tvc184

  What? Uphold the US and TX constitutions?

This copied directly from the CDC website:   Symptoms of Ebola include Fever (greater than 38.6°C or 101.5°F) Severe headache Muscle pain Weakness Diarrhea Vomiting Abdominal (stomach) pain Unexplained hemorrhage (bleeding or bruising) Symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure to Ebola, but the average is 8 to 10 days.   Maybe my reading comprehension skills aren't so good but it certainly looks to me like fever is included with other "symptoms" (their description) along with other things such as vomiting, diarrhea, etc.   I know what it is, the CDC doesn't know what it is talking and people on this forum know more about it than they do. I can accept that.

Now the director of the CDC says.... Oh, she shouldn't have been told that it was okay.   He said that protocol by the local hospital wasn't followed (does it really matter how it spreads, your mistake, my mistake, a bad protocol, a new and unknown means of transmission such as airborne?) and it was a local mistake.... only to come back today and say the CDC made an error letting her fly.   Does anyone else see this as almost a comedy of errors if it wasn't so serious? 

  I looked up Influenza on the CDC website. One of the symptoms? Fever.   I looked up Salmonella on the CDC website. One of the symptoms? Fever.    I looked up Ebola on the CDC website. One of the symptoms? Fever.   Apparently the CDC thinks that fever is a symptom of an illness. They probably have no clue what they public on their website. 

And could what I just saw be true? She called the CDC and was cleared to fly.... when she had Ebola.    Apparently the nurse was not at fault but the CDC gave consent to fly. 

  Strange, that is not what the CDC says about Ebola (and many other illnesses) on their website. 

I also find a statement by the CDC that the nurse on the flight was likely not contagious before symptoms set it. They go on to say that she had a fever.   I know that I am only a lay person when it comes to most medicine but I thought that fever was a symptom. 

    Here is the problem with that. Yes, it might be (?) be easy to stop from spreading, assuming nothing goes wrong. Your own statement says, "if they'd done things right". Very true and as your statement shows, they did not.    First we had a guy lie and get on a plane and brought it to the USA for the first time ever other than patients being intentionally brought back. Then we have a nurse that was supposed to be using the correct protocol for treating Ebola (or maybe any infectious disease) and yet she got it. I heard a CDC rep say that she did nothing wrong but someone else made a mistake Ooookay.... great. But someone in the health field made a mistake and it spread to a person that was supposed to be protected, not the unprotected masses. Now a second worker got it. Ooookay.... but she then got on a plane which she was not supposed to do. The CDC claims that she had a fever when she boarded the flight. Hmmm..... easy to contain assuming everyone does everything perfectly?    When the first nurse got Ebola, the CDC came out and said that it was only because protocol was not followed.... then they said that the nurse herself was not at fault.... but the don't know who was.... and they are not sure (at the time I saw the interview) what protocol was violated. That is a lot of "I don't know" answers for something that the CDC claims can easily be contained. CDC just as well say: "All we know is that someone must have screwed up because we made a statement that there is no danger".    Now what? Mistakes are being made right now and people are starting to get it when it is supposed to be in a safe environment and then breaking their own rules/protocol such as flying when they weren't supposed to and after a fever was detected. Was she infectious at that point with Ebola? If so, how many people did she now expose and how many people have to be tracked down from that commercial flight?   So will these mistakes spread it outside into a highly unprotected population? Is it now contained?   I am hoping that these mistakes are immediately rectified but the fact is that people that should have known better have caught it and spread it. Apparently the situation is being treated by humans and being human, are prone to mistakes. We have now apparently seen some from people that our government through the CDC said would not happen. For something that is supposed to be easily contained, it does not give me much confidence as the CDC is portraying.    I truly hope that this is nothing but an interesting media blitz. I thought that after Duncan died, we would pass the (claimed) magical 21 days and it would be over with Ebola being eradicated from our country. Hopefully these stupid mistakes will get people's minds right that are dealing with it and quit breaking whatever protocols the CDC has in place. Then hope that those protocols are correct.    But your premise of it not being easily spread seems questionable considered it has spread and inside of healthcare where you would think is the last place it would be. I can see Duncan's family coming down with it but just like the worker overseas that was following protocol and got it also, just how safe are these protocols to make mistakes. 

  I thought of NBC. 

    Yep, they would never think of suicide. 

Yeah but that is Fox News for you.   Wait, that is from the NY Times................. 

I wonder under what authority/court they are getting the subpoenas? Subpoenas aren't really hard to get but there has to be some kind of claim of a tort or criminal act.    In this case, what is the claimed act?

Unless something really big happens like a major faux pas by Abbott (think Clayton Williams), he will likely walk away easy with this one. 

  They are just divine. 

