NationStates Jolt Archive

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/the-first-ladys-skin-cancer/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2087560.ece


Hey, does it really matter to you if Laura Bush found a sore on her leg, and after a while, went to the doctor, who finally diagnosed it as skin cancer and removed it?

Would it matter to you whether or not, after that, she either did or did not become a public spokesperson for that form of skin cancer, ad nauseam?

If the state of her body is somehow within the right of the public to know the moment something changes, should she be asked to show her used tampons in a public display, so we'll know whether or not she's menstruating?

Why should she be obligated to become the public spokesperson for every ailment she happens to incur?

It's not like people are very happy when she does manage to chime in on a medical topic:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/10/earlyshow/leisure/books/main635241.shtml

so why the pressure to start now?

I'm now convinced that the next President, whoever they may be, should have CSPAN install cameras EVERYWHERE in the Whitehouse, so the place is set up like Big Brother.

And if I were President, I would make sure that EVERY bodily function I performed would be seen CLOSE UP for everyone to see, just so I wouldn't hear, "did you make the decision not to show the fecal matter on today's toilet paper - I mean, you folded it after wiping and then flushed it - and since we didn't see your asscrack, how do we know you really wiped it?"

Why don't celebrities and politicians ever get interesting diseases, like Kuru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)), Cotard's syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion) or Hysterical Lycanthropy?

And before that, I had not felt light-hearted since the Great Black Season of 1894, when many ill events coincided across the Republic. That was the year Red Indians ate every man, woman, and child in Weehawken, NJ, the year Mother Zweibel died of hysterical lycanthropy, the year base-ball gained wide-spread acceptance. Come to think of it, I only experience times of buoyant mood when disaster is about to bring the shit-hammer down upon my head.http://www.theonion.com/content/node/25776

Neither article you posted even hints that she should be a spokesperson for the condition that she had, so your connection to the third article (which would have been handy to quote the relevant part instead of making us look for your connection) is tenuous at best.

It's not about her becoming a spokesperson, nothing you posted even suggests that. It's systematic of the way this administration operates. Is it that big a deal that she got some cancer removed? Ultimately, no. But since it isn't it's just as much why not have made it short note a while ago and have moved on, Nancy Reagan and the breast cancer mentioned in one of the articles.

If the administration didn't have such a reputation and practice of being so closed about things important and not as important this would just be an oversite. As it is, it's a flicker of a story at best. But it is systematic of an administration that somehow believes that democracy works best with an uniformed public.

Neither article you posted even hints that she should be a spokesperson for the condition that she had, so your connection to the third article (which would have been handy to quote the relevant part instead of making us look for your connection) is tenuous at best.

It's not about her becoming a spokesperson, nothing you posted even suggests that. It's systematic of the way this administration operates. Is it that big a deal that she got some cancer removed? Ultimately, no. But since it isn't it's just as much why not have made it short note a while ago and have moved on, Nancy Reagan and the breast cancer mentioned in one of the articles.

If the administration didn't have such a reputation and practice of being so closed about things important and not as important this would just be an oversite. As it is, it's a flicker of a story at best. But it is systematic of an administration that somehow believes that democracy works best with an uniformed public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061219.html#

So, you would support having her post pics of her used tampons on the Internet, with timestamps, so you could be sure of "transparency"?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061219.html#

So, you would support having her post pics of her used tampons on the Internet, with timestamps, so you could be sure of "transparency"?

Seriously, I'm not sifting through your links anymore trying to find what's supposed to be relevant. Call me lazy if you want.

To the following question...frankly doesn't deserve an answer, really. Do you have a real question?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061219.html#

So, you would support having her post pics of her used tampons on the Internet, with timestamps, so you could be sure of "transparency"?

STRAWMAN!

You automatically lose the debate for committing a logical fallacy!!! ... oh wait, that's Godwin's Law. Damn.

Seriously, I'm not sifting through your links anymore trying to find what's supposed to be relevant. Call me lazy if you want.

To the following question...frankly doesn't deserve an answer, really. Do you have a real question?

