`President Ebola`

[LongTermGuy]

`What does it tell you when Britain and France have stopped flights to and from the nations in Africa where Ebola has become a threat and the United States has not taken a similar measure?...

What does it tell you when the President sends 3,000 U.S. troops on a “humanitarian” mission to West Africa? It tells me he has put the U.S. at risk if any or a portion of these troops return after having been infected.`







http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66505

[PixieStix]

It tells me that Obama not only is an incompetent moron. But that he lacks the love for this country, that a President needs to have

[tailfins]

I think it's deliberate to infect states that didn't vote for him. I can't buy that anyone is THAT incompetent.

[DLT]

I think it's deliberate to infect states that didn't vote for him. I can't buy that anyone is THAT incompetent.

Well considering that Obama apparently feels that he has to bow, scrape and apologize for America at every turn and on every foreign appearance.....it follows logically that Obama feels America needs to be punished and taken down a notch or 10. And he has already accomplished that feat, both single-handedly via EOs and with the help of the treasonous leftist Democratic Party.

[aboutime]

It tells me that Obama not only is an incompetent moron. But that he lacks the love for this country, that a President needs to have

Agree PixieStix. But we generally ALL know he's incompetent. As for love for this country. Just remember what his Mrs. said about 'not being proud'. And also. In order to have a President with love for his country...we first must have something other than a wannabe President. Facts do not lie.

[DLT]

`What does it tell you when Britain and France have stopped flights to and from the nations in Africa where Ebola has become a threat and the United States has not taken a similar measure?...

What does it tell you when the President sends 3,000 U.S. troops on a “humanitarian” mission to West Africa? It tells me he has put the U.S. at risk if any or a portion of these troops return after having been infected.`







http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66505

I have just been informed by a resident leftie troll that there are apparently 23 other such anti-Obama-Ebola threads. I'm going to endeavor to find them all...since we know that there's no way the leftie troll could be lying. [blink blink]

This makes two.

[Drummond]

`What does it tell you when Britain and France have stopped flights to and from the nations in Africa where Ebola has become a threat and the United States has not taken a similar measure?...

What does it tell you when the President sends 3,000 U.S. troops on a “humanitarian” mission to West Africa? It tells me he has put the U.S. at risk if any or a portion of these troops return after having been infected.`







http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66505

Interesting assertion about Britain and France.

It makes this article in today's Express a little difficult to account for, though ..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/519...itain-in-weeks

THE deadly Ebola virus could hit British shores within three weeks, scientists warned last night.

Experts have analysed the pattern of the spread of the disease, along with airline traffic data, to make the startling prediction Ebola could reach Britain by October 24.

They claim there is a 50 percent chance the virus could hit Britain by that date and a 75 per cent chance the it could be imported to France, as the deadliest outbreak in history spreads across the world.

Currently, there is no cure for the disease, which has claimed more than 3,400 lives since March and has a 90 per cent fatality rate.

Virus expert Dr Derek Gatherer, of Lancaster University, said yesterday: "It's really a lottery.

"If this thing continues to rage on in West Africa and indeed gets worse, as some people have predicted, then it's only a matter of time before one of these cases ends up on a plane to Europe."

France is among countries most likely to be hit next because the worst affected countries - Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia - are French-speaking and have busy travel routes back, while Britain's Heathrow is one of the world's biggest travel hubs.

France and Britain have each treated one national who was brought home with the disease and then cured. The scientists' study suggests that more may bring it to Europe not knowing they are infected.

Even assuming an 80 percent reduction in travel to reflect the fact many airlines are halting flights to affected regions, France's risk is still 25 percent, and Britain's is 15 percent.

Across Europe, Belgium has a 40 percent chance of seeing the disease arrive on its territory, while Spain and Switzerland have lower risks of 14 percent each, according to the study first published in the journal PLoS Current Outbreaks.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has not placed any restrictions on travel.

[DLT]

Interesting assertion about Britain and France.

It makes this article in today's Express a little difficult to account for, though ..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/519...itain-in-weeks

Which begs the question.....

why the hell not?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has not placed any restrictions on travel.

Placing restrictions on travel from infected areas only makes logical sense. Have we come to an era in world history where logic, reason and common sense has gone permanently 'bye-bye'?