Like many universities, they have space is available for use for conferences for a fee. In that sense its no different than any other conference, and as a public institution they'd have 1st Amendment legal problems if they tried to deny this group use specifically because of religious content.
He made this melt event sound like it was caused by a semi-cyclical weather event which occurs, on average, every 150 years. Moreover, he admits to having coached the young scientist to write about this "150 year" melt event. In fact, melt events have occurred at a much lower frequency than every 150 years over the past 4000 years. Melt events were much more frequent than every 150 years from 4000 to 8000 years before present when the summer sun was a lot hotter in the Arctic than it is now. Averaging the warm period that happened 4000-8000 years ago with the cool period of the past 4000 years "created" the 150 year "cycles". Koenig and Wagner refer to a classic paper on Greenland ice cores to support their claim of an approximate 150 year period, but the first paragraph of the paper's conclusion makes clear that the climate was warmer 4000 to 8000 years ago, with far more frequent melt events.
Again: you dont understand how science funding actually works. Federally funded research grants is not based on reaching a preconcieved notion. The politicians arent even involved in the process.
You are ignorant on this subject. Completely and absolutely.
I know youre jhust an AC...but do try to at least read TFA before posting. It was a study about the past. You say we dont know? Well....this is scientists trying to find out.
Specifically:
Earth’s climate underwent a major transition from the warmth of the late Pliocene, when global surface temperatures were ~2-3C higher than today, to extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation (NHG) at ~2.73 Ma. We show that North Pacific deep waters were significantly colder (4C) and likely fresher than North Atlantic deep water prior to the intensification of NHG. At ~2.73 Ma, the Atlantic-Pacific temperature gradient was reduced to <1C suggesting the initiation of stronger heat transfer from the North Atlantic to the deep Pacific. We posit that increased glaciation of Antarctica, deduced from the 21 ± 10 m sea-level fall from 3.15-2.75 Ma, and the development of a strong polar halocline, fundamentally altered deep ocean circulation, which enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport thereby contributing to the NHG.
Um....Im guesing you cant read. The split wasnt along party lines. The split was geographic. Idiot.
A majority of BOTH parties voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of '64.
The vote totals from wiki, --that you linked--:
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%). Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%). The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%). The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20] Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%) Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%) Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%) Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against) Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As for lincoln, he wasnt speaking against socialism or liberalism. He couldnt be, because he and his party WERE THE LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY. But again, the liberal/conservative split back then had more to do with geographical location than party lines. Northerners in general, of either party, were more liberal than those in the South.
The only ones trying to pull a switcharoo are peiople like you still trying to paint the dems as racists while ignoring the 150 years of history between then and now. I direct you to the piece I just finished to explain it to another uneducated historical newbie like yourself: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
No. And that fact you even try to go anywhere with that canard shows just how loose your concept of history is. Saying they were all democrats is as relevent as saying they were all Christians, ie, not relevent. The KKK was oriented around fear/hatred of the outsider. IE, xenophobia, people who arent "us". And trying ot use it to paint the modern Demcoratic party based on your misreading of history is pathetic.
Read and be enlightened, 100 years of political history in 5 minutes:
Also happening around the turn of the century was the advancement of "Progressivism". It was becoming popular. It was largely in answer to Communism/Socialism. Like them it had its roots in opposition and pushback to the unfettered excesses of capitalism and the Gilded Age, but unlike them it did not seek to replace capitalism root and branch, but instead to simply curb and restrain its excesses. Both parties flirted with progressivism, running many candidiates who were unabashed Progressives who sought to curb the "fat cat bankers" and "bust the trusts" (that's how bad the Gilded Age was, that even the parties found common ground against them). One of the most famous progressives was Teddy Roosevelt.
Both parties had had candidates who wre "for the common man", and both parties also had folks who sidled up to business interests. Much like today. But the democratic party had a fundamental fracture within it. There were basically two wings within the Democratic party: the wing that was about "the common man" and became more and more liberal over time, and the wing that had more in common with the Tea Party. That wing was the Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, and they were very very conservative in ideaology.
