Judge Bean
Senior Member
Bush Did Not Win the Election?
Not what I meant-- but you knew that already, right? You're free to say whatever you want to however you want to say it: but, if you say some stuff, you're going to get some other stuff back.
I don't need to do field research myself to form an opinion; others have done it for me. Experts in speech pathology have made a study of the president's patterns of expression over the past few years, and have noted a marked decline in his ability to retain complex ideation and to formulate novel speech-- exactly what happens to someone of his age suffering from an assault on the brain's oxygen by alcohol abuse. The article is in a recent issue of Psychology Today, I believe.
But, in addition, consider what you are suggesting: that I should spend a year in AA before forming or expressing an opinion about the mental state of the president. That is quite an interesting thing to say.
So, let me get this straight: President Bush may be someone who has serious emotional and spiritual problems, who lacks the strength of character to overcome his addiction. It looks as though my description of him in this (granted) abbreviated manner was quite on the mark.
The beer/ketchup thing is funnier to Bush partisans than to some of the rest of us. I tend to look behind what people say, as well as try to appreciate humor when it is available, and what I saw was a pattern in your response to my posts in response to yours. For example, on another thread you described a strange encounter with a stranger who invoked the strange year (for you) of 1996. When I discussed how this fit in with both 12 Monkeys and a tradition in Western literature and mythology of encounters with unusual strangers, you backed off and said that it was all a trivial thing and didn't deserve much analysis.
You may be right, and I apologize for overanalyzing tidbits. But one thing I believe we must be vigilant in doing is closely examining the complex of lies and chicanery being presented to us as our representative government. We are literally losing our private lives, our posterity, and our freedom to these criminals.
I find this interesting, also. The truth is, the government itself is the most paranoid conspiracy theorist in existence. Do you know that they have a list (under project Echelon) of over a thousand inane expressions or words, including hundreds of alphabet designations like "CIA" and "NSC," which, as I understand it, when used over the internet, can result in surveillance of your speech, and possibly investigation into your activities? Look up this combination on Google: SAI and Majic. We are all part of the conspiracy, pal; it's just that some of us are in the part with all of the money and power.
This is the age of lowered expectations. You see it in the test scores and the tolerance for the crap in the movies and TV. Now we're supposed to see it in the White House? Just what is it about us that makes us deserve or accept a person for President of the United States who has the moral standards of Amsterdam or
Bangkok? I'm talking about Clinton. Why do we think we should settle for a president who has a drinking problem?
Of the ones we had to choose from, there were probably three or four with drinking problems, if statistics and sociological data were consulted. I won't name names, but the stress, the ages of the candidates, the emotional pressures, and the way some of them acted...
You don't have to defend what you say, and I don't mean to denigrate either you or your opinions based on experiences. I apologize for this impression.
Finally, though... come on, Bush?
Originally posted by phase12@Dec 29 2004, 12:10 AM
Okay, so you're saying that I can say whatever I want (thanks, BTW) but you don't like the manner in which I say them? My responses where directly to what you have said.
Not what I meant-- but you knew that already, right? You're free to say whatever you want to however you want to say it: but, if you say some stuff, you're going to get some other stuff back.
I don't need to do field research myself to form an opinion; others have done it for me. Experts in speech pathology have made a study of the president's patterns of expression over the past few years, and have noted a marked decline in his ability to retain complex ideation and to formulate novel speech-- exactly what happens to someone of his age suffering from an assault on the brain's oxygen by alcohol abuse. The article is in a recent issue of Psychology Today, I believe.
But, in addition, consider what you are suggesting: that I should spend a year in AA before forming or expressing an opinion about the mental state of the president. That is quite an interesting thing to say.
So, let me get this straight: President Bush may be someone who has serious emotional and spiritual problems, who lacks the strength of character to overcome his addiction. It looks as though my description of him in this (granted) abbreviated manner was quite on the mark.
The beer/ketchup thing is funnier to Bush partisans than to some of the rest of us. I tend to look behind what people say, as well as try to appreciate humor when it is available, and what I saw was a pattern in your response to my posts in response to yours. For example, on another thread you described a strange encounter with a stranger who invoked the strange year (for you) of 1996. When I discussed how this fit in with both 12 Monkeys and a tradition in Western literature and mythology of encounters with unusual strangers, you backed off and said that it was all a trivial thing and didn't deserve much analysis.
You may be right, and I apologize for overanalyzing tidbits. But one thing I believe we must be vigilant in doing is closely examining the complex of lies and chicanery being presented to us as our representative government. We are literally losing our private lives, our posterity, and our freedom to these criminals.
I find this interesting, also. The truth is, the government itself is the most paranoid conspiracy theorist in existence. Do you know that they have a list (under project Echelon) of over a thousand inane expressions or words, including hundreds of alphabet designations like "CIA" and "NSC," which, as I understand it, when used over the internet, can result in surveillance of your speech, and possibly investigation into your activities? Look up this combination on Google: SAI and Majic. We are all part of the conspiracy, pal; it's just that some of us are in the part with all of the money and power.
This is the age of lowered expectations. You see it in the test scores and the tolerance for the crap in the movies and TV. Now we're supposed to see it in the White House? Just what is it about us that makes us deserve or accept a person for President of the United States who has the moral standards of Amsterdam or
Bangkok? I'm talking about Clinton. Why do we think we should settle for a president who has a drinking problem?
Of the ones we had to choose from, there were probably three or four with drinking problems, if statistics and sociological data were consulted. I won't name names, but the stress, the ages of the candidates, the emotional pressures, and the way some of them acted...
You don't have to defend what you say, and I don't mean to denigrate either you or your opinions based on experiences. I apologize for this impression.
Finally, though... come on, Bush?