  The problem is that suing is not a right.    Civil law, like criminal law, is specific on what it covers. It includes what you can sue for and in some cases, what you cannot sue for, what the limits are  and what circumstances that allow a suit.   You mention waiving "rights" but the most intrusive laws on our lives are criminal laws where the state can take away everything up to your life yet under those laws, you can "waive your rights". You have the right to remain silent but you can certainly talk if you wish. You have the right to privacy in your home, on your person and in your papers and effects but if you wish to allow a search, you can do so.    Those are just examples but you can see that you can waive a true right that is guaranteed under the US and various state constitutions. You can definitely waive a legal ability (not right) to bring a lawsuit. It is a common phrase that you can sue someone for anything and while I understand the sentiment (meaning you can make an accusation), you can only sue for what the law "allows" you to sue for.    In Texas that is a set of laws called Civil Practice and Remedies Code that covers most of civil laws as it relates to lawsuits. 

  I was going to ask the same thing. 

  You are stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point.    Your first example is a Muslim suing a Muslim organization in basically contract law. They are required in their own organization to arbitrate the issue in front of church clerics. From what I have seen in contract law (written and verbal) is that an agreement to use another form of mediation exists, that must happen. I know that if you buy certain things like vehicles, manufactured homes, etc., you often sign a contract says you cannot use the court system for a complaint and must use an arbitrator around the right to sue in a normal court. The only way it will get to a court of law is if the agreed upon contract (verbal or written) was not followed.    The judge in that case said that it is their church law to go to arbitration in front of the church first. If that is correct then that is no different than any other contract law where you agree to a means of mediation. I know that our union has such a contract and we cannot sue for many things unless our agreed upon process is not followed and therefor the contract violated. In fact we have sued but only to make the court get our employer back to the arbitration table, not to settle the lawsuit. We have to comply with the agreement to use arbitration.    In the second case you cite, the case was overturned on the First Amendment. The law specifically banned the use of Sharia law but did not mention any others. I did not say to ban any religion law but to ban the use of "international" or "Sharia" law.    The problem is the discriminatory nature of the amendment that spells out one specific religion but does not spell out others. Apparently by that OK constitutional amendment, you could use Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other church doctrine to determine a lawsuit but not Sharia law. Explain to me how that does not violate the First Amendment where a single religion is named in a constitutional amendment.    How under a state constitution or the US Constitution can you spell out a single religion as the law applies to and not violate the First Amendment? I think they might have an easier job passing constitutional muster if they had said something like, judges cannot consider any religion precept in determining a court case. OK chose not to put that on the ballot but chose to single out someone that they didn't like and are shocked when someone calls them on it. 

    That is not entirely correct.    You have the right to refuse service to anyone except if it is based on race, religion or national origin (maybe some others). Toss in the EEOC and employment and you can add in things like sex, age, sexual harassment, disability, etc.    You can require people to wear shoes in your establishment, lay down safety rules, require people to not get rowdy, have some other form of dress code, etc. You can't legally say, "We don't allow blacks in here".    Hence your statement that we have the right to refuse service to anyone is not correct. Basically you can if it is not discriminatory against a protected class and we all belong to some protected class. 

  Where do they practice separation?    You can have any belief that you want but it doesn't trump the law. Let a Muslim try to beat his wife and say that it is okay by Sharia law. Sorry but he is going to jail. They just had a guy behead a person in OK under his belief of Sharia law. Is he not being held for murder?    That is why I can't make any sense of your argument. Christians can believe anything they wish but must still comply with state and federal laws.    We can only compare what they do in this country and the laws in this country. What other countries allow is up to them but there is no special status for a Muslim here under Sharia law. That is also why I can't understand how the separation of church and state (an American constitutional freedom) has anything to do with their beliefs. 

  Huh?   They only have rights because of separation of church and state?    I am not sure that means and then I don't see where it enters into this topic. 

  TDCJ is almost always hiring everything. I think their turnover is fairly high. 

  More likely he is far enough removed from the administration to sell a book on what really happened behind closed doors. 

But it reported on that radical conservative site, CNN. 

Ouch! When Jimmie Carter criticizes you for inaction, it must be getting obvious even to the worshipers. 

Ours went up with less coverage and our deductible have exploded.    The "affordable" part of Obamacare was for the people that never paid for it in the first place. I doubt that any more people (in numbers) have insurance today than before so there is no new coverage however prices have gone through the roof for paying customers.   I have read in these forums and in others that the reason for many of the increases on insurance was that under Obamacare we are not getting something like "adequate" insurance where before we were getting bare bones coverage. I hate to tell anyone with that argument but my coverage that has increased in price has not gotten better but I have lost benefits.    The bottom line is that less coverage is now more expensive.