John McCain's tumor

After speaking with some medicos that I know, they said brain tumors cause cognitive impairment. In fact, they have never seen a brain tumor that did not cause some kind of cognitive impairment.

It's surprising that there isn't a law that a person with a brain tumor ought be forbidden from serving in government. I imagine that most people leave work when they have a brain tumor. Not John McCain. I respect McCain. I voted for him. I read his memoir. I even like Megan.

He should not have been allowed to vote on the health care bill while he had a brain tumor. I'm surprised that no one suggested it. If they did, I'm curious why people didn't go along with it. McCain's support for Obamacare was of course a historic moment the consequences of which continue to be felt like a neverending earthquake. The health care system is collapsing.

I would like to see Congress re-evaluate that vote given McCain's health. Now that he's gone, no one has to worry about hurting his feelings. Let's get it right this time.

Reagan would have been removed during his second term based on your reasoning.

It is probably fitting that McCain scuttled Deferment Don’s policy.

From this statement, it appears that you are applying your own personal judgment, which makes it difficult for me to accept your motivations:

But he was always a little bit off even before his time as a POW.

Are you medically qualified to judge him as "off" before his time as a POW?

If we're allowed to judge politicans as "off", our current President never would have made it past the primaries. His speech patterns have long caused speculation of beginning signs of dementia.

And as theoria says, we would need to question everything that happened from a certain point on in Reagan's administration.

Hero is a term I think is thrown about a little too loosely these days but Cadet Bonespurs telling the country that McCain was no hero (because he was captured by the North Vietnamese after ejecting out of his fighter jet that was going down and in the process breaking both legs and an arm)--is about the absolutest wrongest guy to be opening his mouth on the subject. McCain at least was there when his country called on him even if it was a shitty and stupid war. Trump meanwhile neither fought nor protested the war--took the most gutless road possible of just saving his own skin.

As far as saving Obamacare---I'm actually waiting for the day when we have a medicare for all health care system. So yeah, let's get rid of Obamacare but only for the real thing.

As for McCain--I could respect him but I never really liked him. I did like it though when he torpedoed Trump on Obamacare. That was a cool moment.

Yeah, what >2 theoria: >3 amysisson: >4 lriley: said ....dittos.

>1 barney67: Democracy is approximate. Half of Congress voted alongside McCain, so it's hard to claim that he had to be mentally ill to vote the way he did. Certainly he was elected post-Vietnam, so it's anti-democracy to claim that he should be rejected for factors known to the electorate.

There are many causes of cognitive impairment, including old age itself. We could argue for mandatory health evaluations for politicians, but to call out John McCain or brain cancer is unfair.

>6 prosfilaes:

I agree that we could argue for mandatory health evaluations for politicians, but now the cynic in me realizes that's just one more thing that can, and probably would be, gamed. I mean, look at those letters that Mr. T's former doctor "wrote" that were essentially dictated to him.

Maybe we should exclude all combat veterans from holding any office above dog catcher---just elect draft dodging billionaires to the congress, senate and presidency and let them decide everything. I find Trump typical of a lot of politicians that have done everything and anything possible to avoid going to war themselves when it was their turn--they certainly have lots of gumption when it comes to pressing the button and sending soldiers to die for all sorts of bullshit.

. . .(McCain) torpedoed Trump on Obamacare (!?) (4)
-- I hope so! But was it a "torpedo" or only a "delay"?

My comment on " . . .(McCain) torpedoed Trump on Obamacare" (!?) (4) is getting a "Duplicate Post" message. It was:
"-- I hope so! But was it a "torpedo" or only a "delay"?"

>2 theoria: Reagan didn't have a tumor.

Does anyone here know how to read? I'm just asking. Read the lines. Not what's between the lines. Read...the...words. There's nothing between the lines but what your imagination wants to be there. Read it again. And try to avoid jumping to conclusions.

You could have a rule in Congress, whether a law or not, or custom perhaps, that says, "NO ONE WITH A BRAIN TUMOR SHOULD BE VOTING IN CONGRESS."

Does everyone understand that now? I said nothing about a mental health check. I said BRAIN TUMOR. BRAIN TUMORS IMPAIR YOUR JUDGMENT. THAT IS NOT "MY OWN PERSONAL JUDGMENT".

WTF?

"to call out John McCain or brain cancer is unfair"

Unfair? Based on what? You think it's unfair to tell someone to say home when they are sick? Screwy. What if that person is engaged in an important vote in Congress? You think EVEN DISCUSSING IT IS UNFAIR. Unfair? What a random thing to say.

I'm telling you a medical fact. I'm not asking you. I'm not debating you. I'm telling you, point blank, that a brain tumor causes cognitive impairment which manifests itself in many ways. I doubt that this issue has ever come up before because WHEN MOST PEOPLE GET A BRAIN TUMOR THEY STAY HOME FROM WORK.

We could have rules or customs, whether laws or not about un-indicted co-conspirators too. You know, kind of like when you're a cop and being investigated for beating someone up or other stuff cops do all the time that they're not supposed to--they suspend you with pay until everything is cleared up in the investigation. Just saying. Once that's good to go he/she can return to work---or not. I heard there's a pretty well known un-indicted co-conspirator last seen in the vicinity of the White House. The truth is I'd rather target someone like that before people with brain tumors.

>14 barney67: I'm telling you, point blank, that a brain tumor causes cognitive impairment

So what? You want me not to read your posts like I would a normal human, then fine, but then I can no longer read between the lines and assume cognitive impairment is a bad thing. You can't haver and force everyone to fill in the gaps and then get annoyed at them when they do.

John McCain had cognitive impairment. This was public knowledge when he was elected; he was 81, and it's a medical fact that the brain doesn't work as well at 81 as it does at 31. Various more extreme forms of cognitive impairment are common in senior citizens, and have been observed in older politicians, like Alzheimer's (Reagan), generalized dementia (Trump, allegedly) and stroke (Wilson and FDR). How should we deal with this? That's an open question. But you're not impressing anyone by complaining about McCain and refusing to deal with the fact that several of his fellow Congressfolk may well be more impaired than he was.

