quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Doesnt sound like big government had anything to do with it originally due to the original clusterfuck at the hospital. CDC dont usually send in guys with no protection.

Sounds to me like they(countries) need to start to quarantine anyone who is travelling out of africa ASAP.
At least until they can be tested.


I agree about the mutation possibility too Aylee, At the time I posted that, it wasnt questioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Imagine if we had one of those 'limited government' concepts in place. Before the first patient with this horrible illness was diagnosis, thousands if not tens of thousands could have been infected. But thanks to big government, we had the tools, systems, and people in place to keep the population safe from this threat. That is something always absent from 'limited government' literature of their advocates: handling disasters.

quote:

From: DaNewAgeViking
Something that'll really stroke the Radicals paranoia wand is the thought of how easy it would be for Islamic terrorists to send infected individuals over here to simply wander around spreading ebola at random. I'm surprised this isn't already a 'campaign issue'.

They would have their fears stroked....anyways....by conservative media. And we know this since 40% of their reporting is fear based on a wide variety of topics (another 50% are lies and 10% are actual facts/information). The reality is, the US Military, the CDC, FBI and many other organizations have thought on this stuff in the past and placed people, equipment, and processes in place to mitigate the chances it could be successful. While it can happen, it wont happen to quite the level conservative media will paint to its audience over the next few weeks/months/years.

Source for those percentages, Joe?

I was curious if someone would call me on it

One that has graphs of the actual source information.

The second source comes from a news publication. I'm honestly not sure if the site is a good source of information. It gives an opinion base upon its views on events. I'm sure I could find other news outlets that give different numbers. So, for purposes of 'answering the question', this second sources shows FOX News lies the most often. FOX News doesn't report accurate (read: lies often) on matters of scientific study/research. Granted, Another Study, showed FOX News viewers were the least informed of all the news outlets.

As much as you might like to hate on 'Media Matters', they do seem to do a decent job in researching the information to explain how FOX News got the information wrong. That there are thousands of not a few tens of thousands of pieces should show the casual observe that FOX News is not known for being 'fair and honest' towards its viewers. That being the GOP/TP mouthpiece is not a good thing for a society like ours.

I looked at both links and while they both claimed fox was mostly false, false or pants on fire 60% of the time. Your claim was they were based on fear 40%, false 50% and actually factual only 10% so sorry but they don't back up shit. But it was a good try.

Lets say someone found the cure for cancer. Did the honest research and study to find (for the sake of the argument, the best possible outcome): a vaccine. Its easy to give, and neutralizes cancer problems 90% of the time. Do they give to humans immediately? No, they and others test and retest and test fifty more times, to make sure the numbers and results are still coming up in a consistent basis. Not only that, but how that vaccine would behave with other drugs in the human body. Since some people are not suffering from just cancer alone. And that takes a fair amount of testing as well. By the time its allowed for human consumption, people would have a fairly good idea on the effects and side effects of the drug.

It seems most of the studies based around 'which news station tells the truth and is honest when wrong' never has FOX News in 1st place. Most of them seem to place that organization at the near bottom or last place. The evidence speaks for itself if one is being honest and objective. Can you be honest and objective, looking at the evidence and arriving at the same or similar conclusion? And if you don't arrive at the same or similar conclusion, why not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I could swear that you and theheretic were Siamese Twins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

With your level of intelligence it is ironic but not surprising that your definition of a troll is someone who posts a picture that others may not like or agree with