As time went on within the Republican party progressivism died out, such that by the time of the New Deal, barely 20 years after Teddy Roosevelt, they were completely opposed to it, and mostly represented business interests.
But the Democratic party held onto progressivism. It became the defacto party of the common man, the little guy. That helped keep the fracture in the party from coming to a head because since Reconstruction the South was still reeling from economic hardship ("someone told us Wall Street fell, but we were so poor we couldn't tell"). The Solid South stayed democratic for a long time.
But the thing about Progressivism is it is a naturally supporter of Civil Rights. And that would start to prove to be too much for the Southern Democrats. And eventually it was this fracture that Nixon exploited in the Southern Strategy that basically split the democratic party in the south, and even nationwide. The segregationist minded democrats nationwide but particularly of the south, along with the dixiecrats (a seperate party by now), went Republican. And in the following years the few moderates and liberals remaining in the Republican party would be pushed out over the new few decades by the Religious Right and the Reagan Revolution.
So this whole "the Democrats created the KKK" thing is at best a misleading misdirection and revision of history, and at worst a myth.
The issue here is the fact that the historic context is completely missed by conservatives, and often just plain embellished. Yes, in 1868 the Democrats were the racist party. However, what also must be known is that the Democrats were also the more conservative party at the time. The Republican Party, believe it or not, were the more liberal party. From the Civil War up until about 1948, the Southern Democrats were the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
[..]Yes, in historic perspective the Democrats were a more racist (conservative) party. However, I emphasize conservative. Liberals did not found the KKK, nor did they support segregation. By social standards, these were more conservative minded people at least in regards to race. These were not leftist
One such system I saw with mineral oil covered and sealed all the caps and similar components in plastic, not too unlike the coating sometimes applied to PCBs. Just much thicker.
Some amount of paranoia can be healthy. But youre BSI. As the other dude said: just turn off your wifi and dont connect. If they really wanted data on whos going to the airport, there is little to stop Cisco from just partnering with the airlines in the first place.
I suspect that a company that builds it reputation on "we wont sell your stuff", and attracts customers based primarily on that mission statement, would lose said customers if it pulled a 180. Whether they can replace those customers is a different matter. But its like the question of whether or not Toys R Us is legally bound to sell toys forever, or if it can turn into a meat shop: they absolutely can decide to go the meat route, but it would be silly and completely nonsensical given their name and market strategy.
Little of what you stated was factual. When has he ever tried to work with Congress you ask? TRY EVERY TIME. From the begining, he has tried to work with Congress. From the begining, the GOP has been dedicated to complete and total opposition to everything the Prez says.
The idea that he wont work with the GOP is a farce. Yes, he has sabotaged his own agenda...in order to try and make a compromise with the other side. But every time he offer an olive branch they petulently slap it away, because to them the definition of compromise is "we get everything we want, or else."
Stimulus:
Before he took office, Obama began outlining the contours of the federal stimulus package he wanted to get passed, reached out to Republican leaders (then in the minority in both houses of Congress) for their ideas, and threw in a bunch of tax cuts to draw in GOP support for the legislation. “I think he’s already been listening to the suggestions we’ve made,” Mitch McConnell said after initial talks. [..] while Obama did have the stronger hand, he was willing to make concessions to gain passage of the bill, and ended up having to do exactly that. To earn the bare minimum of Republican support needed to get the bill past a Senate filibuster, the White House had to swallow steep cuts to state education programs and other liberal priorities.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were negotiating in bad faith. No matter what Obama threw at them, the House GOP leadership had already decided to oppose him. As NBC noted in its piece, the strategy they adopted from before the beginning of the Obama administration was to fight Obama on everything and work to retake Congress in 2010. Then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor successfully corralled every single member of the House Republican caucus into voting against the stimulus package. “We’re not here to cut deals and get crumbs and stay in the minority for another 40 years,” Cantor said at the time. Only three Senate Republicans – moderates all, one of whom officially became a Democrat months later – voted for the stimulus.
Healthcare:
Largely absent from the discussion of the Affordable Care Act is the fact that this “big government socialist takeover of the health care industry” is actually a pretty conservative piece of legislation. And even less remarked upon is the degree to which Obama sought out Republican input for his healthcare proposals.
