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

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.

That's it? A meme? So basically you have nothing to say.

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

Another worthless insipid post, the only purpose of it being to increase your post count.

 

[Moonglow]

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

Another worthless insipid post, the only purpose of it being to increase your post count.

And you have meaning to your post that are better?

 

[PredFan]

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

Another worthless insipid post, the only purpose of it being to increase your post count.

And you have meaning to your post that are better?

Of course. But do carry on saying nothing at all.

 

[Moonglow]

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

Another worthless insipid post, the only purpose of it being to increase your post count.

But I am glad you had no response worthy of any intelligence to it, just proves my point about how the GOP never cuts off aid to other nations, in fact the last GOP president increased it...Boo-hooo,,,tissue? Oh my, another number for the post column.....

 

[HenryBHough]

To answer the original question:

NO effort is being made to contain Ebola. Left alone it's not all that much of a threat but unless the population can be convinced it's coming to get them then there's no hope of martial law and suspended elections.

Y'see, if you don't have an election then voters are impotent and can't "get you" for all your past blunders and the current manufactured crisis is of concern for that same "no election" reason.

 

[Moonglow]

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Next you will try to lie to us about foreign aid during GOP administrations...how they cut everyone off and give out zero dollars in aid...

Another worthless insipid post, the only purpose of it being to increase your post count.

And you have meaning to your post that are better?

Of course. But do carry on saying nothing at all.

Now you will have 2 more than earlier, increasing the numbers I see....

 

[Moonglow]

To answer the original question:

NO effort is being made to contain Ebola. Left alone it's not all that much of a threat but unless the population can be convinced it's coming to get them then there's no hope of martial law and suspended elections.

Y'see, if you don't have an election then voters are impotent and can't "get you" for all your past blunders and the current manufactured crisis is of concern for that same "no election" reason.

If there is nothing being done, why is there no new outbreaks?

 

[Moonglow]

Where is this Ebola zombie apocalypse that the GOP needs before the elections?

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.

 

[bripat9643]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

First: the government will arrange for workers to get to where they are needed, so it can easily arrange to get them back, after the necessary quarantine, of course. This isn't rocket science. Objections that this is impossible are simply absurd.

Second, it doesn't matter what itinerary they took, they can't get into the country without a visa. They will have a West African passport, so they will be turned back at the immigration office. Again, this isn't rocket science.

Have you ever traveled overseas?

 

[PredFan]

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.

They are working on one, possible even testing it right now. The point is that it would cost next to nothing to stop travel.

 

[bripat9643]

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

I didn't know there was a vaccination for Ebola.

They are working on one, possible even testing it right now. The point is that it would cost next to nothing to stop travel.

Lib objections to this are on the same order as their objections to building a fence on our Southern border. They know both would work, but that very fact is a problem for their open borders agenda, so they make up pathetic phony excuses for not doing it.

 

[PredFan]

The first rule of containment of an epidemic is isolation. Nigeria has effectively stopped the virus. They have reported no new cases in over a month despite being close to ground zero. How did they do it? With strict isolation precautions and stopping travel. Nigeria doesn't have a vaccine, advanced medical technology, nor even a decent healthcare system.

 

[ChrisL]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.

As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.

The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

Of course it would cost more to vaccinate people in other countries. DUH! Can you be serious? I don't know if you're just trolling.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.

I think you need a reality slap, seriously. You libs don't know your arse from your elbow.

 

[ChrisL]

Which would you rather have, Ebola or diarrhea?

It doesn't matter. Both are deadly, but the latter has killed far more people.

So? Does that mean we want to introduce a deadly disease into the US? If we can prevent more people from getting sick here in the US, why wouldn't we take the appropriate precautions?

Why are people fighting against perhaps restricting travel from certain Ebola hot spots around the world? What exactly is the issue with that? If it would prevent even 1 United States citizen from dying from Ebola, it would be worth the effort, no?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!

 

[ChrisL]

To answer the original question:

NO effort is being made to contain Ebola. Left alone it's not all that much of a threat but unless the population can be convinced it's coming to get them then there's no hope of martial law and suspended elections.

Y'see, if you don't have an election then voters are impotent and can't "get you" for all your past blunders and the current manufactured crisis is of concern for that same "no election" reason.

Oh yes, that must be it!!! It could not possibly be that people are or were concerned about Ebola coming here to the States!

 

[Vigilante]