WHEN MOST PEOPLE GET A BRAIN TUMOR THEY STAY HOME FROM WORK.

Citation? I'm sure a lot of people doing pointless jobs with decent savings, given a notice of their impending death, dump their job. But people with important jobs may work every day to their death to do those things that need to be done. There's not a member of Congress who wouldn't have shown up just like McCain did to cast the deciding vote on an important bill.

>16 prosfilaes: You don't have to read between the lines to know that a brain tumor causes cognitive impairment. It's in the lines themselves. Are you suggesting that normal human beings read between the lines? Quite the opposite, I think. If you mean it's a normal human temptation to read into words something that's not there, then yes, I agree that is a human flaw that happens but it can be avoided. It's a bad habit.

It's the same old problem that I always have on this forum with a certain kind of person and a certain way of looking at things. You lump everything together. You try to make everything equal and you refuse to make distinctions. When a group of men in Hollywood and journalism are accused of sexual harassment, the story is then about ALL MEN. "Men need to act their act together." "All men are responsible." IN A COUNTRY OF 325 MILLION PEOPLE. The problem isn't ALL MEN. It's those particular men. When there's a shooting, the story becomes: look at how many serial killers there are in America, look how terrible America is, look how how guns they have, look how terrible guns are. Let's say we have five shootings a year by five killers. That's five killers OUT OF A COUNTRY OF 325 MILLION PEOPLE. The problem isn't ALL GUNS or ALL AMERICAN or ALL SCHOOLS. There are particular problems in particular places. How can you read a novel or a poem without learning the difference between the general and the particular?

It's this lack of perspective that causes people to react emotionally, to overreact, to events, and to let their anger and fear make their decisions and guide their thoughts and actions. And sometimes their votes.

Let's look at the subjects you discussed in your post: old age, Alzheimer's , dementia, stroke. You don't even talk about brain tumors! And that's the subject I was discussing. I said there ought to be a law forbidding people with brain tumors from voting in Congress. But you're toss brain tumors in the same pot with those other problems under the umbrella term "cognitive impairment". You're using the term incorrectly. I'm using it to refer to specific medical conditions resulting from a brain tumor. You want to equalize everything. You're not discriminating. You're not saying how different those subjects are, subjects which I didn't raise. If you want to know the truth: strokes don't impair always judgement, they cause paralysis. Alzheimer's affects memory and other mental functions and I would include judgment here if the disease has progressed enough. Old age affects some judgment but generally other kinds of problems, and those problems often wind up the headings of Alzheimer's and dementia, which are not interchangeable.

So I hope you see that I have an understanding of complexity that you don't. When you respond to an issue, it's different from the way I respond to an issue. When you read words, you tend to jump to conclusions and read between the lines. I stick to the words and the precise meaning of the words.

You should see also, I hope, that to someone who knows about mental illness, calling the president "mentally ill" is offensive. Far more offensive is turning a book forum into your personal blog so that you can call the president mentally ill every day, as though repetition of a lie will make it the truth. It's far more offensive than using profanity or violating the TOS by calling someone a name, which some of you can't tolerate so you run to the teacher to rat on the offender. It's especially offensive when the accusations come from people who aren't Americans and don't live in America, and yet feel they know what goes on here.

A lot to be learned.

This is story about McCain's surgery to remove a blood clot related to his tumor

The surgery took place one week prior to the vote on ACA repeal.

From the story:

"The senator showed no neurological problems before or after the operation, said his doctors"

"Before the operation, his neurological exam was normal"

"His doctors told Gupta they were amazed at how sharp McCain was when he awoke"

"Showing no signs of cognitive delays, McCain was discharged Saturday and has been recovering at his home since"

So we have to assume that everyone was telling the truth, including McCain, despite being strongly motivated to lie or keep their mouths shut. It's almost impossible not to have some kind of cognitive impairment from a brain tumor. Was this a miraculous exception? Maybe. But I doubt it.

It's much more complicated.

Your motivations are still a problem for me. You have seized on this one thing, and have decided it's the specific reason that McCain voted the way he did. And you want to hold the vote over again, because it didn't go the way you wanted.

Even if McCain was impaired, which is far from certain, he might still have voted that way. Obviously he disagreed with Trump on a lot of things.

And you want to keep the conversation limited to the one thing, and keep dismissing other people's contributions to the discussion. I believe it is fairly widely accepted now that Reagan was impaired by Alzheimer's during his Presidency, yet you don't seem to want do-overs on anything that happened then. That's pretty self-serving.

>17 barney67: You don't have to read between the lines to know that a brain tumor causes cognitive impairment.

I wrote I can no longer read between the lines and assume cognitive impairment is a bad thing. You stick to the words?

Are you suggesting that normal human beings read between the lines? Quite the opposite, I think.

I have a degree in mathematics and have studied computer-checked proofs, like the Metamath system. The average published mathematical proof requires serious amounts of reading between the lines; it leaves implicit things that a truly formal proof would make explicit. If that's true for peer-reviewed published mathematics, how much more for communications in the real world?

From another direction, Wolter's World answers Why Do Americans Ask "How Are You?" But Don't Seem to Care About Your Answer? (Youtube). Human communication is ambiguous and requires understanding subtext.

How can you read a novel or a poem without learning the difference between the general and the particular?

Richard Cory

By Edwin Arlington Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich—yes, richer than a king—
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

How can you read that poem and care about what happened to one fictional person and the fictional people in his fictional town? Of course, all the people who loved this poem for talking about us personally and everyone in general, they all failed to understand the difference between the general and the particular, failed to understand that Robinson was just talking about one man and one town.

I said there ought to be a law forbidding people with brain tumors from voting in Congress.

