|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
CHICAGO (AP) — In a rare move for terror cases, a federal judge agreed Thursday to release on home confinement an Illinois teenager charged with seeking to travel abroad and join an al-Qaida-linked militant group in war-torn Syria.
Abdella Ahmad Tounisi, 18, of Aurora, was arrested at O'Hare International Airport last month as he allegedly prepared for the first leg of a trip to join Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusrah, which is fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
In arguing for continued detention, prosecutors also noted Thursday that Tounisi had allegedly spoken with a friend of his last year about bombing targets in Chicago. Tounisi is not charged in that case, though the friend, Adel Daoud, was and is in jail awaiting trial.
Source
Wait, they mention a phone tap in the article but not how they got it? EDIT: guessing his friend dimed him out.
But besides my curiosity about how they started suspecting him as wanting to join IS, I'm a bit confused as to what we are doing about it.
First there is someone who is an IS sympathizer in the US and we are trying to stop him from leaving... I thought the fear mongering was that they were coming here?
Second our plan is to put him on house arrest, until he faces trial where at worst/best he will face 15 years in prison.
So then 15 years from now we will have a teenager who was fed up with the sinful nature of America and wanted to leave but instead was forcefully imprisoned. In prison this teenager will be exposed the worst of the worst of American society (prisoners and guards alike). We will have taken all of his best years and the most important ones of his adult life regarding developing the skills needed to succeed.
So when he gets out then what? Just do it again when he inevitably goes to the airport to leave again since his experience with America will only have gotten worse?
Seems to me it would make a hell of a lot more sense to do about 1000 other options besides imprisoning him for 15 years.
|
From the president himself in his Sept 10 speech:
ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
What are some of the other 1000 options we could do instead?
|
On October 07 2014 06:39 coverpunch wrote:From the president himself in his Sept 10 speech: Show nested quote +ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. What are some of the other 1000 options we could do instead?
Well some of the main ones are: Keep people like that imprisoned indefinitely, Kill them, Turn them into double agents, Psychological treatment, send the to the CIA to be studied so that we can understand their minds better, just to name a few.
I just don't see what throwing them in prison for up to 15 years is going to accomplish, particularly when he's sitting in his room right now contemplating what he is willing to do for his cause...
That's obviously not a comprehensive list and they are not all mutually exclusive.
EDIT: Considering he is an American and a teenager, I personally would lean towards trying to help the guy get 'well'. I mean kids get sucked into crazy shit especially around that age. Not to say he wouldn't have potentially done some horrible shit, I just don't think someone that young is beyond saving.
|
Psychological treatment. What's the diagnosis doctor?
Classic rags to riches story: pork bung passing for calamari.
|
|
|
On October 07 2014 08:40 IgnE wrote:
Psychological treatment. What's the diagnosis doctor?
Classic rags to riches story: pork bung passing for calamari.
I guess I mean more along the lines of counseling. With the idea that he be adjudicated as not being a threat to himself or others.
I'm no doc though. Just saying, sounds like the plan is just to piss him off and let him fester. I wasn't trying to say one was 'more right' than another just that the current plan didn't make sense to me. If it makes sense to anyone else I'm all ears?
Especially if it was a significant number of people...
|
I prefer the greek way. Exile.
|
On October 07 2014 10:56 IgnE wrote:
I prefer the greek way. Exile.
I wouldn't credit the greeks but yeah even that makes more sense.
|
On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers!
I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from.
|
On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from.
No offense Danglars, but you strike me as the type who would double the price of plywood during a hurricane because 'supply and demand bro'.
|
On October 07 2014 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from. No offense Danglars, but you strike me as the type who would double the price of plywood during a hurricane because 'supply and demand bro'.
As opposed to price controls which would leave no supply of lumber left to be bought. This isn't a 'feelings' issue. There are very real consequences that you're sublimely OK with because of what...some antiquated idea that there's an objective price, or some 'fair' price, and damn be the consequences. I'd rather there be wood available at double the price in a hurricane, than have all the wood bought up at arbitrarily low fixed prices so there's none left to buy (and we all know those people who buy a bunch and then turn around and sale it at double anyways...you going to stop private sales?). Rationality is condemned by the myopic emotionalists.
|
On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from.
Well I'd be just as happy to have you join me to legalize the sale of Drugs and Prostitution. Let's not go only halfway! :p
|
On October 07 2014 14:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 14:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from. No offense Danglars, but you strike me as the type who would double the price of plywood during a hurricane because 'supply and demand bro'. As opposed to price controls which would leave no supply of lumber left to be bought. This isn't a 'feelings' issue. There are very real consequences that you're sublimely OK with because of what...some antiquated idea that there's an objective price, or some 'fair' price, and damn be the consequences. I'd rather there be wood available at double the price in a hurricane, than have all the wood bought up at arbitrarily low fixed prices so there's none left to buy (and we all know those people who buy a bunch and then turn around and sale it at double anyways...you going to stop private sales?). Rationality is condemned by the myopic emotionalists.
That's not a real problem. There are other ways of distributing goods than simply selling to some person with money who doesn't need the wood.
|
The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans – about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.
There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.
What does this say about Obama?
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise. That's Sowell recently on Obama's handling of Ebola outbreak. Rest here.
On October 07 2014 14:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from. Well I'd be just as happy to have you join me to legalize the sale of Drugs and Prostitution. Let's not go only halfway! :p I'll go pretty far with you on prostitution with 18+ and the emphasis is its interaction with other laws like fraud, battery, rape (and false rape accusations), with the rest.
Drugs I'm not all on board nor even fully certain what federal laws or state laws I would support. Enforceable and enforced laws both national and regional, protections for kids who might not otherwise try or become dependent on them (though I'll admit the illegality is not sufficient to stop right now anyways), no sin taxes, and state's rights to ban their sale and consumption (enforceability issues with their ease of transport and concealment, but at least if only 7 states vote bans you can move to the other 43 for convenience if not outright unavailability). I haven't fully made up my mind. I'd enjoy hashing out that issue if the tax-and-spend culture, amongst others, can be undone and more citizens take active part in a constitutionally-limited federalist system.
|
"I'd be pro drug reform if y'all just went ahead and adopted my political beliefs."
No deal, no deal.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
guy's stupid if he thinks not adopting a specific policy then implies obama puts american interest second. very childish writing as expected from sowell
|
On October 07 2014 15:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans – about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.
There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.
What does this say about Obama?
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise. That's Sowell recently on Obama's handling of Ebola outbreak. Rest here.Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 14:20 Wegandi wrote:On October 07 2014 13:30 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2014 12:07 Wegandi wrote:Who really cares? As long as they didn't steal or defraud their way to their wealth, then who the fuck cares besides those who are so covetous? Instead of trying to pull folk down, why not focus on bringing everyone else up? + Show Spoiler +We could start by not giving billions of our money to those all ready rich via subsidy, regulatory schemas, 'so called tax credits', and a host of other Government incentive. Then we can tackle the Cantillion Effect which makes the politically connected much more wealthy by the inflation tax. That would do a billion-times more to help the average joe than giving the Government even more power to determine who should have X amount of money (and don't get me started on inheritance non-sense...), and who should be the recipient of the stolen money. What a lunatic extreme far right-wing nonsense idea that is! I'm so astounded you'd come right out and say it--you're supposed to hide behind more moderate opinions if that is your true aim. Don't you know the rich had to have stepped on a few necks to make it? Don't you know that every road worker that paved a road going to their business deserves a slice of that pie? Every teacher that taught that man or woman growing up deserves a proportional chunk too, and it's only you fringe radical capitalistic sticks-in-the-mud that's stopping the fair and just redistribution. It isn't the covetous, it's only the fair sharers! I'm sad to say that in the current and recent past climate of US Politics, the focus is always on pulling folk down first, with various shades of attention given to those that receive the money and what happens to the guy they took it from. Well I'd be just as happy to have you join me to legalize the sale of Drugs and Prostitution. Let's not go only halfway! :p I'll go pretty far with you on prostitution with 18+ and the emphasis is its interaction with other laws like fraud, battery, rape (and false rape accusations), with the rest. Drugs I'm not all on board nor even fully certain what federal laws or state laws I would support. Enforceable and enforced laws both national and regional, protections for kids who might not otherwise try or become dependent on them (though I'll admit the illegality is not sufficient to stop right now anyways), no sin taxes, and state's rights to ban their sale and consumption (enforceability issues with their ease of transport and concealment, but at least if only 7 states vote bans you can move to the other 43 for convenience if not outright unavailability). I haven't fully made up my mind. I'd enjoy hashing out that issue if the tax-and-spend culture, amongst others, can be undone and more citizens take active part in a constitutionally-limited federalist system.
That's Stephen Colbert on the (American) media's handling of Ebola.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ayvbym/a-rare-correction---no-ebola-outbreak-in-the-u-s-
Calling them whores is an affront to "actual whores".
|
On October 07 2014 15:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans – about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.
There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.
What does this say about Obama?
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise. That's Sowell recently on Obama's handling of Ebola outbreak. Rest here.
The truth of the matter is, funnily enough, that we're fighting it over there so we won't be fighting it over here. This isn't Pandemic II, blocking your ports won't make your country into Madagascar.
The only thing I would change about the handling of Ebola after researching the current outbreak is investing a couple thousand dollars in the "cure" and "vaccine" peddlers that are reaping the benefits of a hysterical media and public. Give me adequate fluid repletion and replenish my clotting factors and I'll be more than satisfied.
|
On October 07 2014 23:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 15:10 Danglars wrote:The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans – about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.
There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.
What does this say about Obama?
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise. That's Sowell recently on Obama's handling of Ebola outbreak. Rest here. The truth of the matter is, funnily enough, that we're fighting it over there so we won't be fighting it over here. This isn't Pandemic II, blocking your ports won't make your country into Madagascar. The only thing I would change about the handling of Ebola after researching the current outbreak is investing a couple thousand dollars in the "cure" and "vaccine" peddlers that are reaping the benefits of a hysterical media and public. Give me adequate fluid repletion and replenish my clotting factors and I'll be more than satisfied.
Sure, blocking your ports won't make you invulnerable, but its still a smart measure. Go ahead and help people over there too, but don't be stupid about it.
|
On October 08 2014 00:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2014 23:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 07 2014 15:10 Danglars wrote:The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans – about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.
There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.
The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.
As if to emphasize his priorities, President Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.
What does this say about Obama?
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise. That's Sowell recently on Obama's handling of Ebola outbreak. Rest here. The truth of the matter is, funnily enough, that we're fighting it over there so we won't be fighting it over here. This isn't Pandemic II, blocking your ports won't make your country into Madagascar. The only thing I would change about the handling of Ebola after researching the current outbreak is investing a couple thousand dollars in the "cure" and "vaccine" peddlers that are reaping the benefits of a hysterical media and public. Give me adequate fluid repletion and replenish my clotting factors and I'll be more than satisfied. Sure, blocking your ports won't make you invulnerable, but its still a smart measure. Go ahead and help people over there too, but don't be stupid about it.
Ebola transmission rates are so incredibly low that this measure is completely disproportionate. It may even cause problems because people will try to get into the States via indirect flights which may even have lesser security standards.
If you don't want to get infected with Ebola don't touch dead people or anybody who looks like he has Ebola, that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
