Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
Why not? The shooter in Newtown stole the guns from his mother after killing her. His DNA would most likely have been in the database. The guy in Washington state purchased them legally, and the recent ones in California all were purchased by a neighbor and given to them..
It's more than likely that in any of those situations the gun's master database would have allowed the mass shootings.
It should not be public information. It should be only as needed for law enforcement checks and only on mental illnesses that have a proven tendency of violence or actually incapacity to control one's self.
I have to ask, Shall not be infringed. What if they started creating mental illnesses classifications based around political or whatever the fad of the day might be and deny free speech rights to those involved? Make no law and shall not be infringed seem to carry the same merit if you ask me. Is one acceptable and the other not?
I mean suppose you are in a school or other gun free zone and someone opens fire. They shoot the only other armed person in the building which is the off duty sheriff working the security detail and you all scatter. You unfortunately get trapped between the dead cop and a wall with no way out. The active shooter is not headed towards you but an attempted escape would bring you right in his path.
So do you really want to risk death by grabbing the dead cop's gun- even if you do not use it and keep it as a last resort to protect yourself and the other few trapped alongside you should the shooter come back your way (which I think many people would do rather than stare death in the face and go after the active shooter), I mean seriously, you don't have to be a hero or anything, but your one chance of possibly living should he line people up and ask their religion just before killing them and turning to you like what happened in Washington state, might be the ability to shoot him dead while he thinks he can kill others unimpeded.
So your hypothetical choices would be to die by the shooter or die trying to save yourself from the shooter should your DNA lock idea become a reality. And No, this isn't some strawman remark.Just replace you with your friends, family, or any other person. Do you really think that call would be prudent- to endanger their lives over some ill thought out concept? Presumably you are worried about people taking other people's guns and shooting people so this scenario is part of what you are worried about.
Whether he is or is not one of those people doesn't matter. The law doesn't currently make any exceptions for this and even implies that there isn't when others who have a high tolerance for alcohol show no signs of impairment but fail a breathalyzer test.
If the law says no exception, then it needs to be equally applied. If equally applying the law creates problems, it needs changed.
The problem here is legally drunk. The law presumes that at or over a certain blood alcohol level, you are impaired regardless of any signs or symptoms. In some states this limit is. 08 while others have lowered it to. 04. I don't know of any state that still has a blood alcohol level of.15 or even.10 as the legal limit.
You knowing you are over the limit or displaying symptoms of being impaired doesn't have anything to do with the violations. It could or should have some weight in the penalties but usually there are limits to the extent.
That's by design. It is to keep a class of dependant voters and subsidizing businesses while maintaining the appearance they are not. Is it any wonder that before welfare was a government thing that a family could commonly survive off a single income? Or that medical expenses, while still hitting the pocket book hard, could largely be paid by these single income households before they inflated sky high after the introduction of Medicare?
Just try to get support from some of those communities. If you aren't bitched at because you didn't notice some box that needed ticked 14 levels deep in the UI, didn't put quotes around some insane (intuitive) "/..\\i/." tack/switch in the command input, you are politely called a loser for not RTFM which answers your question but in a different terminology that you can figure out or hidden at the very end in some fact page that discusses what the manual left out and wasting their time.
Every once in a while you might find someone who just smoked a fatty and isn't intentionally being a dick while the buzz is still hitting them.
That's likely because most people do not understand the extent of the surveillance or how deep the rabbit hole actually is.
I was just talking to someone in a bar the other day about this same thing. They were under the impression that government surveillance of the internet was limited to scanning Facebook and forum posts from all the other websites. They said they didn't care because anyone can already see that crap. I said that they have these boxes they can install at the ISPs and record and even replay every web session you have as if they were looking over your shoulder while on the computer. Their immediate response was no they cannot and if they can, they get a warrant first. Another guy near us chimed in that the government couldn't look at anything unless they had a warrant. My personal opinion is that if its publicly available, they can look all they want, they just cannot compile a history to craft and point out later at their convenience without a warrant. Or in other words, they do not need to keep databases of the calls I make or sites I visit unless there is a constitutionally allowed investigation with the appropriate warrants and probable cause.
