for absentee ballots, and considering that multiple other state offer early voting periods that are less than the 28 days offered by Ohio; it is utterly illogical that Ohio's generous 28 day early voting policy is somehow unconstitutional.
September 10, 2014 at 8:18 p.m.
From the article: > "Senate Bill 280, which would require case-management services for postpartum care be included in Medicaid managed care. " <
Why would anyone who cannot pay for their own medical care (and who needs public assistance in this regard from Medicaid) be involved in creating a baby???!!!
This is the height of absurd arrogant ignorant irresponsibility. No one receiving Medicaid, or ANY other form of public assistance, should EVER be involved in making babies.
The FIRST thing that needs to happen is that people who are not capable and prepared to care for children must STOP making babies.
August 22, 2014 at 7:23 p.m.
AG Holder is in Ferguson to ensure that the "investigation" reaches the pre-determined conclusions that AG Holder wants.
August 20, 2014 at 9:24 a.m.
I understand your position and I think that, even if we disagree on specifics, we are more alike than not.
I guess I agree with you that our perspectives differ by which side of the slippery slope we each think we are on. From my perspective I think we are sliding down the slope of way too much government power and control. Yes, it would be nice if everyone just got along, but that is not likely and, in my opinion, government intervention will muck things up, not make it better. Yes, due to the laws of the 60’s anyone can get service anywhere regardless of race…………..but government force has not exactly given us racial harmony, has it? Could things have been better if the social growth had been more organic, with less governmental intrusion?
You indicate that you can understand if a pastor would refuse to perform the wedding ceremony but, in my opinion, you are supporting precedent that could be used to lead to laws forcing a pastor to perform the ceremony. The pastor is “providing a service to the public”, so if we’re going to have such laws, why would they not pertain to pastoral services as well? Who is to decide??
Again with regard to Jews or inter-racial couples, the argument comes back to what people ARE vs. what people DO. Yes, it would be wrong to deny people service because they ARE Jews. However, should it be ILLEGAL for the Muslim caterer to decline to assist the Jewish congregation of the local synagogue with food service for their public seminar about the Israeli perspective on the current situation in Gaza?
You indicate that these people are way too involved in the details of their customer’s lives but, from my perspective (again), they are asking to not be involved in their customer’s personal lives at all; and you are arguing for enacting laws that force them to be involved against their will.
My perspective is that I do not trust government with power, that all government and laws should be very tightly restricted, controlled, and minimized, and that this is a step too far.
August 13, 2014 at 10:30 p.m.
@dontbeafool: See, I told you it would be a long answer.
The two hypothetical cases I proposed earlier are simply extreme examples of the unintended consequences that could be associated with the line of thinking that allows laws forcing business owners to offer service to “all”, with no right to refuse. What other, less extreme, examples of unintended consequences might crop up? If we start forcing some people to do what they do not want to do, where will we draw the line? Who will draw the line??
I cannot violate your rights by refusing to assist you in doing something……not preventing you from doing it, but simply exercising my right to refuse to help. Not taking affirmative action to assist you cannot possibly be a violation of your rights. On the other hand, forcing me against my will to assist you, forcing me to participate in an activity or action that I do not want to support, is very definitely a direct violation of my rights. If the government can force these business owners to take action to actively support a homosexual wedding ceremony against their will today, what might the government try to force me to do against my will tomorrow?
August 13, 2014 at 8:43 p.m.