We are all "doomed to death", eventually. Lay off the histrionics.
Tell me, what is the difference between murder and natural caused when we are all doomed to death eventually and it doesn't matter?
If a doctor's evaluation is that the risk of surgery is greater than the benefit, they are bound by their Hippocratic oath not to perform that surgery. The patient is entitled to seek other doctors' opinions, but if none of those other doctors have a different opinion, none of them are going to operate. It is absolutely the doctor's job to "first, do no harm".
First, the Hippocratic oath is not legally binding in the US. Second, it hasn't been administered in the US for several decades or longer and even then, it was a bastardized version of the original. But I don't by the idea that the oath would require a doctor to let a person die instead of trying to save them by any means within their power. That sort of contradicts the entire purpose of a doctor doesn't it? I mean the oath specifically mentions not being self serving right?
It is not anyone's right to dictate treatment to a doctor over that doctor's informed opinion. Ask Michael Jackson's doctor what happens when you let the patient dictate treatment.
Actually, it is their right to have any treatment that offers an alternative to death. Your attempting to confuse the issue by bringing up Michael Jackson's doctor too. It's completely different when a patient wants something for recreational use or whatever compared to when a patient wants to live and the treatment is the only thing offering that possibility. I'm sorry that you can't see that or that you think it's the same. More then Likely I would bet that you were purposely injecting that nonesense because you thought widening my argument would make your argument sound better. Well, stick to my points and don't exaggerate them.
Nice spin. There's that "doomed to death" thing again.
Spin? No, that's my entire argument. Are you so self centered that you are missing it? I said when the patient is terminal and if there is one procedure or medication that offers the possibility of living, it's the patient's choice whether to have the procedure or not and no one should ration health care or withhold this procedure because of their age or status/worth in society. When the option is certain death compared to possible life with a risk of death, then it's the patient's choice to live or die and no one else' even if it might not be successful.
It's not because they have already lived their life, and the doctor just doesn't feel like operating. It is because the risk of the surgery is much greater than the potential benefit to be gained from it. It's nothing to do with age in particular. It's about risk/benefit.
Like I said before, when the alternative is death, then there is no risks of surgery that put the patent into a worse position. And yes, we are talking about age and worth here as this conversation started off by talking about a 100 year old women who got a pacemaker and lives 5 more years and counting.
The point is that it isn't, if the alternative to dying from their condition requires a doctor to perform some action that they cannot ethically perform. Forcing doctors to provide treatment in violation of their Hippocratic oath is not a road we want to go down.
The oath is not legally binding and hasn't been administered in the US for quite some time. And no, the doctor doesn't have the option to deny someone the only chance of living because of their age or because they are just welfare babies or whatever. Please show me where this oath entitled a doctor to stand by and watch someone die while having the knowledge and skills to possible save their life and not doing something about it. I'm curious where that is inside any oath.
Aside from being diametrically wrong on all counts (reaching across the aisle to be met with stony silence; seeking input from all comers to be met with... stony silence; legislation passed with no proffered input from those of differing political persuasions; senators failing to read the bills not a fault of the president), how would that begin to represent "socialism"?
The bills were created in off session conferences and no republican input was honored. All Amendments to the legislation was party-line voted down or blocked, and to say otherwise is pretty much a flat out lie. His policies make him a socialist, not the actions, that just makes him undemocratic.
It's not a matter of me or anyone else injecting racism into the image. I'm identifying the inherent racism there.
There is nothing inherently racist here. You are injecting in order to stop legitimate criticism. It may hurt your feelings but that being so does not make it racial in nature. The president is a man with a socialist agenda and the Joke is a villain in a popular genre and combining the two only mean the president is a villain because of a socialist agenda. You can't make anything more out of it because it simply isn't fucking there. You are focusing on the race instead of the implied statements and your using race to completely ignore them. That is wrong.
See, your problem is that, behind the racism, you really don't have a point to make. And when someone calls you out on your racism, you claim your real point was being ignored. It wasn't being ignored. It was just a ludicrous "placeholder" not worthy of debate anyway.
No, the point has been made several times over. The problem is that you refuse to focus on the point and instead rely on the imposed racism to cover it. You are purposely attempting to move the debate to something it was never intended because labeling people as racist is one of the easiest ways to stop people from listening to them. You can then ignore the point and go one as if it was never made. Criticizing Obama is not a racist act and you are foolish to think it is.
Socialism != right-of-center politics! At least learn what you're talking about before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
Taxing citizens to provide services that citizens traditionally take care of privately is socialism. Take your own advice here and learn what is being talked about before you open your mouth. I understand that you didn't intend to have to pay attention because you were ignoring all the points and claiming racism instead, but for fucks sake, pay attention.
"In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying "dual-use" equipment and vehicles."
I think this would be a good time to stop your revisionism....
Yippee, lets hear it for the all knowing and all accurate wikipedia. Cause you know it is infallible.
The US normalized relations but the monetary payments were to Kuwait which paid Iraq. We didn't give them anything but trucks, we opened trade sanctions which allowed Iraq to Purchase duel use itemts from US companies. That is not giving them anything but trucks. We still weren't selling them direct weapons, just allowing companies to sell them materials that could be used to create weapons and military systems.
You should also read up on some of the congressional debates surounding allowing Iraq to purchase weapons. The actual law allowing them to purchase duel use materials specifically denied weapons or the US government giving them anything. We have already supply the trucks at this point in time.
I'm not claiming that USA sponsored 9/11. But maybe we wouldn't have the problem with militant islam if USA had handled it's support properly?
Actually, that was supposed to be an analogy to show how outlandish the comment about supplying Al Qaeda was. Al Qaeda claims 9/11 was because of our support for Israel and our involvement in Lebanon. Lebanon is a hold out of a french colony from the fall of the ottoman empire after WWI in which the french lost control to radical Muslims. Our involvement there was the support of the french on the condition of returning the country to a government of it's own people. Much like Vietnam originally was, except Lebanon wasn't divided along a partition that gave a clear objective. Our role there was to keep the peace and provide support and training for the democratically elected government of Lebanon much like our original role in Vietnam was. The big difference between the two is that the foreign support to radicals in Lebanon were stateless actors supported by various states. If we handled it much differently, it would be like letting the biggest thug on the street take over the city and state government without being democratically elected or the support of the people outside of fear.