So people do not even understand or agree on the freedoms in question let alone the level of government intrusion that should be allowed or is even going on. The questions I have about this poll is did they spell out exactly what was meant by warrantless internet surveillance and do those who response agree with that definition. It's like the telephone metadata BS. I have heard government stooge after government stooge, even ex vice president Dick Cheney say the courts have rules that the telephone metadata was ruled as a business record and the property of the phone companies so it can never be a violation of your civil rights. They have convinced a lot of people of this too. My gripe or opinion is that if I cannot purchase or otherwise legally obtain this information on anyone, neither should the government without a warrant or constitutional oversight.
That's because you don't feel sorry for guys getting their feelings hurt but you get almost teary eyed when women cry. Its sort of the essence of being a man.
That's if they are exposed to the cold winter. The underbrush acts like mulch and produces heat because of the decaying process. Unless it gets cold enough to freeze the underbrush and stop the decomposition process even a cold winter isn't a cold winter.
No they were not. The Logan act only applies to those not authorized to do so. The constitution clearly gives congress the powers to do so (article 1 section 8 , regulating commerce with foreign nations).
Congress cannot make a treaty but they certainly can negotiate trade and make laws. This is why you will never see them charged with the Logan act.
As far as I know, neither Hillary or the republicans have done much more than break laws and possibly violate the constitution and lie. None of that is treason.
Article 1 section 8 gives both houses the abilities to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing prevents congress from talking with foreign nations to make laws. It just will not be a treaty unless a president starts the ball rolling. But it is absurd to think congress cannot create laws, discuss these laws, or do whatever else with foreign nations just because a sitting president wants to make a deal with a foreign nation that is or is not a treaty but also changes the law (at least in its application )
In the US, you only need ID to travel on certain infrastructures. Air travel until recently didn't require an id inside the US unless you needed to pick up tickets at the gate. Now it is mandatory for most all if not all commercial air travel.
But outside of a drivers license to operate a car or something, you do not need ID to travel. If you are a passenger in a car, you can go across the country with no ID. Now if somehow you end up dealing with the cops, you will have to identify yourself but that can be done with a social security number and by other means (it might become a hassle without ID ).
Republican, democrats, about all the parties candidates could be included but you are foolish if you actually think it is limited to politicians of any party or all of them.
I see you voted in the last democrat primary, donations to us will help stop those republicans. Or democrats vote on Thursdays and republicans vote on mondays- see ya at the polls. Mr Anonymous Coward of 123 wanderland lane, if you could give me your social security number or a bank card to verify your identity, i can inform you of the new polling locations for your district.
Traditionally, You had to request the information leaving a trail if you actually did something like that. Getting the information anonymously sort of bypasses that so people looking to do harm do not have as much fear of being caught.
What happens when some hack group decides to target the phones and network infrastructure and your card or apple pay doesn't work to purchase your gasoline or groceries or diapers or whatever? What happens when same group transfers all your money from your accounts into some unclaimed fund or encrypts the banks computers and holds your accounts hostage and you have to wait 2 weeks until it gets sorted out?
There are downsides to everything. If cash was still around, an ATM could work from a cached balance and distribute some money, friends could loan others some money until things come back up.
Ok, lets follow this thread, someone stated how stupid it was to link to kotaku and think it was trustworthy. He then said he was surprised how they didn't try to push the BS SJW crap along with it. The next poster said that kotaku is finding their business model doesn't fit with the SJW crap and has been backing off it. Kodaku is known for pushing the SJW bullshit but seems to be stepping away in favor of profits because the people they attract with the SJW bullshit don't get them paid.
So how is his use of the word ironic (more page views/people attracted to the site because of a specific topic but less revenue overall because of the same type of topic) any different from alanis momorissette's use? I mean it fits your definition just as well as anything she sings about.
The only person who is claiming Alanis doesn't know what Irony is in this thread is you and you are trying to attribute that statement to me who never said it at all. I wouldn't be going around calling people a moron until you are certain you yourself isn't a bigger moron.
