This looks like typical vasovagal syncope. By far more common in young women than strokes, TIAs.
People who are prone to them tend to get repeated events with triggers such as prolonged standing and stress.
It is often heralded by compensatory palpitations - as a response to a sudden drop in blood pressure which is perhaps what she was pointing to.
Cardiac causes of faint are usually very sudden with no prodrome.

The kitty apocalypse has began. His death will herald in the new world order. I have stockpiled Catnip in the hope I will be spared.

Yeah, should be in the downunder channel, what with the gum trees and Herald Sun logo

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I take your point. maybe it should have been a broader question about family values and hypocrisy. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dag:
I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.


Right, the subject of conversation, yes. But what is the point in a debate? A debate is about debating positions on issues; that isn't an issue someone could debate him on. Could unless we are going to have the other candidates pipe in on his failed marriages (failed in a most disgusting fashion). IMO, that is what the 24 hour news circuits are for, the debates are those few heralding places we get to try to see what their views are on issues (though this is mostly a farce too). Be that as it may, I like to compartmentalize my farces!

>> ^dag:

I think it's both cool and important. Speaks to character. I like to think I would feel the same way if it was a Dem. I hope so.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Still don't think it is cool to bring up in a debate (as it isn't debatable among all the candidates), but I'm upvoting because hes swine.



Right, the subject of conversation, yes. But what is the point in a debate? A debate is about debating positions on issues; that isn't an issue someone could debate him on. Could unless we are going to have the other candidates pipe in on his failed marriages (failed in a most disgusting fashion). IMO, that is what the 24 hour news circuits are for, the debates are those few heralding places we get to try to see what their views are on issues (though this is mostly a farce too). Be that as it may, I like to compartmentalize my farces!

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

From the Miami Herald

López could not be reached for comment. As of Saturday, he was still assigned to regular duty at the Miami Police Department, said Cmdr. Delrish Moss, “because at this point it’s a traffic offense.”

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah, I have to ask what is so shocking. When the cop in NYC maced the girl who was already behind the police net and offering no resistance, I would call that shocking. Based on this edited video these police officers LOOK TO BE dispersing people who refused to disperse after being ordered to.
Of course you have to yank or drag someone who goes limp or links arms and refuses to cooperate. How else do you move someone like that from point A to point B? And the woman screaming at :08 comes across more like someone freaking out and resisting rather than someone actually being hurt by the police.
We all should know by now the magic of video editing can leave out all context, reality TV is based on it. This comes across more like a viral ad for The Herald Sun than some shocking footage of police overreaction.


As far as Australian law goes (pretty sure the US is similar), the cops are allowed to use equal and proportionate force to complete their duties. I don't see truncheons, I don't see pepper spray, I don't see stun guns/tasers, people being slammed face first in to the ground etc.

Yes, people have a right to protest, but with rights come responsibilities. As far as public opinion goes, these guys might have garnered more sympathy if our banking sector had emulated Wall St's screw ups. How unfortunate for them that Australia didn't trigger the GFC or even suffer that badly because of it... \8 |

Yeah, I have to ask what is so shocking. When the cop in NYC maced the girl who was already behind the police net and offering no resistance, I would call that shocking. Based on this edited video these police officers LOOK TO BE dispersing people who refused to disperse after being ordered to.

Of course you have to yank or drag someone who goes limp or links arms and refuses to cooperate. How else do you move someone like that from point A to point B? And the woman screaming at :08 comes across more like someone freaking out and resisting rather than someone actually being hurt by the police.

We all should know by now the magic of video editing can leave out all context, reality TV is based on it. This comes across more like a viral ad for The Herald Sun than some shocking footage of police overreaction.

zerohedge.com:
Yesterday Zero Hedge contributor Bruce Krasting had some very insightful and very prophetic words when he asked rhetorically if a "Government investment disaster in the works??" The company in question is (now former) massively subsidized solar energy company Solyndra. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy less than 24 hours after Bruce proposed that the company is nothing but a stimulus black hole. We congratulate him on his investigative efforts. Alas, being private, there was no way to short it and capitalize on this investigative coup de grace. And while there are no winners, there are plenty of losers? Who - why US taxpayers of course. Why? Because as some may recall, Solyndra is one of the "shining examples" of Obama's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. After all none other than president Obama said that Solyndra is "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package." Alas Solyndra has now become a less than shining example of the complete catastrophe this latest exercise in pointless Keynesianism has been, all on the backs of US taxpayers. But don't worry, Obama is about to bring us a fresh new such fiscal stimulus catastrohpe any minute. This time it will be different.

From ABC:

President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package.

“Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations,” Obama said at the time. “This new factory is the result of those loans.”

In 2009, the Obama administration fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, later awarding it $535 million in guarantees from the stimulus funds.

The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds — claims the administration has denied.
All this delightful irony on tape:

Honestly, you gotta have the mentality of a 14 year old to find these productions awesome.
And that argument... it would be like trying to herald Jersey Shore as the crowning achievement of modern television.
You enjoy trash? Fine, nothing wrong with that, just admit that it's trash, shiny fiery exploding trash.

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Add all "I for one" comments to the "Cliche's that piss off Jiggajonson" list.


In soviet russia, you piss off cliche comment!