Maybe all the weed is making them paranoid. I think it’s fairly clear that the author blamed himself for his behavior.

You are confusing psychological addiction with physical addiction. Just because marijuana is not physically addictive, like heroin, does not mean that some users might not get addicted to the pleasurable feeling.

The author blamed himself for his choices, not the weed. There is no need for weed advocates to get defensive. Not all drugs are for everyone, and any pleasurable experience has the potential to become psychologically addictive. Doesn't mean the experience is inherently bad. That's just the way it is.

*Sigh*, I know. And I know you know! I suppose it’s a bit of a lost cause.

I’m going to be that guy, but a lot of your readers probably don’t know that some of the biggest universities, the Afflecks, the Damons and Elizabeth Warren do not actually hail from Boston, but from Cambridge.

GG: “We believe in the free marketplace of ideas!

Man, I thought I got worked up about insignificant things.

I mean, yes, sometimes in a specific industry we use terms in a different way than other industries. If you’re going to read a blog that covers a specific industry, at some point you need to learn the lingo.

A second party developer is a separate entity that is still tied to a console manufacturer by contract.

No, second party. A second party developer is a separate entity that is still tied to a console manufacturer by contract. It’s only first party if Nintendo itself is making this game, but Monolith Soft is the developer.

You’re so cutting edge.

Sigh.

I did, but it wasn’t really relevant to the discussion we were having about the total number of nukes in deployment (still projected to decline, by the way). I will say that the problems identified in the Mother Jones article suggest that this is an area ripe for investment. In fact, I believe the article mentions…

No see, when a Congressperson proposes freezing defense spending, or cutting it by a couple of percentage points, calling that unilateral disarmament is hyperbole. When a politician proposes a two-thirds cut, I think the term is fairly accurate.

The goalposts haven’t changed. We’re just arguing semantics. I consider the development of new delivery systems to be an upgrade to the nuclear arsenal. That’s largely what your sources are talking about.

New weapons to replace existing ones, yes. But on the whole it appears the number of deployed weapons will fall. From the first article you cite:

I think you’re confusing a plan to upgrade the nuclear arsenal with a plan to expand it. The U.S. is going to reduce the number of nuclear weapons it deploys, while simultaneously spending money to upgrade existing weapons.

Lol, Whitewater. How many voters remember, or care, about Whitewater?

No. Vote for the party that best reflects your views.

I think it’s weird that people assume Hillary and Bill have the same politics. Or that Bill would just stop supporting her if she moved in a more progressive direction.