Not saying she isn't sick. Just saying pneumonia isn't a communicable disease in and of itself. If anything it's a symptom.

You were saying it COULDN'T be pneumonia because she wouldn't have gotten anywhere near a child.

I was just saying your argument against pneumonia was invalid.

Hey, how about we agree she was hopped up on cough syrup, then you can say she's a lush!

No. Not even if you don't have HIV, I'm married and would like to stay that way.

As mentioned above, if both parties have a cut in their mouths, there's real risk. Because you can't possibly know that you don't have any tiny open cuts in your mouth/throat, it's a stupid risk to take, since the consequence is so dire (and please don't say that HIV isn't a death sentence today...it is, you just have longer thanks to better, expensive drugs).
What wasn't mentioned above was, people with HIV have compromised immune systems, so even if you believe you can't get HIV, you could certainly get whatever else they've contracted because of their weak immune system. Again, there's no way for them to know what they might have, even if they were JUST "tested" (some diseases are communicable before they show positive in tests, some tests take days or weeks for results, by which time they're invalid, some diseases can't be tested for, and you can't possibly test for everything).

Chances are good that you would be OK. The same could be said for many dangerous activities that people avoid because of a slight risk of the totally unacceptable happening.
But, I'm the type that won't share a joint, fork, drink, or bong with friends either. 1/4 of people have Herpes, and I have no way to know which one. Screw that!

Tasmanian has had a very rough time with the Tassy Tiger also being hunted to extinction (kind of a marsupial wolf iirc) and, not to equate humans to animals, the Tasmanian Aboriginals also being wiped out due to small pox and other diseases from well meaning missionaries.

In the devils case, this seems to be an awful trick of evolution, as noted in the video, a single animal experienced a cell mutation which left it with a communicable cancer that is uniquely suited to transmit via the devils form of (anti)social interaction... = (

Sir:
I believe you have stated in an advanced yet concise and digestible fashion the theory which I personally hold regarding the infinity.
As of yet I have been unable to convert this intuitive notion of mine into a more concrete, communicable idea.
You may have just done that for me.

Thank you.

I never claimed those to be facts. >> ^BoneRemake:

Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.

As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

(Nitpicking: I think MCMXLV would be 1945, whereas 1965 would be MCMLXV). That being said, you have a point about the video's questionable historicity (the only results Google-god gave me link back to this video). I will change the video information accordingly.

>> ^RFlagg:

Copyright MCLXV... 1165? Even if they meant MCMXLV that would put it in 1965 and DeMille died in 1959, so he directed it beyond the grave, or in the case of 1165 an ancient ancestor's thought)? Also the CDC wasn't called the Centers for Disease Control until 1970... in 1965 it would have been the Communicable Disease Center. So bad fake is bad...
EDIT: I think perhaps it should be removed from the History and Vintage channels and put back in Parody, though it does lack the humor one would expect with parody so perhaps not that one...

Copyright MCLXV... 1165? Even if they meant MCMXLV that would put it in 1965 and DeMille died in 1959, so he directed it beyond the grave, or in the case of 1165 an ancient ancestor's thought)? Also the CDC wasn't called the Centers for Disease Control until 1970... in 1965 it would have been the Communicable Disease Center. So bad fake is bad...

EDIT: I think perhaps it should be removed from the History and Vintage channels and put back in Parody, though it does lack the humor one would expect with parody so perhaps not that one...

Pasted below are Roman's responses to our Roast Quiz. The RoastMASTER's commentary appears in parentheses.

My real name is Roman Novak. I'm from Europe, Slovenia (we don't know what cheetos are), but I'll try to answer your stupid questions as best as I can.

1.What do you, do most of the day when you are not lounging, but not on the computer?
Roman: Mostly I do nothing or as little as possible. I watch tv shows, movies, read books and smoke weed. When I become bored of that I go outside and get drunk at a pub. In the summertime I ride mountain bikes. I don't like winter or winter sports much

2.Who are you more fond of?
A..Mother
B.McDonalds
C.Beer
D.Technical Assistance
E. Dairy Products
F.All of the above
G.None (kill them all)
Roman: Kill'em all, leave the beer.

3. How many pairs of shoes as opposed to matching undergarments.... boxers or briefs
Roman: weird question. (editor: no shit, what were you thinking Choggie?) I'd say 1 shoe for 10 underpants. there

4.mac or pc?
Roman: pc. or at least hackintosh

5. Who’s your guru?
Roman: I don't have guru's, but there are a few people I love and would buy beer for them. mostly writers I like, movie directors, scientists and people who make me laugh.

