Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Karl Rove


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Karl Rove Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Karl Rove - 5/14/2014 11:25:39 PM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Actually, that was Jerry Falwell in the 80s.

Is he dead yet?

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 12:30:21 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, that was Jerry Falwell in the 80s.



Is he dead yet?



Physically or politically?







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 6:37:26 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That the sunglasses she was wearing after the fall were the sort prescribed for people after a head injury.

OMG, you're whining about that?!? That's beautiful!!!
Okay, so, let's say he was wrong to make the claim that the sunglasses were only for those who had a brain injury. Does that have any bearing on whether she had a brain injury or not?
You're not even whining about the implications of what he correctly said (that she sustained a traumatic brain injury).
    Me: "Hey, I like the off-white wall paint, Ken. Ecru looks good, Ken!"
    Ken: "FUCKING LIAR!!! It's mother-of-pearl!!"
    Me: "Okay, Ken. Whatever. It's still off-white."

It is the entire basis for the attack.


Soooo, that he made a claim that the only reason people get those sunglasses are because they suffered a traumatic brain injury. He, according to a link you supplied showing Hillary wearing those sunglasses before the fall (I didn't follow the link, and I'm not claiming it was wrong), was wrong about why she was wearing those sunglasses, but he was still right about her having suffered a traumatic brain injury (a concussion).

You aren't arguing that she didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury. Your arguing the reason for the sunglasses.

Can you not see how stupid an argument that is? He was wrong as to the sunglasses, but still correct that she suffered a brain injury.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 6:40:37 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/261584/speedreads-bill-clinton-gave-the-perfect-response-to-people-claiming-hillary-has-brain-damage

Didn't he get impeached due to his lack of telling the truth?
I kinda think you need to take Bill's word with a grain of salt...
Just sayin'

Yeah, Bill Clinton was impeached for telling lies about an affair that had nothing to do with his day job. A Republican Congress decided to impeach.
G. W. Bush was not impeached for telling lies that got the whole nation into war. 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded, 100K-600K dead civilians (depending on which report you believe), and costing the nation $4 Trillion of borrowed money. His lying had *EVERYTHING* to do with his day job. A Republican Congress decided not to impeached.
Can you say 'Conflict of Interest'?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Democrat-led Congress 2007-2010?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 7:26:49 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That the sunglasses she was wearing after the fall were the sort prescribed for people after a head injury.

OMG, you're whining about that?!? That's beautiful!!!
Okay, so, let's say he was wrong to make the claim that the sunglasses were only for those who had a brain injury. Does that have any bearing on whether she had a brain injury or not?
You're not even whining about the implications of what he correctly said (that she sustained a traumatic brain injury).
    Me: "Hey, I like the off-white wall paint, Ken. Ecru looks good, Ken!"
    Ken: "FUCKING LIAR!!! It's mother-of-pearl!!"
    Me: "Okay, Ken. Whatever. It's still off-white."


It is the entire basis for the attack.


Soooo, that he made a claim that the only reason people get those sunglasses are because they suffered a traumatic brain injury. He, according to a link you supplied showing Hillary wearing those sunglasses before the fall (I didn't follow the link, and I'm not claiming it was wrong), was wrong about why she was wearing those sunglasses, but he was still right about her having suffered a traumatic brain injury (a concussion).

You aren't arguing that she didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury. Your arguing the reason for the sunglasses.

Can you not see how stupid an argument that is? He was wrong as to the sunglasses, but still correct that she suffered a brain injury.


No one ever denied she'd had a concussion. That she had permanent brain damage resulting in double vision requiring her to wear those glasses is the issue.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 8:34:03 AM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, that was Jerry Falwell in the 80s.



Is he dead yet?


Physically or politically?

Either will do.

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 8:40:26 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That the sunglasses she was wearing after the fall were the sort prescribed for people after a head injury.

OMG, you're whining about that?!? That's beautiful!!!
Okay, so, let's say he was wrong to make the claim that the sunglasses were only for those who had a brain injury. Does that have any bearing on whether she had a brain injury or not?
You're not even whining about the implications of what he correctly said (that she sustained a traumatic brain injury).
    Me: "Hey, I like the off-white wall paint, Ken. Ecru looks good, Ken!"
    Ken: "FUCKING LIAR!!! It's mother-of-pearl!!"
    Me: "Okay, Ken. Whatever. It's still off-white."


It is the entire basis for the attack.


Soooo, that he made a claim that the only reason people get those sunglasses are because they suffered a traumatic brain injury. He, according to a link you supplied showing Hillary wearing those sunglasses before the fall (I didn't follow the link, and I'm not claiming it was wrong), was wrong about why she was wearing those sunglasses, but he was still right about her having suffered a traumatic brain injury (a concussion).

You aren't arguing that she didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury. Your arguing the reason for the sunglasses.

Can you not see how stupid an argument that is? He was wrong as to the sunglasses, but still correct that she suffered a brain injury.


No one ever denied she'd had a concussion. That she had permanent brain damage resulting in double vision requiring her to wear those glasses is the issue.


Karl Rove is making the accusation on the health of a former first lady. Lets just make sure we remember where all this 'information' is originating from. And what would Karl Rove have to gain, by having the public believe a few lies?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 9:48:16 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		If Karl Rove's lips are moving, shit is flowing forth from them.

