Corey1911

It's not just anecdotes which cause a significant amount of skepticism about psychiatry, but the psychiatric establishment's major flip flops on classifying diseases/disorders. Homosexuality, for instance, was once long considered to be a disorder, but now it isn't. Narcissism was also considered to be a disorder, but the DSM committee has recently declared that it isn't. And those are just a couple examples. Note, this is different than the psychiatric community changing its mind on the cause of a disorder and/or effective treatment. That is to be expected in any medical science. Instead, they can't even agree on which phenomena are disorders and which aren't. This is the equivalent of cardiologists coming out and saying, "Oops. We were wrong about cardiac arrhythmia. It's not a disorder like we thought it was. Sorry." If this happened, cardiology would start to have its doubters as psychiatry does today. With respect to sleep deprivation, I suspect that it may be sort of a feedback loop: Patient experiences mental/emotional trauma that could be major or minor, loses a little sleep over it, which amplifies the patient's sensitivity to said trauma, which in turn causes them to lose more sleep, and so on and so forth. While this could apply to any emotional trauma, I think it's especially true for bullying, which the OP was experiencing since, as the case with Korean POWs shows, sleep deprivation makes a person more open to suggestion, which would have made her more sensitive to the bullying.

The difference is that the psychiatrists' claims are positive while Dreamspirit's claims are negative, and the burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim. It's like a priest claiming you're possessed by a demon and then demanding that you prove him wrong, which is impossible. Certain things are practically guaranteed to cause mental problems and sleep deprivation is one of them. During Hell Week of SEAL training for example, trainees have to endure sleep deprivation for about five days, and it's not uncommon for them to have hallucinations. I guess they too have some kind of mental disorder that keeps them from sleeping.

My concern with respect to Obama's influence, or his legacy I should say, is how the history textbooks will portray him. I remember the textbooks in high school basically treating FDR like a god. Undoubtedly, historians will try to do the same with Obama regardless of what the electoral outcome is. However, if he loses the election, they won't be able to gloss over his critics like they do with FDR. They'll try to smear his critics of course, but nevertheless, they'll be forced to acknowledge them and hopefully some smart kids in the future will be able to see past the propaganda as a result. The uncritical historical portrayal of FDR is partially the reason why we have so many left of center Republican candidates like Romney in the first place: They were taught to worship FDR in school, and thus end up channeling him whenever there is a crisis (No doubt Bush was channeling FDR when he decided to pass TARP). Romney always reminded me of Warren Beatty from Bulworth. Every time I hear him speak, I expect him to start rapping.

I think you may be onto something. I'm a medical transcriptionist and I've typed plenty of psych reports. Sleep deprivation is one common denominator I've noticed among patients. Granted, I realize this is merely anecdotal evidence and it could be a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type paradox in that sleep deprivation could be the cause or the effect of mental illness. It's also worthy of note that sleep deprivation was one of the techniques used to brainwash Korean POWs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control#The_Korean_War_and_the_origin_of_brainwashing) And speaking of sleep deprivation, it's almost 6:00 a.m. and I better get to bed.

Agreed. If Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment, it's checkmate. As others here have stated previously, having Obama in the White House puts socialists on the defense since they are deprived of capitalist straw men to attack (Gingrich, Romney, etc.). However, they won't have to defend him if he is able to silence his opponents, which he will be able to do if he gets control of the Supreme Court. I think any centrist backlash against Obama would be temporary, since the center shifts, and it almost always shifts to the Left. Take FDR, for example. FDR presided over most of the Great Depression, and many centrists did blame him for America's economic woes. But fast forward to today, and almost everyone including centrists believe that FDR saved us from the Depression. It's not just Obama's current reign that we have to worry about, but also his idealogical influence over future generations, which will continue to grow the longer he stays in office.

And what evidence have you offered that suggests he could be a closet agnostic? The video you provided shows Obama criticizing the idea that the bible should guide government policy, and he quotes the bible saying extreme things like 'it's okay to stone your child'. Obama says nothing in the video that would suggest he's an agnostic. If anything, your video suggests that he is a secular Christian rather than a fundamentalist Christian. You believe that he's most likely a Christian, but that there's a small possibility he could be an agnostic. Now, according to you and everyone else's logic (the same logic that's being applied to me), because Obama says he's a Christian, the only evidence that's acceptable is him confessing to being an agnostic or performing some kind of agnostic ritual. Demanding that you show evidence that definitively proves he's an agnostic would amount to a strawman attack since you are not claiming that Obama is definitely an agnostic, but are merely claiming that there's a possibility he could be an agnostic. Of course, when I explain this to everyone that I'm merely claiming there's a possibility he could be a Muslim, I'm basically accused of being an intellectual coward for refusing to "assume a position in the debate". I'm truly puzzled by the differences between the way your claim has been treated and the way my claim has been treated. For some reason, suggesting that Obama could be a closet Muslim has a heavier burden of proof than suggesting he could be a closet agnostic. The only way I can explain this is that there seems to be an 'anti anti-Islam' bias on this thread.

