The light bulb has come on.

[Stradawhovious]

Just a minor point but Welbutrin / Zyban isn't an SSRI.

You are correct. Technically it is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, but the side effects and principles are similar. I was just hoping nobody would notice.

[Tutmos]

Just a minor point but Welbutrin / Zyban isn't an SSRI.

You are correct. Technically it is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, but the side effects and principles are similar. I was just hoping nobody would notice.

We really can't say that either, essentially nothing is known about why any of these drugs work to alter mood beyond simple guessing that increased duration and concentration within the synaptic cleft increases or prolongs what we hope are "happy signals" because removal or addition of dopamine and seratonin makes people feel good or bad respectively. We know essentially nothing about how cognition works, let alone mood and I'm talking about at the highest levels of research we still know virtually nothing about it. The level of principle with all of these drugs is simply empiracal observation, there really is no how or why they work.

To put this in a gun analogy. A bullet is your pill, we only know that the hammer striking somewhere on the bottom of the bullet makes a violent reaction happen. We don't know anything about the primer, the gunpowder, gas expansion, inertia of the bullet etc.

[Stradawhovious]

Again true, for the most part, but the important and relevant part to this discussion is that we are aware of the possible side effects which for both classifications of drug mentioned are extremely similar (enhanced depression, suicidal tendancies, manic behavior, hallucinations, etc. etc. etc.), and could possibly contribute to the behaviour in question. That was my point.

[Tutmos]

Again true, for the most part

There's no for the most part.

[Stradawhovious]

I am not a Doctor or a Pharmacist so I have no place arguing the finer aspects of this. I understand that why these drugs work is a mystery but how they work is not. Split all the hairs you want, but my point about the side effects still stands and is legitimate.

[bensdad]

I agree there's been a shift but liberals can't be left holding the bag on this. There's PLENTY of reasons for the current entitlement mentality that trace back only as far as the last presidential era. One example is the deregulation of the banking industry, which created the economic bubble, and then bust, which we currently reside. During this great period of "prosperity," every middle-class mom needed a new mini-van, with multiple TV's, and a camper and a RV and a boat for camping trips, etc, etc. The media fed this notion, and boy did it. If you weren't keeping up with the Jonses you were a failure. But many of these things we've been told we are entitled to are for the rich. We've lost sight of what it means to be middle class. Couple that with the fact that we are now in a correction period, and some people simply don't have the tools to deal with it. The jobs aren't there, the pay isn't there, the healthcare isn't there, the security isn't there, retirements are gone, and moral is low. It's not good times. The time for partisan politics is over. A famous JFK quote comes to mind. Something about asking not what this country can do for you, but what you can do... This means everyone... Not just if you feel like it... for the good of the country you are so willing to live in and defend... God knows the Prez needs all the support he can get, if we are to get through this without major incident. We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. ...And banning guns is not the answer.

You're telling less than half the story. Guess who's administration REALLY created the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The time for partisan politics is never over. The other side will always be wrong, and they will always need us to tell them that.

[VikesFan1]

So what does Bush's appointed financial advisor (ex bank ceo) who deregulated the banking industry (for the benefit of his buddies, because that's what that administration was all about), have to do with community reinvestment? Answer, NOTHING.

And this is why arguing politics is really stupid.

Done.

[nyffman]

You probably won't find a lot of hardcore George Bush fans here. However, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which repealed parts of Glass-Steagall, resulted in a lot of the damage we see today. It was passed in 1999, mainly a Republican bill signed by Clinton. That makes it a bi-partisan screwup. But, what did GWB have to do with that? He was Governor of TX at the time.

[rose359]

So what does Bush's appointed financial advisor (ex bank ceo) who deregulated the banking industry (for the benefit of his buddies, because that's what that administration was all about), have to do with community reinvestment? Answer, NOTHING.

And this is why arguing politics is really stupid.

Done.

ge

Do you really thing that the W administration was really about benefiting his buddies. I find that as absurd as saying Clinton became president to get access to interns. There are better ways to make money and better ways to get chicks.

Obama personally litigated using the Community Reinvestment Act CRV), because he charged that his client was denied a mortgage due to his race. It had nothing to do with his financial standing and apparent inability to make the payments. The courts were used to make loans to those otherwise unqualified to receive them. Worked fine in times of ascending home values; in times of descending values, not so much. CRA is the regulation that should have received the de-