It's the only song he knows.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 10:50:01 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		http://www.politifact.com/personalities/karl-rove/statements/

Rove wouldn't know accuracy if it bit him.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 2:16:36 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No one ever denied she'd had a concussion. That she had permanent brain damage resulting in double vision requiring her to wear those glasses is the issue.


So, stating that she was wearing glasses for people who have had a "traumatic brain injury" (which include concussions) means she had permanent brain damage?

This is how liberals get their bases twisted. Rove didn't say she had permanent brain damage. He said she was wearing glasses (which wasn't correct) that are only worn by those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (which is correct).


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 2:28:43 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Oh FFS. His intent was clearly the implication, playing exactly the bullshit game you're playing.

Next.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 2:37:33 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		This is how liberals get their bases twisted.

No that is how you cloak your post in pulcratudinous platitudes and never actually define what your post actually mean.
You refuse define A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution but you post that ignorant bullshit everyday
You claim to be in favor of "Personal Responsibility" yet you posts constantly support corporations. By definition a corporation shields the individual from personal responsibility.
You refuse to define what the fuck Help for the truly needy is or who the truly needy are.
You refuse to define what the fuck you mean by Limited Government
You refuse to recognize that a Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt) is regressive.
Now you know why no one takes a fucking thing you post seriously.


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 3:10:25 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Oh FFS. His intent was clearly the implication, playing exactly the bullshit game you're playing.
Next.


Is a Presidential candidate's health not something to be concerned about, or is it simply because she's a Democrat that no one can have any reservations regarding current health? I could be wrong, but did McCain enjoy the same ignoring of potential health issues when he ran?

Or does Hillary get a pass because she's a woman?

Rove made a factually incorrect comment. The comment was incorrect about the length of stay. Another biased site does imply that the glasses she was wearing had something extra for lingering effects of her concussion, but I'm sure it's just the biased site making shit up.

Yet, no one is allowed to have any questions about lingering effects. Nifty.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 3:13:23 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Since you didn't get it the first time . . .

Oh FFS. His intent was clearly the implication, playing exactly the bullshit game you're playing.

Next.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 3:33:04 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Since you didn't get it the first time . . .
Oh FFS. His intent was clearly the implication, playing exactly the bullshit game you're playing.
Next.


You might want to check your bias, MM.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 5:22:44 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline 		FR
The main thought that came to mind is that even if it was brain damage, Clinton is STILL much smarter (a million times smarter?) than Sarah Palin, so what is Karl Rove actually trying to say. I'll take slightly brain damaged smart over brain DEAD anyday…...

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 6:14:03 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR
The main thought that came to mind is that even if it was brain damage, Clinton is STILL much smarter (a million times smarter?) than Sarah Palin, so what is Karl Rove actually trying to say. I'll take slightly brain damaged smart over brain DEAD anyday…...


Your not setting that bar very high are you. Most people are smarter that Sarah, doesn't mean I want them for president.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 7:39:57 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Since you didn't get it the first time . . .
Oh FFS. His intent was clearly the implication, playing exactly the bullshit game you're playing.
Next.


You might want to check your bias, MM.


And now you're getting a glint of it.

You're a parrot, Dude. You want to roll around with Rove, it's your laundry bill.

And you're ignoring the point to switch the point. Karl would be proud.




(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Karl Rove - 5/15/2014 9:57:52 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

FR

As far as I'm concerned, Karl Rove is the douche who's responsible for turning the Republican Party into the disaster it has become. Who cares what he says?

Actually, that was Jerry Falwell in the 80s.

Karl Rove is the one who makes slim ashamed to be seen with him.

It wasn't Jerry Falwell, it was the GOP leadership and Saint Reagan who brought the bible thumpers onto the national stage and that turned politics into a Chautaqua tent and made conservative=dumbass shitkicker rather than a reasoned approach to governing. We went from the intellectual conservatism of Buckley and Goldwater (neither of whom I agreed with) to the shitkicker inspired idea that somehow being educated or thinking about issues are wrong. Both Buckley and Goldwater hated what they saw as the looney right, and 40 years ago predicted what would happen to the GOP if they allowed the evangelicals and the John Birch society (ie the Koch Brothers) and the anti intellectual rednecks to take over the party, and they were right, the GOP has become, to quote Bobby Jindal, the party of stupid. They spawned the tea party movement, that these days has the credibilty of the flat earth society, yet Boehner and the GOP leadership is still running scared from them.

As far as the wranging over Hillary, Desideri and others can play semantics, but Karl Rove was using one of the dirtiest tricks in the books, using the common to throw doubt that something more serious is there. Are concussions brain trauma? Yes, by its very nature, but that is like saying someone in the military was wounded, and deserved the purple heart, and when you find out the wound was a paper cut from handling too many forms back in supply, them saying "but I was wounded". Concussions have varying levels, and most are relatively trivial, but by using the term "brain trauma" Rove is trying to imply it was serious, when many concussions are the equivalent of a paper cut compared to getting knifed. The problem with the GOP is they are so intellectually bankrupt they can't fight on issues, so they have to come up with spreading rumors that the president isn't a citizen, is a muslim, or with Hillary, that 'she done hit her head, clem, now she ain't raht, know what ah mean?"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Karl Rove - 5/16/2014 12:00:38 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		The brain damage issue is a non-starter. There are plenty of actual reasons that Cankles should not be President. I'm sure they will be revisited if she decides to run again.

-SD-

_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Karl Rove Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109