Jump to content

Do as we say, not as we do...


MDM4AU

Recommended Posts

Kerry: Flu Shot OK for Clinton, But Not Cheney

John Kerry's presidential campaign is complaining that Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, received a flu shot this week, even though health officials have urged that only those most vulnerable receive the vaccine.

But apparently team Kerry didn't notice on Monday when Hillary Clinton announced that her heart patient hubby, Bill, also received a flu shot, during an address about the vaccine shortage at a New York City health center.

"Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the Kerry campaign said in a statement issued late Wednesday, according to Agence France-Press.

Cheney - a pacemaker-wearing cardiac patient who has had four heart attacks - would fit into the government's definition of those most vulnerable to a looming influenza epidemic, noted AFP.

So would recent quadruple bypass recipient ex-President Clinton.

Surely the Kerry campaign will be issuing a statement any minute now condemning the Clintons for "doing as we say, not as we do."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/20/211529.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Kerry: Flu Shot OK for Clinton, But Not Cheney

John Kerry's presidential campaign is complaining that Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, received a flu shot this week, even though health officials have urged that only those most vulnerable receive the vaccine.

But apparently team Kerry didn't notice on Monday when Hillary Clinton announced that her heart patient hubby, Bill, also received a flu shot, during an address about the vaccine shortage at a New York City health center.

"Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the Kerry campaign said in a statement issued late Wednesday, according to Agence France-Press.

Cheney - a pacemaker-wearing cardiac patient who has had four heart attacks - would fit into the government's definition of those most vulnerable to a looming influenza epidemic, noted AFP.

So would recent quadruple bypass recipient ex-President Clinton.

Surely the Kerry campaign will be issuing a statement any minute now condemning the Clintons for "doing as we say, not as we do."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/20/211529.shtml

113517[/snapback]

The problem with this analogy is that the Clinton's didn't say it, the Bush administration said it. Further, Clinton isn't the President, but he is recovering from major surgery. Now, if Bushco wants to admit than Cheney is one of those unhealthy at-risk elderly people, then they have to explain how he's healthy enough to be in this job. Have you heard Bushco claim Cheney is one of the "at-risk" people they are talking about? Can't use an excuse you don't assert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this analogy is that the Clinton's didn't say it, the Bush administration said it. Further, Clinton isn't the President, but he is recovering from major surgery. Now, if Bushco wants to admit than Cheney is one of those unhealthy at-risk elderly people, then they have to explain how he's healthy enough to be in this job. Have you heard Bushco claim Cheney is one of the "at-risk" people they are talking about? Can't use an excuse you don't assert.

TexasTiger - first, your comment that there is some how a problem w/ this analogy is nonsensical. Doesn't matter that the Clinton's didn't say it. Makes no difference what so ever. Further, Cheney IS the acting V.P., and w/ his age ( just a couple yrs away from the upper age bracket for getting the shot ) and his heart condition, it makes PERFECT sense that the 2nd in line for the top office in the land take care of his health. The problem ISN'T w/ either Clinton or Cheney getting the flu shot, I doubt anyone sees anything wrong w/ the health of both a former President and a current V.P being looked after. The problem is the petty Kerry camp that makes an issue of it w/ Cheney, while ignoring the fact when it comes to Clinton.

You clearly are a Dem, because you spin the issue in so many irrelevent ways. Being 'old' does not make one " unhealthy". But that is exactly what you're trying to assert is the case w/ Cheney. It's just a fact of life that when folks get older, their immune system isn't so strong. That you'd make this a political issue...as the Kerry campaign does, is assinine, petty and pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this analogy is that the Clinton's didn't say it, the Bush administration said it. Further, Clinton isn't the President, but he is recovering from major surgery. Now, if Bushco wants to admit than Cheney is one of those unhealthy at-risk elderly people, then they have to explain how he's healthy enough to be in this job. Have you heard Bushco claim Cheney is one of the "at-risk" people they are talking about? Can't use an excuse you don't assert.

TexasTiger - first, your comment that there is some how a problem w/ this analogy is nonsensical. Doesn't matter that the Clinton's didn't say it. Makes no difference what so ever. Further, Cheney IS the acting V.P., and w/ his age ( just a couple yrs away from the upper age bracket for getting the shot ) and his heart condition, it makes PERFECT sense that the 2nd in line for the top office in the land take care of his health. The problem ISN'T w/ either Clinton or Cheney getting the flu shot, I doubt anyone sees anything wrong w/ the health of both a former President and a current V.P being looked after. The problem is the petty Kerry camp that makes an issue of it w/ Cheney, while ignoring the fact when it comes to Clinton.

You clearly are a Dem, because you spin the issue in so many irrelevent ways. Being 'old' does not make one " unhealthy". But that is exactly what you're trying to assert is the case w/ Cheney. It's just a fact of life that when folks get older, their immune system isn't so strong. That you'd make this a political issue...as the Kerry campaign does, is assinine, petty and pathetic.

113645[/snapback]

Nicely written, AURaptor. Succint and to the point. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this analogy is that the Clinton's didn't say it, the Bush administration said it. Further, Clinton isn't the President, but he is recovering from major surgery. Now, if Bushco wants to admit than Cheney is one of those unhealthy at-risk elderly people, then they have to explain how he's healthy enough to be in this job. Have you heard Bushco claim Cheney is one of the "at-risk" people they are talking about? Can't use an excuse you don't assert.

TexasTiger - first, your comment that there is some how a problem w/ this analogy is nonsensical. Doesn't matter that the Clinton's didn't say it. Makes no difference what so ever. Further, Cheney IS the acting V.P., and w/ his age ( just a couple yrs away from the upper age bracket for getting the shot ) and his heart condition, it makes PERFECT sense that the 2nd in line for the top office in the land take care of his health. The problem ISN'T w/ either Clinton or Cheney getting the flu shot, I doubt anyone sees anything wrong w/ the health of both a former President and a current V.P being looked after. The problem is the petty Kerry camp that makes an issue of it w/ Cheney, while ignoring the fact when it comes to Clinton.

You clearly are a Dem, because you spin the issue in so many irrelevent ways. Being 'old' does not make one " unhealthy". But that is exactly what you're trying to assert is the case w/ Cheney. It's just a fact of life that when folks get older, their immune system isn't so strong. That you'd make this a political issue...as the Kerry campaign does, is assinine, petty and pathetic.

113645[/snapback]

You're clearly a Republican, because you are illogical.

I was responding to this:

Surely the Kerry campaign will be issuing a statement any minute now condemning the Clintons for "doing as we say, not as we do."

so it is relevant that it is not Clinton who said it. Repugs never tire of bringing Clinton into every argument whether he is relevant or not. I personally don't care that Cheney got the shot. Probably not a bad idea. I was commenting on the right wing need to reflexively drag Clinton into everything so they can insult him some more. Move on for God's sake. The Right Wing's Clinton obsession is truly pathetic.

Whether you think it is a big deal or not, and I suspect most Americans don't, Kerry was responding to a Bush administration directive to encourage the American people to engage in voluntary rationing as a civic duty and Cheney did not fall into the "high-risk" category as they defined it, unless you view him as having a chronic illness. They have presented him as being healthy and fit and up to the job, despite his past heart attacks. He's either high risk or he isn't and Bill Clinton is not relevant to that equation. It is a valid point, although I doubt it was worth raising from a political standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you think it is a big deal or not, and I suspect most Americans don't, Kerry was responding to a Bush administration directive to encourage the American people to engage in voluntary rationing as a civic duty

And this whole non-issue is Kerry et al grasping for anything to sling at the President in a SHRILL & DESPERATE attempt to win an election.

and Cheney did not fall into the "high-risk" category as they defined it, unless you view him as having a chronic illness.

:blink: Demwits have problems with definitions dont they, "Depends on what your definition of the word is is..."

They have presented him as being healthy and fit and up to the job, despite his past heart attacks. He's either high risk or he isn't and Bill Clinton is not relevant to that equation. It is a valid point, although I doubt it was worth raising from a political standpoint.

