>> ^bcglorf:

Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?


And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work

Btw: That wasn't an insult to you. I am actually agreeing with you but for different reasons. My main point is "When you vote for someone who tells the truth you might not get anything you want. But when you vote a liar, you get what you deserve."

I'm sorry about the book-line, I cut it immediately after posting. But I meant Executive as in Judicative + Legislative + Executive, only one level above.

Society agrees on your aforementioned constitution by a legislative process and creates the Executive organ of government to put the constitution into action. By doing so, the executive organ of government is THEN ideally split into this government's Judicative + Legislative + Executive.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?

Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!
Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )
And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.
Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.
My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?


Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!

Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )

And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.

My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

For Rama, I'd stick with the original. I'm not a fan of the sequels, especially after Gentry Lee got involved in Clarke's dotage.

Speaking of SF remakes, I'd love John Varley's Titan series to be done on the big screen. I think CGI would now make it more than possible.


>> ^NetRunner:

@dag supposedly Ender's Game is too, but it's been a few years away for about a decade now.
I'm sorta iffy on how they can make a movie based on Rendezvous interesting. I think they almost have to transplant the events & characters of Rama 2 into Rama's first visit to make it a decent film.
Even then, to make it true to the series, they'll have to instill a deep interest in solving the mystery of who the Ramans are, why they sent the ship, why there's so much weird stuff in the ship, and then pointedly provide zero answers, and zero hints.
Then after 4 books give you a completely stupid answer to all those questions that almost makes you sorry you read the books in the first place.

@dag supposedly Ender's Game is too, but it's been a few years away for about a decade now.

I'm sorta iffy on how they can make a movie based on Rendezvous interesting. I think they almost have to transplant the events & characters of Rama 2 into Rama's first visit to make it a decent film.

Even then, to make it true to the series, they'll have to instill a deep interest in solving the mystery of who the Ramans are, why they sent the ship, why there's so much weird stuff in the ship, and then pointedly provide zero answers, and zero hints.

Then after 4 books give you a completely stupid answer to all those questions that almost makes you sorry you read the books in the first place.

I am so sorry to hear this. My condolences. There are no words.


>> ^oblio70:

EMTs have known this for years...on another note: Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" works well, too.
Sadly, my 7 yo daughter (who was born with a congenital heart defect, and then had 2 heart transplants) finally succumbed to heart failure at Stanford University, due to complications of rejections resulting in Coronary Heart Disease. She died suddenly just days after Easter, and days before her birthday.

EMTs have known this for years...on another note: Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" works well, too.

Sadly, my 7 yo daughter (who was born with a congenital heart defect, and then had 2 heart transplants) finally succumbed to heart failure at Stanford University, due to complications of rejections resulting in Coronary Heart Disease. She died suddenly just days after Easter, and days before her birthday.

And as for the Chest Compression only, it is far more important to keep the heart pumping manually than it is to get "air into the lungs". By his recommendation, 911 would have the Emergency Medical Technicians there in a timely manner with very little to no damage to brain matter and other organs. Ventilation is sketchy at best (the R in CPR), and it stops one from manually pumping the heart for a short time. Remember, we don't absorb all the oxygen in the blood by the first pass, and you keep clots from forming, too (as I seem to recall...someone correct me on this?)

It's a good idea in theory, though if movies have taught me anything, getting any kind of organ transplant from a killer can only lead to bad things.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^Kofi:
Has claimed .... has claimed ... has claimed

I realize that it is still very early in this case, and that a working cure for AIDS has not yet been found. But the word "claimed" is never said in this video at all, by anyone, so I'm curious where you're getting that from? Could it be that you're having a knee-jerk reaction because all the "cure" claims for so many other afflictions that float around the internet? Although this is only one case, the news is still huge.


It really is a cure, not just claimed. The catch is the kind of complete marrow transplant he underwent has a ridiculously high mortality rate. In point of fact, for most patients, their survivability is much, much better just staying on standard HIV treatments, even if it means never being fully cured.

I remember reading about a double hand transplant last year in Louisville, KY.

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Louisvilles-first-double-hand-transplant-wraps-up-at-Jewish-Hospital-101487424.html

Become an organ donor everyone! You're gift can have a life changing or life saving impact.

>> ^Arkaium:
The first hand transplant patient had his removed, IIRC.That's because he was an idiot who stopped taking his meds. Immunosupressive treatments are improving all the time are are quite a way ahead of where they were even ten years ago

Your video, 26 Year Old Mom Doing Well After Hand Transplant, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's very hard for me to say, having two healthy hands, but with what I know now, I'd stick with the stump.

I've seen what happens months down the road, even after it initially seems as though the hand won't be rejected. The hand slowly begins to die, despite all the INTENSIVE regiments of anti-rejection medication the patient has to take for the REST OF THEIR LIFE (as many of you have pointed out). Skin peels, it rots... such a nightmare. The first hand transplant patient had his removed, IIRC.

Best they focus on something mechanical/robotic. I shiver at the thought of having to cope with a dying transplanted appendage.

For the record, here is FDR's letter discussing collective bargaining for federal employees:

President Roosevelt's letter to Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees. In the letter, FDR takes a position that public employees should not be able to collectively bargain.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."



I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

I wonder if with new medical technology, we could eventually transplant unwanted fetuses into anti-abortionist bellies. Win/Win, right? Would you be willing to give up 9 months of your life to bring an unwanted baby to term in order to save its life? Or would you let that baby die? >> ^Jesus_Freak:

Ah, yes. God dispenses wrath and judgment on nations, so He must be pro-abortion. He's either sovereign to judge ALL nations, or He's subject to being judged by your own intellectual evaluations. Good luck with that.
If the God talk is tainting your emotional objectivity, choose from an array of secular arguments. Look at what the Nazi's did to the mentally handicapped via medical experimentation after they were deemed not fully human. How about the pre-emancipation notion that slaves were a fraction of human value. How did our humanity stack up in those cases? Saying an unborn baby <> a mother as long as they're making physical contact with the birth canal is a slippery slope of morality. I just don't understand how few of you see that.