|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 10:40:32 GMT 1
What conspiracy theory are you talking about? I'm not, you are. Now who's being anally retentive? The question is, what is the conspiracy theory that you are accusing me of subscribing to? But wrongly, since you've managed to attribute all your own words in that particular post to me. Go back and sort it out, if you even want anyone to bother reading it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 10:52:43 GMT 1
Don't know what it is - you haven't said... It's a link, but since you can't read those Don't, not can't, because as I've told you several times before, I resent having my time wasted. No - happy to read plenty of other people's. People who know what's worth linking to and what's obvious garbage. Where's the shift? Not any tape I heard. On the contrary, his claim - and I've no doubt at all a truthful one - was that it was with their consent. As I've pointed out to you before, plenty of women will and have been proven to invent such accusations quite readily, for a variety of reasons. It apparently doesn't occur to them that it was his marriage he was interested in protecting, not his image. Christ, they're desperate. Tries to find - after over a year of the highest level investigation - any to "probe". May have. No smoking gun. Not even any smoke. If it was a possible violation it was a fishing expedition. Not to say the FBI wouldn't have been able to find a Judge pliant and partial enough to violate his constitutional rights in that way - he or she had better hope they found a fish. Nonsense. No law was broken even if that was a lie. If it came out of campaign funds there was a violation, but I doubt there's any grounds to support that "if". Where's any evidence this payment was illegal, or reasonable grounds to suppose it might have been? Only IF it came out of campaign funds. Trump has stated categorically - after all these papers have been scooped up by the FBI - that it did not. He's a billionaire. He's a very, very canny operator, running for President, fully aware the Justice Dept. and every other agency eager to do Clinton'd illegal bidding would do everything they could to expose every speck of dirt on him. This dog has no legs, and the entire US media knows it full well - but that doesn't matter to them any more: the smear, which may be possible, will do. In the days of Watergate, when the Press took its role seriously, it's the illegality of the FBI raid they'd have been investigating.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 11:00:26 GMT 1
There you go, mixing up quotes again! Inserting your own words into the middle of a quote from CNN!!!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 11:13:41 GMT 1
Now who's being anally retentive? Errr...I've told you? You are. You claim that Trump wrote his own medical report and forged his doctor's signature, and moreover did so when the entire world's press was interviewing that doctor and asking him about that report. You claim that this doctor now claims he didnlt write that report, but that Trump did, and somehow induced him into pretending otherwise. But now he's had a crisis of conscience, or remembered his professional ethics, or his kidnapped daughter is no long being held hostage, or for some other bizarre reason he's decided tofess uo to the scam. Yes? That is what you've claimed isn't it? There's at least two people colluding in this hoodwinking of the world's press and the entire American public - I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that qualifies as a "conspiracy". Nope - that's at most your interpretation of what various boxes indicate. And even if I had - you can't remember your own words from this morning? Not Type II Diabetes, I hope? I don't care - if anyone does want to, they can, with no greater difficulty than any other post - certainly not any of yours! The post you've got your knickers in a twist about is formatted as you did originally, for example - the only difference is I've done you the courtesy, to be on the safe side, of reminding you that it's you I'm responding to.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 11:14:29 GMT 1
There you go, mixing up quotes again! Inserting your own words into the middle of a quote from CNN!!! I'm responding to the "quote", you daft bat! What do you think it is, holy writ?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 11:25:25 GMT 1
The question is, what is the conspiracy theory that you are accusing me of subscribing to? You claim that Trump wrote his own medical report and forged his doctor's signature, and moreover did so when the entire world's press was interviewing that doctor and asking him about that report. You claim that this doctor now claims he didn't write that report...That is what you've claimed isn't it? No - It's the doctor himself who's claimed that. I merely report what he said. If I claimed, in the absence of any words of the doctor's, that he did not sign thas letter, that would be a conspiracy theory. If the doctor himself says he didn't, then it's not.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 11:41:26 GMT 1
You claim that Trump wrote his own medical report and forged his doctor's signature, and moreover did so when the entire world's press was interviewing that doctor and asking him about that report. You claim that this doctor now claims he didn't write that report...That is what you've claimed isn't it? No - It's the doctor himself who's claimed that. I merely report what he said. Yes well, talking of duplicity, reliability, stability, mental competency and the rest, your actual claim was that " we know now of course" that this claim was a true one. No, the whole story is a conspiracy theory. I didn't say you were part of the conspiracy ffs, still less would I ever believe for a minute you have the wit to come up with any "theory" of your own! Are delusions of grandeur part of this Type II Diabetes syndrome, perchance? You do like this little word if these days, I must say. But are we to take it that there's some doubt about the matter? Are we in fact to take it that you may have possibly made the whole story up yourself? If you've somehow found the imagination to do so, I'm impressed. I suspect however it's merely yet another example of what a shockingly gullible sap you are.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 12:08:22 GMT 1
This is all getting a bit hard to follow.
Can we perhaps establish, if we are to bother going further with this, who in your opinion wrote the original letter?
And who signed it?
