IAP Political Forum

McCain (and Hillary before him) hammered Obama over his lack of expereince, but now McCain wants to put a woman with two years experince as governor of Alaska a heart-attack away from the Presdency. It just shows that that argument was just empty PR all along.

Exactly.  The demonstrated that sex/color is the primary factor.  The wanted a historic VP candidate to take a little away from Obama's historic nomination.  Not unlike a small child that upon seeing someone get attention for something has to say 'Oh yeah, well I've got.....'

As I responded elsewhere, of course McCain is going to hit Obama on his lack of experience. He has not record to attack. Obama attacks McCain his age. Saying he's the 'same'.

It doesn't matter what the reality is.

McCain picks a women with as much experience as Obama. She's attacked.

Politics is nothing but a game...and it's played this year as it always has, in my memory, at least.

If intellect mattered in a Veep........Dukakis/Bentson would have crushed Bush 41.

If experience mattered in a Veep, then FDR would never have won a third term....and McGovern would have needed someone else on the ticket.

Fillmore didn't even have a Veep.

Throughout our history....Veeps have ascended to the Presidency 9 times:

John Tyler-Death of natural causes

Millard Fillmore-Death of natural causes

Andrew Johnson-Assassination

Chester Arthur-Assassination

Theodore Roosevelt-Assassination

Calvin Coolidge-Death of natural causes

Harry Truman-Death of natural causes

Lyndon Baines Johnson-Assassination

Gerald Ford-Resignation

The "Death of natural causes" all happened before Penicillin and vaccinations.....would all these men have died now with modern medicine?

Seems all that's left to crow about is assassination or resignation in which the statistical apples fall equally on each side of the tree.

Go ahead and carp on about a Veeps experience or lack thereof.....what really matters (looking at our history) is the man at the top of the ticket.....

McCain dying of natural causes wouldn't be a shock.

Given McCains age health and family history, a vote as leader of the free world is quite likely a vote for his VP as leader of the free world as well. Ya gotta ask yourself would you have voted for Sarah Palin for president of the United Stares two weeks ago? Well that's what you are being asked to do now. YGBFKM!

Lots of things aren't a shock, so what?

The VP matters a little more when the President is that old.

 ...and he is quite likely to pass away in office...

Your information is based on what?

A hunch?

I read the stuff you posted from a partisan hack from Democrat underground....from a medical standpoint it means nothing.

Jim Fixx died at age 52...Tim Russert at age 57...did you predict those?  Did their doctors?

The information on family is analogous to "my dad flys a 747, so I can too"

When taking your health history, I could give a rats about your parents......I'm treating you...not them.

I've taken a fair share of medical histories myself, and yes, your parents do enter into it.  Chest pains, just ate spicy food, father died of a heart attack at a young age, you would be negligent to not move a coronary evaluation just a tad higher up your priority list. 

C'mon....you giving instructions on health histories now?

You gonna cath someone based on parents history ALONE?

You gonna make them incur a risk of IMMEDIATE open heart surgery based on parent history ALONE?

Anybody knows why McCain choosed her. If you say other wise you are fooling yourself. There are many more qualified people for the job then her and the GOP just screwed themselves trying to get Hilly supporters but just lost most of their Republican base with this idiotic move. She's cute, She has a son going to Iraq, she has a retared kid (yeah I said it because I am pissed off). I will qoute my favorite saying regarding Palin and her nomination......"You can pour syrup on shit, but that don't make it pancakes"

 
 This statement is simply not true,and coming from you as a medical person it is quite surprising. Flying a 747 is a learned talent... heart conditions are inherited. A more accurate analogy might be "my dad has high blood pressure I probably will as well"or" My dad developed diabetes late in life  I probably will as well".
 Family history is one of the best indicators of predisposition to many, many medical conditions heart disease is for sure one of them. The statistical studies on this are clear and well documented. Whyelse would medical questionares always ask for family history??
 I am absolutely sure you know this to be true Patton ...you are denying these facts out of political stubbornness because it makes your presidential choice look bad.
 McShame on you.

Way to play to the straw man.  Since this fundamental principal that we call reading AND comprehending seems to have escaped you, let's review.  Even though my post is only above yours, I will quote it here to better facilitate this elusive comprehension part. 

YEs, parents health does enter into it.  Hmmm...did I claim it is more important than any other factors?  No.  I didn't even attempt to classify them.  Simply said that it is a factor.

This is fairly obvious.  Several factors that you might have been presented with.  And yes, ALL should be considered.  Remove one, and the whole Dx changes.  Add others, it changes again. 

I stand by this.  If you are unwilling to look at the obvious familial history, you are a hack, and you should NOT be treating the living. 

You will notice that I never advocating cathing someone.  Nor did I advocate surgery.  What I did was correct your statement that family history is of no value in making a diagnosis.  And yes, you were wrong.  I understand that you, as a die hard Republican, are desperate to make your candidate look the best possible.  I can't fault you for that.  But it would be foolish to ignore the reality of his age and medical history.  Especially in light of his VP choice having no international decision making experience.  That experience is tough to come by, specially when you need a woman VP.  If a physician were to ignore a family history of heart condition, and the patient were to suffer, yes, he would be negligent, and it would be actionable.