The road from vague notions of “healthcare reform” to the concrete reality of the Affordable Care Act was marked by disappointment after disappointment by the White House’s progressive allies, who swallowed hard as pie-in-the-sky dreams of single-payer dissolved into the tepid hope of a “public option,” which dissolved further into grudging acceptance of a healthcare law that has a long GOP pedigree and was pioneered by the former Republican governor of Massachusetts. That pedigree is the reason why the law was studded with Republican healthcare reform ideas – something Republicans refuse to admit as they claim that the law was drafted without their input. That’s also part of the reason why the Republicans, as yet, have not coalesced around an alternative to the Affordable Care Act – everything they come up with ends up looking like Obamacare.
President Obama sought out the Republicans and asked them for ideas during the drafting process. “I believe they’re making an honest and overt effort to deal with Republicans,” Rep. Mike Castle said at the time. (Castle would go on to lose the 2010 Delaware Senate primary to living Tea Party caricature Christine O’Donnell.) Over and over, again and again, Obama tried to bring Republicans to the table and offered compromises on healthcare. And each time he was met with the same answer: no.
“What they want isn’t a bill that incorporates their ideas,” Ezra Klei
No, let's start by coming back to reality, back to actual facts. Startign with: There are no direct flights. None.
No US airlines fly to Africa. The airlines stopped going when the outbreaks began, over 3 months ago. That's why this talking point is stupid. It ignores reality (shocking!).
There is precisely one flight into and out of the Liberia right now, through Brussels, Belgium. It exists because the Belgain airline, at the WHO's request, specifically maintains an air link into Ebola affected countries, specifically for the purposes of keeping a known route open for medical teams and supplies and aid to fly into affected countries, and to provide a known route out for people trying to leave.
Why provide a known route out? So you know who is leaving, and can track them, and monitor them. Like a honey pot. If there is no route out, motivated individuals will make one, and health officials wont know who they are, where they went, and who they were in contact with. There is less hazard in having a known route, than in having NO route.
as opposed to the Party of No? The party that stated on Day 1: "We will oppose everything he says, and make hima one term President" ??
Example: POTUS: Lets bomb Syria. GOP: No, now is not the right time. This President is irresponsibly suggesting sending our boys into harms way. POTUS: Let's not bomb Ukraine. GOP: This President is weak, a coward. We need to show the world we are strong and stand up to Russia, even if it means sending troops.
or maybe these two different positions taken by Speaker of hte House Boehner, less than 24 hours apart: July 30, 2014 - We are suing the President for abusing his executive powers and not coming to Congress to deal with the ACA's implementation. July 31, 2014 - The President doesn't need Congress's permission to act, and should use his Executive Power to solve the immigration crisis instead of waiting for Congress.
Bernie Sanders is one man, who yells at the democrats as much as he does Republicans. You dont seemt o udnerstand the very words you wrote. He is a registered independent, he only caucauses with the dems because they are the closest to the platform he stands on.
And to be clear: he is not a MArxist, leninist, moaist. These things are not synonymous, not to each other, and not to the concept of socialism. And to be clear again: the democratic party is NOT run by progressives, and there IS a shortage of actual progressives. The democratic party of today is most like the Republican party of the 50s: it is a MODERATE party that is very pro-business. And if the Republicans are so pro-civil rights, why do they oppose equal rights for women and homosexuals under the law? Why do they repeatedly oppose the Equal Rights Amendment to codify it once and for all? If they're so pro Democracy, why do they try to stop their opposition from voting? Why do they insist repeatedly that we are not a democracy, and there is no actual "right to vote" ??
In your view, both parties are too liberal? Given that over the past 40 years the entire country's political spectrum has shifted rightward, with BOTH parties becoming more conservative, how does that work?
But once again, we confront the fact that you dont live in reality.
I know reality has a liberal bias, but that's only because people like you refuse to live in reality.
Obamacare IS Romneycare. Every key part of it came from the Heritage Foundations original idea created in the late 80s/early 90s, regardless of however much the HF has tried to disown their very own idea.