Oh i get it now. You were being facetious. If you don't spend three times as much as the value of the property confiscated in order to claim it, you obviously didn't want it so you technically didn't claim it.
lol.. They take it from you and refuse to give it back when you request it. Its not that it is unclaimed at all.
But I like the way you think. Do you support the government doing all sorts of other things like killing civilians or even locking them up without due process? I mean it's not their fault you stepped in front of the drone or didn't run fast enough right? And when a thief breaks into your home and robs you blind, it's your fault for not having better locks on the door right? Do you think that women who are raped deserved it because they dressed like they wanted it?
Oh and BTW, the term you are looking for is escheat. And no, it doesn't happen when you are actively trying to claim the finds but the state placed road blocks or hurdles that make it difficult or impracticable.
I guess we should all be good little puppets of the state.
Not only is it wrong, it is unconstitutional. The 5th amendment has in it among other things, " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." IF there is no charges and conviction, I'm not sure how it can not run afoul of those statements.IF budgets are predicated on the confiscated monies. It certainly is taking property for public use and requires just compensation you would think.
Then why did you say "However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts."
You're contradicting yourself now. But do note how I am referring to your words by quoting them.
Then why did you say "However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts."
You're contradicting yourself now. But do note how I am referring to your words by quoting them.
No contradiction there at all. You said in reference to the preamble. "Ok, but it should at least have some ability to pursue the goals as stated in the Preamble.". It does do that within the limits the entire constitution was originally set out to be. You seem to be thinking that something is missing but will not enlighten us to what that is or what goal or ability that it should pursue that it doesn't already. No spell it out or drop it I guess. All you seem to be doing it nitpicking on anyone trying to get to the bottom of what you mean anyways and ignoring your original statement altogether.
I'm glad you are now admitting to your own ignorance of what I think. However, what if you want to review the conversation again, you'll see that what I think is that the original contention "The purpose of the Constitution isn't to make government easy or convenient or practical." was countered by the ability to fulfill the goals as stated in the Preamble to be effectuated, a principle which I believe would be a necessary part of it.
Otherwise, I would question the sanity of those who wrote the Constitution.
And you would be completely wrong. The preamble explains the document and it's intent, not some imaginary goals you think now apply. The preamble is to the constitution not life and society in general. The constitution does set out the ability to keep those goals and is the reasoning behind the content of the constitution. The only sanity that needs questioning here might be yours.
Unfortunately, it's not about what I think, but what you think, as you're the one who said "However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts." and now you are saying the opposite is true, that the Preamble does contain intent and meaning.
If you simply wanted to ask what I thought, you should have done so without making such bold claims of your own.
I've explained this several time now (twice within this post), if you don't get it, move on already. I understand how you are missing it, it appears you missed it when you said it too.
No, they aren't, because the fact is, the terms are often used in a haphazard and inconsistent manner, for the most part, you can't actually tell with any certainty in many cases.
Country, for example, is often used to describe regions in states, such as "Lake Country" or "Dutch Country" some of which even cross state lines, like "Appalachian Country" does. And that's just in the United States, there is also "Basque Country" and that crosses national borders.
State has its own problems, as the meaning of "state" can be a "sovereign state" or something less so.
Quit being obtuse in order to cling to your failed statements. In this case, a geopolitical entity with defined borders is all we need to look at and anyone with half a brain wouldn't be confused by your distractions.
Yes they did, in fact, yield up sovereignty. This is why the Supremacy Clause exists. States are bound by the US Constitution, even over their own.
No, that wasn't true at all outside of the jurisdictional limits of the federal government. This has been blurred a bit and expanded since the passage of the 14th amendment but is still true today. Take the 27th amendment for instance, it says congress cannot take a pay raise until they have been up for election. This certainly doesn't apply to state congress or local political ent
No I did not clearly claim Alanis doesn't know what Irony means. I clearly claimed that a bunch of high school kids tore pages from a dictionary in an attempt to make a joke. Anything you are referring to other than that is your misguided imagination. Do you understand what that means? It is all in your head.