Why? Because brain tumors cause cognitive impairment, and (presumably; you never explicitly said this) cognitive impairment stops people from competently voting in Congress. But if cognitive impairment stops people from competently voting in Congress, we should not pass a law against one cause of cognitive impairment; we should pass a law that covers as much of the issue as possible. (That's another premise, but a connected one is that we shouldn't pass scattershot laws to prevent rare events just because they happened. What are the odds another member of Congress will make an important vote with a known brain tumor again?) If we are worried about cognitive impairment, then we need to think about all forms of cognitive impairment, especially the most common forms of cognitive impairment found in members of Congress.

It's especially offensive when the accusations come from people who aren't Americans and don't live in America, and yet feel they know what goes on here.

Are you a Russian troll? It just seems so weird that you keep harping on people being American and living in America, despite the fact that you're talking to someone who is an American living in America.

>20 barney67: It's almost impossible not to have some kind of cognitive impairment from a brain tumor.

McCain had cognitive impairment from being 81. He was no longer capable of learning as well or as quickly as he did when he was younger. Relative to Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton, circa 1972, or president of the Harvard Law Review Barack Obama, circa 1990, I suspect all the members of Congress are cognitively impaired. So what? You've yet to establish that McCain's brain tumor negatively impacted his ability to do his job at a level that warrants overturning the choice of the people who voted for him. And to attempt doing that would have to establish a level of cognitive impairment that would warrant that, that would have to apply to all members of Congress, not just those with brain tumors.

FWIW if it weren't for McCain's goofy decision to name Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate--there's probably no tea party and Donald Trump wouldn't be in the White House either. For that matter the Donald would probably be getting away with all his crooked dealings and hardly anyone would be giving a fuck.....and he wouldn't have to go to bed every night wondering or worrying how long he's got left before someone comes for him with handcuffs. So yeah--John McCain is very much responsible for the fix he's in.

I'd be hard pressed to call McCain's vote on repealing Obamacare as an example of cognitive impairment. He knew exactly what he was doing and he looked like he very much enjoyed that moment. It was a classic fuck you. I find it funny as well that he takes all of Barney's blame for the failure of the repeal--because it wasn't just McCain--it was every single Democratic and Independent Senator + 2 other Republican Senators Lisa Murkoski and Susan Collins. Where's the animosity for those two?

Quite likely though McCain has been impaired at times--whether from brain tumors though is debatable. I happen to think he was really fucked up on something when he decided on Palin and after coming back to his senses he came to regret that decision shortly thereafter.........and she was dumber than shit---maybe not as dumb as Donald but still......

Questioning my motives is the coward's way out. Without attacking me personally, which is against the TOS, it ought to be easy to choose between
1) It's OK for people with a brain tumor to vote in Congress.
2) It's not OK for people with a brain tumor to vote in Congress.

The question presupposes two things:
1) that you know what a brain tumor is and what the ramifications are
2) that you know what it means to vote in Congress and what the ramifications are

Voting out of spite or revenge ("a classic case of fuck you" in the crude, intemperate language of lriley) could be a sign of cognitive impairment.

Donald Trump has nothing to do with the Tea Party. You were brainwashed by the words "Tea Party" so that whenever you hear them you salivate like Pavlov's dog. If only dogs didn't vote. Trump ran as a Reform Party candidate like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Many of his positions come straight from the Reform platform.

>23 prosfilaes: Even after what I wrote, you repeat your mistake of throwing in everything together and avoid distinctions. I guess you are incapable of distinguishing the kind of impairment that happens in old age from the kind that happens when you have a brain tumor.

This is a learning moment for you: They are not identical.

And by the way, "I don't like what you said" is different from "What you said is true." The reason many of you don't like my point is that you don't like the truth that the vote on Obamacare can be repealed. You don't like the idea that McCain was not in his right mind when he voted.

>27 barney67: "You don't like the idea that McCain was not in his right mind when he voted."

Why single out McCain? 50 other senators voted against the "skinny repeal." Do you think they were "not in their right minds"?

1) Yet you remain completely unconcerned about what negative consequences may have come from Reagan being impaired while serving as President. This presupposes two things: that you don't know what Alzheimer's is and what the ramifications are, and that you don't know what it means to be President of the United States and what those ramincations are.

2) You have no proof that McCain voted out of spite or revenge. Perhaps he had concerns about rescinding Obamacare either at that particular point in time, or in that particular way. Or both.

3) Odd, isn't it, that not a single person chiming in seems to agree with you?

There are a lot of things, other than brain tumors*, that cause cognitive impairment. Are we going to require that U.S. Senators (and representatives, and state legislators) undergo an assessment of that prior to every vote?

And that governors and presidents have an assessment before they are allowed to sign or veto legislation?

That way madness lies.

*and whether a specific person’s brain tumor does, and to what extent, and in what areas of functioning, will depend on a variety of factors that differ with the individual.

>13 barney67:

We're reading your words. McCain spoke and was interviewed repeatedly around that time--he was quite mentally competent. As noted above, his doctors also said this.

There is far more convincing evidence that our President is not mentally competent.

WHEN MOST PEOPLE GET A BRAIN TUMOR THEY STAY HOME FROM WORK

Most? Meh. A survey found that 91% worked before diagnosis, and 33% continue to work. It's not exactly unusual.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

#25---as if you yourself haven't used 'crude, intemperate language' on a number of occasions.

Trump: Signs of dementia (episode 5)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNa2g6xk_24

>26 barney67: I guess you are incapable of distinguishing the kind of impairment that happens in old age from the kind that happens when you have a brain tumor.

This is a learning moment for you: They are not identical.

Here's a learning moment for you; there's no such thing as the kind of impairment that happens when you have a brain tumor. I'm pretty sure that some people with brain tumors at a certain part in the disease show cognitive impairment that could be confused with the mental decline of old age (which itself differs widely by people). Depending on where the brain tumor is, the effects of brain tumors can be all over the place.

And identical is irrelevant. How severe is the cognitive impairment in the ways that matter as a senator? Is trying to deal with this worth the political mess it will cause? That's completely independent of the cause of the cognitive impairment.