No it depends on if you are trying to define someone that is at risk only because of his medication, blood thinners etc, as unfit. Not because of his physical limits.

Could this election cycle get worse? AAAHHH yes, we will soon have 10k+ lawyers trying to steal it for the Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Texas, it wasn't a valid political point. It was a stupid, petty one. It was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Not even a molehill, a dirt clod.

Cheney is in his sixties and has a history of heart problems. Not so much that he can't do his job, but it's still a high-risk category...as is Clinton's condition even though he's much younger. Doesn't mean either of them are too frail to work, just that they have to be extra careful.

Don't defend the comment just because it came from Kerry and Republicans are crying foul. Admit it was lame or just let it go. The only thing more lame than the comment itself is the spin being used to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry TexasTiger, your sense of what is 'logical' or isn't can only be appreciated by the likes of Bagdhad Bob or possibly Michael Moore.

It was the Kerry campaign that has shown its self to be petty and assinine by pointing the finger at a 63 yr old heart patient who is the sitting Vice President of the United States. 65 yrs is the age where those in the upper age bracket starts. It is perfectly reasonable that any one in the VP's situation get a flu shot, just as it is reasonable for former Pres. Clinton to do the same. Your siding w/ the childish antics of the Kerry camp, which not only shows how gullible and partisan you are, but also shows your LACK of logic.

Cilantro!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry TexasTiger, your sense of what is 'logical' or isn't can only be appreciated by the likes of Bagdhad Bob or possibly Michael Moore.

It was the Kerry campaign that has shown its self to be petty and assinine by pointing the finger at a 63 yr old heart patient who is the sitting Vice President of the United States. 65 yrs is the age where those in the upper age bracket starts. It is perfectly reasonable that any one in the VP's situation get a flu shot, just as it is reasonable for former Pres. Clinton to do the same.  Your siding w/ the childish antics of the Kerry camp, which not only shows how gullible and partisan you are, but also shows your LACK of logic.

Cilantro!

113665[/snapback]

You're not really responding to my post.

If your point had simply been that Kerry's statement on Cheney was petty and assinine, fine. I doubt I would have responded at all to that post. But instead, this is how your post began:

TexasTiger - first, your comment that there is some how a problem w/ this analogy is nonsensical. Doesn't matter that the Clinton's didn't say it. Makes no difference what so ever.

The fact that you initially defended dragging Clinton into the matter shows your blind partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals...... the Bammers of politcs..... no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

113681[/snapback]

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you initially defended dragging Clinton into the matter shows your blind partisanship.
.

Texastiger..um, no it doesn't. It was the KERRY camp that made the flu shots an issue , THE KERRY CAMP!

Cripes, talk about being partisan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you initially defended dragging Clinton into the matter shows your blind partisanship.
.

Texastiger..um, no it doesn't. It was the KERRY camp that made the flu shots an issue , THE KERRY CAMP!

Cripes, talk about being partisan!

113862[/snapback]

Yep, you're illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, you're illogical.

Texastiger... how is it being 'illogical' when I correctly point out the Kerry camps idiocy and pettiness ? Oh, I get it, you LIKE Kerry, and any one who says something bad / honest about Kerry is being ' illogical' ? You're the living definition of a myrmidon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

113681[/snapback]

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

113685[/snapback]

texastiger....constant nasty insults expose large but hidden insecurities. :lol::poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, you're illogical.

Texastiger... how is it being 'illogical' when I correctly point out the Kerry camps idiocy and pettiness ? Oh, I get it, you LIKE Kerry, and any one who says something bad / honest about Kerry is being ' illogical' ? You're the living definition of a myrmidon.

113881[/snapback]

There is a simple line of argument I've presented. Do you even know what it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

113681[/snapback]

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

113685[/snapback]

texastiger....constant nasty insults expose large but hidden insecurities. :lol::poke:

113887[/snapback]

If so, then about 95% of this board has some serious insecurities. Of course, your putdowns and insults are only aimed at people with whom you have political disagreements. For example, in this case, my initial reply was a response to one of those insults. And so is this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

113681[/snapback]

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

113685[/snapback]

texastiger....constant nasty insults expose large but hidden insecurities. :lol::poke:

113887[/snapback]

If so, then about 95% of this board has some serious insecurities. Of course, your putdowns and insults are only aimed at people with whom you have political disagreements. For example, in this case, my initial reply was a response to one of those insults. And so is this one.

