• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Health Care Worker Tests Positive for Ebola

Explain it. Why is this in our national interest? Be specific. or don't play the game.

This virus and more importantly it's social implications cannot be avoided, the best way to keep America safe (and incidentally the rest of us) is to tackle the crisis at its source and stop it.

The US has very great capability in this regard, the unit being sent over specializes in this kind of thing and on top of that it will provide them with invaluable experience that can be used should something crop up closer to home that is worse.
 
However it reeks of politics. Why hasn't the One on the golf course stopped people from ebola country from coming to the US? Politics.

If the One stopped people from ebola country from coming here he might not be able to subvert the Constitution completely when after the election he declares an amnesty for the 20-30 million illegals who are here.


You heard the CDC last week... shutting down flights would make ebola in America worse.
 
This virus and more importantly it's social implications cannot be avoided, the best way to keep America safe (and incidentally the rest of us) is to tackle the crisis at its source and stop it.

The US has very great capability in this regard, the unit being sent over specializes in this kind of thing and on top of that it will provide them with invaluable experience that can be used should something crop up closer to home that is worse.
Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.

It can be done in minutes and at almost no additional cost.

The "unit" being sent has no such specializations. They are reported to be a mix of engineers, infantry, military police units...

At least 700 members of the division (101st) will deploy to Liberia starting next week as part of the U.S. military’s 4,000-soldier humanitarian mission, which is expected to last up to a year and is aimed at building 17 100-bed Ebola care centers and training hundreds of health care workers.​

They are Obama's cannon fodder.
 
You heard the CDC last week... shutting down flights would make ebola in America worse.
Can you explain how preventing a disease from being introduced in America will make the disease worse in America?
 
So Perry once again is full of ****.

Don't you worry yo lil' head one lil' bit darlin'...Iffn' thet E-bol-aye cumz here, uncle Ricky will kill it off with his six shooter!
Ya kant mess wit Texass...
download (8).jpg
 
Last edited:
We should bar All flights and passengers originating in the Ebola countries.

What's the downside?
There is virtually ZERO significant loss of Tourism or other Economic/Business interest.

The need for the nationals of those tiny/crap-hole countries (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea) to get here is ZERO compared to the risk.

Only Aid workers (I support) should be able to transit on chartered flights with Special precautions.

It's going to cost the West BILLION$, TEN'S of Billions MORE, for airport screening/Hospital-procedure/etc instead barring flights/passengers originating in those countries.

Untold Angst and perhaps cut the whole World airline Industry's traffic, so a FEW passengers from the Crap-hole Infected countries can visit their relatives in Newark, NJ.
WTF!
(how did you LIARS vote in the PC Poll?)

Flu season is starting and it's going to be Madness with Airport Screeners and Hospital staff's worried/HAVING to worry that every fever might about Ebola too.
Hazmat suit Halloween.
 
Last edited:
Simpleχity;1063857223 said:
Yesterdays fear has become today's reality. The Ebola virus has now been transmitted within the United States.

But Obama and the flop at the CDC says it's fine.
 
Things that make you go hmmm....

When it comes to the uninsured, doesn't Texas rank number one ?

Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 6.3 million Texans - including 1.2 million children - lack health insurance. Texas' uninsurance rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. Those who lack insurance coverage typically enjoy far-worse health status than their insured counterparts. - See more at: http://www.texmed.org/Uninsured_in_Texas/#sthash.UBwIaKwa.dpuf
 
Last edited:
But Obama and the flop at the CDC says it's fine.
I believe it is Obama's October Surprise. If we have an epidemic we will spend billions of dollars thus spurring economic growth. I am sure it will have an impact on the elections in Reid's favor.
 
I believe it is Obama's October Surprise. If we have an epidemic we will spend billions of dollars thus spurring economic growth. I am sure it will have an impact on the elections in Reid's favor.

Problem with that: Everything Obama tries to handle explodes in his face.
This Ebola fiasco? Just another FUBAR situation.
 
Can you explain how preventing a disease from being introduced in America will make the disease worse in America?

Me,me,me!