>27 barney67: you don't like the truth that the vote on Obamacare can be repealed.

Stable democracies don't have legislators looking for reasons to discount the votes of their opponents in Congress/Parliament. If the vote was held, that was the result. You can hold another vote, but you can't find a way to exclude the vote of a member of Congress who voted. They could make rules to exclude people with brain tumors, but not retroactively.

>31 timspalding: "Most? Meh. A survey found that 91% worked before diagnosis, and 33% continue to work. It's not exactly unusual."

I'm curious about your definition of "most" and "not exactly unusual". Obviously it's pointless to talk about people before they were diagnosed. If 33% continue to work after they are diagnosed, that means 67% stay home. That looks like most people stay home. So you are agreeing with me in a disagreeable way.

Comments about President Trump's mental state passed immature a long time ago and moved on to loathsome. Such comments are so self-evidently false and offensive to so many people that they don't merit a response. The subject of this thread is brain tumors. Those of you who want to detour to other subjects can start your own thread.

>35 barney67:

This isn't your personal Facebook page. You don't get to dictate the strict and specific direction in which the conversation goes just because you started the thread.

Have you watched any of the videos of clips of Trump speaking, which show a confused mental state? These are not "self-evidently false." It's him speaking in his own words, contradicting himself within seconds and not realizing he's doing it. These are not clips from different telecasts sewn together, but actual uninterrupted footage showing him not knowing what he's talking about.

Trump is offensive to so many people. He's a sexist, a sexual predator, and a bigot. He has cheated on all three of his wives. He lies constantly. But all we were commenting on was his obvious mental impairment, because that actually is relevant to the topic you broached.

>36 amysisson: Remember to look under your bed tonight for monsters. Maybe you and lriley can visit the doctor together and tell him your theories while he gives you both a good overhaul.

>35 barney67: The subject of this thread is brain tumors.

As I said above, laws should not be made about one-off instances, nor focus on one small section of a larger problem. So, since this is a rare problem that's a small fragment of a larger problem, it is not worth doing anything legally about.

Such comments are so self-evidently false and offensive

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

Compare Trump 1992: “Ross Perot, he made some monumental mistakes. Had he not dropped out of the election, had he not made the gaffes about the watch dogs and the guard dogs, if he didn’t have three or four bad days — and they were real bad days — he could have conceivably won this crazy election.”

to

Trump 2017: “People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”

My brain went on vacation at a bad time: this is the most amusing thread I've read in a long time. McCain was a nasty crazed son of a bitch--ask any kid in Fallujah--for one thing; for another, this civilization causes brain impairment.

The "skinny appeal" vote tally was 49-51. If McCain had not been allowed to vote due to cognitive impairment the tally would have been 49-50 and the bill still would have failed. The bill passes only if McCain votes for it, not if he doesn't vote at all

McCain’s message all through his funeral: “It doesn’t have to be this shitty.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/john-mccain-funeral-donald-tru...

>1 barney67: I'm glad you were able to chat up a couple of medicos about brain tumors and that "they have never seen a brain tumor that did not cause some kind of cognitive impairment." I work in a hospital and I have more than just a passing acquaintance with the folks dealing with brain surgery. There is the phrase "touch the brain, never the same" but the people I work with as well as a quick search on Google asking the question "does a brain tumor always cause cognitive impairment" turns up the following " a brain tumor MAY cause cognitive impairment" None of the surgeons I talked to ever used the word "always" with respect to brain tumor and cognition and none of them said every brain tumor they dealt with had caused cognitive impairment.

Your second slur with respect to McCain's service is way out of bounds. Guess what barn - any experience of ANY kind will impact the way a person views the world and reacts to it. It's a pity you didn't volunteer to do some military service (I'm assuming you were too young to be affected by the draft) - it would have done you a world of good and definitely changed your views concerning the state of things.

>37 barney67:

Didn't you suggest earlier that we were making the immature comments? What a sad little non-response in comment 37.

>43 amysisson: I glad you responded--it called my attention to your fine post, 36.

I love it when they gather with stones in their hands.

>42 alco261: YOU are the one claiming I made a slur against John McCain. What you read as an insult I read as an inquiry into the truth. I'm trying to get to the truth. You want to be a cheerleader for your side. The ONLY reason for your manufactured outrage over McCain is that the press has told you that's how you are supposed to respond because you think he was really a pro-Democrat Republican, which he was not. I voted for the guy. Did you? Of course not. When he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, I bet your weren't praising his judgment. Oh, I forgot. You love Sarah Palin and you have nothing but respect for her judgment.

I worked in health care, too, and I find it despicable that you find "cognitive impairment" to be a slur, some kind of moral or value judgment when I said nothing of the sort, and in fact quite the opposite. God help us from today's health care system, the product of years of Democratic meddling. I hope you don't rely on Google at work. There are better sources out there. The fact that I do know something about medicine means my opinions should at least not be dismissed as immature. Boy is that the pot calling the kettle black from a person who prefers to read between the lines and question people's motives. There's very little difference between suspicious reading between the lines for nefarious motives and looking beneath one's bed for monsters. Mmm-kay?

You tried to slip out of the argument by making it absolutist, by claiming that I am saying in every case in all places a brain tumor impairs judgment and therefore there should be a rule or law about voting in Congress. Actually, rules and laws have been created under much less proof and for far less reason. I think a re-vote is a good idea. If everyone voted honestly, then the vote will be the same. What? What's that? I can't here you, you're mumbling. Oh, you are afraid. Well, yes, fear is a normal part of life. But what sort of country would let fear decide its legislation? I'm sure you wouldn't want that, right?

What makes you think I never served in the military?

And to top it off, someone quotes, yes, a British newspaper. Ha!

You see, people, you have to question your assumptions. I know it's hard. You have to look in the mirror. When you point your finger at me, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself.

>46 barney67: Claiming you made a slur????? You were the one who said

"Now we have two factors affecting his judgment: Vietnam and a brain tumor. He should not have been allowed to vote on the health care bill while he had a brain tumor. "

If that isn't a moral and value judgement and a slur I guess I would like to know what you call it.

