iNow

To the thread title, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich makes some interesting points here: http://robertreich.org/post/139385548525

Not just Trump. Per last nights GOP debate, Cruz, Christie, Bush, and others all said that they'd support continued use of water boarding if they became president and that it could help save lives and by definition isn't torture / is just "enhanced interrogation." One thing you might realize is that effectiveness and empirical support of a proposal is not a high priority for republican ideas or voters who have done amazing things with social media reinforcing the alternate reality bubble.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/22-medical-science/ http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/36-other-sciences/

To the thread title: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/12/teflon-trump

You can just post it somewhere else. No need to be abrasive. There's nothing stopping you from starting a thread in one of the existing topic buckets. Now that you mention it, though... Might be better to discuss adding a geology or dendrology forum, as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder that needs extraction.

Disturbed Man Tries to Get Into White House Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/disturbed-man-tries-to-get-into-white-house

I danced like no one was watching, but someone was watching, thought I was having a seizure, and called an ambulance.

Long time climate change denier and foe of NASA and science, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was just named as chair of the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, where he will oversee NASA and science programs. Fellow climate change denier Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will also chair the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. Oh wait, that's not a joke. This really just happened. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/ted-cruz-nasa_n_6456270.html Wtf. Seriously, America?

Tone, intonation, and visual cues don't translate well through text, especially on a site like this where membership tends to be skewed toward precision and pedantry (myself included). That said, a sense of humor is mostly for ourselves anyway. If others happen to share it with us and have a quick chuckle, then good for them... happy I could help! If not though, no worries. Their loss.

How about an entire forum where you can create all of the threads on the topic that your little heart desires? >> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/28-suggestions-comments-and-support/

That's what she said.

You don't think there's a degree of politics involved in every sexual encounter? . EDIT: Sorry for the off-topic jaunt, Acme. We can request the mods split this off if the tangent continues.

CORRECTION: Politics is what happens any time more than one single human being is involved in any interaction.

I'm can't decide whether to be pleased or pissed about the fact that Cheese Nips contain real cheese, but not real nipples.

Having too much time on ones hands to just piss away.

Not really, no.

The problem is that a household budget is not an accurate analogy or model when dealing with the US economy (nor how it interacts with the global economy as a whole), and the treatment of both must differ for some very core reasons. It might make for some quickly accessible bumper-sticker wisdom for the under-informed among us, but it's based on a deeply flawed understanding of the system and should be discarded from use. http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/running-government-like-a-business-or-family/ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-government-family-budgets-arent-th tldr? Here's the same rebuttal through easily accessible analogy (since analogies are what brought this up): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/what-if-a-typical-family-spent-like-the-federal-government-itd-be-a-very-weird-family/

Knowing Moontanman as long as I have, reevaluation of this conclusion would serve you well, IMO. It seems clear to me that MTM is making a broader point suggesting that he is a complex being with diverse thoughts and views which themselves vary from topic to topic. He is suggesting that monolithic labels are far too remedial, broad, and one-dimensional to accurately convey his stance and that we must be cautious using them to describe the stances of others. He's telling you to be cautious of splitting the world into false dichotomies of us/them since continued attempts to do so will only lead you farther astray from the truth. We can speak of trends so long as we recognize those trends won't always represent the end all be all of a single individuals worldview. Viewed in this light, I hope you can see how your conclusion / paraphrasing of his position, "since the subject is scientific studies, there's nothing of interest to see here," is both inaccurate and ill-conceived.

No, of course not. It's clearly quite severe, and oftentimes wholly impervious to treatment or reason.

I don't know who this Rorschach guy is, but does anyone else find it strange that he keeps painting pictures of my parents fighting?

It's not. See post #11 above. That's a good point, but even the laws of one's own nation do not give them license to say whatever they want nor that this site has to host or display any and every comment that any and every person makes. I believe that's sort of the point of this thread.

Do you also suspect that your post is what prompted Randall to publish this particular cartoon on this particular day?

No, but that's really another discussion entirely.

Such a conclusion, however, must be based on an unfortunately narrow definition and limited understanding of what psychology truly involves and represents. Hint: It's more than just therapy and counseling.