DigitalShadow

When people lose consciousness (usually by going to sleep at night), they have a wide range of experiences that can feel quite real (usually referred to as dreams). It seems pretty obvious to me that people who lose consciousness and are near death could also have dream like experiences. It is also no surprise to me that people usually happen to see the edge of whatever afterlife they happen to believe in and give special meaning to the experience since almost dying tends to make people stop and think.

What was the balloon boy scare?

I've heard this claim about volcanoes from you a few times and have been rather skeptical of it but too lazy to look it up myself. Do you have any sources for that claim that it released more CO2 than was released by mankind over the last 25 years? I did a little searching and can't seem to find any science to back up your claims. I did find this though: Climate 411 » Do Volcanoes Cause Global Warming? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund Care to refute it or post a source for your claim?

Actually I think it's the other way around. George W. Bush is the fault of anti-intellectualism :)

I think we're in agreement on this then.

I'm amazed the world survived the Cold War. The more that is leaked and becomes declassified, the more it seems we narrowly avoided armageddon.

I have not looked in to the Kyoto treaty in depth, but from what you posted it sounds like another worthless political move. I disagree with your presumed stance against even the concept of such a treaty though. As technology increases, the actions of a society are having more and more of an impact on the world, not just the particular piece of land claimed by a country.

Climate change has happened over many times in the course of Earth's history, but that does not mean it is impossible for the current changes to be influenced by man. I'm certainly not saying it is proved or even likely that we are heavily influencing the climate change, but I do think your logic is flawed. While it's true nature produces much more carbon waste than we do, is it not possible that the combined natural carbon waste, plus our "artificial" carbon waste is accelerating the normal process of climate change? I'd also like to point out that while climate change is a "natural" part of the earth, so are the mass extinctions that go along with it. While human technology has come a long way, we are still very much reliant on the environment remaining relatively constant and while massive climate change would probably not wipe us out all together, it is certainly not something we would want to hasten if possible and I think it is definitely worth looking in to.

I would agree that it's rather odd and probably a bad move. Aside from that, I think some people are reading too much into it (as they do with just about everything Obama related).

I don't think religion is a force for anything except getting people to conform to a particular viewpoint.

After skimming the Wikipedia page on consumption tax, a few things stand out. It sounds like it is inherently a regressive tax (opposite of progressive tax) since poorer people pay spend proportionally more on their income on consumables. Also, I'm not clear on whether paying employees would be taxed. If that is the case, you still wouldn't take home $75k since your employer would take his impending taxes into account and pay you much less. I agree that the current tax system is ridiculously complex and broken and should be completely reformed, but I'm not sure to what.

I would prefer that as well, but unfortunately that politician would always lose to the one who spins their plan as nothing but positive, because people don't really want to hear an honest discussion weighing the good and bad parts (yes, every plan has both good and bad), people just want a "solution." Deal. I'll agree to disagree as well. At least we can agree on some parts :)

Good point! I guess it could be claimed that the children are a results of the preexisting condition of "life", but it's not quite as clear cut. Just to be safe, I'll add a clause that says "By signing, you acknowledge that the aforementioned 'insurance plan' offers no actual coverage to either you or your children and the only service provided is 'peace of mind'"

No, you are not the only one. Since your post is almost verbatim the chatter I hear around the office from those who drink the conservative kool-aid (to use your term), I can assure you that you are not the only one who has "noticed" :) (In case it wasn't clear, I'm just giving you a hard time. Frankly I'm so tired about hearing about health care reform and Obama, I really don't care one way or the other right now as long as people stop arguing)

The plan itself explicitly states that it will not insure illegal immigrants, but obviously some illegal immigrants will abuse the plan to obtain insurance illegally. With all due respect, JAG, no matter what plan or law is made, there will always be people who break or abuse it, are you proposing that politicians should never make the claim that a plan or law would do anything since it is ineffective against those who willingly go against it? I believe that Obama most likely was only trying to state that the plan says it will not insure illegal immigrants (possibly worded to imply more effectiveness than was due). I also believe that the man who made the outburst misunderstood what Obama meant (possibly colored by an obvious intense dislike for Obama). In any case, the outburst was inappropriate and he was right to apologize and Obama was right to take the apology. I do think this incident is getting more press coverage than it deserves though.

I'll just bury it in the fine print of the 40 pages of agreements that you have to sign before getting the "coverage".

So in the case of a zombie uprising we would go bankrupt, otherwise we would become very rich. I'll take those odds any day :)

But Obama is not trying to convince the audience that absolutely no illegal immigrants will be insured by mistake, he is saying that the plan "does not apply" to illegal immigrants which is a true statement. I think he was simply trying to convey that the plan is not designed insure illegal immigrants as well, which I've heard some people claim.

I want to make an insurance company. Since life is a "preexisting condition" I will therefore not pay for any complications resulting from it. Anyone want to invest?

The statement Obama made was factual. Is it a "lie" to say "People are not allowed to download music that they do not have the rights to"? While it's true that people do it anyway and it is very hard to stop, that does not mean the are "allowed" to do so. A more accurate (but still inappropriate) outburst would have been something like "How are you going to enforce that!" but that is not what was said. What was said was the result of a visceral reaction that has become the standard in political disagreements these days, it was not a well thought out retort designed to give deeper insight into the matter. The outburst was inappropriate and counterproductive to both sides. He was right to apologize and Obama was right to accept the apology.

Being non-religious and living in Utah, I know what you mean. I knew Australia was pretty secular, but I had no idea about Washington. Sounds like a nice place :)

What I don't get is how political disagreements these days have degenerated into little more than name calling.

Here's some better advice: get a digital camera. They do that for you

I would have NEVER pulled a stunt like that either and my parents never beat me with a belt or anything else for that matter.

And when the the department of homeland security detains you for an indefinite amount of time accusing you of formulating a terrorist plot when you were only trying to warn them, I hope you are still just as pleased with all the power they have been given in the name of safety :)