Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

B** Ain't No Shit Kicker No More !!! Spells Danger Ahead...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:41 AM
Original message
B** Ain't No Shit Kicker No More !!! Spells Danger Ahead...
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 09:43 AM by Laura PackYourBags
During the debates they ran some old clips of Texas gubernatorial debates. He DIDN'T sound like an idiot. Fast forward 2000-2004 he sounds like a shit kickin idiot. Fast forward press conference 2005 he doesn't sound like an idiot again. Misguided, arrogant, fascist liar, but not an idiot. So what is he?

Cheney's Grand Plan to Bush: "Ok, now for your first term, I want you to act like one of the masses, nice but Hee-Haw dumb. For your second term, you can act like, how dare you question me, I won. I can do anything I want...freedom, blah, blah, blah."

It's the second term when he will be able to do ANYTHING the hell he wants!! And just look what he got away with in the first four years!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NationalEnquirer Donating Member (571 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Honestly, I have a theory.
The guy is on meds. Maybe for his addictions, and during the campaign, they messed them up.
Just look at that first debate.
Have you EVER seen ANYONE so "off" for such a thing?
It was scary I tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Did you see his press conference? He was very lucid. I mean
it is almost a complete turnaround. You're right he WAS a totally different person on that first debate. So do you think they medicated him then to dumb him down? He's got two personas (1) dumb and out-of-it (2) hyper and arrogant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NationalEnquirer Donating Member (571 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. Maybe,
I dont think they did anything on purpose, its just how it ended up.
I know several people on psyche meds, and sometimes, they need their doses adjusted depending on what is going on in their lives.
I'll bet the campaign got to Bush really bad and his doses needed fiddling..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodictators Donating Member (977 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
43. Manic depressive, eh?
Or, maybe Panic Depressive in the first debate and in that 9/11 Sarasota classroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkat65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Megalomanic Depressive? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Adderall, Ritalin, or Dexedrine.....eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. I think he was sedated during the debates to keep him from losing his
temper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Griffy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. I have a theory too...
When he is being himself (arrogant, rich, spoiled, racist, facist...) he is lucid, when he is ACTING.. he is an idiot, tonguetied and tripping over himself stretching his vocabulary to dance around the truth. Its not meds or insanity, its what hes saying, like watch when he was asked about mistakes, verus when he was talking to the faithful crowds. Its simple pyschology, you can see it in facial expressions and body language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. Interesting. You're probably right. Think about the first debate
-- it was probably a whole lot easier to "ACT" (then he wouldn't have to study). But that backfired big time. So by the 2nd debate he switched to his REAL self - I'll throw in another one - acerbic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. Check this out: Bush Taking Anti-Depressants to Control Mood Swings
Don't know if this is true. Heard about it on AAR back in July,(think it was Randi; can't remember for sure, but whoever it was said she didn't know if it was true).

Bush Taking Anti-Depressants to Control Mood Swings
By CHB Staff
Jul 28, 2004, 06:13


President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the Presidents mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

Its a double-edged sword, says one aide. We cant have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.

Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

More:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
51. IN THE THIRD DEBATE..
HIS MOUTH WAS CROOKED AND HE HAD GOO BY HIS MOUTH..IS WAS GROSS, BUT SURE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS DRUGGED OR HAD A STROKE!!
I KEPT SCREAMING WIPE THAT GOO OFF YOU GOON!!
DID ANYONE ELSE NOTICE IT??

EWWWWWWW IT WAS NASTY..BUT MORE IMPORTANT HIS MOUTH WAS CROOKED LIKE HE HAD A STROKE!!

FLY :+ :crazy: :hangover:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. Or maybe his script just became easier
no questions, no desire to explain unhappy facts, ten hours of sleep, no hostile audiences--he just repeats lines about freedom and liberty and nobody can get him off topic.

