Does anyone know....
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
No, but I do know that on ESPN radio this morning I heard an add for an "Outbreak Kit." "Are you prepared for an outbreak of Ebola or another contagious disease?"
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
My gosh, hunk. Where do you live?
The amount of paranoia and disinformation out there is amazing. I had an EMT post the most ludicrous post about how the governement is lying to us and they are completely freaked that they know this will be a massive epidemic that will kill millions but are keeping it from the American public. Made me not want him to care for any of my pts in the future.
My office has had lots of calls.
________________________
I think one of their strategies (and including the CDC) is to recognize that people are very afraid and to try to answer all their questions and not to do what I probably would do..... which is to say "ARE YOU GUYS NOT LISTENING? ARE YOU STUPID?"
Unfortunately the locals in Dallas are not as good at it.
It appears the general mood of distrust of anything having to do with the Federal government has a lot to do with it. And it is stoked by all the conspiracy nuts (some who reside in Congress, for God's sake). It will go a long way towards assuaging people's fears if none of the contacts of Mr. Duncan contract it.
_______________________
This post was edited on 10/8 4:18 PM by DocRon
Thank you for your candid response DocRon. I appreciate that.
To be honest, I had an ulterior motive for when I first asked the question. I wanted to see if anyone else might have already known what I had just learned that day before posing the question; and that was that we do not have a current Surgeon General. The reason for that is because President Obama's nomination for the position, Dr. Vivek Murthy, had been filibustered in the Senate because of a statement he made which the NRA took exception with. Consequently, we don't have a SG at this time and it made me wonder when the obstructionism which we have become all too used to by now just might come back to haunt us. And as you pointed out, there is an element in this country who seem to be trying to whip up a panic on this story and they are largely supportive of the same people who supported the filibuster in the first place. That was the main reason for my post, to point out the irony.
As far as hunkgolden's response, I almost wanted to ask him if his cable was out. vbg
To be honest, I had an ulterior motive for when I first asked the question. I wanted to see if anyone else might have already known what I had just learned that day before posing the question; and that was that we do not have a current Surgeon General. The reason for that is because President Obama's nomination for the position, Dr. Vivek Murthy, had been filibustered in the Senate because of a statement he made which the NRA took exception with. Consequently, we don't have a SG at this time and it made me wonder when the obstructionism which we have become all too used to by now just might come back to haunt us. And as you pointed out, there is an element in this country who seem to be trying to whip up a panic on this story and they are largely supportive of the same people who supported the filibuster in the first place. That was the main reason for my post, to point out the irony.
As far as hunkgolden's response, I almost wanted to ask him if his cable was out. vbg
I knew that President Obama's nomination had been stalled. I guess I thought someone was serving on an interim basis. Good disguised probe.
Man, I cannot imagine how little will be done if/when the Republicans gain control of the Senate. Government will pretty much grind down to the status quo for two years. Don't expect any problems/situations to be addressed.
______________________
Man, I cannot imagine how little will be done if/when the Republicans gain control of the Senate. Government will pretty much grind down to the status quo for two years. Don't expect any problems/situations to be addressed.
______________________
And that's different from what's going on now... how? Or is different than what happened when Democrats controlled Congress under Bush? Or vice versa under Clinton? Or again under Bush Sr.? Or again under Reagan? And so forth ad infinitum.
Comical how people seem to think these things only work one way... Don't hate the players; hate the game.
so ... as if there was any doubt, there's no longer any illusion you're anything but a shill for the democrats.
This thread is almost to the point of the idiots who blame the NRA for no Surgeon General.
Then again, I haven't read all the responses....
Gosh, I had almost forgotten why I hardly ever come to or post on this board anymore.
Now I remember.
_______________________
Now I remember.
_______________________
Don't worry Doc, there never was any "illusion" about 85 being an unhinged asshole. He further solidifies his identity with each and every post.
actually
tons of stuff got done under Reagan, because Tip O'Neill and Reagan sat down and talked and compromised on a lot of stuff. Tip gave him money for the Cold War, Reagan raised taxes and expanded some social programs for Tip.
Roughly similar under Bush, Sr. Bush raised taxes at one point (which was the right call), the Dems gave him fairly free reign in foreign policy (which I thought Bush, Sr. was fairly good at by the way).
Around Clinton's time, it started to break down.
By Bush 2, furthermore although I will point you to the differences between how the Dems handled Medicare Pard D (which they opposed) and how the Reps handled the ACA.
By Obama, you had the complete breakdown we have now.
There's been differences in degree and type as to how the game has been played.
tons of stuff got done under Reagan, because Tip O'Neill and Reagan sat down and talked and compromised on a lot of stuff. Tip gave him money for the Cold War, Reagan raised taxes and expanded some social programs for Tip.
Roughly similar under Bush, Sr. Bush raised taxes at one point (which was the right call), the Dems gave him fairly free reign in foreign policy (which I thought Bush, Sr. was fairly good at by the way).
Around Clinton's time, it started to break down.
By Bush 2, furthermore although I will point you to the differences between how the Dems handled Medicare Pard D (which they opposed) and how the Reps handled the ACA.
