Does Bush have brain damage?

Sort by date Most Liked Posts
mindseye

mindseye

Experimental Member
Media: 0
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,394
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
358
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In another thread, Madame_Zora raised the issue that George W. Bush's personality type is common among people with unresolved substance-abuse issues.

Dr. Katherine van Wormer, Professor of Social Work at UNI, advances the theory in this article (2002) and this follow-up article (2004) that

George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 06:40 AM
not any proof at all, that it is true, and hardly from a credible source?

Tender
Click to expand...
A university professor, published author well trained and respected in her field of study is not credible??? It was an opinion piece relating to her experience with drug and alcoholism and it's effects on people...and the traits the shrub is exhibiting. Did you read the articles? I am not saying every word is true, but it does explain some puzzling behavior patterns in our dictator.
 
In fact, I was expecting she'd say something like that, which is why I linked to her Vita. Although I'm in a different field, I also teach at a university, and I've seen enough P&T reviews to know how impressive her publications list is.
 
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 02:40 PM
i would hardly call one opinion by a professor to be truth LOL
Where are the studies that she has done to prove he is a dry drunk, and that this has caused him to 'replace' one addiction for a fixated behavior?
that is just her explaination of a choice he made that she personally disagrees with.
Free- thinking, someone was saying earlier, how important that is.
it means realizing that not everything the Professor, or Bush, or your TV says is true !

And Kink Guy, yes i read it! You must have not read it, or my post in order to have asked me that. ? I clearly said, yes i think that his father being in office before him would be a difficult thing to deal with. Was that not in the article?
I dont see how that, or the war with Iraq, has anything to do with him having 'brain damage', or being a dry drunk. I see that as being issues any President could have had to deal with, if he had the same circumstances, drunk or not.

Tender
Click to expand...
Again tender, OPINION PIECE. I stated that in my post, didn't I? And I did not claim it to be "fact", did I? Did I not also state that it represented her views based on her experiences with drug and alcoholism and it's effects? Didn't I? No one, least of all the professor stated she had "tested" the shrub. It was HER OPINION, based on physical, speech and mannerisms the shrub exhibits.

And especially, while we're on the subject, as you said, and the quote follows: Free- thinking, someone was saying earlier, how important that is. it means realizing that not everything the Professor, or Bush, or your TV says is true!" If that truly is your belief and not just rhetoric, which I doubt, then your postings seem to only support "free thought" if it agrees with your position.

Just one heathen's opinion.
 
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 04:40 PM
i would hardly call one opinion by a professor to be truth LOL
Click to expand...
Certainly, when it comes to "fuzzy" sciences like behavior and social work, it's impossible to establish incontrovertible truths. Perhaps GWB's behavior is caused by a different form of mental illness with the same symptoms?

What van Wormer has done is provided evidence to support her opinion; documents corroborating support from other researchers (Brisbort); and provides credentials that establish her ability to draw the conclusions she has.

If Tender wants to adequately refute van Wormer's expert opinion, she could cite evidence (and sources) that the Bush quotes in the article are in fact consistent with the behavior patterns of successfully-recovering alcoholics. Disagreeing without a substantial basis for that disagreement, however, is the equivalent of burying one's head in the sand.
 
I read both articles and was impressed on several accounts. First, she cited MANY resources for her views, these were not unsubstantiated opinions of one woman! Second, clearly she has worked first-hand in the field of recovery, her credentials are sound. Most reassuring was the method by which she outlined the symptoms and developed each one as it pertains to Bush's presidency, using direct quotes of the man himself. She cited well documented facts, not her opinions! She did add her opinions, more toward the end, but stated them as such, not to be confusing with the majority of the text.

I will be surprised if the article is given much attention, our society as a whole is so very unaware of the effects of alcolholism. Tender is certainly not alone in believing that a person can just stop drinking/using and everything is back to normal&#33; Most non-alcoholic people even believe that after a person is "dry" (not drinking/using) for a time, that they will be okay to drink again&#33; AA is somewhat to blame here (THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT A FACT&#33;&#33;). Because of the anonymous nature of AA, much of the very valuable info is kept inside the hallowed halls. When AA was originated, alcoholism was seen very differently than it is today. Many people feared losing jobs, families, respect in the community MORE from the stygma associated with alcoholism than from the absurd behavior they were displaying while drinking&#33; People have an easier time making excuses, even now, and shoving things under the rug than dealing with such a tremendously difficult problem. You&#39;ll hear "boys will be boys", and "Oh, he just had one too many" or "She&#39;s just gone through <insert tragedy of the moment>, so anyone could understand why she drank too much&#33;". It&#39;s easy for a person NOT to get help when they are surrounded with such support for their current state&#33;

Clearly, Bush Sr and Jr did not want the stygma of alcoholism to get on them&#33; They didn&#39;t mind saying he "couldn&#39;t control his liquor, but was not clinically an alcoholic". How hilarious&#33; Alcoholism is not a "clinically" diagnosed disease&#33;&#33;&#33; ROFLMAO. Anyone who has attended more than ONE meeting will learn that alcoholism is self-diagnosed. This is all the confirmation I need to know that their family is in complete denial about the severity of the problem. Coincidentally, "not being able to control your liquor and continuing to drink anyway, despite negative consequences in your life" is as close as any to a perfect definition of what alcoholism really is, in case anyone was curious.
 
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 06:45 PM
CLEARLY a gaydar assumption of me, as i have never said any such thing.
Click to expand...
Please kindly stop blaming your thought processes on "gaydar"...you aren&#39;t equipped with it. Obviously. Political/religious rhetoric does not fall under the powers of gaydar. Thank God. :wacko:
 
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 15 2004, 12:45 AM
Clinton. . .come to think of it, that may be why he showed signs of brain damage in office too :lol: having both hands in a womans shirt, that was not his wife
Click to expand...
Damn...I have been in that situation and did not know it was due to brain damage. I thought it was because of my very friendly nature and mischieveous hormones.