He is simply more comfortable as dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes, the press is missing. There was not one decent followup
question. They are allowing him to get away with murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. No followups, remember? Only 1 question per person...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkat65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. I remember the press being all over the Bush Sr. halidol thing
These days? Gettin' nothin' but static.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think he has compromised blood flow to the brain
Without adequate blood flow, oxygen to the brain is compromised. Without oxygen, the brain doesn't function to its full capacity. So, sometimes he can think on his feet, at other times he simply cannot.

Also remember that psychologically speaking, bush has been diagnosed (without the benefit of personal examination) as an individual who becomes very fired up by attack-style rhetoric because it engages the part of his psyche that rules his personality. He is "at his best," in a manner of speaking, when in destruction mode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Any "psychologist" who claims
to "diagnose (without the benefit of personal examination)" is a quack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashmanonar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. O.o
try this one then. Paul Levy.

it's not like personal examination would help either...bush would just lie. they can at least deduce something from his speeches and mannerisms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Yes, but you have to have a quack pshychologist to diagnose
a quack president!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. No psychologist claimed to have "diagnosed" Bush
in that manner. A psychologist wrote a book analyzing Bush's behavior from the view point of a disinterested, qualified third party. This is done all the time with historical figures and with individuals who are dangerous, but not available for personal analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Do you really think that
the guy who wrote this:

http://www.awakeninthedream.com/georgew.html

is a "disinterested" third party? He describes himself as a "political activist" - do you think a political activist can be described as "disinterested"?

I repeat - any psychologist who claims that he can remotely diagnose a patient is a quack. And "Paul Levy" is not even a psychologist. He is " in private practice, helping other people who are also spiritually awakening to the dream-like nature of reality.". ROTFL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. My commends were in regard to Dr. Justin A. Frank's book
on Bush's mental state. I haven't read the article you sight. And to answer your question, yes I think a qualified researcher can make substantive diagnoses remotely of individuals - it is done all of the time. Have you never read a history book or biography? ROFL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. "Researchers" do not make diagnoses -
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 12:19 PM by qwghlmian
psychologists or psychiatrists do. I suspect that if any psychologist or psychiatrist claimed to make a diagnosis of mental illness without ever meeting the patient he'd be drummed out of the profession or at least be censored by the professional association. It would be extremely irresponsible of him to do so.

On edit: here is one Amazon review of this book that sums it up well:

There are only 3 possible analyses of this book:
(1) I'm a leftwinger, hate George Bush, and I love this book.
(2) I'm a rightwinger, love George Bush, and hate this book.
(3) I'm an apolitical psychologist, and this book is an embarrassment to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Hmm. Which one are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The fourth category -
"not a psychologist, but embarassed for the profession because of the book" - and would have been just as embarassed if it tried to diagnose Clinton, Carter, Reagan etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Do you think a psychologist can derive any analysis out of
pure observation? It is different with a public figure -- when you have so much information and media and history about that person vs. an non-public figure, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Analysis - yes. Diagnosis - no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. You are the one who continually uses the word "diagnosis"
no one else has. That is called "misdirection" and is usually done for a reason. What is yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. This is from the Amazon blurb for Justin. A. Frank's book:
"Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch tackles the question no one seems willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?"

That is a diagnosis, not analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. CASTRO LOVED THE BOOK !!!!
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 02:52 PM by Laura PackYourBags
http://counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html

"The Pathology of George Bush," by Fidel Castro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. And I love Castro!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. LOL. You know, after reading what Castro wrote, I was very
surprised - I guess I didn't know he was so up on everything. Sounds like he's got a good fix on B**
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Even those who hate Castro have always considered him
highly intelligent. He is a greatly flawed human being, but he isn't the monster that he is made out to be those who vilify him. You know many English though Washington was "monstrous" - and to them, I suppose he was...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Do you think a psychologist can derive any analysis out of
pure observation? It is different with a public figure -- when you have so much information and media and history about that person vs. an non-public figure, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. Who was the review by, Dr. Laura? LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. Perhaps I should have used the term "assessed" or "casually evaluated"
because I meant my post to refer to the notion that an objective observer can make judgmental comments about another individual without necessarily diagnosing them.