By Obama, you had the complete breakdown we have now.
There's been differences in degree and type as to how the game has been played.
You're inferring that Republicans filibustered the Surgeon General appointment, yet the media is the one whipping up the Ebola scare. Thus your statement: "there is an element in this country who seem to be trying to whip up a panic on this story and they are largely supportive of the same people who supported the filibuster in the first place" does not follow.
Re: actually
Agree. It's been far worse since Clinton, got really bad under Bush, and is abyssmal now. In any event, both parties have had their hands in it, though the Tea Party Patr(id)iots are probably the worst.
Agree. It's been far worse since Clinton, got really bad under Bush, and is abyssmal now. In any event, both parties have had their hands in it, though the Tea Party Patr(id)iots are probably the worst.
I'll say this about Boehner
In his heart of hearts, and to a lesser degree in McConnell's heart of hearts, I believe that they'd actually do the old school process of banging out compromises. They, and others won't because of fear.
The fear of being primaried on the right by the TP means never saying anything positive about Obama or dems and never doing anything with him (because he's evil and must be stopped).
You remove that fear and 10-15% more stuff would get done. The ACA would be improved because once the appropriate level of votes were made against it, and it was inevitable (like with Medicare Part D), then there would be legislation to fix this hole, or tweak that glitch.
We'd have compromises on spending plans where, as used to happen, folks roughly met in the middle (we'll give a little more money here for defense, you give a little more money for food stamps, we'll cut this tax here, but you've got to get rid of that deduction there).
I'm no Reagan fan obviously, but he's LIGHT YEARS ahead of what conservatives do today. He may have talked about small government, but in practice, he well understood the necessity of government, and of getting things done, and of compromise. Tip did too.
In his heart of hearts, and to a lesser degree in McConnell's heart of hearts, I believe that they'd actually do the old school process of banging out compromises. They, and others won't because of fear.
The fear of being primaried on the right by the TP means never saying anything positive about Obama or dems and never doing anything with him (because he's evil and must be stopped).
You remove that fear and 10-15% more stuff would get done. The ACA would be improved because once the appropriate level of votes were made against it, and it was inevitable (like with Medicare Part D), then there would be legislation to fix this hole, or tweak that glitch.
We'd have compromises on spending plans where, as used to happen, folks roughly met in the middle (we'll give a little more money here for defense, you give a little more money for food stamps, we'll cut this tax here, but you've got to get rid of that deduction there).
I'm no Reagan fan obviously, but he's LIGHT YEARS ahead of what conservatives do today. He may have talked about small government, but in practice, he well understood the necessity of government, and of getting things done, and of compromise. Tip did too.
which media? All of it, or just some of it? You look at Fox News and they found a way, inexplicably, to have Gretchen Carlson tie together Benghazi, the IRS and Ebola into one paragraph the other day.
This post was edited on 10/10 1:45 PM by qazplm
This post was edited on 10/10 1:45 PM by qazplm
All of that was directly caused by Obamacare, and exacerbated by the immigration problem causing deadly Ebola outbreak threatening Texas right now.
Re: I'll say this about Boehner
A few years ago I did some research on conservative groups because I felt like maybe I wanted to be more politically "involved." I checked out the Tea Party first, then Libertarians, and considered joining the Republican party officially. All three pretty much repulsed me in one way or another, but none moreso than the Tea Party. And that's saying something. I agree in principle with much of what all three organizations stand for, but the Tea Party's tactics are just beyond stupid. If there's one thing I have learned about politics and religion, hard liners in each do more harm to their causes than good.
I'll just remain happily independent as a conservative, vote mostly Republican, and keep my money to myself.
A few years ago I did some research on conservative groups because I felt like maybe I wanted to be more politically "involved." I checked out the Tea Party first, then Libertarians, and considered joining the Republican party officially. All three pretty much repulsed me in one way or another, but none moreso than the Tea Party. And that's saying something. I agree in principle with much of what all three organizations stand for, but the Tea Party's tactics are just beyond stupid. If there's one thing I have learned about politics and religion, hard liners in each do more harm to their causes than good.
I'll just remain happily independent as a conservative, vote mostly Republican, and keep my money to myself.
I would take umbrage to this, but considering some of the conservatives on this message board, I can't.
The Keystone XL pipeline would bring oil down to the gulf. Ebola hates oil. Dallas is kinda close to the Gulf. Impeach Obama.
Re: actually
Seems to correlate with the pace of media coverage speeding up. and also perhaps increased access by less qualified/trained journalists. The change is certainly at least partially due to the harshness with which every political movement is treated by the media - the best option for a politician who wants to keep his/her job now is to not make too many waves.
Re: I'll say this about Boehner
What I've seen from the Tea Party is that they're for Constitutional government and responsible fiscal policy.
I don't follow the "Tea Party", but I'd be curious to know what they did to repulse someone.
What I've seen from the Tea Party is that they're for Constitutional government and responsible fiscal policy.
Rude as always. You still have difficulty with English. I'm not leaving. Just echoing the prior poster's comment. Try to keep up.
