Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

The real issues of ebola

Rate this topic

45 posts in this topic

Here is whats happening:



A few cases got here and there, and a few more will come in.  I am sure that a few cases will happen that we never hear about, and it will pass.


But what did happen?  The Federal gummit was on parade.  FAIL FAIL FAIL.  I believe the end of the fail came after two things.  We got a glimpse of what the CDC is spending money on (websites for Michelle Obama's butler's garden), and that IDIOT running the cdc.  You cant get ebola on a bus, but if you have ebola, you can spread it on a bus.


Unbelievable.


Progs, it sure would be nice if you werent raised as eunuchs.  What happened?  I wasnt raised that way.  Is it an urban, or suburb thing?  Que paso, mank?



WHY?  Why dont your leaders fire all these people?  They FAILED.  Want people to respect you?  Act like Men for gods sake.


I swear to god, if Barack Obama had fired that doctor and asked congress to decimate the CDC budget, I would have praised him for it.  Would you?  Of COURSE you would.


But no.  What was the answer of the lead gelding?  Hire a lawyer.


 



A pitiful lot you are.


My question for discussion.



Progs, if after this Freidman character bumbled, if Barack Obama had fired him and his staff on the spot, would you have praised him for it, or would you have been upset?  And why


Is asking congress to slash and burn the budget of CDC until they can clean up their act a good idea or bad, and why?


 



Have a nice day


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the UN, and member of Obola's cabinet, is going on a three hour tour of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. I'm sure she is taking her whole entourage with her. They will leave a carbon footprint 12,000 miles long . There is no viable reason for the trip other than a photo op and to use up some of the executive branches budget for lysol and purell before the end of the calendar year.

 

I hope their flight home gets diverted to JFK and Cuomo has to quarantine them.

 

Incompetents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is asking congress to slash and burn the budget of CDC until they can clean up their act a good idea or bad, and why

 

Bad idea.....they won't be able to "clean up their act" if they don't have funds with which to do it. Seems to me that "slashing and burning" the CDC budget will only make the situation worse than it already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDCs mission has been diluted for political causes. Get back to the core mission, and they don't need half the budget they have. Eff the jazzercise research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CDCs mission has been diluted for political causes. Get back to the core mission, and they don't need half the budget they have. Eff the jazzercise research.

 

 

Yep,... foreign policy politics, and taxpayer $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think it is better described as "The real issues of the CDC". From the NRA website...


"by Dave Kopel



How the federal government is back in the business of funding studies that promote gun bans … more than a decade after Congress put an end to the practice.



The federal government has resumed the Clinton-era ideological offensive against gun ownership. The opening salvo was fired recently by the federal National Institutes of Health, with a new study purporting to show that gun ownership increases the risk of being shot by 4.5 times.



To really understand what’s going on here, however, let’s go back a few years.



The gun prohibition movement recognizes, correctly, that its objectives will be very difficult to achieve politically as long as so many Americans own firearms. Accordingly, scaring Americans away from gun ownership is an essential component of their long-term strategy. Put simply, fewer gun owners equals fewer gun-rights activists.



Obviously, this fear-of-guns strategy won’t work on NRA members and others who are already familiar and comfortable with firearms, but it could work on people who might be considering buying guns. And it also can be effective in convincing a spouse to veto his or her partner’s contemplated gun purchase.



Because of the great successes in controlling communicable diseases in recent decades, government entities that were set up for the purpose of disease control have looked to expand their operations into other fields—to assure their continued long-term funding.



So back in the 1980s, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided guns were a “public health” issue and began funding more and more research on guns and gun control. Some of what was produced was valuable social science, but a great deal was “junk” science, patently designed to create prohibitionist talking points.



Those involved were not shy about discussing their gun-ban goals.



Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)



A newspaper article on two other leading anti-gun propagandists, Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children’s Hospital in Chicago, explained their “plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes … turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard.” (Harold Henderson, “Policy: Guns 'n Poses,” Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)



Many of the propaganda articles were widely disseminated by a credulous media eager to tout supposedly scientific proof that guns were bad. The most popular of these articles was built around a one-sentence factoid that asserted the dangers of guns far outweighed the protective benefits.



Finally, in 1996, Congress cut off gun control funding for the CDC—mainly because the NRA demonstrated to legislators the CDC was buying political misinformation rather than science.



Now, 14 years later, your tax dollars are once against being used to fund a campaign against your rights through the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH).



In mid-September, the University of Pennsylvania released a study paid for by the nih with $639,586 of your tax dollars. The study’s “conclusion” claimed people who possessed guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than people who do not possess them.



As usual, media all over the country publicized this latest “good” news. Gun-ban groups jumped on the bandwagon." yada yada yada



but you guys go on pretending this is about the response to a couple of sick people, it's ok....



 



 



 



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ebolatopia, how would the Ebolatarians react to such a situation? Would it be left to private industry for a solution? Really curious because from a self-pay medical care system to an inclination to keep government out of the way, it's hard to imagine this being contained in such a world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Ebolatopia, how would the Ebolatarians react to such a situation? Would it be left to private industry for a solution? Really curious because from a self-pay medical care system to an inclination to keep government out of the way, it's hard to imagine this being contained in such a world.

 

We could use our air defense systems to shoot down or turn back any air craft suspected of carrying ebolaerrorist..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.