I have "observed" bush through the media filter for many years, having the unfortunate experience of living in Texas while he was governor, too, and even though my observation is remote, it's clear to me that he is self-absorbed, megalomaniacal, devoid of compassion and empathy, wallowing in his sense of entitlement and privilege. I don't give a flying fudderwicker if some people find him "charming." They said the same thing about Ted Bundy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. And Scott Peterson! BTW, What is a fudderwicker??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Psychologist are not "Scientist" nor are they Physicians.
DSM-IV diagnosis are often completed on very cursory personal interviews with the subject. There are many sources from which information may be obtained. Interpretation is not always clear wherever or however you get your information. I have seen subjects with very different diagnosis from two Psychologist.

I will say this about GW Bush. You do not need to conduct personal interviews with this man to know there are some very serious issues. They may be Physiological or primarily Psychological. His history of substance abuse is well known and continues to be a concern. A dry drunk is almost always at risk.

This man needs to be under the care of both a Neurologist and Psychiatrist especially with his (self admitted) history of substance abuse. Being in Public office is most probably not helping his many issues given the extreme stress of his job. His reaction on 911 in the classroom is one of the saddest, most frightening things I have ever seen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. I agree. But the 9-11 thing,,,,A lot of people are now thinking
that they hadn't even told him everything that happened by the time of that classroom clip from Farenheit 9/11. Of course that could be a hell of a lot scarier. There is a minute by minute account of that morning and a lot of controversy.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaya...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Good article
Been thinking along same lines for some time now.......scarier is right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyn2 Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. Did anyone else notice the right side of his mouth?
I thought I noticed a droop on the right side of his mouth. I wondered if he had had a minor stroke.

But, he still sounds like a shit-kicking idiot to me. Just a more relaxed shit-kicking idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, I didn't. I think is recent from c-span


May be from his perpetual smirking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. I wondered about that before -- it's not new
It's not terribly pronounced and IMO there's no loss of movement as I would presume a stroke victim would have. :shrug: Who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Acryliccalico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. Alcoholic/Drug addict n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
torque Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
13. Medicated madman from...
hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. At first
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 12:43 PM by AuntiBush
I was in deep despair, questioning how all of these evil deeds could go on, before the public and the Hill opponents very ideas. But, after seeing Gates buy Salon, and yesterday he and Clinton and Tony Blair on C-SPAN2 w/no signs of re-pundits, except that leading Repuk leader in the audience (not on stage w/Blair/Clinton/Gates)... it's a gut feeling I have that outside super powers are doing some of their own "stuff," behind the semi-public scenes.

Quite frankly, though I can't help but feel super-glad their beginning to stand up and be heard for Americans before it's too late, Bushite & Co. :scared" me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Aunti. Question for you.. I saw some of Clinton interviewed by
Charlie Rose. Did you? What was VERY interesting is that he asked BC about why B** won. And I am almost positive that BC said that he won because B* won over the last 3-4% that were undecided before election. We all know that K decidely took the votes of those who decided within the last days and weeks before the election. And Clinton is smart enough to know that. Did you hear it too???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icehenge Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
31. I saw most of the press conference
He was asked about the Armstrong Williams payolla deals.

He was also asked about Dr. Rice
The assertions she had lied, Bush didn't answer this....

I think Bush is more comfortable now in his second
term but he doesn't seem to be smarter. maybe more
cocky. But smart? Nah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Did I say smart? I just said "not an idiot" -- But I agree cockier
and not flustered by any of the questions - of course if you don't have to ever worry about follow-up and you have the last word, it's easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. Beast will have power for 44 months
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Wow, 44 months. That sounds so much better than 4 years! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skysurfer Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
52. Which Press Conference?
If you are referring to the recent press conference where he so callously brushed aside the question about the marines who had been killed in the copter crash, there may be a reason for his seeming coherence. I heard and read that members of the White House Press Corps have been replaced with "journalists" who are more sympathetic to the cause. In other words, they've got ringers in there who throw him softball questions in order to make him look better. I don't know how true this is, but if you look at the questions they asked him, it seems very plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC