Ebola: Wake up Call for President Obama, Our Institutions and, Most Importantly, Ourselves

[Jackson]

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans -- about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.

There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.

The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.

As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.

What does this say about Obama?

At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as President of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans' interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise.

Those critics who have been citing Barack Obama's foreign policy fiascoes and disasters as evidence that he is incompetent may be overlooking the possibility that he has different priorities than the protection of the American people and America's interests as a nation.

This is a monstrous possibility. But no one familiar with the history of the twentieth century should consider monstrous possibilities as things to dismiss automatically. Nor should anyone who has followed Barack Obama's behavior over his lifetime, and the values that behavior reveals.

A few critics who, early on, sensed something un-American, if not anti-American, in Barack Obama, succumbed to the idea that he was not a native-born citizen. That claim blew up in their faces.

Nor was birthplace crucial anyway. People born overseas have put their lives on the line to defend America, and scientists who escaped from Europe in the 1930s played a major role in creating the nuclear bomb that made the United States a superpower. Conversely, the country's most notorious traitor -- Benedict Arnold -- was born on American soil.

Whatever the reason, or combination of reasons, that led to President Obama's foreign policy disasters around the world -- with the crowning disaster of all, a nuclear Iran, looming on the horizon -- it cannot be a simple lack of knowledge or experience. Various former members of the Obama administration are telling the same story, of information and advice from knowledgeable and experienced officials being ignored by this vain and headstrong man.

Ebola and Obama - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

This is written by Thomas Sowell, a well known columnist and he makes sense. Rather that claim that the president is a moron and all of the foreign polcy decisions have been so poorly made, it really makes a difference whenyou consider what his priorities were,

From the get go, he was apologizing for America. He was bowing the the ME leaders. I do not think he sees himself as a leader of the US, but a leader of the world. That is why he put our soldiers in harms way in Africa, to return to the US possibly infected. They will help in Africa but put the US in danger at the same time. He is not there to put the protections of the US NO. 1.

I've always felt Obama was a narcissist. Some may not see it that way.But remember that early statement about the "oceans moving" or whatever it was? He really believes that stuff.

Thomas Sowell...a very good read.

 

[occupied]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

 

[Jackson]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

What did it cost to send 3000 souls to West Africa? Spending money is no problem especially to Obama.

You never read the article, did you?

 

[occupied]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

What did it cost to send 3000 souls to West Africa? Spending money is no problem especially to Obama.

You never read the article, did you?

No I didn't. Anything that appeals to such as you has to be bullshit. When it comes time to put up or shut up in the fight against Ebola republicans are going to use it as a lever and demand budget cuts in return for funding. They will use even this in an attempt to score hit points on Obama.

 

[Samson]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

 

[Jackson]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

What did it cost to send 3000 souls to West Africa? Spending money is no problem especially to Obama.

You never read the article, did you?

No I didn't. Anything that appeals to such as you has to be bullshit. When it comes time to put up or shut up in the fight against Ebola republicans are going to use it as a lever and demand budget cuts in return for funding. They will use even this in an attempt to score hit points on Obama.

actually, it's not bs. It makes Obama look much more intelligent that Republicans would want to admit. I have to say, I thought all of the disasters he's had was due to low intellect and poor choices in advisers, but this article gave me a new perspective and showed me his loftier goals.

He doesn't see himself as just the leader of the US, but a leader of the world.

 

[occupied]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

What did it cost to send 3000 souls to West Africa? Spending money is no problem especially to Obama.

You never read the article, did you?

No I didn't. Anything that appeals to such as you has to be bullshit. When it comes time to put up or shut up in the fight against Ebola republicans are going to use it as a lever and demand budget cuts in return for funding. They will use even this in an attempt to score hit points on Obama.

actually, it's not bs. It makes Obama look much more intelligent that Republicans would want to admit. I have to say, I thought all of the disasters he's had was due to low intellect and poor choices in advisers, but this article gave me a new perspective and showed me his loftier goals.

He doesn't see himself as just the leader of the US, but a leader of the world.

I scanned the article and it seemed to be talking all same old shit about the Obama-is-the-real-enemy myth rather than the reality of an Ebola outbreak in this country. Christ, you people love to wallow in your phantom fears.

 

[occupied]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

America is not a fortress where the drawbridge can be pulled up to wait out the plague.

 

[Jackson]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

America is not a fortress where the drawbridge can be pulled up to wait out the plague.

We don't have to accept flights from Africa just as Britain is doing. That would curb the heaviest traffic. If someone is coming into the US and their passport shows they were in Africa, they should have a external thermometer put to their forehead before entry is allowed. If they have a fever, they go into quarantine.

 

[occupied]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

America is not a fortress where the drawbridge can be pulled up to wait out the plague.

We don't have to accept flights from Africa just as Britain is doing. That would curb the heaviest traffic. If someone is coming into the US and their passport shows they were in Africa, they should have a external thermometer put to their forehead before entry is allowed. If they have a fever, they go into quarantine.

That is, in fact, what we are doing at this very moment with the relative hand-full of visitors from effected nations. If past measures of this type are used as an example no cases will be discovered yet Ebola will still come here. Misconceptions will cost lives in this emergency, making this a political issue is bound to fuck-up the response and cost lives.

 

[R.D.]

Thomas Sowell bump.

 

[Samson]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Really?

I see a government which consumes billions of $$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public, and fails.