Our problems in the middle east stem from before our country was ever formed. Jefferson created a standing navy and the marine forced to specifically deal with Muslims pirating and enslaving crews of American ships along the Atlantic coast. When as an ambassador to France, Jefferson asked the Ambassador to the Ottoman empire (Tripoli) what right they had in attacking our ships and enslaving our people. The ambassador replied Allah gave them the right in which Jefferson was quick to respond once he became president with the invasion of Tripoli. After WWI, we supported both the french and english in the repartitioning of the middle east and did so through Kuwait which had been a port of safe harbor long before the US was even a country. Most of the middle east resumed popular control and establish their own governments quickly as in evident today with the exception of Lebanon which the french attempted to hold on to and the Palestine territory in which Briton couldn't keep the peace and eventually gave up when Israel declared itself an independent country.
The history in the middle east, including with the militant Islam goes way deeper then any actions recently committed to. Try looking into Lowrance of Arabia and how the British screwed him after WWI.
That's part of a doctor's job, to do an -informed- risk analysis based on what is best for the patient.
No, it is not a doctors job to say "I will not potentially save this person and doom them to death because they might die in the operating table". You have two choices, death and the possability of life, You are allowing someone other then the patient to deny life. Federal law requires hospitals to administrate life saving and emergency medical procedures to any patient without regard to ability to pay. The doctor's job is to treat the patient, not to tell them they are going to die because he doesn't feel like doing a surgery. It isn't to tell them that they will be a cripple until they wither away because he doesn't fell like giving you a knee replacement or a hip replacement. It is not the doctors job to determine that a patient is too old to receive the same quality care that a 20 year old would receive and doom that old patient to death because they already lived their life. IF you think any of that is the doctors job, you are simply wrong.
BTW, it is also what insurance companies do based on what is best for the insurance company, which I think is wrong.
I think it is wrong too. However, adopting legislation that turns it over to the government does not make it right. It should be the patient's choice and if it's covered, age or condition should not be anything of an issue when the alternative if certain death. The point is, it's the patient's decision to die from their condition and no one else. If they chose the only option that offers an alternative to death, then it should be their choice, not yours, not mine, not the doctor's, not the government's or any insurance company's decision who is trying to save a buck by denying care.
I simply can't see why it's wrong for an insurance company to doom someone to death when there is a chance at life but not wrong for the government or some doctor who gets paid more. It's the patient's choice, they are going to be forced into this government policy, they deserve the care and coverage promised despite their age or usefulness to society.
Interesting. Is the concentrations of hydrogen as strong as the Nitrous? It could be that the levels just isn't there to make the claim yet.
A lot of the hydrogen economy was in a closed cell or circuit design if I remember right. It wasn't intended to be vented into the atmosphere unless it was processed into water first. Most of it was in fuel cells of some sort. I see that you mentioned leaks and such, I'm just wondering if it would rise to the same levels as Nitrous.
Perhaps encasing the storage tanks in calcium and pressurized Co2 and water mixture could diffuse leaks into a water and calcium carbonate mixture thereby relieving some of the concerns. Perhaps electrods could be placed on either ends and voltage measured as it should create a weak battery but once it reaches a certain voltage level, swap the tanks out. I doubt this would be practical though as it would be heavy and costly.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought when you referred to my grandmother's DNR as "helping her kill herself" you were equating getting a DNR with helping someone kill herself.
My mistake.
It is your mistake. What you are missing is the context. If your grandma signs a DNR, it's her killing herself. If she doesn't and you order it to happen, it's you killing them. This legislation forces doctors with compensation being a penalty to talk you into a DNR and not changing your mind when the time arises. That's the government attempting to kill you. If it was just for people who want a DNR on their own, that's their right. The problem is that the end of life legislation is actually penalizing doctors for not getting you to sign a DNR or if you decide not to follow through with it. Now what do you say when a doctor has to consider giving you a life saving procedure at your request verses honoring a DNR that you changed your mind on and his compensation is dependent upon you following through with it? If it was strictly voluntary, there would be absolutely no penalties for it whatsoever at all.
And, of course, Obama saying that the government can't make the choice for you, because it's a subjective thing, and you have to decide what to do for yourself, well, I understand how that can be read as him saying you have to choose a particular way. I can only blame the sad lack of Bill O'Reilly in my life to explain why I didn't see it as readily as you did.
Start blaming your incompetence and refusal to follow a link. Why, because it's right there in the bills being considered by congress. It specifically says that the doctors compensation will be linked to them getting you to sign a DNR or living will and following through with it.
Alas, I watch no broadcast TV, so this is unlikely to change in the near future.
You don't need TV to see what is going on. There are plenty of websits that will give you more then enough information, most of them link directly to provisions in the existing bills as well as all the amendments that have been defeated by democrats designed to make sure most of the crap being said about the obamacare package can't happen. Tell me, why are they defeating amendments that do little more then make sure seniors aren't taxed more to pay for their Medicaid/medicare or to remove any penalties for end of life counseling so it's all volunteer on the patient's part?
I feel so foolish now in not realizing that expanding health care to include everybody is pretty much the same thing as having others murder me. Damn, I feel so foolish now. Well, I bow to your great intellect. Obviously, I cannot argue with you here. I will get myself a TV set and a cable package that includes Fox News so that perhaps someday I can be as well-informed as you are.
You should feel foolish. That's because once again, you got it all wrong. Fuck man, educating you on what you should already know is like kicking an elephant in the ass- even when you get it to work, you simply ignore it all anyways. If you had arguments that contained factual information, you wouldn't be so fucking frustrated. Now getting people coverage is not killing, killing you is specific legislation that allows the government to pressure you into signing DNR's, withholding treatment, and removing feeding tubes in order to claim to be covering all these other people.
Why don't you spend some time reading the health bill, ask some friends what the big words mean if you have to. Then come back and play. I'm sure you will not have the same mentality that you have now.
Damn, and to think that if it wasn't for end of life help, nobody would ever die! Every life could be saved! Forever! Oh, how oh how could we have been so foolish?!
I still find it difficult to understand that someone could be so analytical in one part of their life and entertain irrational dogma in another.
