ParanoiA

Not sure if this is the right place for this thread or not, so feel free to move it if I've posted in the wrong place. I was reading something a few months ago, can't remember what it was, but it was fiction, I remember that. A character was fatally wounded, a gunshot or something, in some cold climate. The character supposedly dies, but the freezing temperature preserves him enough that once he's found he's actually resuscitated momentarily and then dies for good. So, I was wondering if that sort of thing is remotely possible. Is there a "perfect wound" of sorts that would allow this scenario? In my mind, it seemed no different than a patient flat lining and then "coming back" a few minutes later - only in this case, the minutes were separated by hours, made possible by the freezing cold.

I don't believe "hey, he's different" had squat to do with Jeremiah Wright, that's quite a stretch. It was clear it wasn't about "different" - that's a positive since everyone was wooed by "change", as if we don't hear that every election. It was about not trusting his stated intentions, making believe he had anti-american intentions - this "america sucks" movement, if you will. His comments about his funny name were certainly a rebuttal and without any racial overtone, in my opinion. But he used that as a segway, to pretend as if the republican opposition was pandering to covertly prejudice americans. That's why he went right into this business about "he doesn't look like those other presidents on the dollar bills", "and did you notice he's black", following his reply to the silliness about his middle name. That is disingenuous. Although I believe the republicans asked for it by using his name as an issue - like children on the playground. They invited this to happen, and Obama walked right in and stole their thunder. To be clear, I'm referring to his speech on July 21. I can't seem to find the video now, but I'm sure it's out there. I'm at work and can't view anything, but I believe it was captured by CNN. When I get home I'll try to find the link I ran into last night - it's a popular speech though, which puts these comments in context and explains my use of "prescient" statements of republican party intents.

Unless his prescient statements on republican strategy to point out that he doesn't look like those other presidents and "did you notice he's black" were a reply, then his camp contributes to the footing, considerably. As the face of the party that lends more weight, and I did note that he handled it somewhat tastefully, without wearing out his welcome.

He made race an issue once he made race an issue. Pointing out that he looks funny or whatever and that "some will say" this and that is making it an issue. It doesn't matter if it was pretentious nobility or desparate race-baiting, he made his race an issue. If he wanted to be judged by his merits only, then he would only speak of his race when asked - otherwise, if one is truly color blind, then why would one notice color? That's not to say he didn't do it with class, and much restraint. And he had to. Any moron would have known better than to use the race card since everyone was expecting it. And he probably had to address the elephant in the room, again, somewhat tastefully. But I'm distrustful of politicians, for good reason, and he's a smart one. He was doomed to make it an issue by making it an issue about not making it an issue. It's the ole underdog, outsider fighting the establishment nuance. And it works perfectly with "change".

I guess you don't have any self esteem issues...

Great stuff. Thanks guys. It gave me an idea too. I was working on this tune that has a "live" feel, so I added some crowd noise and stuff to make it sound like a live performance. I think I'm going to call it Live at the Thalamus, since it's not really live but rather all in my head. So, double thanks.

Cool. Alright, well let me elaborate then. The subject of my imagination, in this context, is music. The different areas that contribute are interesting, but is there one that stands out, or contributes the most perhaps?

Not sure how to ask this question...is there a particular area or section of the brain responsible for imagination? Daydreaming? Story-telling? I was hoping this was restricted to one particular area, one label, but I have a feeling it draws on multiple areas.

I tried to find some other source for this story since I know how some here are biased to Fox, but it really doesn't matter, Louie is speaking for himself. (Further, I hope this link works...) http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21533709/read_my_lips.htm?pageid=23043 Texas congressman Louie Gohmert proposes we ditch 2008 federal income tax collection. Interesting. I like the statement of faith in the people to have their money back. Gee, how nice we be trusted with our own money. Of course, I hear the cries now from those who believe in maximizing revenue for the government. Although it doesn't entirely fall on deaf ears, as this time I'm even wondering how we're going to pay the national debt if we did this. I agree with Gohmert's premise to stimulate the economy by maximizing the money we keep. I just think that should be the premise all the time, except, of course, when we're in so much debt. What do you all think?

