Reply With Quote
Maybe it'll prove she really didn't have Trig???
Anybody have any suggestions as to whats going on with her delay. Saw on her interview with Brian Williams that she said it might be another thing for the public to criticise her on...
Maybe it'll prove she really didn't have Trig???
I suspect it will be more along the lines of things Andrew brings up in this blog entry:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-medica-2.html
If Trig isn't hers, she's a liar. If Trig is hers, then her actions while carrying a special-needs fetus are grossly irresponsible.
and people get angry when the ayers thing is still brought up............
it's hers get over it. biden is the only one that has given his medical records and it was reported that everything wasn't given. same a mccain's. obama simply had a letter submitted on his health status. i really don't see the need for this issue to be brought up.
Its funny when repubs get things thrown back at them. they get so defensive. Also, palin has a history of rules not applying to her....
hm...the amniocentesis doesn't bother me because I think that would be somewhat routine at her age...but I'm not a doctor, so maybe it isn't.
The rest of the story though is interesting, to say the least.
It sounds as though she took a lot of risks with this child.
I can see how she'd be afraid of people criticizing her over this -
She decided to keep this special needs child, which is admirable...but did she take these risks (knowing she could lose this baby) hoping, on some level, she'd miscarry?
Withheld medical records for all the candidates are troubling.
You expect it from the secretive/we-have-a-lot-to-hide Repugs who over all rules and regulations, eg, the dubya/ head WH, but not so much from the Dems.
i'm not a republican. when all parties are quilty i don't see the need to call one out. repeatedly.Its funny when repubs get things thrown back at them. they get so defensive. Also, palin has a history of rules not applying to her....
I wasnt referring to you. I was referring to her in the interview
We have full disclosure about Obama and Ayers. We do not have full disclosure about ... well, almost anything relating to Palin.
I could actually care less. What bothers me is a person running for one of the highest offices acting like she doesn't have to answer to the American people for anything. If you act like someone with a lot to hide people are going to speculate. She's running for public office, she owes the public disclosure ... get over it.
All candidates should have to release their records. Agreed.
No. Biden actually released most of his medical records to be vetted by the press. McCain allowed select members of the press to examine medical do ents which may or may not have been his full records for a limited time. None of the press were allowed to take notes or information with them. That is not "same."
Which is a standard practice. A doctor submitting a statement is actually significant because the doctor's reputation is actually held responsible for such.
The health of the people that would be your leaders may be of no interest to you personally. But it is traditionally of interest to the rest of the voting public.
maybe she has a dong
Also, she has brought up many arguments and beliefs on how she would govern ie. roe v wade. Her disclosure is important on issues such as this......
Well we all know she does. But it's 72 years old and showing quite a bit of wear these days.
Personally, I completely disagree here. Medical records are highly protected in terms of privacy, so I don't see why candidates should be forced to give up their right to privacy on an issue most people consider very sensitive when it comes to their own.
The only thing that matters if they are healthy or not, and for everyone except Palin (as far as I know), we have gotten a clean bill of health from the mouth or writing of doctors. That's good enough.
"I don't see why candidates should be forced to give up their right to privacy"
Right to privacy is myth. Ask dubya's NSA/CIA/FBI/DIA and any PI.
JFK had multiple serious diseases and was on heavy medication, which put his ability to think clearly and govern in serious doubt.
BUT NOBODY KNEW outside the small army of doctors who were propping him up.
JFK knew what he was doing.
Obama hasnt released his either, so this is a non-starter.
Right, I know about that. Its was a one pager (276 words) from his lifelong doctor.
That isnt releasing your health records, thats getting an endorsement from your family doctor.
They choose to run for office. That choice comes with consequences and obligations. They can opt out of their run at any time.
Healthy when? Healthy now? Healthy with a chance of relapse 2 years into a 4 year term?
Politically there are other issues. A president has a lot of power to pass or influence legislation. A president in the early stages of Parkinson's, for example, might have a personal interest in stem cell research, which is a hot button issue for many.
Disclosure isn't fun and it isn't easy, but transparency on behalf of our leaders is part of the honor and responsibilty that comes with trying to assume the role. And no one is forced into it.
It referenced specific readings on standard tests, an EKG and other things. It reported nothing unusual. There is no history of illness. There would be professional repercussions for any doctor to falsify such statements.
As I said, I believe that full records should be made available. You're saying Obama didn't release enough for your liking. That's fine, but it's not the same as not releasing anything.
Just saying I disagree with you.
In this election, the three candidates we know all have major health concerns and all have been given a clean bill of health. I don't see why we should pry when doctors have stated there are no concerns about any of them.
As you said earlier: "A doctor submitting a statement is actually significant because the doctor's reputation is actually held responsible for such."
You disagree, fine, doesn't matter to me. But the fact that they haven't released medical records doesn't bother me since they've all been declared healthy, and I would oppose any attempt to make it required to release such private information.
Agreed. But Obama's release isnt of the same caliber that the media wants, or you want for that matter.
Do I think a potential President should? Honestly, yes and no.
Yeah I know, real hard line stance there. But it would be troubling to me that if the most qualified candidate in some future election, where its obvious this guy/gal is the obvious answer to a leadership vacuum, had to release his/her medical records and somehow was affected adversely because his/her family has a history of some rare and incurable disease.
I never said he didnt release to my liking. I said he hadnt released his records yet either, in relationship to what the first article asks for anyway.You're saying Obama didn't release enough for your liking. That's fine, but it's not the same as not releasing anything.
Nothing more.
I knowI'm not attacking, just presenting the other side.
When did McCain get a clean bill of health?
I'd like to read anything that says a doctor has said there are no medical concerns about McCain. It would honestly make me feel a lot better.
As you said earlier: "A doctor submitting a statement is actually significant because the doctor's reputation is actually held responsible for such."
I don't think "declared healthy" can be supported as it's kinda vague and means something different to everyone. A doctor's statement that there are no anomalies or concerns is only on record for Obama to the best of my knowledge.
I don't think Biden or McCain's records show enough for us to know one way or the other. And Palin hasn't showed us anything.
Maybe she was born Sam?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