1. You and I had the discussion concerning military service some time back on another thread where you chose to call me a coward - I told you then that I am an honorably discharged vet and I asked you for your story - all I got was silence - a veteran would have responded otherwise.

2. Actually, Google, particularly Wikipedia, is, in many cases , a good place to help one identify a starting place for searching the formal scientific literature. I only referenced Google because it too has citations of peer reviewed papers that use the word "MAY" as opposed to "always" and because, unless you have open access to something like PubMed, very often you cannot read an article unless you pay for it first. My hospital grants me this privilege so I have access to far more than a typical member of society might have with respect to scientific literature. In short, I provided citations anyone could check.

3. No, I didn't particularly care for McCain and I didn't vote for him but my voting choice had to do with his viewpoint and the positions he supported - not the man himself.

4. As for all the rest - please, feel free to fulminate at will.

P.S. -I also do a lot of work with the people over in pain management - just out of curiosity - what do your medicos say about the relationship between chronic pain and cognitive impairment?

>47 alco261:

Thanks, alco261, for a dignified response.

>47 alco261: Or controlled substances and cognitive impairment?

Duncan Hunter’s Political Promise Foiled by Hard Partying

Mr. Hunter has been a regular at a number of bars near Capitol Hill, from the private Capitol Club to the congressional watering hole, Bullfeathers, just next door. There, the congressman could often be found on the patio with colleagues, drinking beer or vodka.

“He was here a lot, some days he was in here multiple times a day,” said Stephanie Connon, a manager at the bar.

>47 alco261: I reject your effort to conflate your accusation that I called you a coward with military service, yours or anyone else's. I respect everyone who served in the military. Dragging that subject into this thread or any thread is pointless. A person can have moments of bravery in the military or outside the military. A person can have moments of cowardice in the military or outside the military. It proves nothing. So it's pointless to discuss any of that and it's irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Questioning a person's judgment in the context of a medical problem is not a value or moral judgment. It's simply a medical fact that brain tumors affect a person's judgment. That is what this thread is about. For those of you want to talk about ALL THE OTHER FACTORS THAN CAN IMPAIR ONE'S JUDGMENT, then start your own damn thread because that is a tangent and there's no need to go off on a tangent when there is plenty to discuss here already.

OK. Doctors cleared him. Where they being honest? Was McCain being honest? I don't know. I'm trying to look at the possibilities. You cannot rule out poor judgment. It is simply impossible to will yourself into normality while one has a brain tumor. I haven't even discussed short term versus long term impact, and having surgery versus not having surgery. I haven't discussed the parts of the brain that can be affected by a tumor or which particular parts of McCain's brain were affected.

So those are subjects you might think about when all of you stop playing, Who is the fairest of them all and trying to out-moralize each other.

The irony is that you think I'm insulting McCain when in fact I'm giving him an excuse. I could have said he's stupid, or he's a jerk. I could have said he exercised poor judgment because he doesn't understand the subject of health care or the ramifications of the vote.

People in Congress don't have the same health care that you and I have. Without our experience, it makes little sense for them to make medical decisions for us, strangers to them, at a distance of hundreds of miles.

>51 barney67:

So there's no point in having any congress people voting on health care? They are all clueless, whether they are Democrat or Republican, whether they voted for or against that particular medical bill, whether they had brain tumours or not?

>50 barney67: It's simply a medical fact that brain tumors affect a person's judgment.

You don't care. If you did care, you'd deal with the fact that there's a lot of factors that can impair one's judgment. Instead, you're focusing on one particular factor with one particular politician with whom you have a bone to pick.

It is simply impossible to will yourself into normality while one has a brain tumor.

What the fuck is normality, and since when has it been an expectation of an elected official? Surely an elected official should be more intelligent and a better manager than the average person.

You cannot rule out poor judgment.

One cannot rule out poor judgment from any human. You haven't even started to establish that McCain, post-brain tumor, was more likely to show poor judgment than the average senator.

>51 barney67: The irony is that you think I'm insulting McCain when in fact I'm giving him an excuse.

And you think it okay to dismiss his decision by blaming it on the tumor. It is a common fallacy to interpret one's own decisions as rational and interpret other's decisions as limited by their circumstances. Maybe McCain made his decision because that's what he thought was best.

Without our experience, it makes little sense for them to make medical decisions for us, strangers to them, at a distance of hundreds of miles.

Unless you're Bill Gates, someone else is making many of your medical decisions, or at least will be if you need serious medical care. I fail to see why an insurance company is better at making medical decisions for me than the government is.

>52 John5918: Did I say that? I see many cases of ADD here. This thread is about McCain voting.

>53 prosfilaes: At last, the Democrat trump card: "I care more than you." You don't know me. You have no idea what I care about. And if you're voting for candidates based on some vague feeling you have about who cares more, you will always be on the losing side. But maybe that's what you want.

>54 barney67: Did I say that?

I think so:

>51 barney67:

People in Congress don't have the same health care that you and I have. Without our experience, it makes little sense for them to make medical decisions for us, strangers to them, at a distance of hundreds of miles.

>54 barney67: People are not presenting symptoms of ADD just because they're commenting on things that you happen to think are irrelevant to the discussion, especially when they've continually tried to explain to you why they things those things are relevant.

And again, you don't own this thread, and you can't tell other people what to discuss and not to discuss. If you don't like the direction in which the thread has gone, stop reading it.

>50 barney67: Ok, I'll make it real simple for you.

1. In your post >46 barney67: you asked "What makes you think I never served in the military?"
2. In my post >47 alco261: I said, " You and I had the discussion concerning military service some time back on another thread where you chose to call me a coward - I told you then that I am an honorably discharged vet and I asked you for your story - all I got was silence - a veteran would have responded otherwise."

The whole and entire point of that statement was the observation that, when asked for their story, a real veteran would not have responded with silence - they would have responded with specifics.

