The cords would just keep getting tangled up. You're much better off getting the DC model with a big battery pack.

WTF is with those "sponsored links" at the bottom? Apparently even the "disable ads" option doesn't remove them. Oh well, at least I can kill them with adblock.

Considering that the cost to the U.S. of this ebola outbreak is going to be in the billions of dollars, it makes a lot of sense to fund research into vaccines to reduce the cost to us later on, regardless of what other countries are doing.

It's too bad that nobody has invented a method where a link to a full explanation could be included within the summary itself. Maybe when people start using this new-fangled "world wide web" thing, we'll be able to do cool things like that.

More likely they'll have to cancel the project. After all, if it was possible for modern technology to create machinery that works when submersed in salt water, I sure that somebody would have already done it.

If you stay on DST year round, won't schedules eventually gravitate towards everything happening an hour later? And eventually, somebody will get the brilliant idea to switch the clocks forward another hour...

It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."

Let's review, shall we?

But then you say:

I don't know any way to reconcile those statements. They are fundamentally contradictory.

Repeated assertion does not make something true. I am capable of recognizing and assessing the arguments on both sides, and I intensely dislike a mode of debate that tries to marginalize or misrepresent the people on the other side.

You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue, and you know it. That is the definition of a lie. If you don't like being called a liar, you should probably stop doing it.

So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances? All right; I'll believe you, although I got a different impression from these comments that you made that led me to believe that you thought that quarantining a person who was "actively sick" with Ebola would be reasonable.

Denying the right of the government to impose a quarantine under any circumstances is a consistent point of view, albeit one that is probably not going to get much support.

How about you address what I said, rather than making personal attacks? Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?" Based on your last answer, maybe you do. But say so, rather than lashing out.

I'm guessing that means that you can't actually answer the question?

I gave you a pass before, but since you've responded to all my comments, you already know very well that I do not support a general quarantine. If your argument is so sound, why do you keep resorting to lying about someone who disagrees with you?

To answer the question, the CDC says that the federal government derives its authority to impose a quarantine from the Commerce Clause. Which is mostly just a way of saying that "it's not in the Constitution, but we're pretending that it is anyway."

You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease. Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be. That is essentially what this is about.

Of the three healthcare workers who have come down with symptoms, at least one of them traveled using mass transit after beginning to exhibit those symptoms. That's not a particularly good record. The concern is that by not taking any precautions, you increase the probability that someone will be in public when they are contagious.

You're not "safe" if you show no symptoms. You're safe right now. The fact that you and so many others fail to acknowledge the difference tells me that you're being deliberately obtuse. And until you approach the subject honestly, you can't pretend that you are engaging in an intelligent discussion on the subject.

There is a large continuum between "Everyone can do anything they want" and "Everyone should be put into a concentration camp." It is outright dishonest for you to claim that there is no middle ground.

There is a valid argument to be made concerning human rights. So make that argument, rather than the stupid one that people are trying to make.

Where is the part of the Constitution that allows you to hold someone who is actively sick?

This is true.

This, on the other hand, is false. It does not logically follow, no matter how many times people assert it.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent the reasoning behind these quarantines. The purpose is not to prevent someone who is already contagious from infecting someone else. The purpose is to prevent someone who may become contagious in the future from doing so where there is potential to infect other people.

There are arguments to be made against that policy, but "she tested negative" is completely irrelevant in this context. Until you acknowledge the real reasoning behind the policies instead of the strawman you've constructed, you can't engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic.

You accuse me of making an assertion based on panic. What assertion is that? Do you deny that a person can be infected, and still test negative for ebola? If so, then you need to do some more research.

The purpose for the quarantine is so that people will be away from the public when they become infectious.

If you think that's unneeded or the wrong way to go about it, then fine. I actually agree. But stop trying to pretend that a negative test for ebola is relevant in this discussion. It's not.