Perhaps they do not see it as irrational or have other reasons for entertaining it. Most people can compartmentalize pretty well. It's as simple as saying in this we do that and in that we do this. Even kids can do this pretty well as you see them adapting to different controls in video games and so on.
Galileo's work in astronomy considered heresy and so all his works from that point on were banned. There may have only been two or three people involved in the actual decision making but would you believe that anyone with these beliefs would make their own decision after the Pope declared them heresy?
I'd think this tainted a large population perception on the basic mechanics of our universe for generations. Not something I'd call small.
The problem with Galileo was that he didn't have sufficient proof of his theories and taught them anyways. The bigger picture is- does anyone still believe the earth is at the center of the universe? Does the church still make that claim (a claim that wasn't made in the bible BTW)? Obviously, this is proof that religion is not unbending. Some people might be- but as well should know, some is not all.
Perhaps my perception of religious is tainted by my own experiences and I never tried to imply that I was unbiased. I don't think that makes my skepticism misplaced. I wouldn't trust an atheist to give me a unbiased opinion on religion.
Actually, your bias is presenting a problem because your skepticism contains tenets that are completely unfounded outside of it. As I have shown, there are quite a few scientist who believe in a god and quite a few more who participate in a religion in some form or another. Religion is philosophy and can be compartmentalized away from science and the same for science. They really do not need to connect.
To take anything as an absolute truth is fairly foolish. I'd likely categorize people such as this slightly less annoying than religious people. I'm not familiar enough with evolution theory to give a proper argument but I was under the impression that speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlTo be honest I don't really care about the origins of life as I don't expect the question to be settled in my lifetime or that would have a marked impact on how I live my life.
I thought you would be skeptical of an Atheist pushing a religion. Talk Origins is basically that. However, if you read my statements, The speciation aspect of evolution hasn't been observed without messing with the definition of species. You will find that the site you referenced lists several definitions of species. You will also find that these definitions often do not stand up to the simplest real life scenarios. For instance, Able to interbreed with offspring able to do the same is a concept well founded in the definitions but when they cite instances of speciation, they no longer look at able and focus on does not interbreed. Ironically, this would mean that homosexuals would be a different species because they choose not to interbreed. But you will find points on that site that declare salamanders as speciation events because they choose not to interbreed. They also claim that bacteria which develops defensive mechanisms which destroy the same bacteria without the same mutations is a speciation event. However, this would mean that two waring countries would become separate species because they kill the other side instead of breeding with them. There is also the claim that any geological or natural boundary would create speciation but that's sort of ridiculous when you have to call a Collie Puppy in New Yo
I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article which gives me the impression that it's still requires faith which I'd would be in direct conflict with the scientific method.
NO it wouldn't be in conflict. It can be but that doesn't make it a constant problem. The only time it would be in conflict is when it is replacing the scientific method when the scientific method was claimed to of been deployed. Both faith and the scientific method have places in society but neither is a full time requirement.
Religion is notorious for disregarding scientific fact and crushing all opposition. From my point of view it has a very bad track record.
The disregards are small and limited in regards to science and the base of knowledge around it. It's also small in the amounts of people in religion who do it. Science actually started in religious universities. They are not incompatible.
I merely was stating that the 'Christian Science Monitor' makes me disinclined to believe that the article has anything to with with/real/ science.
And I;m merely stating that your concerns are unfounded and shooting or ignoring the messenger instead of the message is not a valid point of debate. You are being blinded by your extreme views which is allowing your ignorance to triumph. You can be skeptical of the claims but there is nothing to suggest the source is biased and lying or anything. IF the facts don't pan out, then you will have a valid concern over the content instead of bashing it for the messenger.
I have no doubt that it is possible for someone with religious belief to appropriately use the scientific method. I just don't think it's very likely.
It happens all the time. Your lack of knowledge or ignorance is proving your own bias. About 40% of scientist do believe in god and Only 52 percent of scientists identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation. That is something completely counter to your opinion.
Science isn't a belief as much as it is analytical method for approaching a problem. I really don't care what any other people want to believe as long as they keep their nonsense out of my life. I'm particularly annoyed with a city bylaw regulating business hours on Sundays.
Science is a belief for some. Take a look at the people claiming biological evolution theory as a whole is fact. Obviously this violates the scientific method in several places because it doesn't allow us to increase our knowledge or the possibility of falsification. It's even more problematic considering that when you separate evolution into adaptation and speciation, we have no no empirical evidence of it's existence without mucking with the definition of species in order to show it. Now it's likely that it's close enough to one day be proven right, but as of now, these people claiming it is fact instead of probable or likely are employing the very same belief system and mental processing as with the any religion and faith.
I also do not agree with codifying religion into laws. But I have no disagreement with someone taking time off to attend church or a business coming to it's own conclusion to shut down on Sunday. The Idea of closing business on sunday is derived from religion but is also derived from many other customs including long distance traveling. Animals like horses and such will not cover as much distance without a full day of rest. Humans marching in the military seem to operate better with at least one full day of rest too. Picking Sunday could be conveniently tied to religions (although the Seventh-day Adventist would probably disagree), it does have roots in practical measures to take at least
First, you probably do not know what the christian science movement is. It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of it from your post. Second, there is nothing preventing science and religion in general from co-existing. It would be foolish of your to think there is. Science is the attempt at a explanation of the natural environment around us. Religion is a spiritual pursuit to give it meaning. In other words, they do not cross and except for.00099% of science, religion makes not claims counter to science in general.
You are attempting to create a controversy where there is none and your ignorance is behind it. Nothing prevents a scientist from having a religious belief, nothing anywhere says he can't believe in something other then science. And nothing at all makes an assumption that it will cloud their judgment except for evangelical atheist who want to push their beliefs over everyone else'.
It's not named after a superstition or a religion, it's named after a Church in Boston which started the publication in 1908 after a failed attempt to take the founder's estate and money by relatives in Boston and New York.
Perhaps if you weren't trolling to start a flame, you would have been able to find that information and not appears as a direct intention of this comment.
No, we disagree on the pretense that you or anyone else can tell someone they aren't allowed to have surgery because they might die when the alternative to surgery is death for sure. It doesn't matter what kind of candidate she is, what matters is that her choices are being arbitrarily limited because of some fear about what would happen without the surgery in the first place.