In a similar vein, a real veteran would not play hide-and-go-seek with the kind of response you offered in >46 barney67:. Therefore the point of all of this is that the written evidence you have provided indicates you are not a veteran.

>54 barney67: You have no idea what I care about.

Is it that you believe that you are a truly awful communicator, or are you trolling us?

If someone truly believes that something is a problem, then they are willing to explore the issue. If they're just using it to attack the other side, they dodge any general discussion. Are we concerned about cognitive impairment in members of Congress? Then we should worry about common problems that cause cognitive impairment like stroke or old age, not rare ones, like brain cancer. And we should avoid any implication that we're talking about any one member or one vote; if you're looking for consensus on cognitive impairment in Congress, ObamaCare is a distraction.

>58 prosfilaes: A troll? So that's the latest insult, eh? I've been on this forum for ten years. Sharing my wisdom with people who spit on me I consider a profound act of generosity and magnanimity.

If people here could only read. If you could learn to read the words without abstracting from them, digressing, branching, reading between the lines, jumping to conclusions, creating straw men, calling me names, or running to the teacher because someone hurt your feelings—if that could happen, you might learn something, and you might change your mind. If you can change your mind, you can change your life.

Alan Jacobs has a book out called How to Think. Not great, but easy to read, and it could be instructive for certain readers.

>59 barney67: Sharing my wisdom with people who spit on me I consider a profound act of generosity and magnanimity.

OK, now you've made me giggle.

Thank goodness we ignoramuses have you to guide us to wisdom! Oh, and here's a napkin to wipe off all that spit we're apparently raining down on you.

This has turned into the silliest thread. But a lot of us probably needed the laugh, so thank you.

>59 barney67: Sharing my wisdom with people who spit on me I consider a profound act of generosity and magnanimity

When you re-read that does it not sound to you just a trifle pompous, arrogant, self-centred, proud, pretentious, condescending and quite a few similar adjectives? And incidentally, I am not insulting you, simply asking a question about your understanding of your own words.

>54 barney67: You have no idea what I care about.

Which is one of the reasons I ask you questions. I would like to understand what you care about, and one way of understanding is asking questions.

Strictly Pavlovian.

Thanks to several of you for showing readers how to insult someone without violating the TOS. Only a real clever Democrat do-gooder knows how to get away with that kind of thing. The heartless lovers of humanity, life in abstract. Showing us the sharp teeth behind the mask of a lamb. Professing to want only compassion and tolerance between races while pulling the trigger.

Strictly Pavlovian. No static at all.

>63 barney67:

Well, thanks for replying, but I'm afraid your post makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

#64--Barney's been going maudlin for quite a spell here. People have been throwing stones--#46 and then spitting--#67 on him. Nobody understands his great soul.....and so he has no other choice than to become increasingly cryptic as is the case in #63. The thing is that post isn't supposed to make any sense--it's more than less a cry for sympathy. There's a hidden poet (not Nicanor Parra though) somewhere deep inside of him that no doubt he's suppressed for some time now and she's clamoring to get out. Anyway I suspect he also feels a bit boxed in as his point about McCain never got the least bit of traction with anyone.

>64 John5918: Oh, you want the annotated version.

1) Ivan Petrovich Pavlov was a Russian physiologist known primarily for his work in classical conditioning. (WP)
2) "heartless lovers of humanity" is a phrase by British historian Paul Johnson to describe certain intellectuals
3) "no static at all" is a lyric from the song "FM" by Steely Dan

>66 barney67: "no static at all" is a lyric from the song "FM" by Steely Dan

>64 John5918:
It's a 40-year-old reference to one of the advantages of frequency modulation over amplitude modulation.

("The girls don't seem to care tonight
As long as the mood is right...")

>68 LiveWell:
Your post seems a trifle stilted. Is it translated from Spamish?

LOL. Are foreign social media hackers attempting to set us against each other?

In all seriousness, LiveWell, we're not picking everything up from negative media reports. We're picking things up from Trump's recorded speeches and comments. We are interpreting them for ourselves. I wouldn't care if $10,000 rained down on every American citizen right now; no matter how "good" the economy is doing, I believe Trump is a bigoted racist who is selling out this country. Minority businesses? Please! Trump makes up his own statistics, such as when he claimed he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history, and when he claimed he won the women's vote.

>66 barney67: Oh, you want the annotated version

No, but thanks for the lessons in literature, music and science - the latter was unnecessary, as I suspect you realised.

No, I was trying to understand what you actually meant in your post >63 barney67:. That post still makes absolutely no sense to me in the context of this thread on John McCain's tumour, even when you cite the sources of your references. What is its relevance to this thread? What are you trying to communicate to us using other people's words?

You're playing the part of innocent lamb again. You asked for clarity and I gave it, but you said it was unnecessary. Now you repeat that you still don't understand. So which part don't you understand?

>72 barney67:

I'm asking you to explain in plain language, not veiled references, what you were trying to communicate to us in >63 barney67:.

Haven't you said elsewhere recently that we should not try to read between the lines but rather read the actual words? So please use plain words and not language which is meaningless unless one tries to read between the lines. Why are you so reluctant to actually tell me what you mean by your words?

>59 barney67: You said that I have no idea what you care about. People not being willfully deceptive in their communication don't usually have the problem that other people don't what they care about. As far as I can tell you're communicating what you care about fairly well.

calling me names, running to the teacher because someone hurt your feelings

So you're upset when people call you names, and upset when people get annoyed about you calling them names. How do you propose that a group of people on a forum enforce a set of rules?

if that could happen, you might learn something, and you might change your mind.

People have replied directly to the idea of making laws against people with brain cancer. You haven't replied. This is a discussion group, and you don't seem to actually want to discuss; you want other people to change their minds. That's hard, and shouldn't usually be expected.

There are days when I read this forum and I ask, Are these dumbest people in the world?

>75 barney67:

Or are they simply people who disagree with Barney for reasons he seems incapable of understanding and unwilling to engage with?

