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

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!

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.

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

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..

Or, maybe Panic Depressive in the first debate and in that 9/11 Sarasota classroom.

temper.

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.

-- 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.

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 President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t 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_4921.shtml

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:

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.

question. They are allowing him to get away with murder.

These days? Gettin' nothin' but static.

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.

to "diagnose (without the benefit of personal examination)" is a quack.

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.

a quack president!

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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?

no one else has. That is called "misdirection" and is usually done for a reason. What is yours?

"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.

http://counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html

"The Pathology of George Bush," by Fidel Castro

surprised - I guess I didn't know he was so up on everything. Sounds like he's got a good fix on B**

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...

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?

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.

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

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/essayaninterestingday.html

Been thinking along same lines for some time now.......scarier is right.

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.

May be from his perpetual smirking...

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?

hell.

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...

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???

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

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.

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.