I don't think the speech is the problem. It's the collusion and secrecy that is.
Of course we most likely wouldn't be learning of this stuff if it wasn't Schmidt's support of Obama. I guess having friends in high places allows the transparency of government to work for you. Once again, free speech but the collusion and secrecy presents a problem.
No it's not the same thing. Semantics are very important when you are saying that a sentence means the same thing as a completely different sentence.
If it's a meaningless distinction, why do you feel the need to rewrite what Obama said, rather than quoting him accurately?
Only if you ignore the context of the statement. It's not quoting him inaccurate unless you are wanting to ignore what was said.
She's also going to die if she has surgery, so wouldn't telling her to have surgery be the same thing?
Not to mention that he never said that anybody shouldn't have surgery, but just offered an alternative.
What part of this do you not understand? The woman had the surgery and lived and because of the surgery, she has lived another 5 years and still going. She wasn't going to die if she had the surgery, she lived. But you are still missing the entire damn point. Death was certain without the surgery and it was only a possibility with it. In fact, it was a possibility that did not come about contrary to you are attempting to claim. This entire ignoring the situation, the context, and the effect is getting annoying. All you have to do pay the fuck attention and not blindly ignore everything for whatever other goal you think you have.
And that's the exact same position as Obama and the government. Nobody is suggesting that the government decides who lives or dies. So I'm not exactly sure who you are arguing with. You position is the same as Obama's - that patients should have choice.
You are wrong. He said that is already going on in one form or another and told this woman that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting the pacemaker. The woman said the first specialist said she was to old, another said he would do the procedure because he "saw her joy of life". Obama said ""I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people." Despite the fact that he can't spit a sentence out without a teleprompter, he said we need rules to govern this. Obama also said, "But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another." In other words, he says it's already happening so why should it stop. Obama then went on to say "Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
Now I know it's confusing with the broken language, but here is what is happening. Some woman said her mom almost didn't get the pacemaker and wanted to know if there would be an exception to those "too old to live/treat" rules. Obama said she should have taken the pill which would have been her death instead of taking the pacemaker which has kept her alive at least 5 more years and counting. You are a complete idiot if you read this any other way. Your even more of an idiot if you allow it to happen when someone is going to be forced into buying health care from the government if they don't have any other coverage just to find out that coverage doesn't count when your only other option is death.
I guess that if you oppose universal health-care, you are actually arguing against patient choice, since your only choices are privately-funded healthcare, or no healthcare at all. Universal healthcare adds a third choice.
IS this what this is about? Are you so invested in universal health care that you cannot let provisions in that mandate the choice is the patients and not the government or some other entity's? I mean fuck, your screwing your parent, your friends, yourself just to push this through. It's fucking insane. The context is clear, his statements are clear, other country's single payer systems make it clear, his own words make it clear. You are the o
No, he said you may be better off taking a painkiller than opting for surgery. Do you have basic language comprehension problems?
It's the same damn thing. Your just being an ignorant twat attempting to make it go away by arguing semantics. It's not working.
I also note that you've now changed the wording to "take a pain pill to die" which implies some sort of suicide pill. This is clearly not what he was suggesting, he suggested taking a pain pill to relieve pain, not to die.
When the option was to have a pacemaker installed or die, telling the woman her mom should have just taken the pill was telling her to die. That was the alternative as presented in the fucking video.
No he didn't unless you are hallucinating.
He told a woman that her mom should have not taken the surgery that saved her life and allowed her to live 5 years and counting and said she should have forgotten about the surgery and taken a pain pill. That, as the lady described, would have killed her mom. How in the fuck is that hallucinating. Oh, that's right, you haven't looked at the video have you.
I'm trying to work out what your position is - do you think that people should be forced to have surgery? And what about the fact that the person who has surgery is still going to die - so why don't you word your response as "get surgery and die"?
My position is that it's the patient's choice, not yours, not the governments, not some insurance agency who thinks if they wait long enough, she will die before the surgery. Age shouldn't disqualify anyone from seeking an alternative to death. Neither should anyone be attempting to asses a person's worth to determine if the 100 grand sugery that is the only option to death is worth it or not. As I posted, other countries fail in survival rates for diseases people commonly recover from in the US with all it's flaws. This comment from Obama which was addressed to a women who asked a question about her 105 year old and counting mother who is only alive because of a pacemaker that was installed when she was 100 shows that they are planning on making those decisions. You cannot look at it any other way. Especially when the please kill yourself GI pamphlet got put back into circulation after being pulled because it encouraged euthanasia. The government, some insurance company, whoever, has no right telling a person they should kill themselves rather then being a drain on the system. In this case, it's a system they are setting up and falsely claiming to be better then what we already have.
There are probably enough parking lots in most cities that see a lower volume of traffic with speeds slow enough that the slippery glass wouldn't be too hazardous that could generate enough power to more then achieve the goal. Just only put the panels in the cause way of the parking lots and use whatever for where the cars that would be parked on it.
Most shopping malls have spare parking space that really isn't used except during the busiest seasons. Putting a few panels in those spots out on the edge could be something too.
Of course with that idea, there is the problem of property rights, right of way, and who's going to maintain them.
He said your better off not having the surgery and taking a pain pill to die. Now this is the president of the United States attempting to push his fucking health care reform and no matter what you claim, he said take a pill and die. The video doesn't lie, the transcripts are right, and you are being completely asinine by denying it.
Go back to your Obama worship and leave the world to people who pay attention to more then his ass.
Yes Obama did say that. He specifically said it in different words but that is what came across. I liked to his video, I pasted his words exactly, and you just seem to be too fucking stupid to read or watch it. You can suck Obama's dick elsewhere, but you can't deny what he has said when the video captures him. Now go jerk off to him or whatever your trying to do.
This isn't a god damned DNR. It's the government talking your into signing one. It's Obama saying take the pain pill and die instead of getting the pacemaker that has already proven to have saved her life and let her live 5 more years.
And no, it isn't a stretch at all because that's not what was being said. Tell me this, what is the difference between you withholding your mother's medicine causing her to die and telling a doctor not to do anything to revive her again? What's the difference between you not calling the emergency squad when your mom is having a heart attack and you telling the doctor not to revive her because it would be too much of a burden on you and your family? What's the difference between you telling someone else to do those things and the government encouraging it?
