Dr. Kent Brantly
Nurse Nancy Writebol
Dr. Rick Sacra
Nurses Vinson and Pham
Dr. Craig Spencer
All now cured and back at work.
Sounds like a perfect strategy to get what they want finished..
1. first take health care away from 5 or 10 million Americans.
2. When that's done, close a few dozen schools.
3. Then shut down a few hundred miles of roads and highways.
4. Dump coal ash and other pollutants on streams and rivers in West Virginia, North Carolina, and elsewhere.
Pretty soon we realty will have that smaller government they want.
Eight (8) ebola patients have been treated in the US. One American cameraman, 6 medical workers, and one Liberian visitor. All were cured, except for the one man who was turned away from a Texas hospital. Two of them were infected in America when they worked in a Texas hospital that did not follow the necessary protocols. The other 6 were infected in Africa and brought home for treatment.
A total of 8. - not exactly an epidemic, as they (except for one) were properly treated and managed to control the spread of the disease. The disease did not spread here, and it looks like it is beginning to be controlled and reduced in Africa now as well. But, keep your instruction manual, with the title, DON'T PANIC" in large friendly letters on the cover ready. We may need it.
Countries other than the US? Please do tell us how "countries other than the US" cured the sick in US hospitals. Tell us how "counties other than the US" kept US hospital workers healthy while treating those sick with ebola. Tell us how "counties other than the US" kept US citizens healthy while living with and being "exposed" to those who did or might have had the disease.
Have a greater influence? That would be great! When will Congress show their influence by discussing and doing something about the war with ISIS, jobs, income inequality, the middle class, fire arm injuries and deaths, health care, climate change, education, immigration, the economy, and the budget?
It looks like were are now ebola free. Quarantine periods are over and there are no new cases of ebola. Ebola free in New york. Ebola free in Maine. Ebole free in New Jersey. Even ebola free in Texas. As soon as doctors and hospitals listened to the CDC instructions and followed them, we have cured those where were sick and infected no new people. There was only a single death, in a hospital that did not follow existing CDC instructions. The CDC using existing scientific and medical knowledge was right.
From 1947 to 959, Reagan as the president of a union - the Screen Actors Guild. At least n his youth, Reagan understood the needs of middle class workers and union members. But later on, perhaps not so much, when he became a CEO who had to deal with unionized employees.
I've wondered who the new Teddy Roosevelt (Or Robert LaFollette) might be for a while now. Both Roosevelt and LaFollete were progressive Republicans, but I don't see any of today's Republians anywhere near them.
Many people have receive a "Progressive" label, from George Wallace and David Duke on the Right to Ralph Nader, and the Occupy Wall Street group on the left. A modern progressive would need to support opposition to corporate bosses, big banks, and corporate influence on government. They'd need to support jobs and good pay for the middle class. And they'd need to support a reduction in foreign wars. None of the current Republicans fit this mold, and Hillary doesn't either.
Maybe there is someone out there who fits this progressive mold, but I'm don't know who it would be. I also don't know whether s/he might be a Republican or a Democrat. Obama has shifted enough to the right, so that he does match many of the progressive Republican ideals. But few Republicans would be willing to acknowledge it.
The man wasn't my ancestor, but he did live in the same town where I live now. He left a lot of letters and other documents behind that explain his views in great detail.. He clearly states that he opposed ratification of the Constitution because it did not outlaw slavery, and treat all men as equal under G-d.
He was a man with an interesting history. Before the war, he was a lawyer in the Crown's courts. He oppressed the revolution because he didn't think that the mighty British forces could be defeated. He spent the war in prison because of his views. After the war, his neighbors, many who had spent years fighting the British, immediately showed their continuing respect for him. They elected him to many town and state offices. One of those offices was his election to the committee that reviewed the new Constitution for the state.
Lang, you may be right (slavery wasn't what keep RI out, initially) Bur Rhode Island is really the odd man out in New England. They were the first to outlaw slavery, having done that in 1652, but they didn't enforce the law for more than a century. At the time of the revolution Rhode Island had more slaves than any other New England state. The biggest New England farms were in RI, all operated with many slaves.
At thr time there were quite a few RI families that got rich i the slave trade. They build ships and ran shipping companies. They brought New England manufactured equipment, such as tools, lumber, nails, plows, and clock to Africa and traded for slaves. The slaves were brought to American, to cities like Savanna and Charleston where they sold the slaves. Then they carried agricultural products, including cotton back to New England. Perhaps the most wealthy ship building and trading family in Providence was the Brown family - you may remember Brown University, which is in Providence now.
It all came to an end in 1808 when a treaty stopped the transport of slaves across the Atlantic. The US and most European countries enforced that treaty. The Amistad case which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1839 by ex-president John Quincy Adams assured that slaves would no longer be transported from Africa, when the Supreme Court said that the slaves on the Spanish ship, La Amistad should be freed and allowed to return to Africa.
I was just pointing out that there have not been any big changes in our political divisions over the past 200 years. I didn't voice any particular point of view, in this post, although I think I have in some other posts.