Normally you come across as pretty fair, and very smart.  But I will take exception with your post here.

Edited to change wording.

Bullshit.

You should know better as a person with ZERO medical experience and as one NEVER entrusted to challenge a human beings coronary and vascular system 15-25x/week to open your mouth with regards to what is the BEST indicator of anything.

Family history is a MINOR SINGLE risk factor among a plethora of MORE SIGNIFICANT risk factors.

Tell me who you'd be more worried about in stressing their heart:

A man who runs 2 miles a week, with a BMI 20, doesn't smoke and who's Dad died at 35 from a heart attack....

or

A man who doesn't exercise, a BMI of 28, smokes and who's Dad died at 87 from CHF?

Lets look at AHS risk factors:

What are the major risk factors that can't be changed?

-Increasing age=+1 McCain

-Male sex (gender) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

-Heredity (including Race) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

What are the major risk factors you can modify, treat or control by changing your lifestyle or taking medicine?

-Tobacco smoke +1 Obama


-High blood cholesterol  +1 McCain (on Simvastin which keeps it normal)


-High blood pressure


-Physical inactivity


-Obesity and overweight


-Diabetes mellitus

Adding risk factors...they look pretty even.

Why else would medical questionares always ask for family history??

Because it is one of MANY risk factors....and like you see, both Obama and McCain get dinged here equally.

Good post Patton, yes there are many factors.  I missed freethinkers claim of 'best'.  I don't claim that. 

By the way, I had to click 'reply' to see your post.  I HATE that.

How does the diagnosis change?

Walk into an Emergency room with Chest Pain ALONE you get a cardiac workup.

Just eating at Taco Bell and a parental history of having both parents living to 100 will not save you from an EKG, IV, baby asa, blood draw for enzymes.


Well...this is about HOW MUCH credence YOU want to give to family history....if the only risk factor someone has for heart disease is family history...how far you wanting to go to rule it out?

If it is really worth all this weight...why wouldn't you cath someone?

I'll tell you why cardiologists don't....because it is a weak and realatively poor indicator when weighed against EVERYTHING else going on with the patient.

As far as you feeling I shouldn't treat the living, I could give a rats....I've done it for almost 30 years and will do it again tomorrow...I stress peoples hearts EVERY day I go to work...it is my livelyhood that depends on my abilities to evaluate cardiovascular risks...and I would line up my credentials next to yours anyday of the week....and I could care less about your daddys health...I know of NO Anesthesiology professional when meeting you for the first time at the bedside before taking you back to have your intestines laid on your chest ask you about your mommy and daddy.

If you want to push this weak line that McCain is going to die in office because of his daddys health...keep right at....I will be glad to shoot the weight you give to mommy and daddy down with every pathetic post.

Ah, you and your straw man again.  Please feel free to continue inventing stuff I said and arguing against it.  At least it guarantees a victory huh?  Neat how when you invent your opposition it is easy to argue against.  I don't know if it is just you, or all republicans, but you are unraveling at the seams. 

Or more to the point, care to point out where I said McCain is going to die in office?  Come one, care to?  Bueller?  Bueller?

That's what I thought.

There is no straw in reducing mommy and daddy's history on down the line of risk factors when there are many more far more significant.


Perhaps you can answer why you felt it important to state:

But it would be foolish to ignore the reality of his age and medical history.

Why would it be foolish to ignore his age and medical history?


The Veep choice who has more Executive experience than your man at the top of the ticket?

The Veep choice who actually won a contested election as opposed to the unopposed coronation of your man at the top of the ticket?

Again....I find Veep choices insignificant for reasons I stated earlier....because it really is about the two at the top of the ticket.

If you want to complain about the lack of experience at the bottom of the ticket...you can thank Obama and his empty resume' for setting the bar so incredibly low....

 So when the old man croaks from heart failure or melanoma or becomes incompetent due to Alzheimer's and the hockey mom is eye to eye with Akmadidijad or Putin, Patton will feel perfectly secure that the best person possible is leading the nation...YGBFKM!

Patton, you are being disingenuous here - in fact, you are abusing your acknowledged medical expertise. (I'm quite disappointed in you, actually.) It is a well known fact that age and family history (which means genetics) are risk factors when it comes to heart conditions. Do I need to start quoting sources?

In any case, that isn't this issue. The point of the thread was that the talk of experience turned out to be meaningless, since McCain just went ahead and put a woman with little experience a heart attack away from the Presidency.

Sure...go right ahead, you can start with the American Heart Association risk factors I cited in my "Flagged as spam" response:

What are the major risk factors that can't be changed?

-Increasing age=+1 McCain

-Male sex (gender) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

-Heredity (including Race) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

What are the major risk factors you can modify, treat or control by changing your lifestyle or taking medicine?

-Tobacco smoke +1 Obama


-High blood cholesterol  +1 McCain (on Simvastin which keeps it normal)


-High blood pressure


-Physical inactivity


-Obesity and overweight


-Diabetes mellitus

Adding risk factors...they look pretty even.