But you are wrong. Hospice isn't suicide. Allowing a patient to make a decision at 105 to forgo a pacemaker isn't killing her. Government isn't going to "take over" hospitals or "interfere" with medicare, and nobody's setting up any death panels for veterans or Sarah Palin's babies.
You are totally clueless aren't you? I mean you still havn't read the links or found anything out about what was said have you? Well, if you did, you are hiding all traces of it with your fucking idiocy and inability to follow along. First, the woman was 100 years old and got the pacemaker that allowed her to live until 105 and counting. Second, it was after this was known that Obama said take the pill and die and forgo the surgery. Third, it isn't hospice taking care of a terminally ill patient. If you would have read the other link, you would have saw how America's fucked up medical system actually has a higher survival rate then Canada and Briton for many of the common illnesses like Breast and Colon Cancer and heart conditions. They are being denied care that has been proven to increase the quality of life and to save life. You attempting to bury the issue as some hospice clause is a bit fucking disingenuous.
Finally, this isn't just suicide, it's the government claiming to want to be the savior on health care then encouraging people not to fucking use it. It's a god damn scam that is worse then Insurance companies refusing treatment. The government and people in the government stand to get a lot of power and control over people's lives and they are attempting to do it by lieing about the product they are selling. And idiots like you who are too stupid to follow a fucking link or what a damned video and allowing this to happen by trying to rationalize it in your head without paying attention to any of the actors in play. It's fucking amazing that you can do that and survive as long as you have. It's going to be more amazing when you get your wish and are put out to pasture when you break your hip a 55 because the government health care is broke and you lived your life and should take a pain pill and forgo the surgery.
When that happens, just know, I will be laughing that your death was your own result by approving of others to murder you.
But it was life savings in this instance and Obama said take a pain pill and die. Fuck, how much clearer does it need to get. I can understand where the surgery is more dangerous then the illness, but in a situation where the benefit was already acknowledged, he said shut up and die.
Now if the surgery contains the risk of death, and the alternative is death, then not allowing the surgery is idiotic because the only choice with a chance of life is the surgery. Since when is it a common practice to deny people the only hope they might have of living? Why is it acceptable that the government is allowed to make these decisions based on whatever criteria they think is acceptable (costs savings, different political party or whatever). And if it ok for the damn government to do it, then why isn't it ok for doctors and insurance providers to do it?
Use your fucking google finger. It was just a convenient one stop place that had all the information. The one place does not negate the information idiot.
Also, the pamphlet was pulled by bush on an executive order. It wasn't to revise it, it was because Bush didn't like the content in it. The Obama administration reversed that order on july second and now GI's who served their country are being asked to consider killing themselves instead of getting the care and treatment they deserve.
You should learn the entire story before spouting half truths.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me, what is the difference between murder and natural caused when we are all doomed to death eventually and it doesn't matter?
First, the Hippocratic oath is not legally binding in the US. Second, it hasn't been administered in the US for several decades or longer and even then, it was a bastardized version of the original. But I don't by the idea that the oath would require a doctor to let a person die instead of trying to save them by any means within their power. That sort of contradicts the entire purpose of a doctor doesn't it? I mean the oath specifically mentions not being self serving right?
Actually, it is their right to have any treatment that offers an alternative to death. Your attempting to confuse the issue by bringing up Michael Jackson's doctor too. It's completely different when a patient wants something for recreational use or whatever compared to when a patient wants to live and the treatment is the only thing offering that possibility. I'm sorry that you can't see that or that you think it's the same. More then Likely I would bet that you were purposely injecting that nonesense because you thought widening my argument would make your argument sound better. Well, stick to my points and don't exaggerate them.
Spin? No, that's my entire argument. Are you so self centered that you are missing it? I said when the patient is terminal and if there is one procedure or medication that offers the possibility of living, it's the patient's choice whether to have the procedure or not and no one should ration health care or withhold this procedure because of their age or status/worth in society. When the option is certain death compared to possible life with a risk of death, then it's the patient's choice to live or die and no one else' even if it might not be successful.
Like I said before, when the alternative is death, then there is no risks of surgery that put the patent into a worse position. And yes, we are talking about age and worth here as this conversation started off by talking about a 100 year old women who got a pacemaker and lives 5 more years and counting.
The oath is not legally binding and hasn't been administered in the US for quite some time. And no, the doctor doesn't have the option to deny someone the only chance of living because of their age or because they are just welfare babies or whatever. Please show me where this oath entitled a doctor to stand by and watch someone die while having the knowledge and skills to possible save their life and not doing something about it. I'm curious where that is inside any oath.
The bills were created in off session conferences and no republican input was honored. All Amendments to the legislation was party-line voted down or blocked, and to say otherwise is pretty much a flat out lie. His policies make him a socialist, not the actions, that just makes him undemocratic.
There is nothing inherently racist here. You are injecting in order to stop legitimate criticism. It may hurt your feelings but that being so does not make it racial in nature. The president is a man with a socialist agenda and the Joke is a villain in a popular genre and combining the two only mean the president is a villain because of a socialist agenda. You can't make anything more out of it because it simply isn't fucking there. You are focusing on the race instead of the implied statements and your using race to completely ignore them. That is wrong.
No, the point has been made several times over. The problem is that you refuse to focus on the point and instead rely on the imposed racism to cover it. You are purposely attempting to move the debate to something it was never intended because labeling people as racist is one of the easiest ways to stop people from listening to them. You can then ignore the point and go one as if it was never made. Criticizing Obama is not a racist act and you are foolish to think it is.
Taxing citizens to provide services that citizens traditionally take care of privately is socialism. Take your own advice here and learn what is being talked about before you open your mouth. I understand that you didn't intend to have to pay attention because you were ignoring all the points and claiming racism instead, but for fucks sake, pay attention.
Yippee, lets hear it for the all knowing and all accurate wikipedia. Cause you know it is infallible.
The US normalized relations but the monetary payments were to Kuwait which paid Iraq. We didn't give them anything but trucks, we opened trade sanctions which allowed Iraq to Purchase duel use itemts from US companies. That is not giving them anything but trucks. We still weren't selling them direct weapons, just allowing companies to sell them materials that could be used to create weapons and military systems.
