Why its actually "good"that R-Wers are questioning Hillary's health...

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow. How was that survey conducted?

Click the link and find out!

 

[Al Azar]

All our means of production and distribution are owned by the state now, effected by that violent revolution? Is that what you see happening over the past 50 years?

On what planet?

Does government have more control over the people today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more control over businesses today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more citizens dependent on them today or 50 years ago?
Are citizens more responsible and self-reliant today or 50 years ago?

I'd say the amount of control is pretty much the same, just differently applied as we evolve as a society.

As it should.

But I thought you said something about communism taking over America when I wasn't looking. I'd like you to discuss that a little more before changing the subject.

 

[Al Azar]

Wow. How was that survey conducted?

Click the link and find out!

I already know. I wanted you to look to see, as you might want to drop the subject quickly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'd say the amount of control is pretty much the same, just differently applied as we evolve as a society.

As it should.

But I thought you said something about communism taking over America when I wasn't looking. I'd like you to discuss that a little more before changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. That's something you throw out there when you want to change the subject.

Obviously you're much younger than I am and don't remember what our country used to be like years ago. Because anybody that says government has the same control over us today as then is pretty young.

That's too bad too. You'd be surprised at how great it was living in a country where we had much less government and regulations over the people. People back then were much more responsible. You seldom knew of anybody on any social program (outside SS) yet alone over one-seventh of our country being fed by the government, and that's on top of school lunches, and breakfast and dinners in some places.

People would have rather starved to death before they allowed government to take care of them. Being on government assistance was a sign of failure, a sign of defeat, a sign of irresponsibility. Even if you had to work 70 hours a week, you did it just so you could save your pride. Many even resisted help from charities such as churches. They had way too much integrity.

Yeah, you used to be able to smoke a cigarette anywhere you wanted. If you went to a bar, got drunk, and got pulled over by a cop, in most cases, he would simply follow you home. You didn't need a seat belt either. Some cars didn't even come with them.

If you and another patron decided to fight outside, you did just that and nobody stopped you. If a cop happened to be walking by, he might ask you two to break it up. Sometimes they would just watch.

Now everything you do today has to have government involved. You can't just build a set of steps for your front porch like years ago. Now you need to get a government permit and have it inspected to make sure you did it the government way. Raising children? That was the parents responsibility. They didn't have things like 1-800-Lockup-Dad when you seen a father spanking his child in public. And today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife.

Now government has so much control over our lives that they regulated you buy health insurance against your will. The things teachers used to do with out of control children back then would be nationwide news today. Bullying? No one even dreamed that government would make that an issue.

 

[nat4900]

On a day when Hillary Clinton proclaimed the media biased (against her), labeling the GOP as "sad, misogynistic sexists," a survey of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) found that nearly 71% of physicians thought concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious - could be disqualifying for the position of President."

Perhaps I overestimated your level of intelligence, and it may be due to your rising desperation....

How can ANY physician make an assessment of Hillary health status based on reports by FOX and other right wing media outlets?

Is this what we've come to???

At the very least, Hillary's doctors put out a two-page synopsis on her health status...
Trump's quirky doc put out 3 or 4 sentences proclaiming Trump "exceptional"....

Come on, get serious, Ray....or avoid these threads.

 

[nat4900]

Does government have more control over the people today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more control over businesses today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more citizens dependent on them today or 50 years ago?
Are citizens more responsible and self-reliant today or 50 years ago?

Does the above mean that our Constitution is ALSO outdated since, based on what you're asserting, 50 years ago the country......and even the world..... after WWII has drastically changed???

(Careful there lest your precious 2nd amendment gets scrubbed....)

 

[nat4900]

We've gone form the health status of the 2 candidates to evaluating the pros and cons of communism??

 

[Al Azar]

I'd say the amount of control is pretty much the same, just differently applied as we evolve as a society.

As it should.

But I thought you said something about communism taking over America when I wasn't looking. I'd like you to discuss that a little more before changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. That's something you throw out there when you want to change the subject.

Obviously you're much younger than I am and don't remember what our country used to be like years ago. Because anybody that says government has the same control over us today as then is pretty young.

That's too bad too. You'd be surprised at how great it was living in a country where we had much less government and regulations over the people. People back then were much more responsible. You seldom knew of anybody on any social program (outside SS) yet alone over one-seventh of our country being fed by the government, and that's on top of school lunches, and breakfast and dinners in some places.

People would have rather starved to death before they allowed government to take care of them. Being on government assistance was a sign of failure, a sign of defeat, a sign of irresponsibility. Even if you had to work 70 hours a week, you did it just so you could save your pride. Many even resisted help from charities such as churches. They had way too much integrity.

Yeah, you used to be able to smoke a cigarette anywhere you wanted. If you went to a bar, got drunk, and got pulled over by a cop, in most cases, he would simply follow you home. You didn't need a seat belt either. Some cars didn't even come with them.