If you want to jump on board and attempt to add more weight to mommy and daddy's history....go right ahead.

Just what weight do you want to add....more significant than sedentary life style, obesity, and smoking?

Go ahead and tell us all how extremely important mommy and daddy's health history is to you.


Her experience is on par with Obama...in fact with regards to Executive experience...she beats him hands down.

And she's at the BOTTOM of the ticket....LOL

Sure...go right ahead, you can start with the American Heart Association risk factors I cited in my "Flagged as spam" response:

What are the major risk factors that can't be changed?

-Increasing age=+1 McCain

-Male sex (gender) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

-Heredity (including Race) +1 McCain  +1 Obama

What are the major risk factors you can modify, treat or control by changing your lifestyle or taking medicine?

-Tobacco smoke +1 Obama


-High blood cholesterol  +1 McCain (on Simvastin which keeps it normal)


-High blood pressure


-Physical inactivity


-Obesity and overweight


-Diabetes mellitus

Adding risk factors...they look pretty even.

If you want to jump on board and attempt to add more weight to mommy and daddy's history....go right ahead.

Just what weight do you want to add....more significant than sedentary life style, obesity, and smoking?

Go ahead and tell us all how extremely important mommy and daddy's health history is to you.


Her experience is on par with Obama...in fact with regards to Executive experience...she beats him hands down.

And she's at the BOTTOM of the ticket....LOL

Just driving by and hate to interrupt this entirely and very serious discussion, but can a bit of humor hurt? Most likely, but i really don't mind the resulting attacks. Even some guys enjoy "chick flicks" and Maureen today provides a scenario of the White House, following a sudden death of McCain.  Enjoy or not.  Not bothering with a link as it ruins the story. 

August 31, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Vice in Go-Go Boots?

By MAUREEN DOWD
PITTSBURGH

The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick.

So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hokey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

Sheer heaven.

It’s easy to see where this movie is going. It begins, of course, with a cute, cool unknown from Alaska who has never even been on “Meet the Press” triumphing over a cute, cool unknowable from Hawaii who has been on “Meet the Press” a lot.

Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes “The Brady Bunch” and “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested.

Instead, they embrace 72-year-old John McCain and 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose average age is 58, a mere two years older than the average age of the Obama-Biden ticket. Enthusiastic Republicans don’t see the choice of Palin as affirmative action, despite her thin résumé and gaping absence of foreign policy knowledge, because they expect Republicans to put an underqualified “babe,” as Rush Limbaugh calls her, on the ticket. They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West, like the previous Miss Congeniality types Dan Quayle and W., and then letting them learn on the job. So they crash into the globe a few times while they’re learning to drive, what’s the big deal?

Obama may have been president of The Harvard Law Review, but Palin graduated from the University of Idaho with a minor in poli-sci and worked briefly as a TV sports reporter. And she was tougher on the basketball court than the ethereal Obama, earning the nickname “Sarah Barracuda.”

The legacy of Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to be that no one would ever go on a blind date with history again. But that crazy maverick and gambler McCain does it, and conservatives and evangelicals rally around him in admiration of his refreshingly cynical choice of Sarah, an evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion crusader who became a hero when she decided to have her baby, who has Down syndrome, and when she urged schools to debate creationism as well as that stuffy old evolution thing.

Palinistas, as they are called, love Sarah’s spunky, relentlessly quirky “Northern Exposure” story from being a Miss Alaska runner-up, and winning Miss Congeniality, to being mayor and hockey mom in Wasilla, a rural Alaskan town of 6,715, to being governor for two years to being the first woman ever to run on a national Republican ticket. (Why do men only pick women as running mates when they need a Hail Mary pass? It’s a little insulting.)

Sarah is a zealot, but she’s a fun zealot. She has a beehive and sexy shoes, and the day she’s named she goes shopping with McCain in Ohio for a cheerleader outfit for her daughter.

As she once told Vogue, she’s learned the hard way to deal with press comments about her looks. “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots,” she said. “A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.”

This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one.

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Then she takes off in her seaplane and lands on the White House lawn, near the new ice fishing hole and hockey rink. The “First Dude,” as she calls the hunky Eskimo in the East Wing, waits on his snowmobile with the kids — Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)

“The P.T.A. is great preparation for dealing with the K.G.B.,” President Palin murmurs to Todd, as they kiss in the final scene while she changes Trig’s diaper. “Now that Georgia’s safe, how ’bout I cook you up some caribou hot dogs and moose stew for dinner, babe?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31dowd.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

 Once again Patton argues against something I didn't say and claims victory...Here is my direct quote;
 "Family history is one of the best indicators of predisposition to many, many medical conditions heart disease is for sure one of them."
 Patton would have us believe that I said ,it was the best diagnostic indicator, and proceded to argue against that.
 Once again I stand 100% behind what I said ;

 Family history is one of the best indicators of predisposition to many, many medical conditions heart disease is for sure one of them.

 McShame on you once again Patton!