You see a government which needs even more billions$$$$ for the primary objective of protecting the public?

I guess it would be asking to much to simply close ports of entry to those departing from countries where the disease is not under control? This would not allow the growth of bureaucratic monstrosities designed to "fiddle while the USA" burns.

America is not a fortress where the drawbridge can be pulled up to wait out the plague.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who said anything about a " drawbridge?"

The very simple point is that tremendous resources are already allocated. The issue is that they are poorly managed by bureaucracies that have no incentive to conserve public resources because idiots are quite willing to throw good money after bad at any and every problem that arises.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ebola is going to cost money and people to fight and Republicans are going to be tightwads and obstructionists on even that, bet on it.

Congress approved money to fight the disease nearing a BILLION Dollars..........You freaking Sock Puppet............

When we disagree with current policy, it's always these standard BS lines your side posts.........If this were happening and Bush was still in office you'd be spamming the boards against current policies.........

Which is why your posts are comical at best.

 

[eagle1462010]

My main objections........

1. Proactive Strategy versus Reactive Strategy........Until their was a uproar to ban flights from Ebola land they took no extra steps at all in our Airports at all..........We should have banned flights from Ebola land from the onset. This to put up road blocks to the spread of Ebola. The ban would be for NON ESSENTIAL TRAVEL........Not meaning that medical and others can't go there, but to get back you should have a blood test to VERIFY YOU DON'T HAVE THE DISEASE..........before returning..........If it causes a delay in leaving then OH F........WELL..........

2. Our troops are there building hospitals and providing logistics and medical assistance in the hot zone. Pardon me for wanting to KNOW THE SAFE GUARDS in place for our men and women of the armed forces........We are now building 18 hospitals around the region. HOW MANY ARE THE REST OF THE WORLD BUILDING....................

How about the rest of the WORLD BUILD SOME AS WELL.......Why the FUCK do we have to BORROW to SPEND while the rest of the world DOESN'T DO THE SAME.................

This is a world fight, and they need to do more than they are doing now. I'm not saying they aren't supporting the thing, but THEY NEED TO ANTE UP more than TOKEN INVOLVEMENT while the UNITED STATES PAYS THE LIONS SHARE OF THE OP.

 

[TheAmerican]

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans -- about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.

There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.

The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.

As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.

What does this say about Obama?

At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as President of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans' interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise.

Those critics who have been citing Barack Obama's foreign policy fiascoes and disasters as evidence that he is incompetent may be overlooking the possibility that he has different priorities than the protection of the American people and America's interests as a nation.

This is a monstrous possibility. But no one familiar with the history of the twentieth century should consider monstrous possibilities as things to dismiss automatically. Nor should anyone who has followed Barack Obama's behavior over his lifetime, and the values that behavior reveals.

A few critics who, early on, sensed something un-American, if not anti-American, in Barack Obama, succumbed to the idea that he was not a native-born citizen. That claim blew up in their faces.

Nor was birthplace crucial anyway. People born overseas have put their lives on the line to defend America, and scientists who escaped from Europe in the 1930s played a major role in creating the nuclear bomb that made the United States a superpower. Conversely, the country's most notorious traitor -- Benedict Arnold -- was born on American soil.

Whatever the reason, or combination of reasons, that led to President Obama's foreign policy disasters around the world -- with the crowning disaster of all, a nuclear Iran, looming on the horizon -- it cannot be a simple lack of knowledge or experience. Various former members of the Obama administration are telling the same story, of information and advice from knowledgeable and experienced officials being ignored by this vain and headstrong man.

Ebola and Obama - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

This is written by Thomas Sowell, a well known columnist and he makes sense. Rather that claim that the president is a moron and all of the foreign polcy decisions have been so poorly made, it really makes a difference whenyou consider what his priorities were,

From the get go, he was apologizing for America. He was bowing the the ME leaders. I do not think he sees himself as a leader of the US, but a leader of the world. That is why he put our soldiers in harms way in Africa, to return to the US possibly infected. They will help in Africa but put the US in danger at the same time. He is not there to put the protections of the US NO. 1.

I've always felt Obama was a narcissist. Some may not see it that way.But remember that early statement about the "oceans moving" or whatever it was? He really believes that stuff.

Thomas Sowell...a very good read.

Excellent thread! I agree with Sowell.

Another issue is Liberia itself, "Sirleaf was forced to admit that she once backed strongman Charles Taylor in 1989, whose anti-government revolt led to staggering atrocities in the following decade. The commission in 2009 recommended that several Liberians be barred from holding public office, including Sirleaf." Source: Could Liberia s Democracy Become Ebola s Next Victim Kevin A. Lees




I am sure you already signed the petition, but if not..please join my signature:
Have the FAA ban all incoming and outgoing flights to ebola-stricken countries until the ebola outbreak is contained We the People Your Voice in Our Government

 

[Plasmaball]

Hey is Thomas sorwell.....doing his thing and using Ebola has a weapon to attack the president. ...how hack.....

 

[eagle1462010]

Hey is Thomas sorwell.....doing his thing and using Ebola has a weapon to attack the president. ...how hack.....

Since Obama is the Idiot N Chief so be it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh look! Jackson has gone 6 years convinced that Obama is a blithering idiot and a moron. Until today, when he read a piece by Thomas Sowell. Now he believe Obama is a brilliant man with a real vision. A diabolical vision which includes purposefully infecting US soldiers with Ebola.

Cool trick.