Q Tony, can you tell us about Mrs. Bush's skin cancer? How is she doing? And how was the decision reached not to disclose this publicly until questions were asked?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I talked to her a couple of minutes ago. She's doing fine. And she said, "It's no big deal, and we knew it was no big deal at the time." Frankly I don't think anybody thought it was the sort of thing that occasioned a need for a public disclosure. Furthermore, she's got the same right to medical privacy that you do. She's a private citizen; she's not an elected official. So for that reason she didn't disclose it. But she's doing fine, and thank you for your concern.

Q She is often an advocate for women's health in the area of breast cancer or heart disease, advocating screenings, preventative care. Is she likely to talk about skin cancer in that way?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Fortunately, squamous cell carcinoma, at least in this particular case, was not dangerous. But let me just say, without having cleared it with her, I'm sure that she would be more than supportive of anybody to go out, and if you think you've got a problem with a change in a mole or some skin problems, go get it checked out by a doctor.

Q And she didn't feel any obligation as a person of public status to talk about this?

MR. SNOW: No, again, there are any number of -- this is a room full of public people who tend not -- and I know you say, wait a minute, I'm different than the First Lady. Well, no, she's a private citizen. And the fact is, she is entitled to her medical privacy. And, again, it's no big deal. In this case, it's just not a big deal.

Q May I follow on that? The President is also a private citizen, as well as being the President. So --

MR. SNOW: Well, he's an elected official. It's different.

Q He's an elected official and a private citizen. You can make the same claims of a number of people who have public lives. Mrs. Bush has made herself part of this party and this White House's very public face. So my question is, if this were to be something that is a big deal, would the White House feel obliged to share that with the public?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. She didn't feel obliged, and she believes that she has the same medical privacy rights that you and I have.

Q Did the White House doctor treat her?

MR. SNOW: That I don't know. I didn't ask. There is the confidentiality -- and guess what? Medical privacy also applies to her case in this particular incident.

Q This morning you said you'd make that inquiry.

MR. SNOW: Yes -- you know what, I didn't.

Q But you will?

MR. SNOW: No. It's medical privacy, and I'm not going to get into this.

Q Was it done offsite or was she treated here at the White House? That's a question to add to your list.

Q May we ask, just so that you don't say, you never asked so that's why we haven't told you -- is the Vice President well these days? Has there been any medical incident that would be of interest to the American public?

MR. SNOW: As you know, whenever there is a medical incident involving the Vice President -- I've been an anchor when these things have happened -- you are notified promptly and immediately; cameras are dispatched to the scene, where people stand and wait and wait and wait and wait, until they can see the Vice President getting back into a limo and returning to wherever he is.

So as you know, the President and Vice President, being the two chief elected officials in this country, if there are important health developments, you hear about it. And we think that that's appropriate.

If I had posted this block, you would have then argued that it's not worth reading, because it was selected from the link. And when I post the link, you say it's not worth reading because it's too long.

Tell you what - there it is in black and white - who the fuck cares about Laura Bush? She's not an elected official. Not even mentioned in the Constitution. So why should she be a spokesperson for anything if she doesn't want to be? Why should the press need to know when, where, and why she got medical treatment? Will a Constitutional crisis erupt?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061219.html#

So, you would support having her post pics of her used tampons on the Internet, with timestamps, so you could be sure of "transparency"?

oh for gods sake laura bush is 60 years old. she doesnt use tampons anymore.

STRAWMAN!

You automatically lose the debate for committing a logical fallacy!!! ... oh wait, that's Godwin's Law. Damn.

You automatically fail for not having a fucking clue what Godwin's law is. Who mentioned Nazis or Hitler? Oh wait...you don't have any idea what Godwin's Law is, so you don't get that.

But you also fail for calling logical fallacy. I have to love it when morons try to debate on the intenet by claiming logical fallacies. I'm sorry, but looking up "logical fallacy" on wiki doesn't cut it. You still lose.