Now we can talk about your inability to see signs of mental disorder all day long if you want. I would start with pointing out that you cannot take a joke and for some incessant reason have to defend Alanis as if you personally know her (which I doubt is remotely true). But we can also point to the problem you have with ignoring what was actually said and inserting what you want to be said in order to justify your rant. Calling people names is just a sign of a weak mental process and I wouldn't consider that a mental disorder but in your case, it seems to be symptomatic in with the rest of your ailments.
Perhaps you should just seek professional help and put the keyboard down for now or you might really get your panties into a knot..
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
Why not? The shooter in Newtown stole the guns from his mother after killing her. His DNA would most likely have been in the database. The guy in Washington state purchased them legally, and the recent ones in California all were purchased by a neighbor and given to them..
It's more than likely that in any of those situations the gun's master database would have allowed the mass shootings.
You have to remember, gays were considered mentally ill just a few decades ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It should not be public information. It should be only as needed for law enforcement checks and only on mental illnesses that have a proven tendency of violence or actually incapacity to control one's self.
I have to ask, Shall not be infringed. What if they started creating mental illnesses classifications based around political or whatever the fad of the day might be and deny free speech rights to those involved? Make no law and shall not be infringed seem to carry the same merit if you ask me. Is one acceptable and the other not?
Why?
I mean suppose you are in a school or other gun free zone and someone opens fire. They shoot the only other armed person in the building which is the off duty sheriff working the security detail and you all scatter. You unfortunately get trapped between the dead cop and a wall with no way out. The active shooter is not headed towards you but an attempted escape would bring you right in his path.
So do you really want to risk death by grabbing the dead cop's gun- even if you do not use it and keep it as a last resort to protect yourself and the other few trapped alongside you should the shooter come back your way (which I think many people would do rather than stare death in the face and go after the active shooter), I mean seriously, you don't have to be a hero or anything, but your one chance of possibly living should he line people up and ask their religion just before killing them and turning to you like what happened in Washington state, might be the ability to shoot him dead while he thinks he can kill others unimpeded.
So your hypothetical choices would be to die by the shooter or die trying to save yourself from the shooter should your DNA lock idea become a reality. And No, this isn't some strawman remark.Just replace you with your friends, family, or any other person. Do you really think that call would be prudent- to endanger their lives over some ill thought out concept? Presumably you are worried about people taking other people's guns and shooting people so this scenario is part of what you are worried about.
Whether he is or is not one of those people doesn't matter. The law doesn't currently make any exceptions for this and even implies that there isn't when others who have a high tolerance for alcohol show no signs of impairment but fail a breathalyzer test.
If the law says no exception, then it needs to be equally applied. If equally applying the law creates problems, it needs changed.
The problem here is legally drunk. The law presumes that at or over a certain blood alcohol level, you are impaired regardless of any signs or symptoms. In some states this limit is. 08 while others have lowered it to. 04. I don't know of any state that still has a blood alcohol level of .15 or even .10 as the legal limit.
You knowing you are over the limit or displaying symptoms of being impaired doesn't have anything to do with the violations. It could or should have some weight in the penalties but usually there are limits to the extent.
That's by design. It is to keep a class of dependant voters and subsidizing businesses while maintaining the appearance they are not. Is it any wonder that before welfare was a government thing that a family could commonly survive off a single income? Or that medical expenses, while still hitting the pocket book hard, could largely be paid by these single income households before they inflated sky high after the introduction of Medicare?
Just try to get support from some of those communities. If you aren't bitched at because you didn't notice some box that needed ticked 14 levels deep in the UI, didn't put quotes around some insane (intuitive) "/..\\i/." tack/switch in the command input, you are politely called a loser for not RTFM which answers your question but in a different terminology that you can figure out or hidden at the very end in some fact page that discusses what the manual left out and wasting their time.
Every once in a while you might find someone who just smoked a fatty and isn't intentionally being a dick while the buzz is still hitting them.
That's likely because most people do not understand the extent of the surveillance or how deep the rabbit hole actually is.
