The American Spectator

Deborah D| 5.5.09 @ 7:06AM

I'm sure they are still asking for a supplemental, but they won't be specific about what it's for -- just like they won't be specific about what they will do with the $81 million requested to close Guantanamo. No plan as to what they'll do with those poor wittle terrorists. At least Congress is holding that money back until they get answers. Wow, something we can actually point to that Congress did right for a change.

Bob| 5.5.09 @ 8:32AM

Do you really want the government to gamble with a potential pandemic? Or would you rather have medicines made and distributed and ready? When it comes to emergencies, no government spending under any President is efficient. But if we did have a pandemic and these actions were not taken I'm sure the people here would be the first to blame the Obama administration. Right????

Big J| 5.5.09 @ 9:45AM

Bob,

Take a moment to peruse the CDC Website, then come back and make an intelligent comment based on knowledge, not the panic that our brave new leaders are attempting to cite:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2007-2008/07-08summary.htm

Pretty coincidental that the confirmation of Kathleen Sebelius coincided with this "pandemic".

tonypal| 5.5.09 @ 9:58AM

Bob:

Come on man, the point is that the administration knew it was all overblown to begin with. If they really thought there was potential for widespread pandemic, why didn't they take even more sensible precautions, such as closing the border with Mexico?

Once again, we see Obama and his band of thugs creating a crisis where none exists, then demanding money to solve the (non-existent) problem. Seems like that should have been fairly easy to grasp, unless of course it was you Bob who was determined to defend Obama, regardless of the facts.

Bob| 5.5.09 @ 10:26AM

BigJ -- anyone in government, whether it is Obama or any Republican, is going to say the situation is worse than it is. If they said is wasn't that bad and it turned out to be worse, people would call them incompetent as they did with Bush and New Orleans. With regard to Sebelius, she was nominated a long time ago before anyone knew of the swine flu. That is a straw dog, and you know it. Remember, it was Republicans that were more in charge of when Sebelius would be confirmed rather than Democrats. The Dems would have preferred her to be confirmed a long time ago.

I do agree that the politicians hyped this up so they could get money in place in case something bad happened. However, I think this would have been done by any competent administration.

Tonypal, you always prepare for the worst case scenario and don't take risks with public health. What would you have said if there was a turn for the worse and the administration wasn't ready? I'm pretty sure you would have been one of the first complaining. Am I right?

In business, we used to determine our level of risk averseness and how much we were willing to spend for that level.

The fact is that you and others on this blog would find problems with Obama no matter what he did.

Big J| 5.5.09 @ 12:12PM

Didn't go to the website, did ya Bob?

I completely missed your point on Sebelius' nomination, but what else is new (missing your point, that is).

"The fact is that you and others on this blog would find problems with Obama no matter what he did." Not quite true. I was very impressed that he got out of the Navy Seals' way and allowed them to "busta cap" in the pirates holding Captain Phillips hostage. No, Obama didn't give the order to shoot (contrary to what the mainstream media reported), he simply got himself and the FBI "hostage negotiators out of the way. I commend him for that, at least. As of this moment, I cannot think of a single action that he has taken to advance the freedom and security of this country (above example not-withstanding). I would love for you to cite one. I would like to add it to the list I have started to compile.

BTW, I don't recall you ever talking about being self employed. What business did you own? In my business, we do risk assessment on a daily basis, but make darn sure that it is a risk BEFORE going to the bank or panicking our employees.

I still haven't figured out why, in the infinite wisdom of our fearless leaders, we chose not to screen travelers coming from Mexico, but we close hundreds of schools across the United States. Is it serious or not?

You can't have it both ways, Bob. Well, maybe in your world, but not here in the real one.

tonypal| 5.5.09 @ 8:08PM

Bob:

Why is it that whenever I write directly to you, you ignore half of what I write? Did you not read the following: " If they really thought there was potential for widespread pandemic, why didn't they take even more sensible precautions, such as closing the border with Mexico? "

So as you can see, I did make a suggestion that encompasses your "prepare for the worst case scenario " approach. Would closing the border with Mexico, the source of the flu outbreak, live up to your desire that the Obama "prepare for the worst case scenario?"

Bob, your problem is that when you read something that inconveniences your attempt to make a point, you simply ignore what you've read. You also assume way too much when you state " you and others on this blog would find problems with Obama no matter what he did." If he had not done what he usually does, which is to instill fear and panic for the purpose of getting his way, and instead explained to the American people that the risks associated with swine flu are x,y and z, then I would have been utterly indifferent to his approach. In fact, I'm generally indifferent to most things any President does because I do not get up in the morning and look to Washington DC for my daily guidance.

Last thing Bob. I run a business myself (self-employed attorney) and know a thing or two about risk aversion. I can tell you this: you assess risks calmly and maturely, not like some fool throwing everything at the wall, hoping something sticks.