The onyl reason Democrats ever opposed it in the past is because the best solution, a nationalized system, like every civilized country in the world that has a system better than ours, was what they actually wanted. The reason they got behind the HF's plan is because they realized compromise was the best way forward. But naturally, as soon as the left supported the right's plan, the right abandoned it, because they dont truly want compromise, and they can only define themselves and their platform in opposition to the left. they refuse to admit there might be areas of agreement, because the idea of admitting they agree with the opposition, ON ANYTHING, is anathema to them, and they fear how it will play in elections. its pitiful.
given how much we overpay, that's not really a concern. in fact, nonprofits actually have a problem with maintaining nonprofit status, cause they have to find something to do with the money to keep form calling it profits. nonprofit hospital CEOs make more than the CEOs of for-profit hospitals. nonprofithospitals tend to be larger, more hospital beds, more equipment. theres lots of good articles on this stuff.
No, its not buckpassing. this is a big nation with a HUGE healthcare industry. Seriously, healthcare is over 20% of our national GDP. The CDC cannot be everywhere. Thats why they make guidelines for hospitals and healthcare workers to follow.
The responsibility rests squarely and solely on the hospital that screwed up: the man said he had been in west africa in the outbreak zone and had a fever. they misdiagnosed him and ignored the red flags of his history.
Civilian gun ownership isnt what freaks people out. Guns in the hands of those too immature, too irresponsible, or not technically proficient is what people fear. With cars we at least try to take steps prevent those sorts of people from getting behind the wheel. Few places in this country make any such efforts with guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many universities, they have space is available for use for conferences for a fee.
In that sense its no different than any other conference, and as a public institution they'd have 1st Amendment legal problems if they tried to deny this group use specifically because of religious content.
only part of the US.
The only one lying is Watts and anyone who links to his blog of misinformation.
There is no 150yr cycle.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
He made this melt event sound like it was caused by a semi-cyclical weather event which occurs, on average, every 150 years. Moreover, he admits to having coached the young scientist to write about this "150 year" melt event. In fact, melt events have occurred at a much lower frequency than every 150 years over the past 4000 years. Melt events were much more frequent than every 150 years from 4000 to 8000 years before present when the summer sun was a lot hotter in the Arctic than it is now. Averaging the warm period that happened 4000-8000 years ago with the cool period of the past 4000 years "created" the 150 year "cycles".
Koenig and Wagner refer to a classic paper on Greenland ice cores to support their claim of an approximate 150 year period, but the first paragraph of the paper's conclusion makes clear that the climate was warmer 4000 to 8000 years ago, with far more frequent melt events.
Again: you dont understand how science funding actually works.
Federally funded research grants is not based on reaching a preconcieved notion.
The politicians arent even involved in the process.
You are ignorant on this subject. Completely and absolutely.
I know youre jhust an AC...but do try to at least read TFA before posting.
It was a study about the past.
You say we dont know?
Well....this is scientists trying to find out.
Specifically:
Earth’s climate underwent a major transition from the warmth of the late Pliocene, when global surface temperatures were ~2-3C higher than today, to extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation (NHG) at ~2.73 Ma. We show that North Pacific deep waters were significantly colder (4C) and likely fresher than North Atlantic deep water prior to the intensification of NHG. At ~2.73 Ma, the Atlantic-Pacific temperature gradient was reduced to <1C suggesting the initiation of stronger heat transfer from the North Atlantic to the deep Pacific. We posit that increased glaciation of Antarctica, deduced from the 21 ± 10 m sea-level fall from 3.15-2.75 Ma, and the development of a strong polar halocline, fundamentally altered deep ocean circulation, which enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport thereby contributing to the NHG.
It was a study about the past.
You know how you folks are always going on about "the climate has changed before, and nobody knows why" ??
Well....this is scientists figuring out that why.
Um....Im guesing you cant read.
The split wasnt along party lines.
The split was geographic. Idiot.
A majority of BOTH parties voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of '64.