Banning flights from these countries is racist and you know racism is the real disease in the America. :2wave:
 
Where do you draw the line? Incubation is 21 days, and you are only infectious once symptoms (which resemble flu) are present. There are many indirect routes to the USA, which is a long expensive way away from West Africa. Why would anyone without a connection want to come? The number of people who can afford the trip is very small, the number of alternative destinations is very large, and effective treatment (should they need it) is a lot nearer than the US. Once more your surrounding oceans protect you.
 
Where do you draw the line? Incubation is 21 days, and you are only infectious once symptoms (which resemble flu) are present. There are many indirect routes to the USA, which is a long expensive way away from West Africa. Why would anyone without a connection want to come? The number of people who can afford the trip is very small, the number of alternative destinations is very large, and effective treatment (should they need it) is a lot nearer than the US. Once more your surrounding oceans protect you.
The surrounding oceans would protect us if the One on the golf course liked Americans. He doesn't. I don't believe he ever has or ever will.

About one-half of Americans live on their knees with their hands out. They wait for the next gift from government. Those are the Americans Obama likes. They are dependent on him, their Dear Leader.

So Ebola comes to the US.

As far as Duncan is concerned someone needs to ask whether or not the church gave him the money for a ticket. If so I believe the hospital should sue the church for reimbursement of the half-million they spent giving Duncan a place to die.
 
So when does Obama ban all flights ?

After the Heath Worker dies ?? After more American Health Workers become symptomatic ? The Ebola crisis was out of control before Duncan ever hopped on that plane.
 
"Why is this in our national interest? Be specific."
This virus and more importantly it's social implications cannot be avoided,
May we speak of these separately?
1) "The virus. . .cannot be avoided."
Really? How have we avoided the virus up until now?

2) "Its social implications cannot be avoided."
What are the viruses social implications?
 
Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.

It can be done in minutes and at almost no additional cost.

The point is we can't isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. If we stop flights from Africa that might work for the VERY short term. But if the outbreak isn't controlled, it will soon spread to the ME, then to Europe, etc. if nothing else from affected aid workers from the rest of the world travel home and carry it with them, as happened here. So the best hope for containing the spread is to address the crisis in Africa, which requires flights to Africa to carry supplies, and healthcare and other workers to help impoverished areas deal with something they do not have the resources to deal with.

And the "cannon fodder" comment is BS. If "we" in the developed world do not assist Africa in dealing with the crisis, it will spread and soon it will touch us here and pose a far greater risk to more Americans than any "terrorist" threat. If you don't want to send U.S. troops to assist, who would you recommend? Fact is it will take the military and MANY other groups to effectively deal with the crisis. And if we in the developed world don't succeed, somebody blowing up a plane or another 9/11 will the the least of our concerns, and we've put millions of troops over the past decade plus at risk to prevent those kinds of terrorist threats to Americans.
 
What is the population of Dallas Tx?

What do you think it will be in a month?
 
What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

"Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.

It can be done in minutes and at almost no additional cost."

The point is we can't isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.
No one that I am aware of has suggested that we do or should. But we can prevent people who have recently been in "ebola country" from coming here. We just tell them they cannot come here.

If we stop flights from Africa that might work for the VERY short term.
"Ebola country" at this moment consists of four African countries. Ebola will burn itself out in a VERY short time. This is the best first line of defense. It works when it is tried.

But if the outbreak isn't controlled, it will soon spread to the ME, then to Europe, etc.
Then perhaps those who are next in line should see it as their problem. I am all for those countries who have a vital national interest getting involved. This is not our problem. It was never our problem.

if nothing else from affected aid workers from the rest of the world travel home and carry it with them, as happened here.
This is also not our problem. We can keep anyone out of the country who presents a health risk.

So the best hope for containing the spread is to address the crisis in Africa, which requires flights to Africa to carry supplies, and healthcare and other workers to help impoverished areas deal with something they do not have the resources to deal with.
None of these points has anything to do with keeping people out of the US who have recently been to Ebola country.

And the "cannon fodder" comment is BS.
Given that you believe so what strategy has the One devised for defeating the ebola virus that requires US military troops?