Since I seriously doubt your ability to correctly decipher the literature....perhaps you can link to the source that states verbatim: Family history is one of the best indicators of predisposition to many, many medical conditions (since medical literature is not written in such a way)

Awaiting that....even if you find something that comes close to stating this (I have serious doubts)....ONE of the best means there are more...what are they?  How does family history stack up next to these other "best" indicaters?

Predisposition=tendency

Standing on a curb is a predisposition to crossing a street...but not a gaurentee.

Poverty is a predisposition to a poor education...but not a gaurentee.

Being female predisposes one to pregnancy....but is not a gaurentee.

You've got some powerful data there bub..... ::)

 This first one is pretty close to a verbatim of my quote ...and it wasn't even very hard to find.
 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749379702005871
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/05/genetic_link_to.html
  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSS/is_4_13/ai_n17207369

Are you really claiming with this question not to see a difference between putting a woman with 2 years executive governmental experience a heart beat from the most powerful position in the country, and putting a man with zero years executive governmental experience actually IN the most powerful position in the land?

To answer your question, no, the selection does not show that the talk of experience is hollow.  I am not saying that it is not hollow, and I am not saying it was not all empty PR.  I am just saying this selection does not demonstrate any such thing.

 Veteran studies have shown that Viet vets and especially Viet POWs are highly prone to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder . McCain's records on his PTSD are locked away for "privacy" reasons.
 http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec07/mccain_suicide_ptsd.htm

  Other studies have shown that Vets who sufer the effects of PTSD are twice as likely to die of heart diease.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707081834.htm

 This is more evidence that McCains choice of VP is more important than it would be for most. Coupled with his advancing age and familial history suggests that his dying in office is far ,far from being out of the question.

 

Any one can die in office, get incapacitated through illness, or even resign or be impeached.  So, sure, the VP candidate counts.  So McCain selected someone with more experience than Obama, and less than say, the current standing VP.  Obama chose someone with more experience and more connections in the party and government than he himself has.  In this, he seems to have taken a page from GW's book.  Not really sure why he would want to do that.  It would appear McCain wants it clear that he will be in charge and will not be planing to take ques from his VP.

Which of these two stances looks more like the current administration?

Do you really need an education in what the straw man argument is?  I said you would be foolish to ignore it as a factor.  You just said there are other factors far more signifigant.  Which is what I said, before you said it.  What you said was you didn't care about it.  AT ALL.  Your straw man.  And you still lost the argument.  

Uh, because you would be foolish to ignore it?  It's yet one more factor to consider.  Unless all you care about is that 'R' after his name.  

*sigh*  Once again I tire of your lack of reading comprehension.  Obama is NOT 'my man' as you so blithely put it.  I have said many times I don't really like either.  Put them both in the same category.  Sure sounds like 'my man' doesn't it?  Only if you are a jackass that can't read AND comprehend.  

Yes, I know, you have made it quite clear that the 'R' is the most important thing.  YOUR party has made it clear that sex and/or color is the most important factor.  Me, I prefer more from my politicians, and I find them both lacking.  For different reasons.  And I find your comprehension skills disappointing.  

For this reason, if you need to feel that you won, feel free.  I tire of your making up things I didn't say and arguing against them, then me having to point out that I didn't say it.  You won.  I surrender.  The thread is yours.

Given the underlying politics involved , I am flabbergasted that you would have the balls to even ask that question.
 We are supposed to conclude from your analysis of this that somehow Obama is more like Bush than McSame?  YGBFKM!
Palin has more experience than Obama? Oh because she is an executive leader? Governor of a State with 600,000 people? Obama represented more people than that (748,189) in his 13th district when he was in the Illinois Senate! I suppose if she were a cub scout den leader that would brand her as an "executive leader"as well? What a joke!

No, I am not suggesting that Obama is more like Bush, I am saying McCain is not Bush.  There are significant differences, and his choosing a relatively unknown Washington outsider is something he has done in difference to Bush that Obama did not. 

McCain is not a Bush clone, something Bush made abundantly clear in the 2000 primaries.  The loony religious right and the necons in the republican party were beside themselves at McCain's success in this years primaries for just this reason.  You cannot undo that reality no matter how many times you childishly type McSame.

 McCain has a 95%  Bush compliant voting record... Maybe not a clone, but he is at least very much politically aligned with junior.
  "McSame" is a practical shorthand way to remind all of the aforementioned indisputable fact.
 I apologize if it seems "childish" to you... I do not however apologize for illuminating that alliance.

This is highly misleading. Reading your post, you would think that all of these factors added the same amount of risk, which is obviously not true. For example americanheart.org (which I presume was your source) says: Over 83 percent of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older. which means that, if everything else is equal, a man McCain's age is roughly 4 times as likely as a man Obama's age to suffer a heart attack. It also seems logical that the risk due to race would be less than the risk due to parents (in the first case, we are talking about inheriting a bad gene from a distant ancestor, whereas in the second we are talking about inheriting it from a parent.) You're the expert: am I correct in my reasoning?

My post has been flagged. You need to click reply to see it. (It's totally worth it, btw. One of the most awesome posts in the history of IAP.)

LOL...lets take a look, shall we?


What does that say exactly?

Given the multifactorial  nature of an individual’s risk...