The vote totals from wiki, --that you linked-- :
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As for lincoln, he wasnt speaking against socialism or liberalism. He couldnt be, because he and his party WERE THE LIBERALS OF THEIR DAY.
But again, the liberal/conservative split back then had more to do with geographical location than party lines. Northerners in general, of either party, were more liberal than those in the South.
The only ones trying to pull a switcharoo are peiople like you still trying to paint the dems as racists while ignoring the 150 years of history between then and now.
I direct you to the piece I just finished to explain it to another uneducated historical newbie like yourself: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
No.
And that fact you even try to go anywhere with that canard shows just how loose your concept of history is.
Saying they were all democrats is as relevent as saying they were all Christians, ie, not relevent. The KKK was oriented around fear/hatred of the outsider. IE, xenophobia, people who arent "us". And trying ot use it to paint the modern Demcoratic party based on your misreading of history is pathetic.
Read and be enlightened, 100 years of political history in 5 minutes:
Also happening around the turn of the century was the advancement of "Progressivism". It was becoming popular. It was largely in answer to Communism/Socialism. Like them it had its roots in opposition and pushback to the unfettered excesses of capitalism and the Gilded Age, but unlike them it did not seek to replace capitalism root and branch, but instead to simply curb and restrain its excesses. Both parties flirted with progressivism, running many candidiates who were unabashed Progressives who sought to curb the "fat cat bankers" and "bust the trusts" (that's how bad the Gilded Age was, that even the parties found common ground against them). One of the most famous progressives was Teddy Roosevelt.
Both parties had had candidates who wre "for the common man", and both parties also had folks who sidled up to business interests. Much like today. But the democratic party had a fundamental fracture within it. There were basically two wings within the Democratic party: the wing that was about "the common man" and became more and more liberal over time, and the wing that had more in common with the Tea Party. That wing was the Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, and they were very very conservative in ideaology.
As time went on within the Republican party progressivism died out, such that by the time of the New Deal, barely 20 years after Teddy Roosevelt, they were completely opposed to it, and mostly represented business interests.
But the Democratic party held onto progressivism. It became the defacto party of the common man, the little guy. That helped keep the fracture in the party from coming to a head because since Reconstruction the South was still reeling from economic hardship ("someone told us Wall Street fell, but we were so poor we couldn't tell"). The Solid South stayed democratic for a long time.
But the thing about Progressivism is it is a naturally supporter of Civil Rights. And that would start to prove to be too much for the Southern Democrats. And eventually it was this fracture that Nixon exploited in the Southern Strategy that basically split the democratic party in the south, and even nationwide. The segregationist minded democrats nationwide but particularly of the south, along with the dixiecrats (a seperate party by now), went Republican. And in the following years the few moderates and liberals remaining in the Republican party would be pushed out over the new few decades by the Religious Right and the Reagan Revolution.
So this whole "the Democrats created the KKK" thing is at best a misleading misdirection and revision of history, and at worst a myth.
More: http://quietmike.org/2013/12/0...
The issue here is the fact that the historic context is completely missed by conservatives, and often just plain embellished. Yes, in 1868 the Democrats were the racist party. However, what also must be known is that the Democrats were also the more conservative party at the time. The Republican Party, believe it or not, were the more liberal party. From the Civil War up until about 1948, the Southern Democrats were the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
[..]Yes, in historic perspective the Democrats were a more racist (conservative) party. However, I emphasize conservative. Liberals did not found the KKK, nor did they support segregation. By social standards, these were more conservative minded people at least in regards to race. These were not leftist
dont you know?
it always takes a SWAT team at 4am to serve search warrants.
One such system I saw with mineral oil covered and sealed all the caps and similar components in plastic, not too unlike the coating sometimes applied to PCBs. Just much thicker.
Some amount of paranoia can be healthy. But youre BSI.
As the other dude said: just turn off your wifi and dont connect.
If they really wanted data on whos going to the airport, there is little to stop Cisco from just partnering with the airlines in the first place.
So what you're saying is:
When you are standing in line... ...at the security checkpoint of an airport... ...it's an invasion of privacy for them to know where you are...?
