muff528

billvon

>Do you think if Obama declared war on Ebola he could win the Nobel prize in medicine too?

Not if he caused it. Hello McFly.

I dunno ...maybe a weird twist on Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

High school kid here in Central Florida also died of bacterial meningitis last week.

Fatality rate for the 2009 flu pandemic: .03%

Fatality rate for Ebola in the US: 33.3% with 66.6% still unresolved. This death rate could be improved if we infect more people.

quade

***

Quote

That said . . . it's a huge crisis in Africa.

Is it though?

Yes. We have previously been lulled into a concept that Ebola, while amazingly deadly, is also very self limiting since it kills the victim before it can spread too far. That kept it contained within small villages when it broke out there. Entire villages died, but that's where it stopped.

We had gotten to a place of complacency with that thinking.

Now that it has spread farther, it CAN spread farther still.

I've wondered about this. Earlier outbreaks occurred in small isolated villages. Some time later, maybe even years later, another outbreak wipes out another distant village. I understand that there are various different strains of the Ebola virus. I wonder if the subsequent outbreaks represented new occurrences directly from natural sources (nearby bat caves, etc.) which might explain the different strains, or if the virus was somehow transmitted from the previously infected village to the new population, mutating, or not, as it spreads. It might be transmitted through animals which are hunted by each of the isolated populations, for example. Or by bats or birds. Now it has arrived in larger, more mobile populations. The ~2-3 week incubation period might allow for a lot of global travelling by a lot of infected folks before illness sets in. If there happens to be mode of transmission (sneeze droplets, sweat, saliva, etc.) maybe just before the patient shows definite symptoms or is too sick to travel, there could be "generations" of folks infected by the virus before it's detected in the original carriers. I hope not. I think the long incubation period will make stopping a global spread very difficult, particularly since we are not restricting travel by people who are not symptomatic regardless of where they've been.

Looks like a bunch of future lib teachers hopped up on pumpkin products destroying someone else's neighborhood.

wolfriverjoe

***Yea but when does it exactly become infectious? The start of fever, the middle of fever, exactly 30 seconds before fever. My point being she was in ohio with other people, and was isolated when she got home.

Well, from the story Professor Kallend linked (post 2 below yours) about her:

Quote

Dr. Frieden stressed that the passengers were a low-risk group. Because Ms. Vinson did not have a fever and did not have nausea or vomiting on the plane, the risk “to any around that individual on the plane would have been extremely low,” he said.

That is referring to the others on the plane ride from Ohio back to Texas.

Everyone who is freaking out seems to ignore how Ebola is transmitted, and how little risk is associated with casual contact.

Yeah, Dr. Frieden backed up Obama on this by confirming that you can't catch Ebola on a bus (maybe includes airplanes, too?) Frieden also said that if you are sick with Ebola you shouldn't get on a bus because you might expose someone else (who, as we now know, can't catch Ebola on that bus.) So, riding buses (maybe airplanes, too) is safe. Maybe not. Either way, Frieden said don't worry about it.

Disclaimer: I'm really only sure about riding on buses. The airplane thing is only a guess. Ride in airplanes at your own risk.

cvfd1399

Ooh yea, add in a trip to the landfill for me too. It was an old couch, and some rotten wood. You get 2 free trips to the landfill, and they track it via your DL. Thanks!

Like he said due to copper and aluminum theft you have to provide ID when turning this in for scrap. That is something I KNOW poor and elderly people do. I have put out old freezers, and washing machines to be picked up by people in beat up trucks and trailers.

Well, to be fair, they are driving trucks so they must have a DL.

billvon

>he said they were meant to help Republicans win elections, and in the process,
>many blacks and others were disenfranchised. That's not a "nutty" claim, it's
>clearly supported by the data he cites.

And admitted to by people who try to implement such policies.

Democrats admit that they want to give illegal aliens the right to vote without having to bother with that "citizenship" nonsense.. Oh, wait ...you folks are *for* that. Never mind.

I think around 1974 or 75 four of us from Lakeland, FL were partying in Orlando. We were going home around 3AM. 1969 Chevy Kingswood station wagon. We were cruising 85-90 mph when a State Trooper pulled me over on I-4. At the time I still had an out-of-state DL. The cop asked me the usual ..where we were going, etc. The car had FL tag and the cop asked if I was working in Florida. I was. He then told us that since there was not much traffic at that time of the morning (good luck with that now!) to keep the speed down and go on home. He then handed me a card with his home address in another county, ph #, etc. He said I had x amount of time to get a FL DL and that I needed to give that card to the DMV so they could mail it to him with verification that I had done so. 1970s were a different time! I flipped that car in a heavy rainstorm about a year later. That was the day I began wearing seat belts.

PS: to the OP ...do the traffic school.

jakee

Quote

Ever cashed a check?

As in exchanged it for folding money? No.

Point being?....

These folks (the ones who "ostensibly" don't have any IDs or driver licenses and who live many miles from a DMV) probably also have trouble getting to their bank to cash or deposit a check. Most probably don't even have a bank account.

Just a personal observation ...Convenience stores around my neighborhood are making a killing cashing checks and charging what looks like 3-4% right off the top. Might even be more. These folks, BTW, do produce IDs when they get their checks cashed.

AndyBoyd

Judge Posner didn't make the claim that voter ID laws are grounded in racism and bigotry. That was my take from the article. You've already expressed your disdain for the author of the article, so feel free to disregard that.

If you look at page 18 of Posner's opinion, he explains that these laws are passed in conservative states with the goal of suppressing voters who tend to lean democratic. He also states that more liberal states try to make it easier for the poor and minorities to vote. (That's a long way from encouraging voter fraud.) Politics as usual. The problem is, there is an asymmetrical effect, because there is very little voter fraud, and voter ID laws suppress large numbers of voters. The net effect, Posner explains, is that voters who tend to vote democratic are impeded from voting. On page 28, he explains that in the absence of actual voter fraud, the only plausible explanation for voter ID laws is that they are intended to suppress the vote of people likely to vote against those people imposing the laws. So, like I said, Posner didn't make the claim that these laws were motivated by racism. That was my take on the article. My apologies for misleading you.

You still haven't provided any evidence that democrats are supporting voter fraud.

This was taken directly from the LA Times article (and was included in the paragraph you referenced in your original post:

More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

And this from the opinion itself:

"...and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

Sounds to me like prejudicial charges of racism and bigotry by Judge Posner.

But, again you miss my point. I'm not claiming that Dems are "supporting voter fraud". I'm only saying that Posner's claims, quoted above", are no more or less nutty than if I were to claim that it appears that Dems are "supporting voter fraud". Moreover, it appears more and more evident that common ground is not going to be found on this issue.

AndyBoyd

The idea that Judge Posner is somehow in "lockstep" with liberal Democrats is laughable. Why don't you read, or at least skim, Judge Posner's opinion? If you don't like the author of the article, fine. Read the actual opinion. I'll give you the link:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312285/posner.pdf

It states that there was ZERO evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin. NONE. In addition, it states that requiring voter ID does nothing to deter numerous types of voter fraud such as ballot stuffing and vote buying. So, requiring voter ID does nothing to solve a problem that does not exist. What does it do, then? Posner explains that it imposes a significant enough burden on low-income, minority, and elderly citizens that it would disenfranchise nearly 10% of the population.

As to your suggestion that democrats are trying to encourage or mask voter fraud, please cite your evidence for such a ridiculous assertion. As the opinion clearly states, there is no voter fraud in Wisconsin. The attorneys for the State of Wisconsin could not point to one instance of voter fraud in the recent past, and one of the State's expert witnesses testified that there were ZERO cases of in-person voter fraud since 2004. Your assertion that democrats are trying to commit voter fraud is completely unfounded and, frankly, nuts.

You may want to read Posner's opinion before you post again. There may well be reasonable grounds to disagree with it. You just haven't given any so far.