If you and another patron decided to fight outside, you did just that and nobody stopped you. If a cop happened to be walking by, he might ask you two to break it up. Sometimes they would just watch.

Now everything you do today has to have government involved. You can't just build a set of steps for your front porch like years ago. Now you need to get a government permit and have it inspected to make sure you did it the government way. Raising children? That was the parents responsibility. They didn't have things like 1-800-Lockup-Dad when you seen a father spanking his child in public. And today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife.

Now government has so much control over our lives that they regulated you buy health insurance against your will. The things teachers used to do with out of control children back then would be nationwide news today. Bullying? No one even dreamed that government would make that an issue.

I threw it out there? You brought up communism out of the clear blue sky and now are trying so hard to distance yourself from it I'm beginning to think you have no idea what it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I threw it out there? You brought up communism out of the clear blue sky and now are trying so hard to distance yourself from it I'm beginning to think you have no idea what it is.

Nope. I was responding to Regent when you replied with this:

Are you scared of them, too?

Then you followed up with this:

All our means of production and distribution are owned by the state now, effected by that violent revolution? Is that what you see happening over the past 50 years?

On what planet?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps I overestimated your level of intelligence, and it may be due to your rising desperation....

How can ANY physician make an assessment of Hillary health status based on reports by FOX and other right wing media outlets?

Is this what we've come to???

At the very least, Hillary's doctors put out a two-page synopsis on her health status...
Trump's quirky doc put out 3 or 4 sentences proclaiming Trump "exceptional"....

Come on, get serious, Ray....or avoid these threads.

Apparently a majority of doctors do see something wrong here. That's all I was pointing out. It's not just us right-wingers or the public in general.

 

[Al Azar]

Apparently a majority of doctors who chose to participate in an informal Internet survey conducted by a conservative special interest group...

Why didn't they simply ask the RNC to opine on Hillary's suitability? Same result.

 

[nat4900]

Apparently a majority of doctors do see something wrong here. That's all I was pointing out. It's not just us right-wingers or the public in general.

NO, NO, Ray.......

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative association

 

[Redfish]

I think we are entitled to a current, complete, unbiased medical report on both candidates. Do you agree?

absolutely..........So far we have a fairly extensive medical record from Clinton....but forTrump'swe have 2 sentences prepared in 5 minutes by a quack gastro doctor.

So, by all means......let's have more extensive scrutiny.

LOL, what we have on Clinton is a year old and was prepared by her "personal" doctor. Probably under threat of doing a Vince Foster if he didn't give her a good report.

At least what we have on Trump is current.

So, once again, lets demand that they both submit to a complete unbiased medical evaluation at a reputable medical facility----Mayo, Ochsner, MD Anderson, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Beth Israel, etc. Then release the findings publicly.

Are you up for that, or are afraid of what it might say about the hildebeast?

 

[Redfish]

I think we are entitled to a current, complete, unbiased medical report on both candidates. Do you agree?

I think that would be a little intrusive, but it wouldn't hurt if their doctors could say whether they had any problems that would prohibit them from serving as President.

its no more intrusive than demanding their tax returns and complete financial disclosure, and is probably more pertinent as to the ability to do the job of president.

 

[Al Azar]

I think we are entitled to a current, complete, unbiased medical report on both candidates. Do you agree?

absolutely..........So far we have a fairly extensive medical record from Clinton....but forTrump'swe have 2 sentences prepared in 5 minutes by a quack gastro doctor.

So, by all means......let's have more extensive scrutiny.

LOL, what we have on Clinton is a year old and was prepared by her "personal" doctor. Probably under threat of doing a Vince Foster if he didn't give her a good report.

At least what we have on Trump is current.

So, once again, lets demand that they both submit to a complete unbiased medical evaluation at a reputable medical facility----Mayo, Ochsner, MD Anderson, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Beth Israel, etc. Then release the findings publicly.

Are you up for that, or are afraid of what it might say about the hildebeast?

And then a thorough psychological examination, followed by a morals test and a genetics test and...

Where will it stop? What good would it do? A lot of people are voting for Trump to keep a slandered and libeled Hillary from winning, and a lot of people are voting for Hillary to keep an out-of-control infantile huckster from winning. None of the care about the health of either of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

its no more intrusive than demanding their tax returns and complete financial disclosure, and is probably more pertinent as to the ability to do the job of president.

I see your point. After all, the government makes me take a physical every year and the doctor has to report the results to the government. Then I have to carry around a medical card and surrender it to any authority that asks for it while I'm working.

I'm only asking the presidential candidates to do a fraction of what I have to do every year.

 

[regent]

All our means of production and distribution are owned by the state now, effected by that violent revolution? Is that what you see happening over the past 50 years?

On what planet?

Does government have more control over the people today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more control over businesses today or 50 years ago?
Does government have more citizens dependent on them today or 50 years ago?
Are citizens more responsible and self-reliant today or 50 years ago?

Are there more Americans today or 50 years ago?