You should also read up on some of the congressional debates surounding allowing Iraq to purchase weapons. The actual law allowing them to purchase duel use materials specifically denied weapons or the US government giving them anything. We have already supply the trucks at this point in time.
Actually, that was supposed to be an analogy to show how outlandish the comment about supplying Al Qaeda was. Al Qaeda claims 9/11 was because of our support for Israel and our involvement in Lebanon. Lebanon is a hold out of a french colony from the fall of the ottoman empire after WWI in which the french lost control to radical Muslims. Our involvement there was the support of the french on the condition of returning the country to a government of it's own people. Much like Vietnam originally was, except Lebanon wasn't divided along a partition that gave a clear objective. Our role there was to keep the peace and provide support and training for the democratically elected government of Lebanon much like our original role in Vietnam was. The big difference between the two is that the foreign support to radicals in Lebanon were stateless actors supported by various states. If we handled it much differently, it would be like letting the biggest thug on the street take over the city and state government without being democratically elected or the support of the people outside of fear.
Our problems in the middle east stem from before our country was ever formed. Jefferson created a standing navy and the marine forced to specifically deal with Muslims pirating and enslaving crews of American ships along the Atlantic coast. When as an ambassador to France, Jefferson asked the Ambassador to the Ottoman empire (Tripoli) what right they had in attacking our ships and enslaving our people. The ambassador replied Allah gave them the right in which Jefferson was quick to respond once he became president with the invasion of Tripoli. After WWI, we supported both the french and english in the repartitioning of the middle east and did so through Kuwait which had been a port of safe harbor long before the US was even a country. Most of the middle east resumed popular control and establish their own governments quickly as in evident today with the exception of Lebanon which the french attempted to hold on to and the Palestine territory in which Briton couldn't keep the peace and eventually gave up when Israel declared itself an independent country.
The history in the middle east, including with the militant Islam goes way deeper then any actions recently committed to. Try looking into Lowrance of Arabia and how the British screwed him after WWI.
No, it is not a doctors job to say "I will not potentially save this person and doom them to death because they might die in the operating table". You have two choices, death and the possability of life, You are allowing someone other then the patient to deny life. Federal law requires hospitals to administrate life saving and emergency medical procedures to any patient without regard to ability to pay. The doctor's job is to treat the patient, not to tell them they are going to die because he doesn't feel like doing a surgery. It isn't to tell them that they will be a cripple until they wither away because he doesn't fell like giving you a knee replacement or a hip replacement. It is not the doctors job to determine that a patient is too old to receive the same quality care that a 20 year old would receive and doom that old patient to death because they already lived their life. IF you think any of that is the doctors job, you are simply wrong.
I think it is wrong too. However, adopting legislation that turns it over to the government does not make it right. It should be the patient's choice and if it's covered, age or condition should not be anything of an issue when the alternative if certain death. The point is, it's the patient's decision to die from their condition and no one else. If they chose the only option that offers an alternative to death, then it should be their choice, not yours, not mine, not the doctor's, not the government's or any insurance company's decision who is trying to save a buck by denying care.
I simply can't see why it's wrong for an insurance company to doom someone to death when there is a chance at life but not wrong for the government or some doctor who gets paid more. It's the patient's choice, they are going to be forced into this government policy, they deserve the care and coverage promised despite their age or usefulness to society.
Interesting. Is the concentrations of hydrogen as strong as the Nitrous? It could be that the levels just isn't there to make the claim yet.
A lot of the hydrogen economy was in a closed cell or circuit design if I remember right. It wasn't intended to be vented into the atmosphere unless it was processed into water first. Most of it was in fuel cells of some sort. I see that you mentioned leaks and such, I'm just wondering if it would rise to the same levels as Nitrous.
Perhaps encasing the storage tanks in calcium and pressurized Co2 and water mixture could diffuse leaks into a water and calcium carbonate mixture thereby relieving some of the concerns. Perhaps electrods could be placed on either ends and voltage measured as it should create a weak battery but once it reaches a certain voltage level, swap the tanks out. I doubt this would be practical though as it would be heavy and costly.
It is your mistake. What you are missing is the context. If your grandma signs a DNR, it's her killing herself. If she doesn't and you order it to happen, it's you killing them. This legislation forces doctors with compensation being a penalty to talk you into a DNR and not changing your mind when the time arises. That's the government attempting to kill you. If it was just for people who want a DNR on their own, that's their right. The problem is that the end of life legislation is actually penalizing doctors for not getting you to sign a DNR or if you decide not to follow through with it. Now what do you say when a doctor has to consider giving you a life saving procedure at your request verses honoring a DNR that you changed your mind on and his compensation is dependent upon you following through with it? If it was strictly voluntary, there would be absolutely no penalties for it whatsoever at all.
Start blaming your incompetence and refusal to follow a link. Why, because it's right there in the bills being considered by congress. It specifically says that the doctors compensation will be linked to them getting you to sign a DNR or living will and following through with it.
You don't need TV to see what is going on. There are plenty of websits that will give you more then enough information, most of them link directly to provisions in the existing bills as well as all the amendments that have been defeated by democrats designed to make sure most of the crap being said about the obamacare package can't happen. Tell me, why are they defeating amendments that do little more then make sure seniors aren't taxed more to pay for their Medicaid/medicare or to remove any penalties for end of life counseling so it's all volunteer on the patient's part?
You should feel foolish. That's because once again, you got it all wrong. Fuck man, educating you on what you should already know is like kicking an elephant in the ass- even when you get it to work, you simply ignore it all anyways. If you had arguments that contained factual information, you wouldn't be so fucking frustrated. Now getting people coverage is not killing, killing you is specific legislation that allows the government to pressure you into signing DNR's, withholding treatment, and removing feeding tubes in order to claim to be covering all these other people.
Why don't you spend some time reading the health bill, ask some friends what the big words mean if you have to. Then come back and play. I'm sure you will not have the same mentality that you have now.
Perhaps they do not see it as irrational or have other reasons for entertaining it. Most people can compartmentalize pretty well. It's as simple as saying in this we do that and in that we do this. Even kids can do this pretty well as you see them adapting to different controls in video games and so on.