113905[/snapback]

I'd say just about everyone has some insecurities though many might say they don't.

You are the king of the cheap shot though. I can't count the number of times someone has tried to discuss something with you on a non confrontational level and you come back with a really nasty cheap shot. Usually it's because you don't approve of the way they are conducting their argument. :rolleyes::poke:

BTW you are fighting a losing battle on this thread. Nothing wrong with cheney taking a shot. He is older and a heart patient. Obviously many heart patients go on to lead normal lives but could be more vulnerable than others to the flu. Anybody who argues against him taking a shot is just playing politics and if they can't admit that they are just fooling themselves.

Your assertion that the white house is afraid to use the heart condition as an excuse because it would expose his frailty is just plain illogical. Everybody in the freaking country knows about cheneys condition and those not playing partisan politics will acknowledge that he is a good candidate for a flu shot even in a shortage. Only a cold hearted demoncrat ( :lol: ) would insinuate that his needing a flu shot would somehow indicate he was unfit for service to his country.

I'll take cheney and his well cared for heart anyday over edwards. What if they won and a horrible tradgedy befell kerry (God forbid) soon after taking office. edwards would be president :blink: :huh: . I've said it before, if that doesn't scare the hell out of you nothing will! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

113681[/snapback]

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

113685[/snapback]

texastiger....constant nasty insults expose large but hidden insecurities. :lol::poke:

113887[/snapback]

If so, then about 95% of this board has some serious insecurities. Of course, your putdowns and insults are only aimed at people with whom you have political disagreements. For example, in this case, my initial reply was a response to one of those insults. And so is this one.

113905[/snapback]

I'd say just about everyone has some insecurities though many might say they don't.

You are the king of the cheap shot though. I can't count the number of times someone has tried to discuss something with you on a non confrontational level and you come back with a really nasty cheap shot. Usually it's because you don't approve of the way they are conducting their argument. :rolleyes::poke:

BTW you are fighting a losing battle on this thread. Nothing wrong with cheney taking a shot. He is older and a heart patient. Obviously many heart patients go on to lead normal lives but could be more vulnerable than others to the flu. Anybody who argues against him taking a shot is just playing politics and if they can't admit that they are just fooling themselves.

Your assertion that the white house is afraid to use the heart condition as an excuse because it would expose his frailty is just plain illogical. Everybody in the freaking country knows about cheneys condition and those not playing partisan politics will acknowledge that he is a good candidate for a flu shot even in a shortage. Only a cold hearted demoncrat ( :lol: ) would insinuate that his needing a flu shot would somehow indicate he was unfit for service to his country.

I'll take cheney and his well cared for heart anyday over edwards. What if they won and a horrible tradgedy befell kerry (God forbid) soon after taking office. edwards would be president :blink: :huh: . I've said it before, if that doesn't scare the hell out of you nothing will! :lol:

113909[/snapback]

When you agree with someone you don't see their post as confrontational, just as with this thread. The reality is, I slammed you hard once several weeks ago, decided I was over the top and issued you what is exceedingly rare on this board-- an apology -- you answered it with another insult and have been acting like a pissy old lady ever since. I guess I must have touched on some of your hidden insecurities, but since that time you routinely chime in unprovoked, like on this thread, with petty insults regardless of what I'm responding to. If you want to hold a grudge forever, go ahead, but at least realize what you're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you get nailed on this thread and go for some cheap victory in your own mind. That is too funny. I admire a man who can't admit when he is dead wrong, not.

AFA you "slamming" me (another victory in your own mind) it was business as usual for you. I wasn't rude to you in my response (that I remember) although I did say I thought you had a nasty problem. I don't remember being rude on the thread but I may have been. I seem to remember that you ran and hid for a week or so. Thought you might come back with a better demeanor, but oh well.

