kimmy

It's not a single outrageous incident, it's the latest in an unending series of outrageous incidents. -k

Saying that he needs to get off of medication isn't a plan of treatment? If people with mental illness could just get in full control of themselves and their senses, they wouldn't be mentally ill in the first place. For some people the "altered state" is the one in which they're able to make rational decisions, and their "natural state" is one in which they're not in full control of themselves or their senses. You've seen Michael J Fox when he's on his medication, and when he's off his medication, right? Nobody could possibly argue that his natural, unmedicated state is preferable to his "altered" medicated state, could they? I mean, that's clear and obvious to everyone. So the question is, why is it that people like you have no trouble accepting the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the part of the brain that processes nervous system function, as in Parkinson's Disease... but can't grasp the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the parts of the brain that process thought or emotion? If we applied your logic about mental illness to Parkinson's Disease, we'd be telling Michael J Fox that he needs to get off the meds and learn to move normally and then he can decide if he wants to stay on the meds or not. The idea that the purpose of psychopharmaceuticals is to make people "feel better" is a misconception. Comparing them to cocaine or heroin is just flat out ridiculous. I think that was also your rational for supporting the "inflating universe" guy's theory of gravity, wasn't it? "The physics profession is afraid of challenging the status quo!" Sometimes the status quo is the status quo because it has merit, and sometimes these outlier ideas that you seem drawn to are outside the mainstream because they aren't very good. And that might be true of some people. But it's a huge leap from there to concluding that the whole concept of mental illness is wrong or that everybody who is considered mentally ill is actually just having trouble coping with some problem in their life. Just because there's no easy test doesn't mean there's no biological basis. That kind of thinking puts you in line with people who believe that splints and bandages are the only proper kind of medical care, because broken bones and cuts are the only kinds of injuries they can see. Well, there's Scientologists, and there's naturopathic quacks. And now the NRA have jumped on board, because they desperately need a scapegoat. I can't imagine why either, but the fact that these drugs may be prescribed to people who don't need them or shouldn't have them doesn't justify the argument you're making. When we're talking about people who couldn't function before they got the drugs either, I don't see that as a problem. A possible link, yes. The link is that mentally disturbed people have often received mental health treatment at some point in their life. You seem content to look at it and say "Here's a guy who had mental health issues at some point, and now he went and killed somebody. Welp, it must be the drugs. It's just obvious." Except you're not prepared to consider incidents where there's no evidence of psychopharmaceuticals being a factor, and you're not prepared to wonder whether these guys would have done this stuff if they'd stayed on their medication, and you're not prepared to wonder how many potentially violent people aren't violent because they are on their medication. You've found your answer, and like your other theories you're prepared to ignore information that doesn't support the conclusion you've decided on. To me the common thread in all of your views seems to be a quest for easy-to-understand answers that jive with your preconceptions about how things ought to work. "Time dilation? That doesn't make any sense! Relativity is too weird! Here's a guy who has an alternative theory that I find easier to grasp." "Banks and businesses acted recklessly? That's unpossible! The government must have made them. They probably thought they could do those things because they thought they would get bailouts! Going back to the gold standard would fix that!" "Why would anybody go shoot a bunch of school children? Some evil chemicals must have made him do it." -k

And that's TARP. It's not applicable to the automaker bailouts, or previous automaker bailouts, or a large number of other bailouts. TARP or not, most bailouts are funded by conventional government borrowing. Which means the overall argument you're attempting to make fails. If you work at GM and your job is assembling door panels or operating a painting machine, and you go to work one morning and the factory doors are chained shut, I'm not sure you "made your own bed". Regardless of that, the reason people supported the automaker bailout wasn't so much that they felt sorry for laid-off workers, and were more concerned that the massive layoffs would result in a domino effect that would be devastating for the whole economy. Whether or not that's actually true, that was the reason. But as pertains to this discussion, the point being made here is that bailouts are not necessarily unpopular. So the idea that voters would refuse to support bailouts if they were funded by taxpayer dollars fails. (and most bailouts *are* funded by taxpayer dollars, as we already discussed.) I have lost count, to be honest. I think your whole premise is just one faulty assumption stacked onto another, all resting on a foundation of more faulty assumptions. And when was this list compiled? I wonder if CNN made this list with the knowledge of what we know now about how the banks acted. There is nothing wrong with a system where anybody can ask for a mortgage. You, me, or Hobo Joe can all wander into a bank and ask for a mortgage. There's absolutely no reason why any adult should not be able to go to a bank and ask for a mortgage. The system didn't break because everybody can ask for a mortgage. The system broke because everybody could *get* a mortgage. The onus isn't on unqualified borrowers to know whether or not they should have a mortgage, the onus is on lenders to say "No" to people who they shouldn't lend money to. Why is it you people keep blaming consumers for asking for mortgages they shouldn't have got, and ignoring the people who decided to lend to them? Millions and millions of hobos and deadbeats and could go to the bank and ask for mortgages and it would not make a speck of difference to the economy, as long as the mortgage lenders said "No." The fault doesn't lie with people who asked for mortgages they shouldn't have had. The fault lies with people like the CEO of Countrywide who decided that they should say "YES!" to people who shouldn't have mortgages. "Anybody who can fog a mirror." You still don't get it. The short term rewards were so great that long term risk became completely irrelevant. If you can pocket $120 million in bonuses this year, why would you care if your company goes out of business next year? The collapse of Lehman Brothers had consequences for a lot of people, but not for Dick Fuld, who pocketed somewhere between 300 and 500 million dollars in the years leading up to Lehman Brothers' demise. -k

