You are joking right? If not, are you aware that the MPAA is a private organization?
What is the MPAA enforcing and how is it enforcing it? If the MPAA didn't have friendly laws passed by the government what would it be able to do?
If I remember correctly, both the two nurses were from the first visit, when it was just flu like symptoms. Also, she did clear her traveling with the CDC, which moves the onus of the flight on them not her.
Even if the CDC "cleared" her for travel she should of known better being a medical professional. She knew there was a chance she had ebola and was contagious and she choose to travel. The CDC didn't force her on that plane. Just because a government agency tells you something is "ok" doesn't mean you can turn your brain off and a absolved from all consequences of your actions.
Your statement baffles me. Somalia does not have laws against any of the things OP complained about. You can shoot people via drone while wearing a costume from your car while talking on a cell phone! That this anarcho-capitalist paradise sprung from the ashes of an oppressive regime (worst than NYC, even) seems beside the point.
I'm not sure why my statement would baffle you. I never claimed that things were great in Somalia; I only claimed that Somalia is the result government failure. I'm not an anarchist, but I am familiar the standard anarchist response to your statement. It goes something like this.... No one ever claimed that the mere absence of a government is sufficient for bliss. The claim is that adding an institution of organized theft and violence will make anywhere worse. Also, in regards to Somalia in particular, in the time since the government of Somalia has collapsed: (1) life expectancy has gone up, (2) death rates have gone down, (3) GDP has nearly tripled, (4) infant mortality is lower, (5) a larger percentage of the population has access to water, and (6) more adults are literate. It seems like by many measures Somalia has done better without a government than they did with a government.
And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).
Somalia once had a strong (and oppressive) central government. It collapsed. Somalia is an example of what happens when strong, oppressive central governments collapse. Telling people who want less government to go to a Somalia may seem pithy, but it really just shows ignorance of history.
The issue of the right to bear arms was NEVER mutually agreed upon by the states and federal government. The federal government essentially tricked the states by the use of a carefully placed comma.
I'd be interested in knowing if you have any references at all to support that claim. I'd prefer something written during that time period that says something to the effect of, "Dang it, those clever Federalists tricked us with that comma! Curse you, comma!"
Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become.
Ack! The country is a trap! We are all going to be melted!
If she were my child, there would be no way I would let them stop me from getting her back. If paperwork and appeals didn't do the trick, I would very quickly escalate the actions I took to ensure her safety and care under my responsibility. That might mean intimidation or violence...so be it. They threw the first stone. The State has absolutely no reason to take these parents' child from them.
I agree with you that that The State had no reason to take the child, but be careful. The State views those that use violence against it as the most vile criminals and would not hesitate to have you thrown in prison. If you are in prison how can you help your child?
This ALWAYS this you crybabies whine about right up until it is your ASS being left out front of the hospital. Then it is all about SAVE ME!
What you say could be 100% true and the ACA could still be unconstitutional. What you are doing here is attacking the person (an imaginary person) rather than attacking the argument. If you want to argue that it is constitutional your best bet would be to go to the constitution and find the parts that you think would allow for this legislation. For help you could read what the supreme court justices said about the legislation.
not of used
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.
Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.
That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.
Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.