6.Bush or No Bush?
Roman: I don't care

7.sprinkles, gravy, or cherry on top?
Roman: gravy ( Ass gravy, of course)

8.tits, ass, or legs.
Roman: face first, gotta be cute. tits are not a priority, but a fine ass is a must. also, i hate fankles

9.supine or prostrate?
Roman: i sleep on my back if that's what u mean (It’s not, but whatever. You have to cut the guy a little slack for his ESL handicap)

10. cat, dog or other
Roman: dog, i guess. not really a pet person

11. Car, bike, public transit, walking or motorcycle?
Roman: bike first, then car (I don't own one for past 3-4 years now)

12.time, newsweek or USNews and World Report?
Roman: i get my news from Stephen Colbert (like every good Videosifter)

13.beer preference?
Roman: Laško (slovenian), Heineken

14.Religion: Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist,Agnostic,Jedi?
Roman: no religion (Again, like everybody here at Videosift)

15.Ever arrested?
Roman: not actually arrested, I was charged a couple of times, most were drug related, couple of fights, and theft once - which I was innocent of and proved it in court, too. (I guess the definition of “arrested” is different in Slovenia than in North America)

16.cheetos: crunchy or puffs?
Roman: crunchy

17.dog or cat person?
Roman: look at 10 (holy double post, batman!)

18.bangs, balding or rug?
Roman: bangs

19.five most cherished possessions
Roman: possesions ... my bike, i guess. my computer. I'm not really attached to material things (+ I don't have many so it's kinda meaningless question for me) and mementos don't do much for me either. every few years I throw ever4ything away and start over

20.clean shaven, beard, goatee or moustache
Roman: beard (it only tickles for a little while)

21. Desert Island albums?
Roman: hard to decide. something jazzy, definetly (sic)

22. Pro gay marriage, or agin?
Roman: do whatever the fuck you want, is my motto. just don't piss on other people

23. Communicable diseases... be honest
Roman: never ever. besides, I hardly have sex any more except with myself (no wonder he fits in so well here, plus he gives amazing backrubs)

>> ^Payback:
>> ^nach0s:
I'm glad Anderson did saved this kid from more serious harm, but my exploit-o-meter was pretty active during this video. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Heroes are not required to be selfless, they just need to act when others stand back and observe.


I would like to add, that when it comes down to it, AC put himself at risk to help that boy. Blood was pouring from the child's head, Anderson had no idea if that boy has any communicable diseases that, and it doesn't look as if the thought even crossed his mind, he just picked up the boy and carried him to safety.

Be cynical if you must, I know I am, but here I didn't see any cause for cynicism. He's just a good guy.

First things first -- Medicare is more efficient. The rate of cost inflation for Medicare and Medicaid have been slower than the inflation costs of private insurance.

As for the "moral" question, why indeed should I care about anyone else? I mean, if my neighbor's house catches fire, surely there's no chance mine will catch too.

Surely if my neighbor loses his job, and then loses his home, my property's value won't decline.

Surely if my neighbor catches a communicable, dangerous disease like swine flu, I'm sure I'll never catch it from him.

Even people to which selfishness is a virtue should realize we're all invested in each other's fates.

Plus, are conservatives utterly convinced that they can't lose their job, or lose their insurance, and that even if they do that they're immune to serious illness?

I just don't understand why they're so dead set against a safety net, when they're as likely as anyone else to get cancer, or hit by a drunk driver.

I'll try and give a "short" explanation for what the thinking of "those in bed with the current form this bill (read, "liberal left" and "1000+ page monstrosity that no one has read" respectively)" is.

Uninsured people come into our hospitals when they become critically ill. The hospitals are both legally and morally obligated to help them despite their lack of insurance, or means to pay. When they cannot pay their bill, the hospital is reimbursed by taxpayers.

Uninsured people, like normal people, can catch and spread disease. We would rather they seek treatment for that disease to reduce the spread of the disease, and in some cases, to give them a cheaper, earlier treatment rather than have to do highly expensive, invasive treatments when they come to the hospital later.

There are 47 million such people in the United States, and they are a) having to suffer treatable/preventable medical conditions, b) putting the rest of us at greater risk of communicable disease, and c) costing us more money than they would if we gave them taxpayer-funded insurance up front. I suppose some fraction are also d) never going to get sick or injured without insurance, but I doubt it's anywhere near 100%.

Therefore, universal coverage is a goal for reasons of morality, public health, and cost control.

The other issues the "1000+ page monstrosity that no one has read" (summarized here and here) is seeking to address is escalating costs, and the reliability of coverage (preventing rescissions and "pre-existing condition" denial, making it job-portable, etc.).

Really, the whole conversation is about reworking the system so people have good incentives. Patients have no disincentive to seek medical help, doctors have incentives focused on patient outcomes (and not the profit margins of tests and procedures), and insurers forced to compete on things like price & service, instead of careful risk selection (i.e. only insuring people who won't get sick).

Personally, I don't think incrementalism is sufficient. To address most of these issues, it will require changes that you would call "radical" like employer & individual mandates, or requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants, etc. I also don't think there's valid reason to fear making our system worse by quickly implementing policies that have been successfully used throughout the rest of the industrialized nations, especially when there's a human and monetary cost for delay.

Agree or disagree, that's what us liberals are thinking.

>> ^chilaxe:
Do they just give free hugs in the street? Where I come from, you have to pay a hooker in order to get hugs.


Not only that but because they can go to the doctor anytime they feel ill, there's a minimal chance you'll catch a communicable disease from said hugs.

But seriously, how dare they not embrace selfish greed like Fox says we all should?!