Can you please link any and all instances where I have acted like a "pissy old lady" ever since? I do believe this is a figment of your imagination.

I like jousting with people who talk heavy crap and are rude. Give em some of their own medicine. So yeah, I do tend to jump into arguments sometimes to go head to head with someone like yourself. Rarely do I initiate the commotion. If you can't take the heat you might wanna get out of the kitchen again.

BTW you're right to some extent about the like minded opinions stuff, but I usually skim those who agree with me and focus on those who don't. Maybe there are conservatives (who post regularly) here who often attack unprovopked as much and as rudely as you, but I haven't noticed it. Who do you think sinks to your level as much as you do (conservatives of course)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost forgot the grudge thing. It's not really as grudge to me although I suppose to a very very small degree it might be. Like I said I like jousting with people who talk heavy crap and are rude. You are usually doing both of those everytime you come here. I rarely initiate the commotion but do fuel the fire from time to time. If you quit talking heavy crap and being rude I would quit messing with you(I'm not asking you to stop, do what you like). To say my jumping in is the result of a grudge is not really true, it is a product of my consistant response to your consistant behavior.

I have nothing against you as a person, I don't "really" know you at all. I'm sure if it is up to me we will have many pleasant exchanges in the future. We would have more if were on the fb forum more and I'm sure I've been in agreement with you there on some threads recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you get nailed on this thread and go for some cheap victory in your own mind.  That is too funny. I admire a man who can't admit when he is dead wrong, not.

AFA you "slamming" me (another victory in your own mind) it was business as usual for you. I wasn't rude to you in my response (that I remember) although I did say I thought you had a nasty problem. I don't remember being rude on the thread but I may have been. I seem to remember that you ran and hid for a week or so. Thought you might come back with a better demeanor, but oh well.

Can you please link any and all instances where I have acted like a "pissy old lady" ever since? I do believe this is a figment of your imagination.

I like jousting with people who talk heavy crap and are rude. Give em some of their own medicine. So yeah, I do tend to jump into arguments sometimes to go head to head with someone like yourself. Rarely do I initiate the commotion. If you can't take the heat you might wanna get out of the kitchen again.

BTW you're right to some extent about the like minded opinions stuff, but I usually skim those who agree with me and focus on those who don't. Maybe there are conservatives  (who post regularly) here who often attack unprovopked as much and as rudely as you, but I haven't noticed it. Who do you think sinks to your level as much as you do (conservatives of course)?

113919[/snapback]

Funny how you view my last post. If I saw that particular instance of "slamming" you as a "victory in my own mind" I would have hardly apologized for it. I guess you view that term as a positive. I don't. Again, I apologized because I didn't think you had really done anything to warrant it. Perhaps like you, to some extent, I may take people on when I think that they are talking crap. We obviously perceive that in different ways, given our different political views. When I "joust" , to use your term, with others, I usually believe they deserve it. In that instance, I looked back and decided I was out of line.

Link any and all? Hardly that important to me to take the time. This is a representative sample, though:

True Blue:

LIberals......  the Bammers of politcs.....  no point of view, regardless of how logical, is valid unless it supports their twisted view of the world.

Me:

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

You:

texastiger....constant nasty insults expose large but hidden insecurities. 

This is what you apparently consider to be "rude heavy crap."

Republicans...tired cliched insults without substance dominate what passes for discourse.

Joust all you want, but if your honest with yourself, I suspect that you will at least admit that it was not that quote that actually provoked you, but that it was from me.

"Take the heat?" That has never been my problem. The real question for me is what is worth my time and effort-- which is main reason I stay away from this board from time-to-time. Throw what ever you want my way, if that's what gets you off.

This is right wing dominated board. Most people routinely throw out insulting statements that most of those with a similar view don't even recognize as insults. If it were a left wing dominated board, I suspect the same would be true in the other direction. Just as in the exchange I responded to above, you seem to think I was "talking rude and heavy crap", unprovoked. If you step back, look at the actual exchange between me and True Blue and really think that, oh well.

FYI:

I was writing this when you posted the interceding post, so it was not in response to that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...