quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

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.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

Not quite.

It's 35 years old or older, born in the U.S., and a non-felon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

Has Hillary Clinton announced she is running for the Office of the President of the United States of America? Answer: No. So why should she have to hand over private information to some sleazy guy known for lying?
Or should we make everyone's medical records public? Since anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

quote:

[Rove] said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

Has Hillary Clinton announced she is running for the Office of the President of the United States of America? Answer: No. So why should she have to hand over private information to some sleazy guy known for lying?
Or should we make everyone's medical records public? Since anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

There's this thing called "reading" that some of us in here really enjoy doing, Joether. You should expand your selection choices.

For instance, the article in the OP wasn't a firsthand account of what was said. It was, essentially, a report of what "New York Post's Page Six" reported. If only there was a quick and easy way to find out what was in that article. So, after an extensive internet search (which was limited to clicking on the NYP Page Six link in the article you cited), we find out:

quote:

[Rove] said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

According to the NY Post, Rove was stating that we'll need to know about her condition if she runs. So, it doesn't matter if she's announced or not. There is no demand for her records right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

Has Hillary Clinton announced she is running for the Office of the President of the United States of America? Answer: No. So why should she have to hand over private information to some sleazy guy known for lying?
Or should we make everyone's medical records public? Since anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

There's this thing called "reading" that some of us in here really enjoy doing, Joether. You should expand your selection choices.
For instance, the article in the OP wasn't a firsthand account of what was said. It was, essentially, a report of what "New York Post's Page Six" reported. If only there was a quick and easy way to find out what was in that article. So, after an extensive internet search (which was limited to clicking on the NYP Page Six link in the article you cited), we find out:

quote:

[Rove] said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

According to the NY Post, Rove was stating that we'll need to know about her condition if she runs. So, it doesn't matter if she's announced or not. There is no demand for her records right now.

Of course every part of it was a lie. She didn't spend 30 days in the hospital and we've already covered the glasses.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

Has Hillary Clinton announced she is running for the Office of the President of the United States of America? Answer: No. So why should she have to hand over private information to some sleazy guy known for lying?
Or should we make everyone's medical records public? Since anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

There's this thing called "reading" that some of us in here really enjoy doing, Joether. You should expand your selection choices.
For instance, the article in the OP wasn't a firsthand account of what was said. It was, essentially, a report of what "New York Post's Page Six" reported. If only there was a quick and easy way to find out what was in that article. So, after an extensive internet search (which was limited to clicking on the NYP Page Six link in the article you cited), we find out:

quote:

[Rove] said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

According to the NY Post, Rove was stating that we'll need to know about her condition if she runs. So, it doesn't matter if she's announced or not. There is no demand for her records right now.

Of course every part of it was a lie. She didn't spend 30 days in the hospital and we've already covered the glasses.

Didn't we cover the "traumatic brain injury" thing being true, though, Ken?

I didn't say Rove was right about how long she was in the hospital. I concede he was wrong about the glasses (because I don't care). The fact is, she suffered a concussion (which I cited; or was my linkety link too biased for you?). If you're going to dispute that she suffered a traumatic brain injury, have at it. Rove was right about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

Has Hillary Clinton announced she is running for the Office of the President of the United States of America? Answer: No. So why should she have to hand over private information to some sleazy guy known for lying?
Or should we make everyone's medical records public? Since anyone 42+ and born in the nation could run for President.

There's this thing called "reading" that some of us in here really enjoy doing, Joether. You should expand your selection choices.
For instance, the article in the OP wasn't a firsthand account of what was said. It was, essentially, a report of what "New York Post's Page Six" reported. If only there was a quick and easy way to find out what was in that article. So, after an extensive internet search (which was limited to clicking on the NYP Page Six link in the article you cited), we find out:

quote:

[Rove] said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

According to the NY Post, Rove was stating that we'll need to know about her condition if she runs. So, it doesn't matter if she's announced or not. There is no demand for her records right now.

Of course every part of it was a lie. She didn't spend 30 days in the hospital and we've already covered the glasses.

Didn't we cover the "traumatic brain injury" thing being true, though, Ken?

I didn't say Rove was right about how long she was in the hospital. I concede he was wrong about the glasses (because I don't care). The fact is, she suffered a concussion (which I cited; or was my linkety link too biased for you?). If you're going to dispute that she suffered a traumatic brain injury, have at it. Rove was right about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
She did not spend 30 days in the hospital.
The glasses were not for brain injury.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You and Rove are both idiots.
Rove because he has a relentless and dishonest agenda.
You because you have a relentlessly myopic ego.
Both of you because you're deliberately playing games to make mountains of molehills.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
If you trip over some substance on your way back from the Rove School of Semantic Obfuscation to Obscure the Dearth of Meaningful Points, share it.
Until then, you're just playing the grown up version of the same game school kids play.
It's a game. Over a fucking concussion. You look at the pupils, keep 'em awake a few hours, send 'em off to school. I doubt many people *haven't* had one.

quote:

So, the real question is whether she had a concussion (stemming from a fall that was caused by weakness fighting off a case of the flu), or not. If she had a concussion, which was reported (I know, I know, totally biased site, but still), then she certainly did have a traumatic brain injury, as Rove claimed. Does she have any lingering issues? Will she have any long-term or permanent issues? Both of those questions won't be answered either until problems are discovered, or after she passes without any problems cropping up.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Ah, the make up game, "are you saying," and then putting in anything I didn't say that you want.
IF YOU had read the links I provided WAY back about Rove's idiocy, including this one, you'd see both that (1) I'm not claiming that at all and (2) why this point makes both you and Rove idiots.
See what I did there? See what you ignored because your bias doesn't want to see it?
See why I maintain you're just playing a childish game?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Dude, the nice thing about threads is that all the posts are there, in order.

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