I suspect that a company that builds it reputation on "we wont sell your stuff", and attracts customers based primarily on that mission statement, would lose said customers if it pulled a 180. Whether they can replace those customers is a different matter. But its like the question of whether or not Toys R Us is legally bound to sell toys forever, or if it can turn into a meat shop: they absolutely can decide to go the meat route, but it would be silly and completely nonsensical given their name and market strategy.
Little of what you stated was factual.
When has he ever tried to work with Congress you ask? TRY EVERY TIME.
From the begining, he has tried to work with Congress.
From the begining, the GOP has been dedicated to complete and total opposition to everything the Prez says.
The idea that he wont work with the GOP is a farce. Yes, he has sabotaged his own agenda...in order to try and make a compromise with the other side.
But every time he offer an olive branch they petulently slap it away, because to them the definition of compromise is "we get everything we want, or else."
Stimulus:
Before he took office, Obama began outlining the contours of the federal stimulus package he wanted to get passed, reached out to Republican leaders (then in the minority in both houses of Congress) for their ideas, and threw in a bunch of tax cuts to draw in GOP support for the legislation. “I think he’s already been listening to the suggestions we’ve made,” Mitch McConnell said after initial talks. [..] while Obama did have the stronger hand, he was willing to make concessions to gain passage of the bill, and ended up having to do exactly that. To earn the bare minimum of Republican support needed to get the bill past a Senate filibuster, the White House had to swallow steep cuts to state education programs and other liberal priorities.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were negotiating in bad faith. No matter what Obama threw at them, the House GOP leadership had already decided to oppose him. As NBC noted in its piece, the strategy they adopted from before the beginning of the Obama administration was to fight Obama on everything and work to retake Congress in 2010. Then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor successfully corralled every single member of the House Republican caucus into voting against the stimulus package. “We’re not here to cut deals and get crumbs and stay in the minority for another 40 years,” Cantor said at the time. Only three Senate Republicans – moderates all, one of whom officially became a Democrat months later – voted for the stimulus.
Healthcare:
Largely absent from the discussion of the Affordable Care Act is the fact that this “big government socialist takeover of the health care industry” is actually a pretty conservative piece of legislation. And even less remarked upon is the degree to which Obama sought out Republican input for his healthcare proposals.
The road from vague notions of “healthcare reform” to the concrete reality of the Affordable Care Act was marked by disappointment after disappointment by the White House’s progressive allies, who swallowed hard as pie-in-the-sky dreams of single-payer dissolved into the tepid hope of a “public option,” which dissolved further into grudging acceptance of a healthcare law that has a long GOP pedigree and was pioneered by the former Republican governor of Massachusetts. That pedigree is the reason why the law was studded with Republican healthcare reform ideas – something Republicans refuse to admit as they claim that the law was drafted without their input. That’s also part of the reason why the Republicans, as yet, have not coalesced around an alternative to the Affordable Care Act – everything they come up with ends up looking like Obamacare.
President Obama sought out the Republicans and asked them for ideas during the drafting process. “I believe they’re making an honest and overt effort to deal with Republicans,” Rep. Mike Castle said at the time. (Castle would go on to lose the 2010 Delaware Senate primary to living Tea Party caricature Christine O’Donnell.) Over and over, again and again, Obama tried to bring Republicans to the table and offered compromises on healthcare. And each time he was met with the same answer: no.
“What they want isn’t a bill that incorporates their ideas,” Ezra Klei
No, let's start by coming back to reality, back to actual facts.
Startign with: There are no direct flights. None.
No US airlines fly to Africa. The airlines stopped going when the outbreaks began, over 3 months ago. That's why this talking point is stupid. It ignores reality (shocking!).
There is precisely one flight into and out of the Liberia right now, through Brussels, Belgium. It exists because the Belgain airline, at the WHO's request, specifically maintains an air link into Ebola affected countries, specifically for the purposes of keeping a known route open for medical teams and supplies and aid to fly into affected countries, and to provide a known route out for people trying to leave.
Why provide a known route out? So you know who is leaving, and can track them, and monitor them. Like a honey pot.
