Wrath of Dagon

The butthurt is strong with this one. A few left-leaning states voted as expected, this is supposed to prove something? True raising the minimum wage is fairly popular, but mostly only people earning the minimum wage feel strongly about it. And as we have seen, states that want it are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves, it doesn't have to be done at the federal level.

Well, we seem to be off into foreign policy weeds, but for those interested in domestic American politics, here's a couple of articles: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/the-scariest-part-of-the-republican-blowout-for-democrats/382375/ He's right, social issues are best dealt with at the state level, but he's wrong about lumping amnesty in with social issues. In fact all the Republican Senate candidates that won made opposition to amnesty for illegals an issue in their campaigns. Here's another one about Texas : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/06/Anti-Amnesty-Pro-Border-Security-GOP-Candidates-in-TX-GA-Got-Over-40-of-Latino-Vote Given the margin of Republican victory for all state wide offices of 20% or more, I now feel much better about Texas staying Republican for at least 20 years, demographics or not. Also what the article doesn't say is the Lieutenant Governor candidate was even to the right of Abbott, unlike Abbott made opposition to illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign, and ran against a Hispanic woman, yet got the same margin of victory as Abbott, which means about the same Hispanic support as well. So may be Hispanics aren't the Republican Kryptonite the Democrats think they are.

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time. I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country A Republican president would've kept some troops in Iraq until they were no longer needed, instead of recklessly throwing away all the sacrifice. As far as McCain, he's always been a bit eccentric, but he does usually mean what he says, unless he's running for reelection, in which case he lies like any other politician.

I bet they try and fail within the first month of the new session. Gridlock occurs, Republicans take the majority of the blame, and Democratic presidential candidate gets a boost. This is just my guesstimate though, don't take it as fact. Nah, the President gets blamed for everything anyway, when Democrats took over Congress in 2006 it made it even worse for the Republican presidential candidate, if that was possible. Midterm elections is when the low info voter stays home, so it gives a certain advantage to the Republicans. In this case the Democrats were dragged down by an obviously completely incompetent and out of his depth President, who is nevertheless supremely arrogant and lawless, and seems to care about foreigners, terrorists and traitors far more than American citizens. The economy may be doing decent compared to the rest of the pinko world, but it's not perceived as such as income has stagnated and labor participation rate keeps dropping. Add to that a foreign policy that's going from one catastrophe to another, and it all added up to a bloodbath for the Dems.

Obola's new ISIS strategy has collapsed already: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/us-proxies-surrender-syria

The science is settled : http://news.yahoo.com/u-scientists-uncertainties-loom-ebolas-transmission-other-key-003751718--finance.html

That would only happen if our government were sane, or didn't hate its own citizens. As it is, three (Democrat) governors did require returning health workers to be quarantined, but Obola is pressuring them to give that up. Edit: Sorry, one's a Republican. If I were her, I'd kick him in the nuts for allowing me to get infected. I have to say though I'm quite impressed with our medical capabilities, so far everyone who's been brought back for treatment or got infected here survived.

I don't think the prosecutor has to prove what his state of mind was at the time, unless they somehow can call psychic tele-mindreaders as witnesses. All it takes is for a reasonable person not to believe his idiotic excuse. "Oh sorry Your Honor, I wasn't trying to rob the man, I thought he was going to attack me and so I shot him, and no one can prove I thought otherwise!"

Yeah, but who'd want to go to Russia? Edit: There may be no formal ban, but I strongly suspect they wouldn't give a visa to anyone in those countries, assuming their embassies there are even still open. Edit2 : This infection map I posted in the Ebola thread doesn't show significant air travel or risk for Russia, and I believe the two government studies I've seen don't show it either, although I'm too lazy to look for them right now : http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/13/6959103/ebola-spread-international-epidemic-china-india-europe

You shouldn't be able to go there unless it's something essential, like helping to fight the epidemic, you don't have the right to bring infection back with you. People who do go there on an essential mission should be quarantined for at least 3 weeks when they come back.

Xenonauts and Wasteland 2. Both are so good it's hard to leave one to play the other. A good and rare problem to have, especially when sometimes you start to suspect you're burned out on games. But no, turns out those games were just crap.

Vladimir Putin. Does not care. About Russian people. At least he's not trying to intentionally infect them with Ebola, unlike Western governments.

I like this "all". If you can't do 100%, don't do 99% either. Having said that, screening is only marginally effective since symptoms normally take 8-10 days to develop and without symptoms Ebola can't be detected. The only real solution is a travel ban from epidemic countries.

You have to keep in mind that American main stream press are just Democrat party operatives that won't admit it.

I'd like to see you filing that lawsuit.

There's no way to know who does and doesn't support ISIS. If a guy in Saudi Arabia supports ISIS and decides to fly over to the US; there's nothing we can do. We're not mind readers. Supporting ISIS is one thing. I'm sure a lot of visitors from Muslim lands are supporters. But if you want to get trained terrorists with weapons and explosives into the US, being smuggled across the border is the way to go. Think of the Mumbai attack, there's a reason they didn't just fly into India on commercial air. Btw, Judicial Watch, which was the source in my link, just uncovered another government cover up : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/16/Eric-Holder-s-Top-Deputy-Resigns-Amid-Revelation-Administration-Covered-Up-Use-Of-Fast-and-Furious-Guns-In-Phoenix-Crime

Here's a good commentary : http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-end-of-columbus-day-is-end-of.html Except he's wrong on Hispanics not being minorities because they descended from Spaniards. They're minorities because they also descended from Indians.

Second transmission here, and our government has been shown once again to be a bunch of lying incompetents at best.

It wouldn't necessarily be easier to get in by air, since US intelligence, or whatever's left of it, is supposed to be watching those kinds of threats. Same with Canada, we have more confidence in their security abilities than in those of Latin American countries. Edit: Here's an Iranian plot for a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador : http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/justice/new-york-saudi-assassination-plot/ But of course ISIS would never think to hire a Mexican drug cartel to help them carry out an attack.

You keep saying this, OK I'll bite. Why does it not make sense for ISIS to cross the border?

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will be denied entry But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very different? The required steps from the USA doing it would create much more logistical issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments So it's OK for you guys to be safe, but we don't need to be? So what if a few people get infected and die, that's assuming that an outbreak can even be contained. So far all I see is incredible hubris, and no actual logical analysis. The only way the rest of Africa is going to avoid an epidemic is to restrict travel, yet the WHO is opposed to even that. Edit: Here's an analysis of how air travel increases chances of an outbreak: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/13/6959103/ebola-spread-international-epidemic-china-india-europe Thankfully China and India seem safe for now, the West deserves our higher chances because we're evil.

They're coming up with excuses for their stupid policy; not denying whole events. Big Difference. The point is that they're concealing information American citizens have the right to know. If they're concealing this, you can't be confident in anything they say.

People who are offended by Columbus should go back to wherever their ancestors came from. It's the only morally right thing to do.

There are about 150 people coming from the affected countries to the US per day. What cost and disruption? Just don't give them visas. Do you have any idea of the damage, probably hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to the US economy if Ebola panic spreads? Have you noticed what's been happening to the stock market lately?

I've posted about this before, how to figure out if we live in a computer simulation : http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation I don't know, doesn't sound that convincing.