I wouldn't hold your upbringing in a Christian country against you just as I wouldn't hold Obama's Muslim upbringing against him. But if you were to continue to praise Christianity as an adult (in the same manner that Obama has praised Islam) while simultaneously claiming to be an Objectivist (just as Obama simultaneously claims to be a Christian), then I would start to wonder. So I'm not just citing his upbringing as evidence, but his current behavior. I'll list some examples: 1. In an interview, Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."" The call to prayer, the adhan, includes the Shahada, which translated means, "There is no deity but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." Now, according to Wikipedia, "A single honest recitation of the Shahadah in Arabic is all that is required for a person to become a Muslim." 2. Obama decided to have his first formal television interview after the election on an Arabic network to discuss American, Muslim relations. 3. Obama traveled to a Muslim country in order to tout Islamic achievements (Most of which were untrue, btw) In that speech, he also said, " So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Would a devout Christian use that phrase? He could've just as easily said, "where it was founded", without offending the Muslim audience, but he chose to use the term, "revealed", as if he actually believes that the angel, Gabriel, revealed the Koran to Muhammad. 4. Obama ordered NASA to "reach out to the Muslim world." Keep in mind that I try not to quote entire posts since doing so tends to bog down discussion forums. Because I did not quote your entire post, does not mean I didn't read it or ignored it. True. But you still raised the possibility that he could be a closet agnostic. When I raise the possibility that he could be anything other than a Christian, I'm told that I should make a "solid claim", and try to prove definitively that he's a Muslim. There's clearly a double standard.

My argument is that people aren't crazy for thinking that Obama could be a Muslim. I say this in response to the posters who think such claims are "bizarre", "ludicrous", "paranoid", etc. I could understand this reaction if people were suggesting that Obama was a satanist, for example. Now that would be a bizarre claim since there's no evidence for it. That's right, we can't read his mind. There's always a probability that a person could be a closet Muslim, agnostic, Christian, satanist, or what have you; but in most cases the probability is so small due to a lack of evidence that it's not worth discussing. Doing so would risk trying to prove a negative. But the claim that Obama could be a Muslim is worth discussing because there is evidence for it. As I said before, calling people on either side crazy only stifles the debate.

So it's okay to suggest that Obama could be a closet agnostic, but suggesting that Obama could be a closet Muslim is "bizarre" and "paranoid"?

Good point. I can think of a lot worse things to accuse Obama of. On this forum and elsewhere, Obama has been called a communist, fascist, socialist, Marxist, and even a nihilist. Call him a Muslim, however, and people start to get real touchy. Classic straw man argument. Imply that my question, "Isn't it reasonable to suspect that Obama may be a Muslim?", is really a statement, "Obama is definitely a Muslim", and then attack the statement. What I'm doing is no different than when Capitalistswine suggested that Obama might be a closet agnostic. There are compelling arguments to be made on both sides, but when you start comparing the other side to "conspiracy theorists", you are using the argument from intimidation.

I was basically paraphrasing the attitude expressed by most of the posters on this topic. Some of the words used to describe the belief that Obama is a Muslim were "bizarre", "ridiculous", "ludicrous", "extremist", etc. These terms imply that those who believe Obama is a Muslim or suspect he is are part of a fringe element and should not be listened to. This stifles debate, which is what Rand was talking about in her article. It's important to note that we're not talking about a physical event or scientific phenomena, which can be proven or refuted with physical evidence. We're talking about a person's beliefs, in this case, Obama's religious beliefs, which you can't make a solid claim on without reading that person's mind. Just look on this forum alone, where some people claim Obama is a communist while others claim he is a fascist. Again, it's impossible to know for sure without reading his mind. Sure, you could say that his policies are fascist since he's not really taking over the private sector, but heavily regulating it. But you could also say that's merely a stepping stone for an ultimate takeover i.e. communism. Or, you could say that he's not really a communist or fascist, but just power hungry and is doing whatever is politically expedient at the moment. You're presenting a false dichotomy: I should make a solid claim that he's either a Muslim or not a Muslim. If there's evidence that suggests Obama is a Muslim, but doesn't definitively prove his Muslim, should we not discuss the possibility of him being Muslim? That's not what I'm saying at all. I was saying that it's possible for Obama to lie about his faith if he is indeed a Muslim. I've heard many pundits say that Obama can't be a Muslim because he says he is a Christian as if to imply that it's impossible for a Muslim to lie about their faith. It sounded like you were exhibiting this attitude when you said the idea of him being a secret Muslim was paranoia since paranoia is an irrational fear.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Obama is a Muslim. What I am saying though is that it is irrational to label those who speculate about Obama's religion as "paranoid extremists." This is the same kind of rhetoric that Rand warned about in "Extremism," or The Art of Smearing." Besides, is it really paranoid to suspect that Obama might be a Muslim since Islam permits its followers to conceal their faith? So we're not allowed to ask questions. That's very intellectual.

Four years is an eternity to a 6-year-old. I read a long time ago that psychologists believe a person's basic personality is determined by the age of eight. Perhaps the consensus has changed since then. Regardless, any culture/religion is going to have a huge influence (positive or negative) if you're exposed to it that young. I myself remember being very religious as a child right up until the point I was baptized at age ten. The priest insisted that I take private lessons about Catholicism several times a week for a few weeks before being baptized. Most people don't have that kind of direct exposure to a religion at a young age and can afford to sit on the fence and be "Christian in name only." I on the other hand, after learning what Catholicism is really about, was forced to make a decision and I wholeheartedly rejected it. If someone today were to accuse me of being a stealth Catholic based on my early exposure to it, I would deny it just as Obama has denied being a stealth Muslim. But more importantly, I would explain WHY I am not a Catholic and what I find wrong about it and religion in general. Obama is basically in the same position. He was exposed to Islam while in Indonesia and at school at an early age, which he often brags about. And yet, he never explains why he never chose that religion despite it having a huge influence on his life. Instead, he has nothing but praise and adulation for it. Perhaps this is just political correctness and evasion. Either way though, it seems he is being dishonest. Did Ayn Rand or the Pope have a Muslim name, have both a Muslim father and Muslim stepfather, and were registered as a Muslim in school? Again, that's not enough to prove Obama was a Muslim, but it's enough to raise suspicion. It's not like assertions that Obama is a Muslim are being pulled out of thin air.

If Obama grew up in a Muslim environment and still has so much reverence for Islam, then why didn't he become a Muslim? Considering how intolerant Islam is to nonbelievers, I imagine it would have taken tremendous courage for someone like Obama to choose a different religion. Usually, this courage comes from a strong dislike of said religion/evil ideology. Hence, those who are raised under an evil ideology as a child either become devout followers or harsh critics. Consider how one of statism's strongest supporters, George Soros, and harshest critic, Ayn Rand, both grew up in statist countries. In all likelihood, Obama is either lying about his respect for Islam or is lying about his Christian faith. As for the notion that believing Obama is a Muslim is ridiculous, it should be noted that there is a difference between believing Obama is a Muslim and having a reasonable suspicion that Obama is a Muslim. After all, the only way to know for sure what Obama's beliefs are is to read his mind which is impossible.

Isn't it ironic that the people who complain about Islamophobia are the ones that fear Muslims the most? "OMG, we can't burn the Koran because it might incite violence!" "Don't depict Muhammad in a cartoon. It will make Muslims angry!" The whole argument that we should avoid offending moderate Muslims because they might join the radicals is a non sequitur argument. After all, a person who would kill you for burning a book or drawing a cartoon isn't peaceful to begin with. I think the proper response to people who accuse you of being Islamophobic is, "If it's irrational to fear Islam, then why are YOU so afraid of offending its followers?"

I agree that we should be cautious of any unknown civilization. My problem with Hawking's thesis is that it seems he is suggesting that all advanced civilizations including our own will eventually become "nomads" that conquer less advanced civilizations for their resources as if it is just another stage of evolution. I suspect that he is simply projecting his anti-man/environmentalist view onto alien races.

This is a common fallacy in the scientific community. Yes, life can survive in many environments, but the question is what environment is necessary for life to originate? Until scientists can discover how life originates, it is impossible to predict how abundant it is in the universe. Isn't this non sequitur? Why would the aliens be suffering resource shortages in a universe that is, by Hawking's own admission, abundant with billions of planets. Our own solar system has seven other planets and hundreds of planetary objects. If the aliens were so desperate for resources, why would they bother conquering Earth when they can mine the other planets and planetary objects in our system at a much lower cost?

Believe it or not, Maher himself is a Christian sympathizer. In an interview with Oreilly he actually said that Christianity is a "beautiful philosophy". This is not surprising considering the fact that he shares many of the basic tenets: 1. He has faith in a higher power (government) 2. He believes in Original Sin (America is responsible for past sins like slavery). 3. He believes in an apocalypse (global warming). 4. And last, but not least, he is a rabid altruist. His attacks on the religious/mystic element of the right wing are merely strawman attacks that serve no other purpose than to create the illusion of intellectual superiority.

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

So I guess Obama and the Democrats are "quitting on the country" when they force students to attend inferior public schools.

Only when the laws allowed him, his family, and his party to stay in power. As Rush Limbaugh notes: I was always amused how the Left likes to praise democracy and eschew aristocracy, but the Kennedys, on the otherhand, are royalty and are entitled to be in office because of their last name.

The only way to achieve job security in a capitalist society is through a competitive advantage. Any company that did an "imperfect job" would be sacrificing its competitive advantage.

Try running it in safemode. When you turn your computer on, hold down the ctrl key until you see a dos screen with a list of different modes. Highlight safemode then hit enter. When windows comes up, run scandisk like you normally would. Hope this helps.