Here Comes the Judge: Obama and CDC Fail on Ebola Containment

What about aid workers? U.S. Citizens? Infected people who fly from other countries?

think it through wrote:

What about aid workers? U.S. Citizens? Infected people who fly from other countries?

We take care of our own, even if they are foolish enough to expose themselves, out of the kindness of their hearts, to third-world plagues. But ever since that Liberian who came to America and infected the two nurses HERE, we should have implemented the travel ban. If you knew someone had a horrible disease, would you invite them into your house? Same thing applies to America. Keep it over there while medical solutions are worked on here.

Casualties of war, I'm afraid. Obama wants to save every American citizen instead of making the tough, but necessary, call to let them die so that the rest of us can live.

Shawn H wrote:

You just made my point. Why in hell would we want to RAISE those odds by not implementing a travel ban on countries where the infection is raging? It's only common sense, but apparently this adminstration is deficient.

You may want to change your login name. The views of "Shawn H" have exposed your ignorance. Maybe someone is attempting to sabotage your book because it is so ridiculous that it must be a troll.

Wait, you ACTUALLY believe that Americans would be safer if those "foolish" health care workers didn't go attempt to quell Ebola in West Africa?

You see, here's the thing: Others, like yourself, feel so unsure of their knowledge and opinions that they have to use silly names like "child of the sixties" rather than even part of their real names. Who should be more suspected of ignorance--the person who is confident enough to expose there real selves to the world at the risk of ridicule, or the person who hides behind a ridiculous nickname because they are afraid of revealing their true ignorance?

Shawn H wrote:

You see, here's the thing: Others, like yourself, feel so unsure of their knowledge and opinions that they have to use silly names like "child of the sixties" rather than even part of their real names. Who should be more suspected of ignorance--the person who is confident enough to expose there real selves to the world at the risk of ridicule, or the person who hides behind a ridiculous nickname because they are afraid of revealing their true ignorance?

Some of the most ignorant, unitntelligent people in history were "courageous" enough to display as much in a public setting.

steve dildarian wrote:

Wait, you ACTUALLY believe that Americans would be safer if those "foolish" health care workers didn't go attempt to quell Ebola in West Africa?

That's not what I'm saying at all. You have to admire people who are willing to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow men, as well as try to beat the disease at its source. But you also have to question the sanity and intelligence of people--especially those with families at home--who would go into the lion's den and put their heads in its jaws.

Shawn H wrote:

Casualties of war, I'm afraid. Obama wants to save every American citizen instead of making the tough, but necessary, call to let them die so that the rest of us can live.

LOL. I did not make this foolish post. Mods, how do people hack your site like this?

Shawn H wrote:

Shawn H wrote:

Casualties of war, I'm afraid. Obama wants to save every American citizen instead of making the tough, but necessary, call to let them die so that the rest of us can live.

LOL. I did not make this foolish post. Mods, how do people hack your site like this?

Know what is REALLY funny? The fact that the post you say is "foolish" is not any less foolish than any other post you've made.

Shawn H wrote:

The flu continually changes, so it's harder to deal with, granted. But it also doesn't have a 70% fatality rate.

Great white sharks attacks have a pretty high fatality rate. Per trip in your automobile, the fatality rate is actually quite low. Which one is more like to kill you, a shark attack or automobile accident??

Shawn H wrote:I suppose that when the zombie apocalypse comes you'll also say, "Have a little perspective." Wink, wink.

The funny thing is: I actually don't think you are completely joking about the "zombie apocalypse" and likely think it is a reasonable possibility.

He (POTUS) said he would fundamentally change things.

He did and he's set this nation on a course for disaster.

He and the people around him.

No.

Shawn H wrote:

Who should be more suspected of ignorance--the person who is confident enough to expose *there* (should be "his", and you meant "their" not "there") real *selves* ("self", does this person have multiple personalities?) to the world .....

U a righter, bro' ?

voter (Now a cynic) wrote:

He (POTUS) said he would fundamentally change things.

He did and he's set this nation on a course for disaster.

He and the people around him.

Last I checked, we were on the upswing (and much better off than under the prior POTUS). But whatever helps you sleep at night.

question: which party voted to cut CDC, NIH, etc. funding? can't know anything if you don't give the people with the actual brains & expertise to study the problem any $$$$

Shawn H wrote:

They don't know what the hell they're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xPgeF_4hHY&feature=youtu.be

Hey, it's a common mistake, and I'm so good that I usually don't spell-check. As for "their" vs. "his," "their" is commonly used when you don't want to use the awkward "he/she" or "he or she," or the gender-biased "he," which used to be perfectly acceptable and proper before P.C. These days, you also have writers changing back and forth from he to she in the same work, which is equally awkward. There's a difference between common usage and correct usage, which often leads to common usage becoming acceptable usage. Languages change that way. If you were ever able to read the rough drafts of the most popular writers--even classical authors--you might be shocked to discover countless errors that fortunately aren't found in the final work.

Maybe Obama should emulate Reagan? Surely that would satisfy conservatives, no? After all, their critiques are rooted in policy and principle. To start with, Obama should not acknowledge the existence of Eb*la for the remainder of his term. He should forbid (if there was one) his surgeon general from taking any steps to deal with the viral outbreak. All good. Problem solved.

Shawn H wrote:

on the bright side wrote:

They're succeeding, at dispersing Ebola to the rest of the world.

I really can't believe it's on purpose. I think it's just one more of the hundreds of examples of political and administrative incompetence. It all starts at the top, and incompetence is as contagious as Ebola.

That's right, exactly what disaster is this country on course for, due to Obama? Two nurses and Duncan have had ebola in this country, the remainder exposed to Duncan are safe as of tonight. To prevent the spread of Ebola, what we really need to do is to do everything we can to stamp it out in West Africa, which is the right thing to do and also the only thing that will stop its spread elsewhere.

Then, of course, the economy has been on the right track for the last five years and unemployment is lower at this point in Obama's presidency than in the corresponding point in Reagan's--and Reagan's own policy of high interest rates to quell inflation caused the 10.8 % unemployment rate that the country hit in late 1982, whereas Obama entirely inherited the economic problems from Bush. The budget deficit has plummeted under Obama from roughly $1.4 trillion in Bush's last fiscal year to around $400 billion, a very acceptable and manageable 2.8 percent of GDP. Interest rates are extremely low, as is inflation. The United States has largely avoided the post-recession problems of all other industrialized nations, some of which have had a triple-dip recession. All we need to do now is to vote out the Republicans who have done nothing but try to stop the federal government from solving any of our problems. Where's the infrastructure spending needed and which would promote millions of jobs? No better time than the present to borrow money at historically low interest rates with millions still chronically unemployed and deep infrastructure needs unmet.