did you see that I said EXPERIMENTAL psychologist? Again, with you not seeing all the information. you see, I think that you’re referring to clinical psychologists. I would have figured you’d know that, Doctor. You jackass.

Anyway, show me your facts re: global warming that refute the multitude of evidence that’s against you. Or maybe you can rehash my original statements in this thread and tell me exactly where I was hypocritical, or maybe explain to all of us how the nuclear option is EXACTLY the same thing as having a 60-seat majority in the Senate.

On second thought? Forget it. You’re hardly worth the time and energy I’m expending on you. You’re an idiot, Pedro.

I guess that explains why Pedro engages in personal attacks so often. Most recently:

You do know that most psychologists go into the field to figure out what is wrong with THEM right mambo?

Physician, heal thyself. Then go play in traffic.

yea, I was a biopsych major in college.

You do know that most psychologists go into the field to figure out what is wrong with THEM right mambo?

Now back to torturing rodents for you!

Hahaha, global warming is an emotional issue for liberals. Holy shit, buddy… wow…

And I’m an experimental psychologist… my guess is that you don’t know shit about psychology, so don’t be a smug dick. “This is psych 101…”

And yes, I am truly sorry we have a president who hid behind some kids rather than face his responsibilities when the country was under attack.

You know piddgy, as you just had your rhetorical ass handed to you in my previous post, from now on, why not back up your accusation with some fact…how about a link or two showing the world the “nutjob” websites I linked to?

While you’re at it, want to apologize for the “hiding behind kids” comment?

WTF?

I argue with fact which shape opinion. The problem that you lefties have is that you argue with emotion that shapes opinion. For you, things like socialism and global warming are EMOTIONAL issues, not factual ones. Anyone who tears into your “beliefs” is actually personally attacking your EMOTIONS.

When you can’t bring any sort of rationality to the table to argue against me, BAM, out comes the invective. People with a good factually based argument simply lay the facts out, and don’t need to resort to childish personal attacks.

This stuff if psych 101….go back in the strings and see how many times I give an opinion, often backed by a fact, and the response is simply a statement followed by a personal attack, with no attempt to even deal with the issue on the table.

I always strive to critically examine my views, and correct them where they clearly seem wrong. For example, I was an agnostic for the longest time. After many conversations with a coworker of mine in my lab, he presented a clear, coherent argument for atheism, as well as incontrovertibly dispelling agnosticism. I’m an atheist now.

I’d like to think that my views have been shaped by my critical thinking skills, Marty. Some of us are actually thoughtful about their views. Then there’s people like Pedro and Frank…

Marty, It’s amazing to me how you’re only distressed about uncivility when it’s directed toward right-wingers.

Think I’m describing you unfairly? Prove it!

The person who is receiving all the abuse in this instance deserves it. He has been the author of much vituperation and bad-faith arguing here over the past couple of years.

And “constitutional option” is conservative re-branding of their original phrase, “the nuclear option” after it didn’t poll well.

Some members of that senate including, I believe, Frist had been involved in previously filibustering nominees. So they must have believed in the precedent of filibustering nominees.

Or perhaps, as you often do, you are purposefully pretending to misunderstand the issue because it works better for you rhetorically.

Unless you can find where there were Senators who were trying to eliminate filibusters altogether, you may want to rethink this post.

Otherwise, I truly think that you don’t understand the Senate rules- there is no “requirement of 60 votes for the senate to conduct business.” While it may seem like semantics, instead it is a very important distinction.

In any case, the so called “constitutional option” that never came about (which personally, I’m glad it didn’t) was not in reference to general Senate rules for voting on legislation, but to the very narrow area of “advise and consent” concerning constitutionally required presidential appointments.

By the way mambo- how often to you consider what you’re saying yet “ignore any and all evidence that suggests [your] views are wrong in some way, just to preserve [your] preconceived self-identity.”

Are your views ever suspect? Do you ever examine yourself? Do you ever consider that you may be wrong on some things? Do you ever consider that your evidence may not hold up against someone elses?