It says "given the MANY, MANY INTER-RELATED nature of an individuals risk.....

So...we are dealing with a risk that has MANY INTER-RELATED factors...right?

Moving on:

it can be argued that an individual’s familial risk of disease may, in fact,

HMMMM...."it can be argued" means it is debatable....."risk of disease MAY, in fact"......MAY=maybe, might, not a fact.

Again...moving along:

"be a better indicator of the many complex interactions among"

Hmmmm....."many complex interactions" sounds like the "multifactorial nature" we addressed earlier.

So wher are we up to now?

Given the MANY INTER-RELATED nature of an individuals risk.....it can be DEBATED that an individual’s familial risk of disease MIGHT be a better indicator of the MANY COMPLEX INTERACTIONS among.......

Among what?

Predisposing genetic and environmental factors

And we discussed predisposing earlier....predisposing gaurentees NOTHING.

WOW! Impressive!  ::)

Rather than dissect the rest of this crap, I'll hit the high points:


Does McCain have this "snippet?"

What about Obama?

What if Obama has it and McCain doesn't?


Again we have a plethora of factors here..and again with the genetics that we have NO IDEA as to which candidate possesses them.

Key to my questions last time, something you ignored....was:

 Just what weight do you want to add....more significant than sedentary life style, obesity, and smoking?

Go ahead and tell us all how extremely important mommy and daddy's health history is to you.....

What is awesome?

This, what I think you to believe the "Coup de grace" on McCains candidacy?

Over 83 percent of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older.

How many people are going to die of SOMETHING?

How many people over 65 will die?

How do we predict, based on ones risk factors for dieng of heart disease?

Have you added up both candidates risk factors?

What are the major risk factors that can't be changed?

* Increasing age
* Male sex (gender)
* Heredity (including Race)

What are the major risk factors you can modify, treat or control by changing your lifestyle or taking medicine?

* Tobacco smoke
* High blood cholesterol
* High blood pressure
* Physical inactivity
* Obesity and overweight
* Diabetes mellitus

Add em up.....seem pretty even.

This factors in family history....and since Obama's dad died at age 46....we'll NEVER know how his daddy's health would relate to him....but he gets the ding anyway for being African-American.

Is this the "new tactic" to distract people from the bottom line that the BOTTOM of the REPUBLICAN ticket is on par with the TOP of the DEMOCRAT ticket with regards to experience....and the top of the Dem ticket is BELOW par from the BOTTOM of the Repub ticket with regards to Executive Office experience?


Yea....I think it is.

 OK you had your spin ...pretty weak... Here's how I read it, phrase by phrase;

 Given the multifactorial nature of an individual’s risk,
there are many factors to risk
  it can be argued
... a good case can be made...
that an individual’s familial risk of disease  
...family history of the disease in question...
may, in fact,
an interjection meaning a surer bet...
be a better indicator of the many complex interactions
within the complicated ramifications family history tells more...
among predisposing genetic and environmental factors
amoung other likely indicators...
than can be captured by an individual’s own risk factors.
...that can be known for sure, by the assesment of ones risk.
 Here is the definition of predispose
 pre·dis·pose     /[pree-di-spohz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand; make susceptible: Genetic factors may predispose human beings to certain metabolic diseases. 
2. to render subject, susceptible, or liable: The evidence predisposes him to public censure. 
3. to dispose beforehand. 
4. Archaic. to dispose of beforehand, as in a will, legacy, or the like. 
–verb (used without object) 5. to give or furnish a tendency or inclination: an underground job that predisposes to lung infection. 

 Breaking it down into more comon speach;
 There are many factors to a risk of heart disease, a good case can be made and it is a surer bet that, family history is the more reliable indicator of all the other indicators including enviorment and genetics in getting anyone's total known risk.

 My origonal quote:
Its more eloquent and cautious as one would expect from a medical publication,  but it is damn near a paraphrase of exactly what I said.
 You may be a doctor Patton but this is english...not Latin...others can understand it too.

I can't believe you spend this much time nipping at McCains heel with this stuff...I do understand that having a candidate with a shell of a resume' will cause one to go to great lengths.....I'm not so sure "MAY in fact" is the same as "IS a surer bet" but this line of reasoning is pathetic and will not waste time convincing you...reminds me of trying to review literature with Pond Scum.

As far as "Predispose"....like I said earlier:

Predisposition=tendency

Standing on a curb is a predisposition to crossing a street...but not a gaurentee.

Poverty is a predisposition to a poor education...but not a gaurentee.

Being female predisposes one to pregnancy....but is not a gaurentee.

OK, so you didn't like my word...so I'll use yours:

Standing on a curb is an inclination to crossing a street...but not a gaurentee.

Poverty makes one liable to have a poor education...but not a gaurentee.

Being female make one susceptible to pregnancy....but is not a gaurentee.

And YET AGAIN....maybe a demonstration to how pathetic an arguement this is you NEVER answered:

Just what weight do you want to add....more significant than sedentary life style, obesity, and smoking?

Go ahead and tell us all how extremely important mommy and daddy's health history is to you.....