The problem with Galileo was that he didn't have sufficient proof of his theories and taught them anyways. The bigger picture is- does anyone still believe the earth is at the center of the universe? Does the church still make that claim (a claim that wasn't made in the bible BTW)? Obviously, this is proof that religion is not unbending. Some people might be- but as well should know, some is not all.
Actually, your bias is presenting a problem because your skepticism contains tenets that are completely unfounded outside of it. As I have shown, there are quite a few scientist who believe in a god and quite a few more who participate in a religion in some form or another. Religion is philosophy and can be compartmentalized away from science and the same for science. They really do not need to connect.
I thought you would be skeptical of an Atheist pushing a religion. Talk Origins is basically that. However, if you read my statements, The speciation aspect of evolution hasn't been observed without messing with the definition of species. You will find that the site you referenced lists several definitions of species. You will also find that these definitions often do not stand up to the simplest real life scenarios. For instance, Able to interbreed with offspring able to do the same is a concept well founded in the definitions but when they cite instances of speciation, they no longer look at able and focus on does not interbreed. Ironically, this would mean that homosexuals would be a different species because they choose not to interbreed. But you will find points on that site that declare salamanders as speciation events because they choose not to interbreed. They also claim that bacteria which develops defensive mechanisms which destroy the same bacteria without the same mutations is a speciation event. However, this would mean that two waring countries would become separate species because they kill the other side instead of breeding with them. There is also the claim that any geological or natural boundary would create speciation but that's sort of ridiculous when you have to call a Collie Puppy in New Yo
NO it wouldn't be in conflict. It can be but that doesn't make it a constant problem. The only time it would be in conflict is when it is replacing the scientific method when the scientific method was claimed to of been deployed. Both faith and the scientific method have places in society but neither is a full time requirement.
The disregards are small and limited in regards to science and the base of knowledge around it. It's also small in the amounts of people in religion who do it. Science actually started in religious universities. They are not incompatible.
And I;m merely stating that your concerns are unfounded and shooting or ignoring the messenger instead of the message is not a valid point of debate. You are being blinded by your extreme views which is allowing your ignorance to triumph. You can be skeptical of the claims but there is nothing to suggest the source is biased and lying or anything. IF the facts don't pan out, then you will have a valid concern over the content instead of bashing it for the messenger.
It happens all the time. Your lack of knowledge or ignorance is proving your own bias. About 40% of scientist do believe in god and Only 52 percent of scientists identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation. That is something completely counter to your opinion.
Science is a belief for some. Take a look at the people claiming biological evolution theory as a whole is fact. Obviously this violates the scientific method in several places because it doesn't allow us to increase our knowledge or the possibility of falsification. It's even more problematic considering that when you separate evolution into adaptation and speciation, we have no no empirical evidence of it's existence without mucking with the definition of species in order to show it. Now it's likely that it's close enough to one day be proven right, but as of now, these people claiming it is fact instead of probable or likely are employing the very same belief system and mental processing as with the any religion and faith.
I also do not agree with codifying religion into laws. But I have no disagreement with someone taking time off to attend church or a business coming to it's own conclusion to shut down on Sunday. The Idea of closing business on sunday is derived from religion but is also derived from many other customs including long distance traveling. Animals like horses and such will not cover as much distance without a full day of rest. Humans marching in the military seem to operate better with at least one full day of rest too. Picking Sunday could be conveniently tied to religions (although the Seventh-day Adventist would probably disagree), it does have roots in practical measures to take at least
Are you sure they are dirty hippies or just hippies that look dirty?
First, you probably do not know what the christian science movement is. It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of it from your post. Second, there is nothing preventing science and religion in general from co-existing. It would be foolish of your to think there is. Science is the attempt at a explanation of the natural environment around us. Religion is a spiritual pursuit to give it meaning. In other words, they do not cross and except for .00099% of science, religion makes not claims counter to science in general.
You are attempting to create a controversy where there is none and your ignorance is behind it. Nothing prevents a scientist from having a religious belief, nothing anywhere says he can't believe in something other then science. And nothing at all makes an assumption that it will cloud their judgment except for evangelical atheist who want to push their beliefs over everyone else'.
It's not named after a superstition or a religion, it's named after a Church in Boston which started the publication in 1908 after a failed attempt to take the founder's estate and money by relatives in Boston and New York.
Perhaps if you weren't trolling to start a flame, you would have been able to find that information and not appears as a direct intention of this comment.
No, but it seems to have come twice in the same year.
No, we disagree on the pretense that you or anyone else can tell someone they aren't allowed to have surgery because they might die when the alternative to surgery is death for sure. It doesn't matter what kind of candidate she is, what matters is that her choices are being arbitrarily limited because of some fear about what would happen without the surgery in the first place.
I don't think the speech is the problem. It's the collusion and secrecy that is.
Of course we most likely wouldn't be learning of this stuff if it wasn't Schmidt's support of Obama. I guess having friends in high places allows the transparency of government to work for you. Once again, free speech but the collusion and secrecy presents a problem.
Only if you ignore the context of the statement. It's not quoting him inaccurate unless you are wanting to ignore what was said.
What part of this do you not understand? The woman had the surgery and lived and because of the surgery, she has lived another 5 years and still going. She wasn't going to die if she had the surgery, she lived. But you are still missing the entire damn point. Death was certain without the surgery and it was only a possibility with it. In fact, it was a possibility that did not come about contrary to you are attempting to claim. This entire ignoring the situation, the context, and the effect is getting annoying. All you have to do pay the fuck attention and not blindly ignore everything for whatever other goal you think you have.
You are wrong. He said that is already going on in one form or another and told this woman that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting the pacemaker. The woman said the first specialist said she was to old, another said he would do the procedure because he "saw her joy of life". Obama said ""I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people." Despite the fact that he can't spit a sentence out without a teleprompter, he said we need rules to govern this. Obama also said, "But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another." In other words, he says it's already happening so why should it stop. Obama then went on to say "Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
Now I know it's confusing with the broken language, but here is what is happening. Some woman said her mom almost didn't get the pacemaker and wanted to know if there would be an exception to those "too old to live/treat" rules. Obama said she should have taken the pill which would have been her death instead of taking the pacemaker which has kept her alive at least 5 more years and counting. You are a complete idiot if you read this any other way. Your even more of an idiot if you allow it to happen when someone is going to be forced into buying health care from the government if they don't have any other coverage just to find out that coverage doesn't count when your only other option is death.
