Why the fuck aren't we stopping all passengers from IBOLA infected regions?

[Mac1958]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:



CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

 

[Redfish]

I have no idea why commercial flights weren't stopped long ago. But, practically speaking, we cannot keep HC workers from travelling to and from W. Africa. It was inevitable that eventually someone would bring it here. What's disturbing the CDC appears to have had no plan, or perhaps even clue, how to track and then isolate anyone who was there who then ran a fever. And, the CDC appears to have had no plan, or even clue, how to treat people with Ebola without infecting hospital staff.

Healthcare workers and supplies could be delivered by military or private flights. Commercial passenger flights should be stopped NOW.

A basic question: Is the USA responsible to cure all the diseases in the world if doing so puts the american people at risk of death?

What are Russia and China doing to help africa? how about europe? how about the other countries of africa? Why is the USA the world's medical savior and policeman? If thats our world role, why aren't we getting paid to do that?

Sure, military (or private contractor) flights could ferry aid and workers. But, that would not prevent an infected worker arriving in the US before he/she showed a fever and became contagious.

The reason to send aid to W.Africa is that if the disease ends up as an epidemic in some place like Algeria or Morocco it may well end up as an epidemic in Europe, or it could pass into the middle east and to asia. The last real pandemic we had was the Spanish Flu in 1918, and that killed 2% of the world's population. This could possibly be worse.

Yes, all the more reason to isolate it in two african countries. Quarantine those countries and limit the fight to that small area.

But obozo is too worried about hurting someone's feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings or being accused or racism, so he will continue to put the american public at risk.

I don't have any doubt that for the Obama WH, "crisis mode" is a synonym for "cover Obama's ass mode."

But it seems to me that what the WH is faulty at was assuming the CDC actually knew wtf it was doing. Unfortunately, among Obama's failures of leadership, he tends to stick with "his guy" way to long. For all of BushII's failings, when a plan was clearly not working, he was capable of cutting through the bs and finding someone with a plan that the guys with the plan that wasn't working had dismissed. He did it with Iraq and with TARP. Somewhere out there is a guy who can show hospitals how not to infect nurses and who can find a way to track people coming here and make sure they get isolated as soon as they run a temp.

And commercial flights should have been stopped long ago.

The guy you are looking for is Ben Carson.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:



CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

I think the safety of the American people is more pressing than one mans opinion.

 

[g5000]

In other words, it is far more productive to take the fight to where the outbreak is. Closing off those countries would only ensure the outbreak worsens.

These countries do not have the infrastructure needed to combat Ebola. You can send all the medicine and supplies in the world, but they will do no good if there are no transportation and medical facilities and doctors to get them where they are needed.

This is where our military comes in. If there is one thing our military is good at, it is logistics. And that is why we are sending our troops there.

Take the battle to the disease.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:



CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

I think the safety of the American people is more pressing than one mans opinion.

The opinion of an expert in the field is worth more than the opinions of a million retards and their fearmongering media hacks put together.

His authoritative opinion is based on decades of success fighting Ebola outbreaks. Your jingoistic opinion is based on nothing but ignorant fear.

 

[Redfish]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

no president can enter a war without funding and authization from congress. Bush had both. Both parties authorized and funded it. They are all guilty.

To say that Bush did it solely on his own if just stupid partisan bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

In other words, it is far more productive to take the fight to where the outbreak is. Closing off those countries would only ensure the outbreak worsens.

These countries do not have the infrastructure needed to combat Ebola. You can send all the medicine and supplies in the world, but they will do no good if there are no transportation and medical facilities and doctors to get them where they are needed.

This is where our military comes in. If there is one thing our military is good at, it is logistics. And that is why we are sending our troops there.

Take the battle to the disease.

and when hundreds of american soldiers die from ebola? What then?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:



CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

I think the safety of the American people is more pressing than one mans opinion.

The opinion of an expert in the field is worth more than the opinions of a million ignorant retards and their fearmongering media hacks put together.