And since you havn't brought up the "genetic" crap again, I'm guessing since it is just as likely your guy gets the ding for it...you decided to shut up over it.

Did you stack the candidates risk factors THAT INCLUDE family history side-by-side?

Pretty even, huh?

Still wanna push "family history/Race" risk factor.....just HOW MUCH weight should it be given over EVERYTHING else in ones risk factor profile, Doctor?

THIS TIME...we await YOUR answers to ALL the above questions posed to you.

Back on the correct subject, Palin has more government executive experience than McCain or Obama.  Obama has much more experience running larger programs successfully.  Obama's campaign has over 2500 people working for it.  Palin has 50 employees in the government in Alaska.  McCain . . . well, he was a POW so that must mean something since that is always his defense for his lack of substance.

Really? Nothing comes to mind and he doesn't speak to it on the campaign trail.

What does a Senator RUN?

His campaign?

 ::)

This is a straw man. No one said McCain was guaranteed to die in office - just that it was substantially more likely than Obama dying in office.

Based on what?...looking at all the risk factors cited multiple times here the two share, they're even...unless you ignored it.

If this is gonna be reduced to an "old people die before young people" arguement without acceptance or agreement that NO ONE KNOWS when, where, why, how ANYONE dies....then you may all carry on....

I'm 45....I'll likeley die before you.

You'll likely die before my 5 year old.

There are no gaurentees or certainties that ANY of that will actually transpire.

I'm sure Tim Russerts father never thought his son would pass before him.

 Being a republicon is a predisposition to being blind to your candidates foibles, regardless how obvious they are.
 (http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee182/vinayg18/blog/mccain_no_old_men.jpg)

Every time I've floated the idea of putting an age cap on President, no one wants to go along with it. But a bunch of people seem damn set that McCain is disqualified because of his age.

I hate how ignorant people are choosing to be about candidates.

From Wiki (not the only source, just the one that has it all together) (and I am only quoting the parts that are relevant to this discussion)


So you can see that even when he was president of the law review at Harvard he had more people working for him that Palin does as governor of Alaska.  This really shows a lack of judgement on McCain's part in announcing his VP with so little vetting.  I hope he doesn't enter into all his decisions so recklessly, but I am not about to find out with him as president.

So far the difference between this election and the election in 2004 is that this time the GOP's attempts to change the subject from policies to fake issues is blowing up in their faces.

1) McCain tried to avoid real policy discussions by painting Obama as an elitist. This blew up when McCain was caught not being able to remember just exactly how many homes he and Cindy had to choose from while flying around in their private jet.

2) McCain tried to paint Obama as inexperienced. This criticism became moot when McCain picked perhaps the least experienced national politician in America.

The question now is, what will McCain and the Republicans try next? What fake issue will they raise in their desperate attempt to avoid policy discussions?

By choosing Palin, McCain has thrilled his far-right wing base. They'd never have voted for Obama in a million years, but perhaps now they won't stay home in November, either. But if a voter is interested in the future, what does McCain offer? Improved health care? Nope. Improved approaches to global warming? Nope. New ways to get the economy moving? Nope. Better relations with the international community? Nope. Just the usual right wing nostrums like tax cuts for the rich, corporate tax breaks, more drilling of oil, more bombast directed at all nations that don't do our bidding.

So stand by. The next GOP dodge is no doubt being cooked up even now.

Now, now J....don't try and confuse those less politically saavy than you with this little gem:



The most striking difference is where both of the least experienced candidates from each ticket resides...top or bottom....kinda big difference, eh?

Kinda just glazed over that tidbit......

You were on target with your little qualifier "perhaps"..........she's NOT the least experienced national politician in America.....she was elected when voters actually had two candidates to vote for in the ballot box....and she's actually MADE Executive decisions in a position as an elected governmental Executive......theres one rookie politician in America that has done neither.

So stand by. The next Democrat dodge is no doubt being cooked up even now.

Right, Patton. On one ticket we have:
1) A graduate of Columbia and Harvard, president of the Harvard Law Review, a professor of constitutional law at Chicago, a 6-year state senator and a 4-year U.S. Senator with a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
2) A man who has been a U.S. Senator longer than McCain and is a recognized leader in U.S. foreign policy.

On the other ticket we have:
1) A long-time U.S. Senator who happens to be 72 years old with a history of serious health issues.
2) A communications-journalism graduate of the University of Idaho, mayor of a tiny town, and a two-year governor. Who is currently under investigation for possibly illegally firing a government employee for not carrying out Palin's personal vendetta. Who said, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," Ms. Palin told Alaska Business Monthly in March 2007. (Source: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202445.html

And you contend that we should be concerned with the first ticket's lack of experience.

'Kay.

 Let it not be forgotten that Obama represented more people as Illinios State Senator in the tiny 13th district than live in the entire state of Alaska. As US senator he now represents the entire state of Illinios with a population 24 times greater than Alaska. In fact the tiny state of Delaware has more than 200,000 more people than the entire sate of Alaska!

This gives him Presidential "experience?"


Does this?


My, my....we should call all law school graduates fit for the Presidency?