I don't profess to know. But if you're placing a bet, that's where the smart money would be. It's kind of like how Governors Kasich and Haley and Pence can sign laws that will target college voters, knowing that while it'll cost Republicans some college votes, it will cost the Democrats a lot more college votes. -k

I think that you might be confused about what I was saying. I listed things that happen in real life, not things that might happen in Bill O'Reilly's nightmares. If you're concerned that my concern over voting rights only extends to people who'd vote Democrat, why don't you fire up the Waback Machine and see what I wrote about the DoJ's failure to prosecute the Black Panther thugs who were standing outside the polling station in Philadelphia? -k

aw, and here I was hoping you'd regale me with tales of the disenfranchised rich-guys, hedge-fund managers, professional athletes, and brain surgeons. -k

Of course I would be concerned, although I confess I'm unaware of any organized efforts to keep rich people or members the military from voting. As far as the well-educated, I think I already gave my opinion of voter suppression efforts aimed at college students. -k

I believe horse meat is considered a delicacy amongst the French, is it not? (hopefully this is not construed as racist.) -k

Well, Diane Feinstein was fitting him for a noose, but I think that would probably spark widespread criticism at this point. -k

A lot of people feel that whatever Snowden's motives, informing the public that their 4th Amendment rights were being violated was a worthy act. I would think that all Americans, Democrat or not, should be concerned that some legislators and officials are deliberately disenfranchising members of the public. And that's not just in reference to voter ID, it's in reference to things including but not limited to voters being arbitrarily stricken from voting lists, people in Latino neighborhoods in Miami having to line up 8 hours to cast their votes, polling locations being shut down early and arbitrarily, laws that made it harder for people to register to vote, laws that punished organizations that attempt to register voters, closing down DMV offices in Democrat-voting areas to make it harder for Democrat voters to obtain the voter ID that's supposed to be easy for everybody to get, and attempting to have polling stations removed from college campuses. Seems like they've picked one issue that works to their advantage and ignored a whole bunch that would be to their disadvantage. Hence the accusation of malice. -k

Or some other deep, dark hole. -k

Why is it that you were so concerned about Edward Snowden's motives, but you don't seem to care about Rick Perry's motives? There's a strong appearance of malice in these campaigns. If their motives are pure and they really do care about the integrity of the democratic process, then they can prove their accusers wrong by taking action to make sure that the people affected get IDs, and by taking credible action on the skullduggery that happens in their states to keep minorities and college students from voting. Until they do, the accusations of malice are deserved. -k

I think we should talk more about this. Surely informing the terrorists that we're watching them adapt their tactics is just as dangerous a leak as telling the terrorists that we were spying on them in the first place? Shouldn't the guy who leaked that information be in the cell in Guantanamo right next to the one they have picked out for Snowden? And why didn't that withered old piece of crap on CNN get the Snowden treatment when he told the world that Valerie Plame was a CIA undercover agent? -k

The Taliban remain some of the crappiest people on earth. When they get them to the table, I hope they drop a bomb on the table. -k

(I'm wondering if this was inspired by Quebec municipal politics, Wall Street, or both.) -k

Of all the people attacking Edward Snowden for "aiding the terrorists", the biggest joke has to be Rep Peter King, a long-time IRA supporter. -k

If that's the case, why aren't people like Rick Scott doing anything about other shenanigans in their states? -k

No, but perhaps discussing their real agenda will put pressure on these legislators to remedy the other issues instead of hiding under the cloak of patriotism. -k

The easiest things to fix would be the things they're doing themselves, like voter roll purges, and inadequate polling facilities in areas with high concentrations of minority voters, and suing to take polling stations off of college campuses. -k

Accepting money to give phony "AAA" ratings to securities they knew were garbage makes these agencies participants in fraud. There'll be more massive settlements, and hopefully jail time as well. Sell your stocks soon. -k

And? -k

The homeowners were not the victims of the credit agencies. The victims of this scam were all the investors and pension plans and mutual funds who bought these sham securities on the "AAA" recommendations of S&P and Moody's. In short, you've completely and utterly missed the point. -k

*IF* the police have a legitimate reason to be in a house, and *IF* they see evidence of illegal activity in plain view, they are permitted to act. If they're in your house over a domestic disturbance complaint, they can't go searching through your house for drugs while they're there. But if they're in your house over a domestic disturbance complaint and they see a bag of coke on the table and they can smell your grow-op in the basement, you're in trouble. I think that judge would probably decide that searching for people in need of rescue or violating evacuation orders was probably a legitimate reason for police to enter a residence. And if there were unsafely stored firearms in plain sight, the police were clearly allowed to take appropriate action. It is a sad truth that there are scumbag individuals who use tragedies like mass evacuations as an opportunity for criminal activity. Here in the Kimmy area of BC, we had mass evacuations due to forest fires a couple of years ago, and there were numerous incidents of people sneaking into the evacuated areas to rob unoccupied homes. There is a significantly higher risk of burglary in situations like this, because the criminals *know* that the homes are unoccupied. As cybercoma said earlier, the RCMP probably did people a favor by taking custody of their guns before a burglar got to them. -k

Why are you so determined to shift the focus away from the credit agencies and towards home owners? Do you have shares in S&P as well? -k