” No one but you suggested he was.”
No, YOU defended your nasty name-calling of that first response by insinuating with a circular argument that he is. All because government (or airlines, or whatever) LET him in.
“Lets cut to the chase Ms. Rebel.”
Cut the condescending taunting speech, Internet big-mouth.
1. Do you support individuals who believe they might very well have been infected/exposed to an extremely deadly disease to travel and intentionally endanger many others, possibly an entire continent?
Intentionally? No.
You’re baiting and switching. Tell me this guy was intentionally endangering people, like a Moslem. If he wanted that he should’ve spat on them. And it still has nothing to do with what would truly be the question - customs intervention. THAT is the issue, not whether someone incidentally got in. You can argue “morals”, but that is not really the issue here. He is not a kamikaze.
2. Should hundreds or maybe thousands of others who were knowingly exposed travel to the U.S. the same way Duncan did?
No (I already mentioned this in a reply). There should be checks on this, somehow. As mentioned in #1.
3. Is it not one the few actual responsibilities of the U.S. government to protect our borders, homeland and Americans from harm?
Yes. Same question basically as the 2nd, and already answered many replies ago.
1. Do you support individuals who believe they might very well have been infected/exposed to an extremely deadly disease, to travel and endanger many others, possibly an entire continent?
2. Do you not blame those individuals for any wrong doing, who believe they very well might have been infected/exposed to an extremely deadly contagious disease that travel and endanger many others, possibly an entire continent?
These are not complex questions Ms. Reb.
You're catching on Miss Rebel.