DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
She did not spend 30 days in the hospital.
The glasses were not for brain injury.
Neither of those things are being questioned, Ken.
Do you disagree that she suffered a traumatic brain injury?
Those are the things he claimed. Therefore he lied. What is so hard for you to understand?
I have a hard time understanding why you keep questioning when I don't dispute that he lied about two things. The facts of the matter still include that she did suffer a traumatic brain injury.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
He, like Rove, and like the link I posted points out, is saying technically a concussion is a traumatic brain injury by medical definition. And it is, strictly speaking. From there, he's pretending Rove isn't intentionally trying to imply a much more serious medical condition.
He's not trying to understand anything -- he's intentionally misunderstanding to continue the game.
Thanks for finally answering the question. I knew you could do it! 
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
I wonder if it might help to consider Rove's comments as a case of text versus subtext.
His text may have been literally true. It's hard to tell without a transcript or video, neither of which I could find.
Then there's his subtext. Why was he bringing up a December 2012 concussion all this time later? Given that he's a partisan operative, it's not unreasonable to wonder if he was trying to sow seeds of suspicion that Secretary Clinton suffered lingering and serious damage to her brain.
ETA: It occurs to me that Rove's words may also have been a shot across the bow for Mrs. Clinton, warning her just how ugly life will get if she runs for President.
The thing about words and context is that the only one that matters is the worse of the two (and, yes, that certainly happens from both sides of the aisle). That was the twisting of words that I spoke to in my first post in the thread.
Rove said she was in the hospital for 30 days (which was wrong).
He also said that "[w]hen she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury?" Now, he could have meant that her "reappearance" was Clinton's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (roughly 44 days after the concussion). While he was wrong that she was wearing glasses only for people who have had a traumatic brain injury, she was wearing fresnel prism (typically used to treat double vision) on her glasses because of "lingering effects of the concussion."
Now, did he claim she had brain damage? No. Did he imply she might have brain damage? Yes. Is that something that might be important to know about a Presidential candidate? Maybe. I think it would gain importance if she's showing symptoms on the 2016 campaign trail.
The article in the OP made the claim that Rove said Hillary suffered from brain damage. He did not do that.
When Pelosi said that they had to pass it (Obamacare) to see what was in it, you can either take what she said (that's not a good thing at all). or take what she meant (that it's so encompassing that you can't really understand the impact it was going to have until it's been passed and you see it in action), which is certainly valid and much better than what she said.
_____________________________
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)
|
RE: Karl Rove - 
Profile
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