Understanding Ebola

[Jim Craik]

In a thread where the Republican right is heaping blame the Persident for an "inadequite" responce to an African disease, I think it important to point out how the Republican right responded to a similar African disease.



I'll ask again, they are easy questions...


Which responce to an African disease do you feel more appropriate?

Do you think it was wise for Republicans to allow Religous Leaders set Public policy in health emergencies?

Which Party do you want running things when disease strikes?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[Jim Craik]

Same way all the bloody threads end up in the same shit hole! :furious:

I agree Al, I would have liked a bit more info and some informal international discussion could have been useful, but once more, it's gone to hell in a hand cart. Same childish rhetoric - same protagonists..

Perhaps we should indeed call time on the Paddock or maybe Ron could send them on an extended vacation, either way, I'm heartily sick of it.

Keith, where were your complaints when in post #3 Larry called for Jeff Young to Respond and turn this into a political discussion?

Keith there was your outrage when in post #15 out of the blue, David Morton said that "Bhurkas" were the real problem? You have no problem with Bhurka thread drift, but my poining out how one political party handeled a similar medical emergency...

You say discussing how another Predident handeled a similar health issue is thread drift?.....Really?

We can't discuss the different ways of handeling this medical issue, but Bhurkas drift is OK?

Why do you save your outrage about thread drift until after post #24 when I joined in?

Have you really gotten over your bias?

 

[Keith]

Don't flatter yourself JC. As far as I'm concerned you're all in the same leaky boat, but your accusation of bias only strengthens my suspicion that you really do believe people are out to get you for no good reason.

David Mortons comments about Burkhas are entirely valid and there's nothing wrong with a political discussion as long as it follows the basic rules of debate. How the flying fuck Ebola turned into a typical Americanesque political rant is plain to see - I am merely asking for restraint.

While you're on though, try and answer Al's perplexity regarding his original question and your responses to it.

Remember though what Ebola and ISIS have in common:

They don't take "sides" we are ALL potential victims, so some cross party international cooperation and information share would be a good place to start. if we are going to be able to resist either...

And no, I do not agree that immediately blaming the POTUS for the Ebola outbreak in the US, is in anyway conducive to a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, apportioning immediate blame for any situation appears to be the current fad tactic to avoid confronting the solutions.

PS This the Paddock. In itself, it is a thread drift, so no harm and no foul.

 

[Jim Craik]

Don't flatter yourself JC. As far as I'm concerned you're all in the same leaky boat, but your accusation of bias only strengthens my suspicion that you really do believe people are out to get you for no good reason.

No Keith, I believe people are out to get me for a very good reason...

Maybe you have forgotten, I have had my views censored...

Oh wait, you must remember, it was you who censored them.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

In a thread where the Republican right is heaping blame the Persident for an "inadequite" responce to an African disease, I think it important to point out how the Republican right responded to a similar African disease.



I'll ask again, they are easy questions...


Which responce to an African disease do you feel more appropriate?

Do you think it was wise for Republicans to allow Religous Leaders set Public policy in health emergencies?

Which Party do you want running things when disease strikes?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Jim, what are you referring to when you talk about Religious Leaders set Public policy in health emergencies? During the current Ebola or a different time?

I would hope that both parties would work together.

 

[Keith]

No Keith, I believe people are out to get me for a very good reason...

Maybe you have forgotten, I have had my views censored...

Oh wait, you must remember, it was you who censored them.

.

Hmm don't remember me censoring you for your views Jim, perhaps because you were annoying or something like that. Ah, I remember! It was because you only set out to ridicule me, that was it mate... Not censorship, correct application of the rules. Now tell me, is it possible you can have a sensible 'conversation' with another member here on any subject without getting into a largely irrelevant partisan bun fight ?

Remember, it takes two to tango, and it's not always the other guys fault.

Give it a try. The, thread title is 'Understanding Ebola'. Al asked a valid question, but I feel you may have been sidetracked by Jeff Young and the ubiquitous Larry, neither of who's posts had anything to do with Al's original question, so, can we come back into the room and start over?

Here's my contribution. I don't know anything about Ebola Save that its a nasty incurable virus that originated out of Africa. just as AIDS did. Now, I've learned enough about AIDS to help me avoid catching the virus, to wit: I will no longer fuck pigs, monkeys, or gay men up the ass (which is a bit of a relief to tell you the truth is the, emotional baggage and the feed bill was huge.)

So, I know how to avoids AIDS (which for my money had more to do with some libertine gents from San Francisco rather than the President of the day) but I would like to know now who (or what) not to fuck to avoid Ebola,, which, for the benefit of contemporary history, hand on heart, I cannot lay at the feet of Obama, whoever he had been fucking, so if you have any updated info, I would be truly obliged...

 

[Larry L.]

.
So, I know how to avoids AIDS (which for my money had more to do with some libertine gents from San Francisco rather than the President of the day) but I would like to know now who (or what) not to f--- to avoid Ebola,, which, for the benefit of contemporary history, hand on heart, I cannot lay at the feet of Obama...

Hmmmmmmmm...isn't that more-or-less what "the ubiquitous Larry" previously stated in so many words, Keith??? (Hint: 1st paragraph, post #35.)

 

[Larry L.]

Jeff Young needs to read this. Maybe he'd get a clue if he did. It's obvious he doesn't have one now...

Keith, where were your complaints when in post #3 Larry called for Jeff Young to Respond AND TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DISCUSSION?

WHERE - WHERE - did I turn this into a political discussion by making that comment???!!! WHERE?! HOW???! I had referred to Jeff's 'take' on Ebola!!!!!!!!!

Your logic(?) is VERY frustrating to try to follow/comprehend, sir...and, by extension, so is Keith's in this particular case.

 

[David Morton]

Keith's point is really that the paddockwill die on it's feet. Why? Because a certain group of Americans seem to insist on it. Get a grip or it will be abandoned and you guys west of 30w caused it. You really are a bunch of fuckwits.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

.
So, I know how to avoids AIDS (which for my money had more to do with some libertine gents from San Francisco rather than the President of the day) but I would like to know now who (or what) not to fuck to avoid Ebola,, which, for the benefit of contemporary history, hand on heart, I cannot lay at the feet of Obama, whoever he had been fucking, so if you have any updated info, I would be truly obliged...

Well its on the move Kieth, stop shagging or eating bats is one way to avoid contracting the disease. The timeline below is quite an alarming read, it sounds like there are problems with containment and quarantine procedures. Meanwhile Unicef, Oxfam , Save the children and many more are tugging on our charitable pockets for a top up.

Ebola timeline: How the deadly virus worked its way across western Africa and the rest of the world - Africa - World - The Independent

Bob

 

[Keith]

OK, just for the sake of clarity - who deleted this post from Jim Craik?

Hint: It wasn't me....

"No Keith, I believe people are out to get me for a very good reason. YOU have sensored my posts!"

For the record JC, I haven't censored any of your posts. I deleted ONE because it was a personal attack on me and had nothing to do with the thread subject.

But the question is: The above post was written by JC but has not appeared on the site - so, WHO DELETED IT AND WHY?

WHO IS OUT TO GET JIM?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Who really gives a fuck? My answer is probably no one.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I was sorry at the death of the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, M.D. He was the last SG of any integrity or academic distinction that we had in this country. The successors in the post have been nonentities.

I miss him more, now. We don't even HAVE a Surgeon General (there is a nominee but unconfirmed and not likely to be, ever) so Dr. Frieden ended up with the job. Dr. Koop would have know how to handle this crisis and managed it better than Dr. Frieden has.

As far as the lawyer appointee, it doesn't take a physician to do this- it takes someone who is good at logistics. The delay in appointing someone probably had to do with finding someone stupid enough to want the job, but smart enough to do it.

I'm entertained, if that's the right word, by the manner in which every argument about everything on this section of the forum turns into a spitball fight between the usual folks. I wish I had all the free time you guys do. I'd make better use of it.

I'd work on my car.

 

[Jim Craik]

It's apparent that the "Moderator" has convinced himself that removing minority voice from a discusion is just fine and not "CENSORSHIP"......

Yesterday, the Modorator was calling for Ron to limit the minority side of the discussion when he said this...

"Perhaps we should indeed call time on the Paddock or maybe Ron could send them on an extended vacation, either way, I'm heartily sick of it".<!-- google_ad_section_end -->



With a Modorator who thinks limiting the minority view is the right way to handel a political discussion, I can no longer be involved with the Paddoc.

 

[David Morton]

Q.E.D.

 

[Jack]

I have heard of the series, but it is not available here..."Glass-on"!

 

[Howard Jones]

So Al tried and nobody seamed to get it. Keith, don't hit the ball back...........over the net. And......I'll try again.

2 African countries free of Ebola - CNN.com

WHO | Ebola virus disease

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html

Please note that my sources are a neutral CDC piece and one each from the NY times and CNN. Fig leaf anyone?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

So Al tried and nobody seamed to get it. Keith, don't hit the ball back...........over the net. And......I'll try again.

2 African countries free of Ebola - CNN.com

WHO | Ebola virus disease

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html

Please note that my sources are a neutral CDC piece and one each from the NY times and CNN. Fig leaf anyone?

Thanks Howard

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Since when are you a minority Jim? I thought the Liberals were in power, that makes you a majority does it not?

 

[Jeff Young]

.



Give it a try. The, thread title is 'Understanding Ebola'. Al asked a valid question, but I feel you may have been sidetracked by Jeff Young and the ubiquitous Larry, neither of who's posts had anything to do with Al's original question, so, can we come back into the room and start over?
...

Da fuq?

I didn't thread drift anything. Right now, there is mass ebola hysteria in the US over a disease that EIGHT people in the US have contracted, one died from and several survived.

Most of those eight contracted it in West Africa.

This is one huge media freak out, and Al's blog post was a big part of it.

See:

Ebola hysteria: An epic, epidemic overreaction - CNN.com

And yes there was a political motive behind Al's post, and Larry and other's pile on: to show that ebola was some national disaster of biblical proportions and Obama was screwing up the response. THAT was the intent of the thread from the start.

Your basic problem remains. Al, Larry and Lonesome Nutjob post/start/incite arguments characterizing people who disagree with them as incompetents, marxists, whatevers. I don't see myself, or Terry, or Doug, or Jim starting that shit.

That's your problem. You guys tolerate it, which is fine, because you don't understand the system over here (who would) but if you aren't a right wing conservative, about 100% of what Nutjob posts, 80% of Larry and 50% of Al is basically a big fuck you to things that are important to you.

I suppose that is fine for tolerating that, but don't get upset when I, or Jim, push back every once in a while.

We aren't the root cause and no, I'm not playing "it's the other guy." Take a look at the threads in this place from the last few weeks and think about the reason for them....