It gets worse... Wow. That's my countrymen right there. Gee, how selfish can a person be? I'm afriad of the answer to that question. They're reviewing tape to ID those responsible - I can't wait to see them change their tune and start crying for sympathy.

Good point. Good thing I've got college football to enjoy today or else I might just go back to bed...

No one said they couldn't afford it. We just thought there was an extra dash of insult considering the nature of Wal-mart customers. Sorry if that's offensive, but I lived it and I see them in every Wal-mart store no matter what state I'm living in. The attitude and behavior of welfare junkies is generally appauling and is notably different than those who successfully thrive in this country. They are generally more selfish and irreverant, in my experience anyway. And I'm holding back here... More importantly though, it's sad that our consumerism should be so idiotic and devoid of common consideration and just simple manners. Adults can't even control themselves enough to walk into a store without trampling someone? Really? In modern civilized society?

And that's precisely why I stand against disproportionate tax leverage. Of course they're thinking of themselves over the good of us all, it's actually quite natural and predictable.

Unless you're receiving food stamps or WIC I'm not thinking you're just as bad at all. Nothing wrong with enjoying consumption when you're responsible enough to afford it. I'm having a hard time processing the idea of rushing through the doors in the first place. Even if I was all excited about shopping, I still can't fathom that behavior. They unlock the doors, and I calmy walk inside. What's with the stampede? I just don't get it. But yeah, you're right, that's pretty sickening when you consider the percentage of those people receiving government aid, releiving the pressure on their wallets to afford amenities - and this poor guy, working - gets the shit end of the stick.

Yeah I read that earlier and just couldn't believe it. How absolutely shameful. I don't know why, but I always wonder how families deal with tragedies that occur on holidays, or notable times of celebration, like birthdays and so forth. This poor young man's family has to deal with this every thanksgiving, indefinitely. Black Friday is an appropriate term, I think.

Agentchange, keep calling it how you see it. I practice tolerance, and that includes tolerating the intolerant. What you're arguing is pro-democracy. You're basically saying that because the majority doesn't agree with the morality code of homosexuals that they should not have to tolerate their morality code - or at least, that the majority's opinion should matter enough to trump any law to their contrary. One dynamic that iNow is arguing is that you're ignoring that we're essentially a democracy with limits. It doesn't matter that most of you, even if 99.9% of you, are against the morality code of homosexuals and therefore reject their right to adopt children and etc. Because there is a limit to the power of your democracy, you really can't use that as a good argument - valid sure, but not even close to sound reasoning. What if the child is gay? How fair is it to force the child to endure heterosexual behavior and morals that directly contradicts his/her sexual orientation? Can a heterosexual couple deal with that child and help with his/her issues better, or even equal to, a homosexual couple? (Personally, I think it's fine but then I've never been one for raising children in "perfect" environments - I believe it's good to have issues, struggles and etc.) I think the heart of your issue is homosexuality being tolerated as perfectly normal - equal to heterosexuality. If I'm reading you correctly, I suspect you resent the notion that there's nothing abnormal about it in the least and your frustration comes from that sentiment proliferating generation after generation. You have to wonder though, if it were really so abnormal, then why hasn't it been "selected" into extinction? How do you know this isn't the evolutionary beginning of something extraordinary? We, as in humans, are pretty far out in comparison to the rest of the creatures on this earth - how can we be sure we're not the next evolutionary leap into a new age of procreation that is unimaginable now, but leads to sexual irrelevance? It just seems you have a bit of that conservative "this is nonsense gone too far" attitude going on here, which I can understand, but if you're going to make that case then you'd better make strong argument to support it. Personal preference isn't an argument for the rest of us. It isn't an argument to trump the constitution and equal rights.