If I had posted this block, you would have then argued that it's not worth reading, because it was selected from the link. And when I post the link, you say it's not worth reading because it's too long.
I'm not responsible for what you think I may or may not have done. In fact, in my first post I made the note that you should quote the relevant part of the link so in fact I was consistent with my request. Please refrain from making up my reactions for me, or others as has been your pattern in this thread so far. You have failed at every turn.

And yes, I would hope you would include commentary on your own as to why you thought quoting Tony Snow's comments where relevant to what you or I where saying.

Tell you what - there it is in black and white - who the fuck cares about Laura Bush? She's not an elected official. Not even mentioned in the Constitution. So why should she be a spokesperson for anything if she doesn't want to be? Why should the press need to know when, where, and why she got medical treatment? Will a Constitutional crisis erupt?
She is, as pointed out, an official with a tax-paid staff and office. And, if you had read what I wrote instead of extrapolated how I or someone else would respond to things, you would have noted that the event by itself is of little note but rather part of a large and more disturbing pattern that in fact makes something that would hardly be news news that hints at something more disturbing.

Please let us know when you'll be getting around to the arguments being made rather than the one you wish where being made.

Your premise is buried in there and actually I can see why you'd bury it because she is already "an advocate for women's health in the area of breast cancer or heart disease, advocating screenings, preventative care," so asking if she would talk about skin cancer in the same way is a legitimate question that is not related to the withholding. Your premise gets thinner and thinner as you go.

oh for gods sake laura bush is 60 years old. she doesnt use tampons anymore.

Oh! But the White House hasn't been forthcoming with information in the past! How can we know for sure without checking ourselves!

A member of the press must volunteer to go forward during the press conference, and put their hand up her vagina to make sure! It's so important!

If we don't know, it will be a denial of our human rights, and a full Constitutional crisis! Oh noes!

You automatically fail for not having a fucking clue what Godwin's law is. Who mentioned Nazis or Hitler? Oh wait...you don't have any idea what Godwin's Law is, so you don't get that.
Dude...follow the statement again. He claimed that he lost because of a logical fallacy then noted that a forum loss only happens when someone Godwins-he seems to know what a Godwin is, he wasn't accusing anyone of Godwining. It seems like you pulled the trigger a little soon there, slugger. You should have read that sentence more carefully.

But you also fail for calling logical fallacy. I have to love it when morons try to debate on the intenet by claiming logical fallacies. I'm sorry, but looking up "logical fallacy" on wiki doesn't cut it. You still lose.
While I didn't cite the fallacy I did ignore the argument because it was one. He creates an extreme and flimsy extension of the argument and attacks that instead of the argument being made asking me to defend his made up scenario instead of the one being discussed.

You might want to calm down.

You might want to read the thread again.

You might want to read the thread again.

Try harder.

Try harder.

You obviously did not read the grilling of Snow over the "Laura Bush Affair". Obviously, you are not trying at all.

You obviously did not read the grilling of Snow over the "Laura Bush Affair". Obviously, you are not trying at all.

Wow dude, just wow. Quoting a side argument to make an attempt to get at the main one? Go back, slugger, and read the comment I made in reference to the Snow briefing, what I said about it, including quoting directly from it and get back to me when you want to actually address the discussion.

Tell you what - there it is in black and white - who the fuck cares about Laura Bush? She's not an elected official. Not even mentioned in the Constitution. So why should she be a spokesperson for anything if she doesn't want to be? Why should the press need to know when, where, and why she got medical treatment? Will a Constitutional crisis erupt?

So tell me again why Hillary Clinton got 8 years of unmitigated shit while she was First Lady.

So tell me again why Hillary Clinton got 8 years of unmitigated shit while she was First Lady.

You tell me. The same standards apply - the First Lady is not an elected official.

She's not even listed in the Constitution.

Who cares what the First Lady says or does?

You tell me. The same standards apply - the First Lady is not an elected official.

She's not even listed in the Constitution.

Who cares what the First Lady says or does?

Take it up with Eleanor Roosevelt.

You can have Mrs Blair instead......Please.