I did skim through the opinion earlier. There are a couple of things that stand out and a few things that I could agree with. If I have time I'll read more carefully ...but you missed my point which really only was in reference to the paragraph you quoted from the article. Specifically, if Judge Posner automatically makes the leap that the motivation for Republican support of voter ID laws must be grounded in racism and bigotry (an unfounded position that most certainly is in "lock-step" with liberal Dems' claims and also falls into the "nuts" category and is intentionally, IMO, incendiary) then I can make the unfounded, "nutty" claim that opposition by Dems to voter ID requirements "appears to be aimed" at masking their criminal activity with regard to voting and voter fraud. Obviously there are those on both sides who can be fit into either category ...some right here on this forum. But we can recognize that neither "nutty" claim is the real, mainstream "truth" for either side.

There are good arguments "for" and "against" voter ID requirements. I could support some kind of compromise. For example, apply ID requirements with the notion that the people are who should be the focus and that the role of the Governments, local and state, is to serve the people. Help citizens with verifying their status to eventually ensure confidence in the voter rolls. At the same time help lawfully resident non-citizens toward the correct path to citizenship if they wish to vote. The yang for that yin could be application of heavier fines and more severe punishment for voter fraud violations of all kinds. Maybe even mandatory. Less government oversight would require more personal responsibility, including acceptance of more serious consequences for election shenanigans.

AndyBoyd

This is quite a long thread. I've read most of it, and if this has been cited before and I missed it, my apologies. This is a link to an article summarizing 7th Circuit Judge Posner's take on voter ID laws. Posner is a staunch conservative, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

Here's a highlight of the article:

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.

So Wisconsin is willing to take the right to vote away from 300,000 people, nearly 10% of its population, to combat a non-existent problem, when the real motive is to limit the ability of minorities, especially blacks, to vote. That is evil in my book, and in the view of Judge Posner, a Reagan conservative.

First, the article, itself, is hardly objective. It is written by a partisan hack writer in a hack newspaper and is written in unapologetically one-sided, inflammatory terms. His highly opinionated, derisive language and his "philosophical" bent are likely invisible to those who share his opinions because it attacks "the bad guys" who, as everyone in their world knows, are inherently evil in their motives which, to their targeted, like-minded readers, are clear and obvious. It is presented as "news" in the business section of that issue ...not in the editorials (or on the editorial floor) where this article clearly belongs. So much for journalistic integrity and objectivity. Even Fox distinguishes between its News and Editorial content, as anyone who pays any attention can clearly see. (this includes shows like O'Reilly, Hannity and other right-wing commentary which even the most uninformed, casual viewer should be able to recognize as "opinion pieces"). IMO, there is always some editorializing of the actual news by all outlets, whether in choosing which news to run or in how to present a story. ...but none so blatant as e.g.; LA Times, NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, and others. I have no problem with any editorial commentary placed into the "editorial" section no matter how partisan or slanted.

As far as the content of the article, particularly your highlighted paragraph, Posner intentionally fails to consider the other side of the equation. Obviously, as Posner "observes", if Side A advances a restrictive measure to "ostensibly" inhibit or discourage an illegal activity which happens to be regarded as harmful to them and favorable to Side B, then of course there would be "high correlation" of those measures in states controlled by Side A than in those controlled by Side B. Even an idiot should be able to see that point. You don't have to be a lawyer or a judge. He regards this "enlightened" observation as "evidence" of nefarious motives by the Repubs. The rest of his "observation", the motives themselves ("...appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks"), is nothing but BS political propaganda and is in lock-step with the Dems long-orchestrated and carefully nurtured, racist characature of their political adversaries. But conversely, the judge does not address the "observation" that these same measures are vehemently opposed by states controlled by Dems, and he makes no further mention of any "motive" that might drive that opposition. The flip-side is that if Dems are adamantly opposed to those same measures, then it might be said that their rabid opposition to those "ostensibly" burdensome rules is really to mask illegal activity that is favorable to them, and more importantly, to quash any "thing" that might reveal that criminal activity. They then, after eliminating or suppressing, or not enforcing any laws or procedures that might reveal their unlawful shenanigans, challenge their opponents to provide "proof" of wrongdoing and further claim that any support of those measures is grounded in racism (providing the race-baiting smackdown that their sychophants like see.) That is, of course, intended to silence any further talk of voter integrity and to marginalize and demonize anyone who disagrees with their "position". So, Justice Posner, ....you call me a racist, I call you a partisan hack. It is you who is prejudiced. Not a good quality for a judge.

