Andy9o8

Sigh. No, it's not. Yeah, I Googled it and I see the rumor-mongering blogosphere references (and re-publishings thereof) to it, but you'll have to provide a lot more evidence - real hard evidence of substantiated occurrences - that such instances are in any respect common or mainstream. With all due respect, you're doing a lot of shooting from the hip. Not the level of research and analysis that one would expect from the professional scientist you're training to be.

The currently line of thinking by a number of analysts is the rebels didn't have access and the government most certainly does. Further, it appears the chemicals were delivered by rockets which points further to the government. We're currently doing the checks on it. Nope. If any government in the world begins genocide it is the business of the entire human race to stop it. The US just happens to have the capabilities. While I agree with the sentiment the reality is that intervention by the USA would almost certainly be illegal and most likely result in the blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, with Russia backing Iran who are warning the USA over involvement in Syria. China is also a keen ally of Iran. The reality is that any military involvement is playing with the potential trigger of WWIII. You're getting bogged down on a very narrow, singular definition of "illegal" - one that any nation's rulers can hide behind enabling them to murder scores of thousands of their own citizens. And neither the Iranians nor the Russians are going to block the Straits of Hormuz over Syria. What I find amazing is that the so-called "red line" (the US's? the EU's? the world's?) is defined not in the scope of how many of Syria's citizens Assad has killed, but merely the means. So as long as Assad uses conventional weapons to murder scores of thousands of people, that's not a threshhold, but if he uses chemical weapons to murder several hundred, that's what gets the world's attention.

I consider forced medication to be a detriment. If you become a practicing clinician, you'll find yourself guided more by the needs of the individual patient, and less by one-size-fits-all sound bytes.

This won't help you immediately, but please consider: According to your profile, your occupation is "Commercial Truck & Auto Collision Repair". Perhaps you can do that acceptably well without the ability to test-drive the vehicles you repair; I don't know. Anyhow, driving schools aren't dirt-cheap, but many are quite affordable, and they're pretty efficient, too. If you don't own your car, there's no need for you to carry (the expense of) regular auto insurance. Once you have a license, I'm sure there are "Rent-A-Wreck" type places in the Pittsburgh area from which you might be able to find great weekend deals - perfect for the person who needs wheels on the occasional weekend without too much expense. (They'll charge you a bit more for their insurance if you don't have your own, but not too much more.)

Goddam Canucks really grind your gears, eh?

This I would argue the over-diagnosed issue is mainly to the detriment of the misdiagnosed. You could also argue that pigs fly.

But it's still real, and not merely an artificial construct. The "problem" with ADD is that it's become over-diagnosed, and over-medicated, to the social detriment of (a) those who truly suffer from ADD, and (b) those ADD sufferers for whom stimulant medication is truly effectual and beneficial. This, in turn, leads to articles like in the OP, and then everyone jumps on the "ADD is bullshit" bandwagon. The long-term effect is not just a backlash against over-diagnosis and over-prescribing; it will be an unfortunate social chilling effect in people who would benefit from diagnosis and treatment from receiving it.

Oooh. I've already forwarded it to the NSA, Bobby.

I've got the perfect solution for you. Get married, move to Minnesota, or maybe Saskatchewan, have 3 children, end your career, encumber yourself with a mortgage, travel nowhere, and live a life where your principal sources of recreation are having vapid conversations in the bagel shop and watching your children play hockey. Then you'll feel truly fulfilled. OK, maybe that's not a solution, but it is perspective.

I've long noticed that it's vogue to bash the taste of Starbucks coffee. I'm not a coffee snob, but I am a coffee lover, and a lover of good coffee. I like Starbucks coffee, and it's usually the brand I buy at the store for use at home. If I can't have my Starbucks, nobody can. I'm going to go shoot up the place.

Then why do they have Canada's head of state on their money?

Not permitted in here. Shirley, you've come to realize that.

You might want to read this, counselor... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_a_security_guard_have_the_right_to_search_a_suspect Chuck Not applicable. An owner or lawful possessor (tenant, etc.) of private property has the right to restrict public access to the property, and to set conditions for public access to the property, as long as those restrictions/conditions don't violate (or are not controlled by) any other laws. A store security guard is simply an agent of the store owner. Unless there's a law prohibiting searching people as a condition of entry, the store can have its security guards search people as a condition of entry, much as is done at many stadiums and concert venues. If you want to enter, you must first comply with the search. If you choose not to comply, you simply may not enter - nothing more, nothing less. Thus, whether or not the entering patron is searched is ultimately controlled by the decision of the patron himself.

Religion is all about hating some of the people all of the time. Screw that.

I hope you realize that this is exactly the kind of talking point that the most virulent of racists seize upon to rationalize their racism, and acting it out. I fear that in your instinct to be fair, you're unwittingly being an enabler.

http://www.cdpom.com/wp-content/uploads/dog-bite-attorney-475x315.jpg

Is there no redemption? Lib-baiting conservatives like to say that "a conservative is a person who used to be liberal until he got mugged." Well, maybe a liberal (or even a moderate) is a former conservative who finds out that someone she loves unequivocally is gay.

Then you're throwing-in with one of the most virulent racist-trolls to pollute these boards in some years. Based on the undertone of decency that runs through your posting history, Chuck, I'm willing to bet you'd reconsider if given the chance.

Neither does the Taliban. Your troll-fu is weak.

Lucky for the driver this was in Canada. If it was in the US, the bear would have called me by now.

I missed them as a kid, too. Not all shows were as blatantly moralistic/political as Star Trek.

I don't do well with change. I keep reaching my mouse/finger for Thread Options. I'm beginning to feel cognitively dissonant. My cortisol levels are increasing, a clear indication of mounting stress. I feel the website is mocking me, me personally. It won't stop. But I can't quit this. I think I need counseling.

Just basic probabilities. Go with the most likely, then work your way down. ...when, in fact, everyone knows it's trailer parks. (Which house welfare queens.)

Fuckers. Hope they all go to that Hell they invented. Excerpt: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/22/gay-detectives-relatives-booted-from-church/?hpt=hp_t2

That's almost dead. Have you selected a nursing home yet?