With net neutrality, businesses can easily make money of they are smart. they just need to charge every customers the same for the same level of services. Most companies that treat each customer fairly and equally, succeed and compete very well.
Rhode Island didn't ratify the US Constitution until 1790, the last of the 13 colonies to do so. Neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had ratified the Constitution by the fall of 1788, so neither sate was able to vote in the first presidential election, when George Washington was elected unanimously.
Also Rhode Island (and most of the rest of New England) opposed the war of 1812, calling it Mr. Madison's War. As England was America's (and especially New England's ) biggest trading partner, they did not want to see their source of income lost in a war that would do them no good. A Massachusetts congressman said the war was "cowardly, futile, unconstitutional, and that the main reason of it was to get President Madison reelected. "
And, yes, Rhode Island, and much of New England was Federalist in nature, although there were some anti-federalists, as well. But Rhode Island still did not ratify the Constitution for a long time. I don't know about Rhode Island, but I suspect that their reason may have been similar to the reason used by someone who lived in my town here. He was elected to a small committee that was created to read and review the new constitution, and to decide whether New Hampshire should ratify it or not. Although the committee and New Hampshire chose to ratify the Constitution, the committee member from my town voted not to ratify, simply because it allowed slavery to continue.
They has been much discussion here recently about reducing the money our government spends, with both sides well entrenched in their judgments. One side wants to actually reduce the amount of money spent - and so reduce the real size of the government. The other side wants to keep spending rising as the size of the country grows, preserving a strong government.
This isn't a new argument. In fact, this same argument dates back to the start of our country, when the Constitution was written. At that time our government was run under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a very small and weak government. There was no executive. There were no courts or ways to enforce rules; no taxation; and no national army or navy. The country was more like a weaker European Union with 13 separate "countries" which could each print their own money, and raise tariffs on trade with neighboring states. There was no strong and steady national leadership.
Our founding fathers realized that we needed a stronger national government, so they assembled to write a stronger Constitution. These people, including John Adams, George Washington, James Madison (who wrote most of the Constitution), and Alexander Hamilton, among others wanted to create a stronger national government. They became known as the Federalists.
On the other side of the aisle were the Anti-Federalists. They wanted a government that was weaker, smaller, and tax-free. Among the anti-Federalists, initially were Patrick Henry, James Monroe, George Mason and Richard Henry Lee. Eventually Jefferson and Madison switched sides as they saw how strong a government Washington had created.
The federalists were mostly from the north and the mid-Atlantic states.Almost all business owners were Federalist because they could not run their businesses without a strong federal government, with courts and laws that everyone must follow.. The Anti-Federalists were mostly southern and rural farmers.
Not much has changed!
Yes, and that seems to be so, and it makes a resulting fact a little easier to understand. Far more Americans are shot in their homes than in any other developed country, mostly with their own guns. Yet another case where you can't trust beliefs and you need to look at all the facts, instead.
I've answered my own question with a simple search. It looks like there are lots of places where they have other priorities than safety and human lives.
There are dozens of oil and gas truck accident attorneys who are happy to defend those who have been injured in an oil or gas truck accident.
And there was also this article in the Oct. 12 Houston Chronicle:
Deadly accidents booming along with oil
In the oil boom, truck traffic has increased all across Texas – and fatal accidents are booming here too. Fatalities involving trucks have shot up 50 percent since 2009 – some involving substandard oilfield hauling companies.
So-called triple tragedies involving three or more victims are on the rise too. Some of the worst crashes involved fatigued oilfield workers and fracking crews killed after drivers fell asleep after working 20 hours or more. Joe Rios of San Antonio and two other members of his fracking crew died on Highway 72 in one of many fatigue-related wrecks. Highway 72, a road that is only 111-miles long and links small Eagle Ford boom towns, has become one of the state's most dangerous highways.
"As much as $3000 for an 75 hour week."
Whoa! Who wants to be driving on any road with someone driving thousands of gallons of hazardous, flammable oil more than 10 hours a day, 7 days a week? We've already had a bunch of big rail accidents with oil trains. Is the plan to now do the same thing on our highways?
I wish I knew what makes Tea Party members nuts. If we knew what makes then nuts, we might be able to fix it and not have to deal with so many nuts in the future. It would save lots of time and money, and let us get on with what we need to do .
Moving it to the states does not do anything to "Reduce the Overall Size of Government.". It just moves one function from one government to another. Most of our government spending is already at the local level, including education, police, roads, trash disposal, welfare, fire protection, and a lot more. Local government spending is at least twice what we spend at the federal level. We can certainly discuss how much federal funding and oversight is needed for our schools, but almost all the spending and control still remains at the local level.
Lang, this whole thread is a perfect example of what a big problem the Republican party has. They can't even agree among themselves. . It's going to be very interesting watching the fights in Washington, as they try to do anything. I still think that there is a good chance that the Republican party will split down the middle, producing two different party who hate each other, and are both too small to do anything themselves. If they spend this much time fighting amongst themselves, they won't even see the Democrats in the distance.