Biden’s medical history not scrutinized

<p>[Biden?s</a> medical history not scrutinized - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081018/pl_politico/14700;_ylt=A0wNcndDo_tI6zEBJwdsnwcF]Biden?s”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081018/pl_politico/14700;_ylt=A0wNcndDo_tI6zEBJwdsnwcF)</p>

<p>Some interesting stuff here.</p>

<p>He’s just a few years younger than McCain. Aneurysms here and there, collapsing after speeches. :eek:
Also, The line most media outlets seized on from the summary is that Obama is “lean and muscular with no excess body fat.” </p>

<p>One note in a report from McCain’s oncologist, Dr. Suzanne Connolly, drew particular interest: “Buttocks unremarkable except for some very light tan freckling.”</p>

<p>:D</p>

<p>I’m not much of a fan. Seems like he would be perceived as charming by old ladies though. I can imagine my grandma liking him for some reason.</p>

<p>When we scrutinize Palin and say she lacks the experience to be president, it’s fine to say “Well Palin isn’t running for President, McCain is.” isn’t it? Biden isn’t running for President, Obama is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is under the enormous assumption that the Republicans care more about principles than winning.</p>

<p>^True, I forgot about that.</p>

<p>You two are real insightful, don’t you know?</p>

<p>and the point is…?</p>

<p>Well the point is that it’s futile to bother with folks that spew trite like Republicans care more about principles than winning.</p>

<p>what does “trite” mean? Seems like Reps are having a chip in the shoulder these days</p>

<p>You could look up a dictionary yourself, multi-tasker.</p>

<p>Perhaps a better word would be petty, which is exactly what your posts to this thread have been.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You too, since I’ve never seen anybody use “trite” as a noun. Maybe you meant “tripe”.</p>

<p>well, I understand your feelings may be hurt. I feel bad for you, so I will drop the subject . Goodbye</p>

<p>Hope you have a restful one too buddy :)</p>