Who appointed Posner is irrelevant. Bush appointed Roberts and he handed over the largest chunk of the economy ever ceded to the US government. The article states that Posner was opposed by 5 justices, "ostensibly" equal in stature for rehearing the case that was previously upheld by a panel of 3 other judges. So his opinion carries no more or no less weight than any other of those judges. Only after the Wisconsin law was overturned by an already-proven partisan Supreme Court did he claim some self-righteous victory.

Stumpy

***Ooh I know the meaning, what do you expect us to do post every Google result, then have a seperate debate on how much exactly equals a significant ammount?

Usually one offender is enough for you guys to say that's too much, but I guess that only applies to bad cops.

So no evidence then? Thought not.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2014/voter-fraud-investigation.htm

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/21/investigations-underway-suspected-voter-fraud-in-virginia-and-maryland/

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/state-launches-fraud-investigation-voter-registrat/nhJxg/

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3488477.shtml?cat=1

http://www.krgv.com/news/judge-orders-new-election-in-weslaco-city-commission-race/#.U58WvS4LWeY.twitter

http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20140610/NEWS/306119992/11158/NEWS

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/12/election-officials-weigh-double-voting/9013815/

http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2014/04/21/complaint-against-robert-garcia-suggests-voter-fraud-in-lb-mayor-campaign/

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Woman-Arrested-In-NV-On-Voter-Fraud-256054321.html

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-politics/2014/05/08/iowa-secretary-of-state-voter-fraud-report-matt-schultz/8858595/

http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/Three-Houston-County-Women-Accused-of-Felony-Voter-Fraud-258675191.html

http://wvxu.org/post/two-more-indicted-vote-fraud-hamilton-county

http://www.northjersey.com/news/arraignment-postponed-for-paterson-councilman-wife-in-election-fraud-indictment-1.1012557

http://wiat.com/2014/05/01/alabama-supreme-court-look-voter-fraud-allegations/

jcd11235

***But you now would have knowingly committed a felony and there would now be verifiable documentation identifying you as a committer of voter fraud

As is currently the case. As verified by signature, those things that are sufficient for legal contracts.

You don't provide ID when you are signing legal contracts?

Quote

***Also, the ID should also verify to the poll workers that you are a resident in that particular voting precinct.

No it wouldn't. Lots of people live at an address different from their ID.

State of Florida requires update to ID or DL when address is changed.

Quote

***Otherwise, further verification of residence might be required, i.e., a utility bill or such.

Like now? So, nothing changes, except requiring a picture ID, solving nothing, except disenfranchising citizens with no picture ID.

Why aren't you concerned about the people who get utility bills for addresses other than their residence? How will requiring a picture ID prevent them from voting in multiple precincts?

It won't. But they're more likely to get caught

Quote

***The "exploitable flaw" in the system now is actually a way to catch fraudsters.

What fraudsters would those be? The imaginary ones of which the Republicans want us to be scared?

The ones like your example in post #76.

Quote

If the Republicans were actually concerned about potential voter fraud, they would propose something that closes holes in the system instead of disenfranchising voters. Requiring a picture ID doesn't do that.

I'm suggesting state-issued photo IDs. Free if necessary. What is your suggestion?

jcd11235

***I have been registered in more than one location. I may still be. I found this out when I moved back to my old town (a couple miles down the road) after I split with my then-wife. I went to register and found that I had never been "unregistered" when I moved down the road. Even though I had registered at my new address.

Same here. In principle, I could have voted in both locations. And I could have easily shown a picture ID at each place when doing so. A picture ID requirement won't remedy that potentially exploitable flaw in the system.