His opinion is based on decades of successfully fighting Ebola. Yours is based on nothing but ignorant fear.

The sick nurses prove you wrong

 

[Desperado]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:


CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

Why Even the Obama administration doesn't listen to the CDC

Obama administration failed to implement all of the CDC’s advice to prevent an Ebola outbreak

Read more: Obama administration ignored the CDC s Ebola outbreak prevention advice given in 2008 - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Mac1958]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

no president can enter a war without funding and authization from congress. Bush had both. Both parties authorized and funded it. They are all guilty.

To say that Bush did it solely on his own if just stupid partisan bullshit.

That's not what I said.

I said "one guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there."

Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

.

 

[g5000]

In other words, it is far more productive to take the fight to where the outbreak is. Closing off those countries would only ensure the outbreak worsens.

These countries do not have the infrastructure needed to combat Ebola. You can send all the medicine and supplies in the world, but they will do no good if there are no transportation and medical facilities and doctors to get them where they are needed.

This is where our military comes in. If there is one thing our military is good at, it is logistics. And that is why we are sending our troops there.

Take the battle to the disease.

and when hundreds of american soldiers die from ebola? What then?

When?

Man, you really do live in fear, don't you. You poor thing.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Lets see what an Ebola medical expert thinks of closing travel to Africa:



CHUCK TODD: It seems as if there's almost this, many nations are reacting the way we're seeing actually public officials, some of them here, acting, which is, "No, no, no, no, just shut down the borders. Shut down lights." Is shutting down flights a viable option?


DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That would be counterproductive. We can understand how people might come to that conclusion. But when you look at what happens when you isolate a country, you diminish greatly their ability to handle their own epidemic. If that happens, it very likely will spread to other African countries.

And the best way to protect Americans is to completely suppress the epidemic in West Africa. If we do that, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So to isolate them, maybe with good intentions, actually can be counterproductive and make things worse.


Meet the Press Transcript - October 12 2014 - NBC News

I think the safety of the American people is more pressing than one mans opinion.

The opinion of an expert in the field is worth more than the opinions of a million ignorant retards and their fearmongering media hacks put together.

His opinion is based on decades of successfully fighting Ebola. Yours is based on nothing but ignorant fear.

The sick nurses prove you wrong

No they don't.

 

[jillian]

And why the hell are we flying the infected all around the country?

Isolate this shit before it gets out of control.

The only reason I can think of is that

OBAMA IS TOTALLY FUCKING INSANE!

projection on your part.

 

[Redfish]

In other words, it is far more productive to take the fight to where the outbreak is. Closing off those countries would only ensure the outbreak worsens.

These countries do not have the infrastructure needed to combat Ebola. You can send all the medicine and supplies in the world, but they will do no good if there are no transportation and medical facilities and doctors to get them where they are needed.

This is where our military comes in. If there is one thing our military is good at, it is logistics. And that is why we are sending our troops there.

Take the battle to the disease.

and when hundreds of american soldiers die from ebola? What then?

When?

Man, you really do live in fear, don't you. You poor thing.

nope. reality. Those nurses in Dallas got it from one infected person. There are thousands of infected people in africa and you want to expose american soldiers to that environment? I guarantee that we will hear of infected military personnel in the very near future.

 

[Redfish]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

no president can enter a war without funding and authization from congress. Bush had both. Both parties authorized and funded it. They are all guilty.

To say that Bush did it solely on his own if just stupid partisan bullshit.

That's not what I said.

I said "one guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there."

Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

.

NO, you are wrong, he could not have "put us there" without authorization and funding from congress.

 

[bendog]

I have no idea why commercial flights weren't stopped long ago. But, practically speaking, we cannot keep HC workers from travelling to and from W. Africa. It was inevitable that eventually someone would bring it here. What's disturbing the CDC appears to have had no plan, or perhaps even clue, how to track and then isolate anyone who was there who then ran a fever. And, the CDC appears to have had no plan, or even clue, how to treat people with Ebola without infecting hospital staff.