>75 barney67: There are days when I read this forum and I ask, Are these dumbest people in the world?

It's OK. Even if we are, in a profound act of generosity and magnanimity, you can share your wisdom with us, and we will be uplifted to a higher plane of intelligence.

Although I do wonder at the fact that not a one here seems to agree with you....

>77 amysisson: You are engaging in extremely childish tactics. I've tried to share my wisdom. You won't listen. Not everyone who has ears can use them correctly. Not everyone can read correctly. Even those with pretensions to write. Maybe if I couched the explanations as Star Trek episodes...

>76 John5918: You fall back on that a lot, John. I'm guessing it's about then tenth time you've tried that tactic. It's just as weak as "no one agrees with you", though not as childish. I know that Democrats draw a certain kind of oppositional personality that is almost impossible to persuade. Fortunately, the views of this forum are not even remotely representative of the views of most Americans.

I know that when so many people try to change the subject, I must be on the right track.

>78 barney67:

I literally laughed out loud this time. You call me childish, then look at my profile to find out something about me to mock. I don't have pretensions, sweetie pie; I'm a paid professional fiction writer. Which is wholly irrelevant to this debate, so there was no need for you to bring it up.

We weren't calling you out for "sharing your wisdom" per se. We were pointing out that you called yourself profoundly generous and magnanimous for (thinking you were) doing so.

None of us were trying to change the subject. We were trying to discuss it and explain why we didn't think you were right. But if it makes you feel better to think you're now vindicated and clearly on the right track, by all means, go right ahead and feel that way.

>78 barney67: Fortunately, the views of this forum are not even remotely representative of the views of most Americans

Difficult to prove either way, of course. The majority of US voters voted against Trump, and since you have recently challenged people who use the word "most", that's a careless slip on your part. I can say with some degree of certainty that most of the US citizens whom I know personally have views more in line with this forum than with you.

Democrats draw a certain kind of oppositional personality that is almost impossible to persuade

Did you not mistakenly use the wrong label as the first word in this sentence? Surely you mean "Trump's base"?

Barney knows the way to Crazytown.

I'm with Barnery here. When everyone agrees with you...RUN!!!!!!!!!

On the other hand, the agreement here is most cohesive in the 'Please just think this through, Barn' stage, which is far from an indication of extra-terrestrial mind control victimization/Night of the Living Dead 2: Get Barney, Demon Demos...

(Free idea for Amy, whose profile I now want to read--thanks agin, Barno)

ETA: Okay, Barney, I've been to the mountain top and I see the problem: Amy's just a little girl. Look at the photo.

>82 RickHarsch:

:-)

It explains a lot: existing in a world of make believe, outer space, imaginary worlds with imaginary people with imaginary thoughts and feelings. And a belief that these are not merely important but Important, and that those who disagree are morally inferior and "just don't get it."

I find that these usually unexamined assumptions are of a piece with what I have called the tendency for certain people to be abstracted from reality, to think that abstractions and words are more important, more real, than reality, i.e. the reality that normal, psychologically sound people experience with their five senses. What does it mean to take leave of one's senses? It means to fail to use them, to use them incorrectly, to see what isn't there, to hear something other than what's been said, to read between the lines. Such people change the subject or behave emotionally when they feel threatened. That accounts for the hyperbole, melodrama, and insults.

I have little faith in my ability to persuade such people, because what they really need is a doctor to bring them somehow back to planet Earth.

There are people who assume that knowledge is power and who go through life as though it were a poker game, concealing their knowledge and information the way they keep their cards close to their chest. The opposite approach I call generosity. But I also distinguish between belief and opinion on one hand and on the other, knowledge and information. I have no illusions about the tergiversations the human mind is capable of when the ego feels threatened and the reptile brain is locked down in combat and defense mode. Here, too, the hope for persuasion is minuscule.

As for this thread, the burden of proof lies on those who believe it's wrong to forbid people with brain tumors to vote on Congressional bills. They must make the case that brain tumors are insufficiently damaging to the brain to impair one's judgment.

>80 John5918: As I said before, John, you need to find new friends, because they don't have a clue what goes on in America. There's an optimism and cheerfulness in America that I haven't seen in a long time. Economies thrive as much on confidence as they do on efficiency. Happy people are productive people.

If you are one of those "glass is half empty" people, then what I say won't matter because you will always find the cloud behind the silver lining.

If you want to play the numbers game, to determine who is the fairest of them all, wait until November. If there is a massive movement against Trump, it will be reflected in the election. Today, judging by imperfect polls, I see no evidence of that. So when I say that most people back Trump, yes, I believe they do. If it seems to you that they don't, you ought to question where you get your information. Then you have to ask, are the people who provide you with information representative? Are they in the majority mainstream? Or are they backwatered outsiders?

If you are looking for a camp counselor rather than a president, you will dislike Trump. If you are looking for a dainty person who sticks his pinky out while drinking tea, you will dislike Trump.

>81 lriley: I take that as a insult from a guy who loves pointing the finger at others, only to have four fingers pointing back at himself. It's a clever way to violate the TOS while maintaining that you didn't. A way to be a jerk while maintaining that you are tolerant and compassionate and on the side of the little guy. And yet your post goes unflagged. What a surprise.

A real writer knows how to use words carefully and precisely. That makes the subject absolutely relevant to this forum, this thread, especially when people with pretensions to write do such a poor job articulating their positions, when they abuse the language by using it so badly.

>84 barney67: those who disagree are morally inferior and "just don't get it."

Seems to me that describes your own attitude to those with whom you disagree.

>85 barney67: you ought to question where you get your information

Er, from the published results of the last presidential election in the USA.

you need to find new friends, because they don't have a clue what goes on in America.

Well, most of them are US citizens who live in the USA. Does the fact that they disagree with you mean they don't have a clue, and that they are "backwatered outsiders"? Along with all the US citizens who post on this forum? And the majority who voted against Trump in the presidential election?