Yes, in that case you could have voted in both locations by showing your ID at each polling place. (unless we're talking about completely different states ...like someone who might have residences in NYC and in Palm Beach.) But you now would have knowingly committed a felony and there would now be verifiable documentation identifying you as a committer of voter fraud ...verified by the photo ID. All that's necessary now is an arrest and conviction. Also, the ID should also verify to the poll workers that you are a resident in that particular voting precinct. Otherwise, further verification of residence might be required, i.e., a utility bill or such. The "exploitable flaw" in the system now is actually a way to catch fraudsters.

here's the back of my voter ID card (maybe they only put this on the back of Repub ID cards.) ...

cvfd1399

Ignoring all your other comments because I have addressed them.

Quote

Pretty simple, really. Put a system in place to verify citizens are only registered in one voting precinct.

How would that system work? Fingerprint?.....ID?

NO!!! NO IDs!!! They use "cross my heart and hope to die".

Whenever I see "FS" I think of "Free Style". That used to be a "discipline" for jumpers who couldn't fall stable (or who didn't have many friends to jump with.) I think it derived from the plain old "Style" and then "Freak Flying" disciplines.

oldwomanc6

....

Am I the only one who saw the double entrendre?

LuckyMcSwervy

......
The beach where the sculpture I've seen barracuda and sharks sometimes swim by in the distance when I get to about waist deep. ......

Could you feel them circling? Did you see them to the left and to the right?

kallend

***At risk of being controversial, perhaps they shouldn't have joined the rebel force in the first place.

If you are a citizen of one country and leave it to join a revolutionary force in another then you made your bed so you can lie in it.

It was a very different case when Irish citizens joined the British army during WW2 or some American citizens joined the RAF during the Battle of Britain. They were joining an established state army in a clear cut battle between "good" and "evil".

The RAF recognizes seven aircrew personnel who were from the United States as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. American citizens were prohibited from serving under the various US Neutrality Acts; if an American citizen had defied strict neutrality laws, there was a risk of losing their citizenship and imprisonment. It is believed that another four Americans misled the British authorities about their origins, claiming to be Canadian or other nationalities.

But there were "ways" to get around the Act. I wonder if this idea could have been used for the BoB participation?

SkyDekker

***....
Are they still British though? A few countries have started revoking passports of those leaving to fight with ISIS. Would leave them stateless.

Well, they would be new citizens of the Islamic State. Not the fault of the UK if they changed their minds.

Haven't had time to read the whole thing carefully but it looks like he's referring to "Deferred Enforced Departure" and "Temporary Protected Status" of Liberians who had fled the Liberian civil war and were already residing in the US. George HW Bush granted "DED" and "TPS" to Liberian refugees who were living in the US at that time. I don't think it had anything to do with subsequent arrivals, legal or illegal, but it looks like the Senate wants to include them ...just because. Nothing to do with ebola at the time. In 2013 Dems in the Senate were asking for more permanence with their immigration status.

http://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/senators-urge-extension-of-protected-status-for-liberians-living-in-the-us

Quotes from the letter from the Senate Dems to Obama, 2013:

"We strongly believe, as you stated in August 2011, that it continues to be in our foreign policy interest to extend DED to those Liberians presently residing in the United States. ...

...We, therefore, request that you grant eligible Liberians a reprieve from imminent deportation by once again extending DED status to all eligible Liberians, including those who arrived after October 2002."

(Edit to add source/link)

jcd11235

.... put off seeing a doctor, ....

Maybe he wasn't putting it off. Maybe he was just having a little trouble with the healthcare exchange website for a couple of days.

RonD1120

I don't know if this has been considered above but, if an Islamic terrorist is willing to blow him/herself up to kill infidels, why would not such a person inflict themselves with Ebola virus and travel to a western country?

Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare. Just one tactic. Jihadist "terrorists" do not necessarily use terrorism for the purpose of killing infidels. Really an inefficient battle tactic. The victims of terrorist acts are not really the targets of terrorism.

So, it is not really necessary for "terrorists" to kill a lot of people for the act of terrorism to succeed. But they do have to make it known that they are responsible for the act. In that case, even one or two intentional carriers bringing in Ebola or such and infecting a few folks here and there would meet their objectives as long as responsibility is claimed and recognized.