10 - present = musician. I had a notebook of songs that I wrote up til age 12 or so, then I lost it. I couldn't play any instruments so I made up the music in my head and memorized it, then I would go through my notebook of lyrics and sing them. Weird, I've never wanted to be anything else my entire life, and still don't.

You mean it's the only thing that is logical to the human mind. How logical do you think space is to a dog? A rooster? If you make a table, does it think? We are a resultant of the physical world - there's no reason to think we possess the physiology to understand it. Logic is relative to the being. I have no reason to think that humans have been blessed with the brain to truly understand the universe. Further, I have no reason to think that humans ask or inquire anything relevant. It's just important, to us. To us tool makers, it stands to reason we would ask questions about how stuff works. Our particular capacity for logic and reason seems arbitrary in the big picture - a stopping point. If humans didn't exist, then does that mean that Apes are equipped with the logic to contemplate the ultimate knowledge of everything? Of course not. So what makes us think that WE are equipped for such notions? In other words, what makes you think your idea of "logic" or "reason" is relevant to the universe? There's no reason to believe that the laws of physics must be comprehensible to the little humans on earth. So to say it all must be finite because that's only "logical" is more than comical.

Science isn't denying its own existence, it's denying the knowledge of how this existence is achieved. The study simply doesn't know. Not sure why you're having such a hard time with that. Also, note the difference between science and scientists. Scientists are individuals with their own belief systems that participate in the study of science. Science is the institution, the study itself. Most of the time they are treated synonymously by the media and its participants. If a scientist claims "X", then the media reports that science claims "X". That's false. That particular scenario is exploited extensively by the Rush Limbaugh's by the way. And that's my fault. Sorry...

Agreed. Fascinating perspective, but only if it checks out. I'm not seeing where 4.6 trillion comes from.

Yeah, but that part where they take someone's face and then do their "super duper search" where it finds the name, address, fresh picture, police record, employment record, blood type, family members, cell mates, all within fractions of a second in nicely presented frames is totally real...

Ok, fair enough. Let me rephrase: Every person I've EVER run into in my entire life that challenged science based on "science can't tell you this, or can't explain that" has been a creationist/IDer. Both in electronic forums and physical presence. I've never met an atheist or any other non-religio that made such an assumption. And I believe that is because the apparent method of the brand of creationism that is getting media attention and focus from the public, is to start from that premise: Science can't tell you "X", so they're obviously inferior to our answer to everything "god did it". Or to that effect. The OP sounds straight out of the standard regurgitation. I did take a leap there, so I'll take my licks for it. Also, consider that your brand of creationism is either in the minority or else you're silent. Or hell, maybe it just doesn't come up enough to garner response. But your kind seem to be almost non-existent - until we offend you by lumping you with the rest. I apologize. Also, I did get emotive in that post. It bugs me to no end to hear that same old stupid presumption that science can't tell you everything. And then it bugs me even more when no one challenges that very presumption and instead validates it by responding with a defense of how we're trying to do just that.

Ok, maybe I dreamed it. Wouldn't be the first time...

I love these "science can't explain this and that" strawmen positions that creationists use to make themselves feel better about the void in their faith (sorry, but I smell the stench of Kansas dogma in that OP). That's the problem right out the gate. It presupposes that science claims such things or that science should claim such things - instead of realizing that's the distinguishable difference between science and faith based belief systems. Science is absolutely cool with saying "we don't know". It's that simple, Dennisg. Yes, science can't tell you where the universe came from, and don't even claim to. Some folks are working on it, as any responsible life form would ponder and inquire about it's existence, but it's not worth making shit up like we get from "we have all the answers" faith based nonsense. It's the "we have all the answers" faith based agenda that creates the notion that science or any other study of our universe should have "all the answers". Any study that claims such silliness is relegated to the fiction section of the book store. All of the answers is overrated too. What fun would life be if you knew everything?

Isn't there a reason why Pelosi can't serve as president? I remember something disqualifies her, but I can't remember the details.