Incidentally I spent time in NY, DC, Ohio and Connecticut myself just a couple of months ago. All "backwatered" states? I have to admit I did meet one or two Trump supporters, but most of the people I met were embarrassed and appalled by the man.

>84 barney67:

It explains a lot: existing in a world of make believe, outer space, imaginary worlds with imaginary people with imaginary thoughts and feelings. And a belief that these are not merely important but Important, and that those who disagree are morally inferior and "just don't get it."

Nope. Just because I wrote a couple of Star Trek stories years ago does not mean I "exist in a world of make believe." If I did, I wouldn't keep paying the mortgage and my property taxes. Pretty sure those are only in the real world. (And by the way, if we're going to discuss my life outside LibraryThing, I note that my Master's in Aerospace Studies would suggest I also know a little about actual outer space, not just fictional outer space.)



There are people who assume that knowledge is power and who go through life as though it were a poker game, concealing their knowledge and information the way they keep their cards close to their chest.

Nope. My main profession is being a librarian, a profession that pretty much exists to share and disseminate knowledge and information.

Plus we have been stating our reasons for disagreeing with you, therefore sharing our knowledge and information just as you say you're sharing yours. For instance, I and others have shared with you the fact that we once had a President who had Alzheimer's for a significant portion of his term. We shared that fact because it has bearing on our reasoning.



As for this thread, the burden of proof lies on those who believe it's wrong to forbid people with brain tumors to vote on Congressional bills. They must make the case that brain tumors are insufficiently damaging to the brain to impair one's judgment.

Nope. You stated your belief, many of us disagreed, and we said why. There's no burden of proof upon us.

#86--you can take it however you like Barnard---that's completely up to you. Some people aren't so overly sensitive though and would just slough that off. I think most would anyway. As for violating the TOS and maintaining I didn't--that's just a ridiculous statement. I haven't maintained any such thing at all and whether I've violated something or other in this TOS I've never read--I can't say but I suspect I haven't. It's small potatoes to a lot of other shit I've read on here. And as for flags--it kind of makes me think of that line from The treasure of the Sierra Madre---just substitute the word flag for badges---'Flags? Flags? We don't need no stinking flags'---and personally I'm kind of anti-flag not only as far as not ever having flagged anyone here but not even giving a crap about flags of any kind.

....but in any case you're the one who asserted that John McCain shouldn't have been allowed to vote on repealing Obamacare--the burden of proof is really on you to prove your point--that somehow McCain was mentally incapacitated--to the rest of us---something you've not been able to do and primarily because this assertion of yours is ridiculous as to all appearances McCain pretty much seemed his usual normal irascible and clear minded self at that time and in fact right up until the day he died.....and it's not just that you haven't got a single person in the thread to agree with you at all but even those more conservative that often share their points of view in this group have stayed well away from it. Why is that? Well for one thing they probably don't want to get themselves into a debate over how exactly senile Ronald Reagan was? As far as I'm concerned since September 8th when you opened this thread you've been spitting into the wind and all covered in saliva now. My advice to you is to stop spitting.

>86 barney67: Barney, it is definitely an insult, but it is meant to be open to interpretation in that it suggests as your posts often do, that you are very much like Trump in the way your posts suggest a strange, leaping mind oblivious of the resonances of its encounters with other minds and that you, like Trump, are prone to extraordinarily silly insults ('fat marge', all this Amy Sisson psychotromping...).

Furthermore, I know lriley and have seen him point, and the thing is that when his index finger is pointing at you, so is his thumb, as it rests on his curled middle finger, which like the other two far flung ones, are pointing into his hand, about 90 degrees off course from the index. He gets away without ANY fingers pointing at him.

>84 barney67: the burden of proof lies on those who believe it's wrong to forbid people with brain tumors to vote on Congressional bills.

Stare decisis. I'd call it a conservative principle that we should not rush to change things.

They must make the case that brain tumors are insufficiently damaging to the brain to impair one's judgment.

No, actually. I'm willing to concede that brain tumors usually have effects on one's judgment. But there's many counter-arguments, that mainly fall in two groups.

First, is this type of judgment really the most important thing in a elected official? (Eg. >15 lriley:) I'm sure I could round a group of 535 professors who could test out on IQ tests way above any current member of Congress. You're talking about overriding the preferences of the electorate; that's quite a serious action, and needs a serious case made, not just some impairment.

Secondly, this is one of a large set of cognitive impairments, a fact you've continually ignored. McCain was in his 80s; he wasn't at the sharpest he was in his life. Strokes and cases of Alzheimer's are more common than brain cancer, and the most flagrant case of a cognitively impaired politician was Woodrow Wilson, where a stroke nearly completely incapacitated him while he was president. If we're worried about cognitive impairment, we shouldn't focus on the rare case and ignore the common cases.

Lastly, there's important questions about how cognitive impairment should be measured and how much should be disqualifying. It seems quite possible that McCain could have held his seat under any reasonable standard. How do we measure it without it be politicized and it being perceived as being politicized?

>85 barney67: Today, judging by imperfect polls, I see no evidence of that. So when I say that most people back Trump, yes, I believe they do.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ Polls consistently show that more than half the population disapproves of Trump, with the exception of a few YouGov surveys, the best (for Trump) of which show him with a 46% disapproval, 42% approval rating.

If it seems to you that they don't, you ought to question where you get your information.

If I disagree with you, I should question myself? How about some evidence that might disagree with mine?

>94 prosfilaes: If I disagree with you, I should question myself?

If I disagree with someone, not only Barney, I always question myself, checking to see whether that person has found a genuine weakness in my argument, or at least trying to understand why that person is disagreeing with me. I However I'm still looking for any indication that Barney ever questions himself in the face of widespread disagreement with his position, and he seems reluctant to help me understand why he is disagreeing.

Not even reading most of what's above...

>35 barney67:

"Most" is a tricky word. It sometimes means a majority, but tends to mean more than that. In any case, would you agree that most Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, most Americans think Donald Trump is a liar, most Americans disapprove of him most have disapproved of him continuously since his second month?