I was just talking to someone in a bar the other day about this same thing. They were under the impression that government surveillance of the internet was limited to scanning Facebook and forum posts from all the other websites. They said they didn't care because anyone can already see that crap. I said that they have these boxes they can install at the ISPs and record and even replay every web session you have as if they were looking over your shoulder while on the computer. Their immediate response was no they cannot and if they can, they get a warrant first. Another guy near us chimed in that the government couldn't look at anything unless they had a warrant. My personal opinion is that if its publicly available, they can look all they want, they just cannot compile a history to craft and point out later at their convenience without a warrant. Or in other words, they do not need to keep databases of the calls I make or sites I visit unless there is a constitutionally allowed investigation with the appropriate warrants and probable cause.
So people do not even understand or agree on the freedoms in question let alone the level of government intrusion that should be allowed or is even going on. The questions I have about this poll is did they spell out exactly what was meant by warrantless internet surveillance and do those who response agree with that definition. It's like the telephone metadata BS. I have heard government stooge after government stooge, even ex vice president Dick Cheney say the courts have rules that the telephone metadata was ruled as a business record and the property of the phone companies so it can never be a violation of your civil rights. They have convinced a lot of people of this too. My gripe or opinion is that if I cannot purchase or otherwise legally obtain this information on anyone, neither should the government without a warrant or constitutional oversight.
If you save the kiddie porn for your personal use, Yes you should go to prison too.
You mean like with a towel or something?
That's because you don't feel sorry for guys getting their feelings hurt but you get almost teary eyed when women cry. Its sort of the essence of being a man.
That's if they are exposed to the cold winter. The underbrush acts like mulch and produces heat because of the decaying process. Unless it gets cold enough to freeze the underbrush and stop the decomposition process even a cold winter isn't a cold winter.
No they were not. The Logan act only applies to those not authorized to do so. The constitution clearly gives congress the powers to do so (article 1 section 8 , regulating commerce with foreign nations).
Congress cannot make a treaty but they certainly can negotiate trade and make laws. This is why you will never see them charged with the Logan act.
And what exactly was the acts that were treason?
As far as I know, neither Hillary or the republicans have done much more than break laws and possibly violate the constitution and lie. None of that is treason.
Article 1 section 8 gives both houses the abilities to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing prevents congress from talking with foreign nations to make laws. It just will not be a treaty unless a president starts the ball rolling. But it is absurd to think congress cannot create laws, discuss these laws, or do whatever else with foreign nations just because a sitting president wants to make a deal with a foreign nation that is or is not a treaty but also changes the law (at least in its application )
No..
In the US, you only need ID to travel on certain infrastructures. Air travel until recently didn't require an id inside the US unless you needed to pick up tickets at the gate. Now it is mandatory for most all if not all commercial air travel.
But outside of a drivers license to operate a car or something, you do not need ID to travel. If you are a passenger in a car, you can go across the country with no ID. Now if somehow you end up dealing with the cops, you will have to identify yourself but that can be done with a social security number and by other means (it might become a hassle without ID ).
Republican, democrats, about all the parties candidates could be included but you are foolish if you actually think it is limited to politicians of any party or all of them.
I see you voted in the last democrat primary, donations to us will help stop those republicans. Or democrats vote on Thursdays and republicans vote on mondays- see ya at the polls. Mr Anonymous Coward of 123 wanderland lane, if you could give me your social security number or a bank card to verify your identity, i can inform you of the new polling locations for your district.
Traditionally, You had to request the information leaving a trail if you actually did something like that. Getting the information anonymously sort of bypasses that so people looking to do harm do not have as much fear of being caught.
What happens when some hack group decides to target the phones and network infrastructure and your card or apple pay doesn't work to purchase your gasoline or groceries or diapers or whatever? What happens when same group transfers all your money from your accounts into some unclaimed fund or encrypts the banks computers and holds your accounts hostage and you have to wait 2 weeks until it gets sorted out?
There are downsides to everything. If cash was still around, an ATM could work from a cached balance and distribute some money, friends could loan others some money until things come back up.
Wow.. How daft can you be?