If there is no route out, motivated individuals will make one, and health officials wont know who they are, where they went, and who they were in contact with.
There is less hazard in having a known route, than in having NO route.
as opposed to the Party of No? The party that stated on Day 1: "We will oppose everything he says, and make hima one term President" ??
Example:
POTUS: Lets bomb Syria.
GOP: No, now is not the right time. This President is irresponsibly suggesting sending our boys into harms way.
POTUS: Let's not bomb Ukraine.
GOP: This President is weak, a coward. We need to show the world we are strong and stand up to Russia, even if it means sending troops.
or maybe these two different positions taken by Speaker of hte House Boehner, less than 24 hours apart:
July 30, 2014 - We are suing the President for abusing his executive powers and not coming to Congress to deal with the ACA's implementation.
July 31, 2014 - The President doesn't need Congress's permission to act, and should use his Executive Power to solve the immigration crisis instead of waiting for Congress.
But it's the President who won't comprise. Sure.
imagine that: a doctor who thinks things that kill and otherwise impair the health of people is a public health issue.
Reality calling.
It misses you.
Wishes you would return to it.
they could, but procedural rules in parlimentary bodies are a Really Big Deal (tm).
they're practically sacred and nearly untouchable.
Bernie Sanders is one man, who yells at the democrats as much as he does Republicans. You dont seemt o udnerstand the very words you wrote. He is a registered independent, he only caucauses with the dems because they are the closest to the platform he stands on.
And to be clear: he is not a MArxist, leninist, moaist. These things are not synonymous, not to each other, and not to the concept of socialism.
And to be clear again: the democratic party is NOT run by progressives, and there IS a shortage of actual progressives.
The democratic party of today is most like the Republican party of the 50s: it is a MODERATE party that is very pro-business.
And if the Republicans are so pro-civil rights, why do they oppose equal rights for women and homosexuals under the law?
Why do they repeatedly oppose the Equal Rights Amendment to codify it once and for all?
If they're so pro Democracy, why do they try to stop their opposition from voting?
Why do they insist repeatedly that we are not a democracy, and there is no actual "right to vote" ??
In your view, both parties are too liberal? Given that over the past 40 years the entire country's political spectrum has shifted rightward, with BOTH parties becoming more conservative, how does that work?
But once again, we confront the fact that you dont live in reality.
I know reality has a liberal bias, but that's only because people like you refuse to live in reality.
Obamacare IS Romneycare. Every key part of it came from the Heritage Foundations original idea created in the late 80s/early 90s, regardless of however much the HF has tried to disown their very own idea.
The onyl reason Democrats ever opposed it in the past is because the best solution, a nationalized system, like every civilized country in the world that has a system better than ours, was what they actually wanted. The reason they got behind the HF's plan is because they realized compromise was the best way forward. But naturally, as soon as the left supported the right's plan, the right abandoned it, because they dont truly want compromise, and they can only define themselves and their platform in opposition to the left. they refuse to admit there might be areas of agreement, because the idea of admitting they agree with the opposition, ON ANYTHING, is anathema to them, and they fear how it will play in elections. its pitiful.
given how much we overpay, that's not really a concern.
in fact, nonprofits actually have a problem with maintaining nonprofit status, cause they have to find something to do with the money to keep form calling it profits.
nonprofit hospital CEOs make more than the CEOs of for-profit hospitals.
nonprofithospitals tend to be larger, more hospital beds, more equipment.
theres lots of good articles on this stuff.
No, its not buckpassing.
this is a big nation with a HUGE healthcare industry.
Seriously, healthcare is over 20% of our national GDP.
The CDC cannot be everywhere.
Thats why they make guidelines for hospitals and healthcare workers to follow.
The responsibility rests squarely and solely on the hospital that screwed up: the man said he had been in west africa in the outbreak zone and had a fever. they misdiagnosed him and ignored the red flags of his history.
Civilian gun ownership isnt what freaks people out.
Guns in the hands of those too immature, too irresponsible, or not technically proficient is what people fear.
With cars we at least try to take steps prevent those sorts of people from getting behind the wheel.
Few places in this country make any such efforts with guns.