My God...the peanut farmer from Georgia would have never made it  ::)


You know state senators are everything from Hallmark shop owners, Doctors, Pharmacists, Landscaping company owners and Farmers too....right....Presidential?


Not quite 4 years of a first term...and....

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting," CNN reported November 2, 2007.[1] Since September 2007, Obama has missed 80 percent of Senate votes.

SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008/Senate_attendance%2C_missed_votes)

Must make the people of Illinois proud to be represented so....especially with the one coronated to Carol Mosely Brauns seat.....


Ummmm....yea.

And since you two are cut from the same cloth, I will save bandwith and answer you both....


He's a great representative...when he shows up ::)

What do you know of the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Bill Ayers co-founded?

Have you looked at Bush's resume recently? There's nothing there. Oh yeah. He made a lot of money on lucky investments and proclaimed a 'Jesus Day' in texas.



...Or Reagan's?
Ahk

No kidding....I wonder...just who is making hay that law school be a requisite for the Presidency?

I would think that having real world governmental executive experience OR an understanding of the US Armed forces and chain-of-command would be important to the one assuming supreme command.....but I digress....

Yes, and she's currently under investigation for those decisions.

ALL of them?

Investigation....like Rezko?

Was that an "investigation?"

Actually, I replied, but it was flagged as spam.


You see, this is yet another straw man. No one is saying that all old people die before all young people, nor that we can predict who will die when. We are talking about probabilities (you do grasp that concept, right?). A person McCain's age is significantly more likely to die soon than a man Obama's age, for well documented reasons. Your politics have blinded you to reality (but I guess that's a prerequisite to voting Republican).

No, not all of them - just the ones where she used her political power to carry out a personal vendetta.

Please feel free to show how Obama relates to an investigation on Rezko the same way that Palin is the subject of the investigation for wrongful firing.  Obama and Rezko are similar to McCain and Ketting 5 anyway.

Yes....probabilities in ONE risk factor of death.

One who smokes is liklier to die before one who doesn't based on that ONE risk factor.

Someone Black is liklier to die than someone White based on that ONE risk factor.

To properly assess ones TOTAL risk....you need to assess and weigh them ALL.

Right, but all risk factors are not equivalent. So would I be right in saying that age adds more risk than race, for example? How do the risk factor's weigh up relative to each other?

Perhaps you missed the usage of a simple punctuation mark.

The one highlighted denotes the asking of a question.

I understand your desire to quibble over "investigations"........very few things in life can draw on your desire for an exact comparison....so none is made.

Somehow you believe the sin of one is just peachy and the accused given a "pass"....and the other is a sin of the first order and the accused strung from the nearest tree.

How very........Democrat of you...... ;)

That is why more information and a thorough physical assessement is needed.

One cannot make ANY assumption on a single risk factor alone.....I can paint any number of scenarios that would shoot an attempt at that out of the water.


Those are two VERY broad and vague risk categories.....NO ONE is JUST old OR JUST black.

That is why medical entities like the AHA give them the same weight in their VERY broad and SUPERFICIAL list of risk factors.

Right, but in the real world 83% of heart attacks are in people over the age of 65. Roughly speaking, this makes a man McCain's age aroung 4 times as likely to die of a heart attack than a man Obama's age. It suggests that age is one of the biggest risk factors.

This is why I hate dealing with the medically unsophisticated.....

Your talking about ONE very broad risk factor that contributes to death.

When weighing THEM ALL....McCain gets the ding...and Obama doesn't...did you see that?

Do we need to do it again?

When ALL the vague and broad risk factors are weighed together...both men are about even.

You also...in your extensive analysis of the literature forgot to mention that 100% of the people over 65 will die.  ::)

BTW....since you want to analyze SINGLE risk factors...Obama smokes and has smoked most his adult life....how much more likely is HE to die than McCain based on this ONE single risk factor?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/liberalnurse/ObamaLive-1.jpg)

Please go to this youtube and watch Obama himself discuss his attempt to stop smoking. Want the real deal? Vote Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzGU4hpONJw

And when asked if he had ever used drugs he said that he had. And that he had inhaled. "That was the point," he said. Ya gotta love the guy.

Unless, of course, you are slavering for more tax cuts for the rich and don't care that our health care system is bankrupting businesses and leaving 47 million Americans without health insurance.

(http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/images/2008/04/29/obama_basketball.jpg)

Where's McCain? Didn't anyone invite him to the game? Oh, that's right. He was too busy vetting his VP nominee.

 Here is some more indication as to the kind of "executive" rule Quailin embraces. First as mayor she wanted to ban some books at the town library. The Librarian would not help her in this totalitarian dictatorial endeavor... What was Palin's answer ?
 She threatened to fire the Librarian ...
 She is perfect fit for the Bush style of executive rule...Play ball with me and do as I wish or face unemployment.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html
 

I don't believe McCain picked Palin, I believe that he accepted the choice, but that it was made by the people running his campaign during Obama's speech, and that it is a gimmick.