If "we" in the developed world do not assist Africa in dealing with the crisis, it will spread and soon it will touch us here and pose a far greater risk to more Americans than any "terrorist" threat.
We can add more countries to the ebola country list if it becomes necessary. As long as we do not allow potentially infected people into the country we will be fine.

If you don't want to send U.S. troops to assist, who would you recommend?
I am not recommending that anybody be sent. It is not in our national interest to go to Ebola country nor is it in our interest to allow them to come here.

Fact is it will take the military and MANY other groups to effectively deal with the crisis.
It is not our problem to solve.

And if we in the developed world don't succeed, somebody blowing up a plane or another 9/11 will the the least of our concerns, and we've put millions of troops over the past decade plus at risk to prevent those kinds of terrorist threats to Americans.
You have failed to make the case for why sending American troops is in our vital national interest.
 
Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

Have the Aircrew which flew Ducan into Dallas been flying since that flight? If so, given how easy it is to transfer, How many could they have exposed?
 
Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

Think about the bright side. Even in the worst African Ebola stats, 30% or so survive. (Though Often with huge lifetime disabilities)

So, one of the three people around you may be alive in a year.

We currently have 316 Million Americans, so in a year, we'll still have about 100 Million.

-
 
Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

"Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason.

I guess we'll agree to disagree that stopping the ebola spread is in our national interests. Seems obvious to me the threat from the unconstrained spread of ebola exceeds any risk of "terrorism" by a factor of 1,000 or so. And pretending we can wall ourselves off from the rest of the world seems naive.

Bottom line is there will be perhaps 10s of thousands of Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc. assisting in containing the outbreak. If you take your suggestion literally, any American who goes to assist takes a one way trip out of America, never to return. Same with the Europeans, etc. and everyone they interact with when they return home. It's a logistical impossibility, IMO.

I'm not necessarily opposed to much more screening and the rest, but those are difficult decisions.
 
Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

On gun control ~ 'If we can save just one child'
On Ebola ~ 'virtually non-existent threat, no need for panic or rash decisions'

Big Gulps, cigarettes, transfats ~ OMG!

Ebola ~ meh
 
If American progressives envisioned Ebola in the manner they envision firearms, the borders would have been hermetically sealed on day one.
 
Here's another little bright spot!

It does not matter that thanks to the Liberal Judges, the Democrats will use massive voter fraud to steal yet another election.

In a year, any surviving Liberals will be beaten to death!

-
 
Re: What is The One's strategy for defeating Ebola? Crickets...

"Why didn't you select a more reasonable alternative and prevent anyone who had been to ebola country from entering the US? It has the same effect of protecting American citizens without placing our volunteer military at risk for no good reason."

I guess we'll agree to disagree that stopping the ebola spread is in our national interests. Seems obvious to me the threat from the unconstrained spread of ebola exceeds any risk of "terrorism" by a factor of 1,000 or so. And pretending we can wall ourselves off from the rest of the world seems naive.
Stopping people who may have been exposed to ebola is a great idea. All we have to do is say then cannot come. We can continue to screen all international passengers. We need to add an ebola tax to each ticket to pay for the additional manpower needed to do the screenings.

No one has argued for unconstrained ebola. The ones who are affected should be solving their problem.
What is naive is treating ebola as a politically correct race issue. What is naive is Der Fuhrer's unwillingness to do the simplest, most effective thing and stop allowing potentially infected people into the nation.

Bottom line is there will be perhaps 10s of thousands of Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc. assisting in containing the outbreak. If you take your suggestion literally, any American who goes to assist takes a one way trip out of America, never to return. Same with the Europeans, etc. and everyone they interact with when they return home. It's a logistical impossibility, IMO.
Why would you believe that? The time from infection to symptoms is 21 days. Anyone who wants to come can voluntarily go into a quarantine village for three weeks prior to coming here. I am sure someone will figure out how to make money selling the time in the facility.

I'm not necessarily opposed to much more screening and the rest, but those are difficult decisions.
There is nothing difficult about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom