Breach in Protocol ???

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I would be fine with a travel ban, but I am also not naive enough to believe that it would allow us to let our guard down.  We have had one case in the seven months since the outbreak started.  That's a track record that would be tough to beat even with a travel ban.

Speaking of travel ban .....

If you have time catch the incompetent Dr. Friedman or one of his cronies declare preventing travel to the US would greatly hamper containing Ebola in Africa.  Then one of them went on to give the best reason to secure our borders when it was said by preventing direct travel to the US they would go to another country and come overland across our borders and we wouldn't even know.

It would be helpful if you would explain in detail how allowing unlimited travel to this country from those countries where Ebola is a serious problem will aid in containing the disease in those countries.
.

As I said, I would be fine with a travel ban.

Then you say Dr. Friedman is wrong?

Dunno.  Never read it.  As I said, I'm fine with a ban.  I just don't see much room for improvement.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I would be fine with a travel ban, but I am also not naive enough to believe that it would allow us to let our guard down.  We have had one case in the seven months since the outbreak started.  That's a track record that would be tough to beat even with a travel ban.

Speaking of travel ban .....

If you have time catch the incompetent Dr. Friedman or one of his cronies declare preventing travel to the US would greatly hamper containing Ebola in Africa.  Then one of them went on to give the best reason to secure our borders when it was said by preventing direct travel to the US they would go to another country and come overland across our borders and we wouldn't even know.

It would be helpful if you would explain in detail how allowing unlimited travel to this country from those countries where Ebola is a serious problem will aid in containing the disease in those countries.
.

As I said, I would be fine with a travel ban.

Then you say Dr. Friedman is wrong?

Dunno.  Never read it.  As I said, I'm fine with a ban.  I just don't see much room for improvement.

Your buddy Friedman says a travel ban would be wrong ... therefore you disagree with him.
Are you right or is he?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I would be fine with a travel ban, but I am also not naive enough to believe that it would allow us to let our guard down.  We have had one case in the seven months since the outbreak started.  That's a track record that would be tough to beat even with a travel ban.

Speaking of travel ban .....

If you have time catch the incompetent Dr. Friedman or one of his cronies declare preventing travel to the US would greatly hamper containing Ebola in Africa.  Then one of them went on to give the best reason to secure our borders when it was said by preventing direct travel to the US they would go to another country and come overland across our borders and we wouldn't even know.

It would be helpful if you would explain in detail how allowing unlimited travel to this country from those countries where Ebola is a serious problem will aid in containing the disease in those countries.
.

As I said, I would be fine with a travel ban.

Then you say Dr. Friedman is wrong?

Dunno.  Never read it.  As I said, I'm fine with a ban.  I just don't see much room for improvement.

Your buddy Friedman says a travel ban would be wrong ... therefore you disagree with him.
Are you right or is he?

I've never had a beer with him.  Therefore he is not my buddy.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I would be fine with a travel ban, but I am also not naive enough to believe that it would allow us to let our guard down.  We have had one case in the seven months since the outbreak started.  That's a track record that would be tough to beat even with a travel ban.

Speaking of travel ban .....

If you have time catch the incompetent Dr. Friedman or one of his cronies declare preventing travel to the US would greatly hamper containing Ebola in Africa.  Then one of them went on to give the best reason to secure our borders when it was said by preventing direct travel to the US they would go to another country and come overland across our borders and we wouldn't even know.

It would be helpful if you would explain in detail how allowing unlimited travel to this country from those countries where Ebola is a serious problem will aid in containing the disease in those countries.
.

As I said, I would be fine with a travel ban.

Then you say Dr. Friedman is wrong?

Dunno.  Never read it.  As I said, I'm fine with a ban.  I just don't see much room for improvement.

Your buddy Friedman says a travel ban would be wrong ... therefore you disagree with him.
Are you right or is he?

I've never had a beer with him.  Therefore he is not my buddy.

Do you still disagree with him about the travel .. after all he maintains a ban will hamper containing the disease in Africa.

Who is correct, you or him?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I would be fine with a travel ban, but I am also not naive enough to believe that it would allow us to let our guard down.  We have had one case in the seven months since the outbreak started.  That's a track record that would be tough to beat even with a travel ban.

Speaking of travel ban .....

If you have time catch the incompetent Dr. Friedman or one of his cronies declare preventing travel to the US would greatly hamper containing Ebola in Africa.  Then one of them went on to give the best reason to secure our borders when it was said by preventing direct travel to the US they would go to another country and come overland across our borders and we wouldn't even know.

It would be helpful if you would explain in detail how allowing unlimited travel to this country from those countries where Ebola is a serious problem will aid in containing the disease in those countries.
.

As I said, I would be fine with a travel ban.

Then you say Dr. Friedman is wrong?

Dunno.  Never read it.  As I said, I'm fine with a ban.  I just don't see much room for improvement.

Your buddy Friedman says a travel ban would be wrong ... therefore you disagree with him.
Are you right or is he?

I've never had a beer with him.  Therefore he is not my buddy.

Do you still disagree with him about the travel .. after all he maintains a ban will hamper containing the disease in Africa.

Who is correct, you or him?

Here is the cover-up:  Obama wanted another case if Ebola so that Americans would force Republicans to stop their obstructionist ways and allow Dr. Vivek Murthy, Obama's appointee for Surgeon General, to accept his position and get to work on this.  It is unfortunate that there are some in Washington who continue to obstruct by not allowing a medical leader in this time of crisis. - Dr Jones

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Here is the cover-up:  Obama wanted another case if Ebola so that Americans would force Republicans to stop their obstructionist ways and allow Dr. Vivek Murthy, Obama's appointee for Surgeon General, to accept his position and get to work on this.  It is unfortunate that there are some in Washington who continue to obstruct by not allowing a medical leader in this time of crisis. - Dr Jones

So why then did Obola appoint the political hack Ron Klain as an Obola Czar and not Vivek Murthy? Politics?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Here is the cover-up:  Obama wanted another case if Ebola so that Americans would force Republicans to stop their obstructionist ways and allow Dr. Vivek Murthy, Obama's appointee for Surgeon General, to accept his position and get to work on this.  It is unfortunate that there are some in Washington who continue to obstruct by not allowing a medical leader in this time of crisis. - Dr Jones

So why then did Obola appoint the political hack Ron Klain as an Obola Czar and not Vivek Murthy? Politics?

Paquette wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Here is the cover-up:  Obama wanted another case if Ebola so that Americans would force Republicans to stop their obstructionist ways and allow Dr. Vivek Murthy, Obama's appointee for Surgeon General, to accept his position and get to work on this.  It is unfortunate that there are some in Washington who continue to obstruct by not allowing a medical leader in this time of crisis. - Dr Jones

So why then did Obola appoint the political hack Ron Klain as an Obola Czar and not Vivek Murthy? Politics?

Klain was a piss poor choice.

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting read:

Ebola travel ban would be unprecedented
http://www.cnn.com//2014/10/17/politics/ebola-travel-ban-unprecedented/index.html

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting read:

Ebola travel ban would be unprecedented
http://www.cnn.com//2014/10/17/politics/ebola-travel-ban-unprecedented/index.html

So then the other 30+ nations that have adopted a travel ban are all wrong according to this liberal rag...got it!

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting read:

Ebola travel ban would be unprecedented
http://www.cnn.com//2014/10/17/politics/ebola-travel-ban-unprecedented/index.html

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting read:

Ebola travel ban would be unprecedented
http://www.cnn.com//2014/10/17/politics/ebola-travel-ban-unprecedented/index.html

So then the other 30+ nations that have adopted a travel ban are all wrong according to this liberal rag...got it!

What article did you read?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting read:

Ebola travel ban would be unprecedented
http://www.cnn.com//2014/10/17/politics/ebola-travel-ban-unprecedented/index.html

Gotta love those Q&A articles that put up softball questions to be knocked out of the park and how they talk to their audience like a bunch of clueless 8 year olds.  

How about this article that puts to rest many of the talking points being circulated in the MSM echo chamber.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/10/14/the-new-mindless-dogma-an-ebola-travel-ban-doesnt-work/

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

But it's just common sense, defined as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

They make a good argument that we should listen to the polls of those people who have a very simple perception of the facts rather than those with a more complete understanding of the complex nature of the situation. Add to that a resounding "is not" to anything that goes beyond that simple perception and you have an irrefutable argument.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

But it's just common sense, defined as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

They make a good argument that we should listen to the polls of those people who have a very simple perception of the facts rather than those with a more complete understanding of the complex nature of the situation. Add to that a resounding "is not" to anything that goes beyond that simple perception and you have an irrefutable argument.

What effect do you suppose their unsubstantiated fear mongering has had on our national polls?

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

But it's just common sense, defined as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

They make a good argument that we should listen to the polls of those people who have a very simple perception of the facts rather than those with a more complete understanding of the complex nature of the situation. Add to that a resounding "is not" to anything that goes beyond that simple perception and you have an irrefutable argument.

What effect do you suppose their unsubstantiated fear mongering has had on our national polls?

People have to get their simple perception of the facts from somewhere but you aren't accusing CNN or the rest of unsubstantiated fear mongering are you? I dare you name one instance of the news media hyping up a story out of proportion to reality.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

But it's just common sense, defined as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

They make a good argument that we should listen to the polls of those people who have a very simple perception of the facts rather than those with a more complete understanding of the complex nature of the situation. Add to that a resounding "is not" to anything that goes beyond that simple perception and you have an irrefutable argument.

What effect do you suppose their unsubstantiated fear mongering has had on our national polls?

People have to get their simple perception of the facts from somewhere but you aren't accusing CNN or the rest of unsubstantiated fear mongering are you? I dare you name one instance of the news media hyping up a story out of proportion to reality.

I am accusing the GOP of fear mongering.  They are pretending like Obama has gone completely renegade on his handing of this crisis and thus he is unfit to handle it, when the truth is actually something quite different.  The truth is that this is being handled by the book, in a method that has been followed for decades.  Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the plan isn't working.  This is just another manufactured scandal to discredit the president, only this time they are using fear.

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Gotta love those one sided juvenile tantrums that rile up the troops with a heavy dose of sensationalism but offer very little factual information. Come back when you find an article with a little more substance.

But it's just common sense, defined as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

They make a good argument that we should listen to the polls of those people who have a very simple perception of the facts rather than those with a more complete understanding of the complex nature of the situation. Add to that a resounding "is not" to anything that goes beyond that simple perception and you have an irrefutable argument.

What effect do you suppose their unsubstantiated fear mongering has had on our national polls?

People have to get their simple perception of the facts from somewhere but you aren't accusing CNN or the rest of unsubstantiated fear mongering are you? I dare you name one instance of the news media hyping up a story out of proportion to reality.

I am accusing the GOP of fear mongering.  They are pretending like Obama has gone completely renegade on his handing of this crisis and thus he is unfit to handle it, when the truth is actually something quite different.  The truth is that this is being handled by the book, in a method that has been followed for decades.  Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the plan isn't working.  This is just another manufactured scandal to discredit the president, only this time they are using fear.

It's that time of year when the campaign ads are in full bloom and love is in the air.

There are plenty of legitimate issues worthy of bashing BHO over but this issue has shown the depths that my party has sunk to. this and so many other "issues". It's left me as a man without a party because the GOP has become something completely unrecognizable to me. The Democrats aren't above fear mongering either.

But don't underestimate the media's role in this. Fear sells. Fear is a tremendous generator of both cash and votes.

Dr. Jones wrote:The "I" party is growing by the day....