IS this what this is about? Are you so invested in universal health care that you cannot let provisions in that mandate the choice is the patients and not the government or some other entity's? I mean fuck, your screwing your parent, your friends, yourself just to push this through. It's fucking insane. The context is clear, his statements are clear, other country's single payer systems make it clear, his own words make it clear. You are the o
It's the same damn thing. Your just being an ignorant twat attempting to make it go away by arguing semantics. It's not working.
When the option was to have a pacemaker installed or die, telling the woman her mom should have just taken the pill was telling her to die. That was the alternative as presented in the fucking video.
He told a woman that her mom should have not taken the surgery that saved her life and allowed her to live 5 years and counting and said she should have forgotten about the surgery and taken a pain pill. That, as the lady described, would have killed her mom. How in the fuck is that hallucinating. Oh, that's right, you haven't looked at the video have you.
My position is that it's the patient's choice, not yours, not the governments, not some insurance agency who thinks if they wait long enough, she will die before the surgery. Age shouldn't disqualify anyone from seeking an alternative to death. Neither should anyone be attempting to asses a person's worth to determine if the 100 grand sugery that is the only option to death is worth it or not. As I posted, other countries fail in survival rates for diseases people commonly recover from in the US with all it's flaws. This comment from Obama which was addressed to a women who asked a question about her 105 year old and counting mother who is only alive because of a pacemaker that was installed when she was 100 shows that they are planning on making those decisions. You cannot look at it any other way. Especially when the please kill yourself GI pamphlet got put back into circulation after being pulled because it encouraged euthanasia. The government, some insurance company, whoever, has no right telling a person they should kill themselves rather then being a drain on the system. In this case, it's a system they are setting up and falsely claiming to be better then what we already have.
You sound like that guy who was attempting to justify the government grant for the rubber underwear to see if linings could change the smell of farts.
There are idea, good ideas, bad Ideas and stupid wastes of money ideas. This project falls into the later.
There are probably enough parking lots in most cities that see a lower volume of traffic with speeds slow enough that the slippery glass wouldn't be too hazardous that could generate enough power to more then achieve the goal. Just only put the panels in the cause way of the parking lots and use whatever for where the cars that would be parked on it.
Most shopping malls have spare parking space that really isn't used except during the busiest seasons. Putting a few panels in those spots out on the edge could be something too.
Of course with that idea, there is the problem of property rights, right of way, and who's going to maintain them.
He said your better off not having the surgery and taking a pain pill to die. Now this is the president of the United States attempting to push his fucking health care reform and no matter what you claim, he said take a pill and die. The video doesn't lie, the transcripts are right, and you are being completely asinine by denying it.
Go back to your Obama worship and leave the world to people who pay attention to more then his ass.
Yes Obama did say that. He specifically said it in different words but that is what came across. I liked to his video, I pasted his words exactly, and you just seem to be too fucking stupid to read or watch it. You can suck Obama's dick elsewhere, but you can't deny what he has said when the video captures him. Now go jerk off to him or whatever your trying to do.
He should only have one right, the other would be left.
This isn't a god damned DNR. It's the government talking your into signing one. It's Obama saying take the pain pill and die instead of getting the pacemaker that has already proven to have saved her life and let her live 5 more years.
And no, it isn't a stretch at all because that's not what was being said. Tell me this, what is the difference between you withholding your mother's medicine causing her to die and telling a doctor not to do anything to revive her again? What's the difference between you not calling the emergency squad when your mom is having a heart attack and you telling the doctor not to revive her because it would be too much of a burden on you and your family? What's the difference between you telling someone else to do those things and the government encouraging it?
You are totally clueless aren't you? I mean you still havn't read the links or found anything out about what was said have you? Well, if you did, you are hiding all traces of it with your fucking idiocy and inability to follow along. First, the woman was 100 years old and got the pacemaker that allowed her to live until 105 and counting. Second, it was after this was known that Obama said take the pill and die and forgo the surgery. Third, it isn't hospice taking care of a terminally ill patient. If you would have read the other link, you would have saw how America's fucked up medical system actually has a higher survival rate then Canada and Briton for many of the common illnesses like Breast and Colon Cancer and heart conditions. They are being denied care that has been proven to increase the quality of life and to save life. You attempting to bury the issue as some hospice clause is a bit fucking disingenuous.
Finally, this isn't just suicide, it's the government claiming to want to be the savior on health care then encouraging people not to fucking use it. It's a god damn scam that is worse then Insurance companies refusing treatment. The government and people in the government stand to get a lot of power and control over people's lives and they are attempting to do it by lieing about the product they are selling. And idiots like you who are too stupid to follow a fucking link or what a damned video and allowing this to happen by trying to rationalize it in your head without paying attention to any of the actors in play. It's fucking amazing that you can do that and survive as long as you have. It's going to be more amazing when you get your wish and are put out to pasture when you break your hip a 55 because the government health care is broke and you lived your life and should take a pain pill and forgo the surgery.
When that happens, just know, I will be laughing that your death was your own result by approving of others to murder you.
But it was life savings in this instance and Obama said take a pain pill and die. Fuck, how much clearer does it need to get. I can understand where the surgery is more dangerous then the illness, but in a situation where the benefit was already acknowledged, he said shut up and die.
Now if the surgery contains the risk of death, and the alternative is death, then not allowing the surgery is idiotic because the only choice with a chance of life is the surgery. Since when is it a common practice to deny people the only hope they might have of living? Why is it acceptable that the government is allowed to make these decisions based on whatever criteria they think is acceptable (costs savings, different political party or whatever). And if it ok for the damn government to do it, then why isn't it ok for doctors and insurance providers to do it?
What's a joke about it? As far as I have been able to tell, the data is all there and accurate.
You not liking something doesn't make it not true. You need to get out of your imaginary land and put some facts up to support your assertion.
Use your fucking google finger. It was just a convenient one stop place that had all the information. The one place does not negate the information idiot.
Also, the pamphlet was pulled by bush on an executive order. It wasn't to revise it, it was because Bush didn't like the content in it. The Obama administration reversed that order on july second and now GI's who served their country are being asked to consider killing themselves instead of getting the care and treatment they deserve.
You should learn the entire story before spouting half truths.