And on what do you base your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 11, 2018 12:37:54 GMT 1
Go back and sort it out, if you even want anyone to bother reading it. I don't care - if anyone does want to, they can... A word in your ear...they almost certainly don't. I wouldn't waste any more of your time, if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 15:28:37 GMT 1
This is all getting a bit hard to follow. Can we perhaps establish, if we are to bother going further with this, who in your opinion wrote the original letter? And who signed it? And on what do you base your opinion? In my opinion I don't care a damn about the letter, or who signed it. He seems remarkably healthy to me*, and until he doesn't I don't see his doctor's opinion on the matter is any of my business, or on the whole of much importance - open thorough and honest health reports would have unseated Nixon, and probably Dubya, and maybe curtailed Reagan by a year or two; but it would also have meant FDR and JFK could never have even run. Nor do I care who he or anyone else romps with, frankly. But it wouldn't surprise me if having been examined Trump said shall we release something along these lines then, doc? Happy with that, anything you'd like to add? No - great, stick you Hancock there then, there's a very very excellent chap, maybe I'll see you in four years, I'd very very much like that, etc. etc. So what? *I watched his electioneering speech from Indiana this morning, the first time I think I've seen a whole speech all the way through. It was really a truly remarkable performance. If I'm not mistaken it was unscripted and without autocue - if there was one he's an absolute master at glancing at it only every minute or two. He had his audience in the palm of his hand. He ran through his long list of achievements in office and I couldn't disagree with a single thing. He neatly encapsulated with a couple of straightforward stories the essential difference between him and the standard way of government and those in government service - in essence, his overall philosophy, the reason he won the election. He was funny, and bright, and utterly relaxed, and very alert. This man would have won any election, anywhere in the world, against almost anyone I can remember - he'd have made Obama immediately evident as the empty meaningless rhetoric actor that he was. I'm not particularly a fan of Trump, as a person, as a character - but this is a man on top of his game, in full control of his faculties, and I challenge anyone to give a single reason that is not "I have psychic vision" that could possibly plausibly argue otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 11, 2018 15:32:16 GMT 1
I don't care - if anyone does want to, they can... A word in your ear...they almost certainly don't. Fine - I really don't care. But I don't. You might be here because you believe you have an audience that is for some reason remotely interested in your silly opinions. I'm not, and I have no such delusions.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on May 12, 2018 0:26:36 GMT 1
My understanding is that Abbott was diagnosed in 2016 and was on medication well before the election. However, that doesn't stop you having a 'hypo' (low blood-sugar) if you don't eat regularly and sensibly. As the main car-crash interview was her tenth interview of the day, I can imagine she had dashed around and not had time to take food. If she ate sensibly she probably wouldn't have Type II diabetes in the first place - it surely can't have been a surprise to her that she's obese. And if she did so now she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most. Her "car-crash interviews" have been going on for years. Your attitude to Type 2 diabetes is both arrogant and ignorant ( she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most !!). Yes, you can say that if people didn't put on too much weight and ate the right foods there wouldn't be so many suffering from Type 2. But you can't say that of an individual, if you're not a clinician who's treating them and who's considered all the circumstances. Looks like prejudice to me - obviously against Diane, but also against diabetics. Dianebeticophobia.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 14, 2018 0:26:58 GMT 1
If she ate sensibly she probably wouldn't have Type II diabetes in the first place - it surely can't have been a surprise to her that she's obese. And if she did so now she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most. Her "car-crash interviews" have been going on for years. Your attitude to Type 2 diabetes is both arrogant and ignorant ( she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most !!). What is arrogant and ignorant about that statement? I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. The cause of Type II has been reported on in scientific papers for at least 15 years, and it's simple and very easy, very quick cure for at least ten. There's a miniscule possibility that her diabetes is genetically caused, but that nearly always manifests by the teens or early 20s. There's an even more minisule possibility, a medical miracle in itself, that this was never diagnosed in her case, and yet she's somehow managed to survive. Very, very unlikely - for a start, she'd be as thin as a rake, and would hardly have ever had the energy to move. The whole thing is a prejudice I agree, but not mine - it's merely another vast multi-billion a year money-making scheme of the drug industry-medical establishment nexus, I'm afraid. Yet another aspect of the corruption of "Science". People die of this one, however, so I suppose it's more serious than most.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on May 14, 2018 0:54:48 GMT 1
Your attitude to Type 2 diabetes is both arrogant and ignorant ( she'd more than likely no longer have it within a few months at most !!). What is arrogant and ignorant about that statement? I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. But I suspect I do. The cause of Type II has been reported on in scientific papers for at least 15 years, and it's simple and very easy, very quick cure for at least ten. Again, I suspect I know more about the actuality than you do. There's a miniscule possibility that her diabetes is genetically caused, but that nearly always manifests by the teens or early 20s. There's an even more minisule possibility, a medical miracle in itself, that this was never diagnosed in her case, and yet she's somehow managed to survive. Very, very unlikely - for a start, she'd be as thin as a rake, and would hardly have ever had the energy to move. You're talking about Type 1, which I've had reason to know and care about, but which is irrelevant to the actuality of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 14, 2018 1:16:29 GMT 1
What is arrogant and ignorant about that statement? I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. But I suspect I do. What is it that you're objecting to then? My statement that she's obese, or that she could be cured within a few months? Either of them displays lack of knowledge, I think, or maybe you've become used to seeing obese women waddle down the streets and think it's normal? You read scientific journals, do you? So you'll be familiar with what I'm referring to. I'm not familiar with your superior knowledge, however - please enlighten us. No - Type I isn't much of a problem. It's certainly not the problem that has swept the developed world and almost become its number one killer, slightly behind heart disease, which has exactly the same cause (and, here's a clue for you Sherlock, is cured in exactly the same way, with the same speed.)
|
|