The problem with Palin, considering she is running on the Republican ticket, is that she has a child with Down's Syndrome and a pregnant teenage daughter, and accepting the position of VP isn't really keeping in line with the ideals of the Republican party, that a woman is the heart of the home and should be mother first, career woman second (like, when the kids are grown). The image of her holding a gun... wearing the attitude glasses... etc, it's all some erotic fantasy a man has of what a woman in office should be, in a man's world. She is no Hillary, and I am ashamed of the women who would support such a monstrosity. She might as well keep her mouth shut with that annoying accent, ("The Highest and Hardest Glass Ceiling!"). Ugh.

Obama won me over, despite Hillary not being VP, and I'm defintiely voting Obama '08. It's too bad that every white woman I hear from, including the poorest among them, think he's the antichrist.

I agree with this 100%. I can see it in the eyes of every man I know that likes her. It's that secretary-ish, let-me-tie-you-up kind of chick that they want to look at for the next for years.

edit: Those "Our Governor is hot/Our state is cold" buttons really drive home that message.

I think her extreme anti-abortion stance fits into this. Belief that rape victims should be forced to carry the attackers seed is a hard stance against women's rights.


I'm shocked by this choice from McCain's strategist. Ultimately I don't think this gimmick is going to work. The fact that it has a decent enough chance for them to try it is alarming to me. The deeper issue here is anti-politic, people have come to feel powerless then apathetic about unresponsive government and it becomes something of a joke.


Following McCain's campaign is like reading Maxim Magazine, except that it gives me no insight into the consumer electronics market, and the chicks are older.

As far as her warm and fuzzy family values go, does anyone believe that her daughter and the 18 year-old who got her pregnant decided to marry of their own free will?

Levi, the 18 year-old, is a hocky player whose MySpace page (since removed) called himself a "fucking redneck" who likes to "hang out with the boys." It also lists him as "in a relationship" but adds, "I don't want kids." [source: Globe and Mail, Sept 3, page A13]

It's pretty obviously a shotgun wedding. So much for the sanctity of marriage.

The Globe and Mail [Sept 3, A12] also reports that she prohibited anyone working for her to talk to the media without her permission--and extremely unusual policy for a small town.

She's Bush with an up-do.

You are right, we should analyse all risk factors, not just one. Just like we should consider all illness. Imagine you are working for a health insurance company: surely you must acknowledge that McCain is a greater risk than Obama, due to his age?

(YAWN).....on that ONE SINGLE RISK FACTOR ALONE....yes.....just as Obama is at greater risk for SMOKING.....yet another SINGLE RISK FACTOR ALONE.

If I am an insurance company...I'm not a friggin idiot and look at ONE SINGLE RISK FACTOR alone.

Your naivete and simple underappreciation for a persons ENTIRE profile versus a SINGLE RISK FACTOR is astounding.

Stop avoiding the question. I never asked you to look at just one risk factor. I asked you which was a greater health risk, based on all factors, which you have so far failed to answer?

Who's avoiding....I answer every question you ask....I will however not be able to answer questions that do not make any sense.

What is it you don't understand about assessing risk with broad, vague, general risk factors?

The greatest risk factor?

How about playing Russian roulette with six rounds in the chamber?

It seems you want to discuss how the medical profession weighs "being black" and "old" against eachother.

Who is just black?

Who is just old?

Perhaps you don't understand that the risk factors you want to discuss are within the concept of assigning OVERALL risk of premature death?

Who will EVER even attempt to assign risk with ONE risk factor....and ignore the rest?

If you've done extensive searches and have come up empty with regards to being just black or just old.....there is a reason.....there is no one who is attemting to assign individual weight to individual risk factors involved with the global determination of an individuals overall risk for premature death.

So, to sum up, you think Obama and McCain are an equal risk of dying in office? Fine, but you'll excuse me if I take your "expert opinion" with a large pinch of salt in future.

 What about McCains PTSD ? We know he has it to some degree and that the prognosis is "held secret".
 His temper and emotional outbursts with vugarity are consistant with this mental  affliction. Do we want a nut job  like this with his "finger on the button".
 What if Putin says something that sets him off and he says NUKE EM! Where does that leave us??

There are safety mechanisms for that...

Oh really like what? Is there a mental competency quiz on the trigger mechanism?

What an idiot.

Reports of battle-associated stress appear as early as the 6th century BC.[82] Although PTSD-like symptoms have also been recognized in combat veterans of many military conflicts since, the modern understanding of PTSD dates from the 1970s, largely as a result of the problems that were still being experienced by Vietnam veterans.[82]

The term post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD was coined in the mid 1970s.[82] Early in 1978, the term was used in a working group finding presented to the Committee of Reactive Disorders.[83] The term was formally recognised in 1980.[82] (In the DSM-IV, which is considered authoritative, the spelling "posttraumatic stress disorder" is used. Elsewhere, "posttraumatic" is often rendered as two words — "post-traumatic stress disorder" or "post traumatic stress disorder" — especially in less formal writing on the subject.)  WIKI

Every President who has experienced war could have had PTSD.....of course you couldn't call it that before 1980 because the term didn't officially exist.

Bush 41 is the only President to have experienced combat since the term was coined......however Bush 41 is not the only President to ever see and experience the horror of war first hand.