Healthcare workers and supplies could be delivered by military or private flights. Commercial passenger flights should be stopped NOW.

A basic question: Is the USA responsible to cure all the diseases in the world if doing so puts the american people at risk of death?

What are Russia and China doing to help africa? how about europe? how about the other countries of africa? Why is the USA the world's medical savior and policeman? If thats our world role, why aren't we getting paid to do that?

Sure, military (or private contractor) flights could ferry aid and workers. But, that would not prevent an infected worker arriving in the US before he/she showed a fever and became contagious.

The reason to send aid to W.Africa is that if the disease ends up as an epidemic in some place like Algeria or Morocco it may well end up as an epidemic in Europe, or it could pass into the middle east and to asia. The last real pandemic we had was the Spanish Flu in 1918, and that killed 2% of the world's population. This could possibly be worse.

Yes, all the more reason to isolate it in two african countries. Quarantine those countries and limit the fight to that small area.

But obozo is too worried about hurting someone's feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings or being accused or racism, so he will continue to put the american public at risk.

I don't have any doubt that for the Obama WH, "crisis mode" is a synonym for "cover Obama's ass mode."

But it seems to me that what the WH is faulty at was assuming the CDC actually knew wtf it was doing. Unfortunately, among Obama's failures of leadership, he tends to stick with "his guy" way to long. For all of BushII's failings, when a plan was clearly not working, he was capable of cutting through the bs and finding someone with a plan that the guys with the plan that wasn't working had dismissed. He did it with Iraq and with TARP. Somewhere out there is a guy who can show hospitals how not to infect nurses and who can find a way to track people coming here and make sure they get isolated as soon as they run a temp.

And commercial flights should have been stopped long ago.

The guy you are looking for is Ben Carson.

We'd all die that way.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

no president can enter a war without funding and authization from congress. Bush had both. Both parties authorized and funded it. They are all guilty.

To say that Bush did it solely on his own if just stupid partisan bullshit.

That's not what I said.

I said "one guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there."

Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

.

NO, you are wrong, he could not have "put us there" without authorization and funding from congress.

You're playing games.

Bush had the final decision, he could have said "no" even with funding and authority.

He made the final call.

.

 

[Mojo2]

And why the hell are we flying the infected all around the country?

Isolate this shit before it gets out of control.

And why the hell are we flying the infected all around the country?


`
Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million Within Four Months, C.D.C. Estimates

By DENISE GRADYSEPT. 23, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/h...4-million-in-4-months-cdc-estimates.html?_r=0

THANKS, EBOMA!!!

 

[Redfish]

.

I can just point at the results:

• 5,000+ American soldiers dead
• 32,000+ American soldiers wounded & maimed
• Thousands more American soldiers damaged mentally
• Tens of thousands of American families damaged beyond repair
• Trillions of borrowed dollars wasted
• Thousands upon thousands of net new Jihadi recruits
• Iran emboldened once Saddam was eliminated
• Iraq now a terrorist Disneyland
• The Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan

Pretty easy. Pretty obvious.

One guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there.

No amount of spin, finger-pointing or deflection can change that fact.

.

no president can enter a war without funding and authization from congress. Bush had both. Both parties authorized and funded it. They are all guilty.

To say that Bush did it solely on his own if just stupid partisan bullshit.

That's not what I said.

I said "one guy, one Commander in Chief, had the final decision to put us there."

Was I wrong?

Yes or no?

.

NO, you are wrong, he could not have "put us there" without authorization and funding from congress.

You're playing games.

Bush had the final decision, he could have said "no" even with funding and authority.

He made the final call.

.

of course he did, but he could not have made that call without authorization and funding from congress. Congress had the exact same intel that Bush and the UN had and they all came to the same conclusions.

your premise that Bush got us into the stupid iraq fiasco solely on his own is historically inaccurate.