We'll Tell You How Dangerous Ebola Is After the Election: Ann Coulter

[Desperado]

This thread is the perfect example of attacking the messenger as opposed to the message.

 

[Listening]

has coultergeist ever said anything true?

Have you ever said anything smart ?

 

[Listening]

has coultergeist ever said anything true?

Ok...post all of her lies, then..should be easy...

maybe this will help you.... just as a start. but feel free to do your own homework.

Guilty Coulter s latest book filled with falsehoods Research Media Matters for America

Media Matters.....thanks for the laugh.

 

[Listening]

has coultergeist ever said anything true?

Ok...post all of her lies, then..should be easy...

all? that would take me weeks. there are books on the subject though as she's been studiously fact-checked.

At least puts more than two sentences together.

You, one of the board assholes, almost never do that.

You should ask for a refund on your education....you were ripped off.

 

[Listening]

has coultergeist ever said anything true?

Ok...post all of her lies, then..should be easy...

I remember her calling John Edwards a faggot.

Yes, that was a joke too.

But, as it turns out...if you pricks had gotten him elected.....we'd have had a huge scandal in the WH when his private life fell apart.

 

[Siete]

maybe Coulter will tell everyone which election she was talking about after the elections ..

 

[Listening]

maybe Coulter will tell everyone which election she was talking about after the elections ..

And which elections would those be ?

Awwww......

 

[barryqwalsh]

The appointment of Ron Klain as Ebola czar shows the president is more interested in appearing to take Ebola seriously than actually doing so. Klain is a Democratic Party operative, lawyer and former chief of staff to both Al Gore and Joe Biden who has zero medical background. On top of that, this vital new czar won’t be reporting directly to the president at all.

Ebola Politics Failure And Opportunism - Derek Hunter - Page 1

 

[CitizenSeven]

Have you RWnuts been keeping a list of how many Americans have died of Ebola?

ONE! OMIGOD! OMIGOD! OMIGOD!

Every epidemic has a patient zero. That one patient infected at least two people, and one of those flew commercially after being infected. Not only does that mean being enclosed in a pressurized vessel for several hours with a hundred other people, it means being in the enclosed space of an airport for some time: ticket counter, luggage, security, gate area, possibly bathroom, possibly public transport. All of those are now potentially points of contagion.

Now, granted, ebola isn't airborne, but it has a survival halflife on the order of days outside the body in fluids. That means it can potentially be spread via secondary contact with objects, such as doorknobs, toilet seats, faucets, etc.

None of that would have happened if anyone with a passport or stamped visa from the infected countries were barred entry to the US.

The Obama administration is making the same flawed argument that the Bush administration did about terrorism: we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Rather, if we simply bar travellers from or through the problem points, we would snuff out the ultimate problem, te threat to Americans, in its cradle.

 

[TooTall]

Have you RWnuts been keeping a list of how many Americans have died of Ebola?

ONE! OMIGOD! OMIGOD! OMIGOD!

Every epidemic has a patient zero. That one patient infected at least two people, and one of those flew commercially after being infected. Not only does that mean being enclosed in a pressurized vessel for several hours with a hundred other people, it means being in the enclosed space of an airport for some time: ticket counter, luggage, security, gate area, possibly bathroom, possibly public transport. All of those are now potentially points of contagion.

Now, granted, ebola isn't airborne, but it has a survival halflife on the order of days outside the body in fluids. That means it can potentially be spread via secondary contact with objects, such as doorknobs, toilet seats, faucets, etc.

None of that would have happened if anyone with a passport or stamped visa from the infected countries were barred entry to the US.

The Obama administration is making the same flawed argument that the Bush administration did about terrorism: we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Rather, if we simply bar travellers from or through the problem points, we would snuff out the ultimate problem, te threat to Americans, in its cradle.

Agreed, but IF calling the Bush argument 'we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" flawed what do you call barring travelers. Is that not the same thing?

 

[CitizenSeven]

Have you RWnuts been keeping a list of how many Americans have died of Ebola?

ONE! OMIGOD! OMIGOD! OMIGOD!

Every epidemic has a patient zero. That one patient infected at least two people, and one of those flew commercially after being infected. Not only does that mean being enclosed in a pressurized vessel for several hours with a hundred other people, it means being in the enclosed space of an airport for some time: ticket counter, luggage, security, gate area, possibly bathroom, possibly public transport. All of those are now potentially points of contagion.

Now, granted, ebola isn't airborne, but it has a survival halflife on the order of days outside the body in fluids. That means it can potentially be spread via secondary contact with objects, such as doorknobs, toilet seats, faucets, etc.

None of that would have happened if anyone with a passport or stamped visa from the infected countries were barred entry to the US.

The Obama administration is making the same flawed argument that the Bush administration did about terrorism: we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Rather, if we simply bar travellers from or through the problem points, we would snuff out the ultimate problem, te threat to Americans, in its cradle.

Agreed, but IF calling the Bush argument 'we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" flawed what do you call barring travelers. Is that not the same thing?

No, not at all. The argument being made is that barring travellers would be counter-productive to fighting ebola in West Africa, i.e. over there, just like a policy of containment was rejected for the misnamed war in terror. This failure to make travel restrictions only purpose is to increase the ability to fight it there, and not to increase safety in the homeland directly. Travel restrictions would stop, or certainly greatly curtail, the possibility of outbreak in the US, which should be the primary goal of the USFG.