Ok, lets follow this thread, someone stated how stupid it was to link to kotaku and think it was trustworthy. He then said he was surprised how they didn't try to push the BS SJW crap along with it. The next poster said that kotaku is finding their business model doesn't fit with the SJW crap and has been backing off it. Kodaku is known for pushing the SJW bullshit but seems to be stepping away in favor of profits because the people they attract with the SJW bullshit don't get them paid.
So how is his use of the word ironic (more page views/people attracted to the site because of a specific topic but less revenue overall because of the same type of topic) any different from alanis momorissette's use? I mean it fits your definition just as well as anything she sings about.
The only person who is claiming Alanis doesn't know what Irony is in this thread is you and you are trying to attribute that statement to me who never said it at all. I wouldn't be going around calling people a moron until you are certain you yourself isn't a bigger moron.
Yes it is being claimed.
Oh i get it now. You were being facetious. If you don't spend three times as much as the value of the property confiscated in order to claim it, you obviously didn't want it so you technically didn't claim it.
lol.. They take it from you and refuse to give it back when you request it. Its not that it is unclaimed at all.
But I like the way you think. Do you support the government doing all sorts of other things like killing civilians or even locking them up without due process? I mean it's not their fault you stepped in front of the drone or didn't run fast enough right? And when a thief breaks into your home and robs you blind, it's your fault for not having better locks on the door right? Do you think that women who are raped deserved it because they dressed like they wanted it?
Oh and BTW, the term you are looking for is escheat. And no, it doesn't happen when you are actively trying to claim the finds but the state placed road blocks or hurdles that make it difficult or impracticable.
I guess we should all be good little puppets of the state.
Not only is it wrong, it is unconstitutional. The 5th amendment has in it among other things, " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." IF there is no charges and conviction, I'm not sure how it can not run afoul of those statements.IF budgets are predicated on the confiscated monies. It certainly is taking property for public use and requires just compensation you would think.
Then why did you say "However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts."
You're contradicting yourself now. But do note how I am referring to your words by quoting them.
No contradiction there at all. You said in reference to the preamble. "Ok, but it should at least have some ability to pursue the goals as stated in the Preamble.". It does do that within the limits the entire constitution was originally set out to be. You seem to be thinking that something is missing but will not enlighten us to what that is or what goal or ability that it should pursue that it doesn't already. No spell it out or drop it I guess. All you seem to be doing it nitpicking on anyone trying to get to the bottom of what you mean anyways and ignoring your original statement altogether.
And you would be completely wrong. The preamble explains the document and it's intent, not some imaginary goals you think now apply. The preamble is to the constitution not life and society in general. The constitution does set out the ability to keep those goals and is the reasoning behind the content of the constitution. The only sanity that needs questioning here might be yours.
I've explained this several time now (twice within this post), if you don't get it, move on already. I understand how you are missing it, it appears you missed it when you said it too.
Quit being obtuse in order to cling to your failed statements. In this case, a geopolitical entity with defined borders is all we need to look at and anyone with half a brain wouldn't be confused by your distractions.
No, that wasn't true at all outside of the jurisdictional limits of the federal government. This has been blurred a bit and expanded since the passage of the 14th amendment but is still true today. Take the 27th amendment for instance, it says congress cannot take a pay raise until they have been up for election. This certainly doesn't apply to state congress or local political ent
No I did not clearly claim Alanis doesn't know what Irony means. I clearly claimed that a bunch of high school kids tore pages from a dictionary in an attempt to make a joke. Anything you are referring to other than that is your misguided imagination. Do you understand what that means? It is all in your head.
Now we can talk about your inability to see signs of mental disorder all day long if you want. I would start with pointing out that you cannot take a joke and for some incessant reason have to defend Alanis as if you personally know her (which I doubt is remotely true). But we can also point to the problem you have with ignoring what was actually said and inserting what you want to be said in order to justify your rant. Calling people names is just a sign of a weak mental process and I wouldn't consider that a mental disorder but in your case, it seems to be symptomatic in with the rest of your ailments.
Perhaps you should just seek professional help and put the keyboard down for now or you might really get your panties into a knot..