The things you can learn on this board. ;)

jay
 
mindseye..

Great links. I put off reading them until I got some fuel because I expected well, yawn. I was fearful of something outta the Journal: You&#39;re Gonna Need a Special Dictionary.

Now maybe I understand why Dubya proposed a human flight to Mars....not really. Can you imagine a three or four-year space trip with little or nothing to do followed by 25 minutes of terror as you descend....then you find that you cannot stand up? Oh yea, there is the flight back and reentry. So possibly seven or eight years in a high radiation environment, true glowing gonads would not be much of a problem for a corpse. Any volunteers?

jay
 
Two weeks ago, Tender questioned the credentials of the author of the articles linked above, and insinuated that Dr. van Wormer&#39;s researched, substantiated opinion was no more valid than her own. (She has since withdrawn the objection.)


In a recent book Dr. Justin Frank makes several of the same points that Dr. van Wormer made:


As a citizen, I worry about what these contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president&#39;s ability to govern; as a psychoanalyst, I&#39;m troubled by their implications for the president&#39;s current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of certain information we know about his past. Naturally, the occasional misstatement or discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as politics as usual. But when the most powerful man on the planet consistently exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated symptoms -- any one of which I&#39;ve seen patients need years to work through -- it&#39;s certainly cause for further investigation, if not for outright alarm.
Click to expand...

Dr. Frank is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at George Washington University.
 
Originally posted by jay_too+Jul 14 2004, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jay_too @ Jul 14 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tender@Jul 15 2004, 12:45 AM
Clinton. . .come to think of it, that may be why he showed signs of brain damage in office too :lol: having both hands in a womans shirt, that was not his wife
Click to expand...
Damn...I have been in that situation and did not know it was due to brain damage. I thought it was because of my very friendly nature and mischieveous hormones.

The things you can learn on this board. ;)

jay [/b][/quote]
Yanno, I&#39;m willing to bet a century from now, Republicans will still be talking about Clinton.
 
As I stated earlier, I found rthe article entirely credible, based on my own knowledge of hundreds of alcoholics over the past 11 years. Tender, thankfully, withdrew her comments and her presence from this board.
 
One situation is a blow job for gods sake....the other is irrational, irratic behavior of a sitting President. To say nothing of the wholesale destruction and ownership of another country. How in heaven or hell, can the two be equated?

Morals my hairy ass.
 
Javierdude22:
Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 29 2004, 11:58 PM
As I stated earlier, I found rthe article entirely credible, based on my own knowledge of hundreds of alcoholics over the past 11 years. Tender, thankfully, withdrew her comments and her presence from this board.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think that comment was highly unnecessary.

We have quite a number of Bush supporters on the board, some with conservative views. If someone on the board is confronted by their views, maybe very different from theirs, deal with it. Discuss it, debate it, learn from eachothers opinions.

But having it made easy by having someone retract his or her entire presence is a bit tóo easy in my opinion.

Think like me or you don&#39;t belong to the group....wow...haven&#39;t experienced that since kindergarten. Very sad.
 
Originally posted by Javierdude22@Jul 30 2004, 04:41 AM
We have quite a number of Bush supporters on the board, some with conservative views. If someone on the board is confronted by their views, maybe very different from theirs, deal with it. Discuss it, debate it, learn from eachothers opinions.
Click to expand...
In fairness, I believe Madame_Zora&#39;s expression of thankfulness was not due to Tender&#39;s political beliefs, but to her one-sided style of argument. When faced with disagreement, Tender committed the textual equivalent of plugging her fingers in her ears and chanting "la la la LA LA LA la la la".

Tender gave no consideration to the points other people were raising; in her black-and-white world, she was right and you were wrong. As further evidence of the lack of respect that Tender afforded the discourse on here, when she left, she edited the content out of each of her posts, choosing selfishly to hide her tracks rather than to preserve the flow of the threads. (Good thing she&#39;s not a bricklayer on a team project&#33;)

I believe Madame_Zora has been considerate and respectful to conservatives who post thoughtfully and coherently on here.
 
Originally posted by mindseye@Jul 30 2004, 07:13 AM
I believe Madame_Zora has been considerate and respectful to conservatives who post thoughtfully and coherently on here.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Too bad it isn&#39;t a contageous characteristic.

This conservative doesn&#39;t get into long, drawn out verbal pie-throwing contests since all that does is get everybody covered in slime. Whether it&#39;s politics or religion doesn&#39;t matter: nobody&#39;s mind is ever changed, no doors of revelation open to manifest sudden enlightenment and most of all, nobody comes out the victor despite the egoistic euphoria one might feel after &#39;scoring a point.&#39;

Our discussions are interesting as long as they stay discussions. When the participants get into vitriol and name-calling, the fun of verbal intercourse is gone and we have descended to the level of pie-throwing stooges.

I have a better idea. Let&#39;s all go to Six Flags. I&#39;ll be the old fart driving the bus and dancing around the park.
 
Bingo. Too bad it isn&#39;t a contageous characteristic.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

This conservative doesn&#39;t get into long, drawn out verbal pie-throwing contests since all that does is get everybody covered in slime. Whether it&#39;s politics or religion doesn&#39;t matter: nobody&#39;s mind is ever changed, no doors of revelation open to manifest sudden enlightenment and most of all, nobody comes out the victor despite the egoistic euphoria one might feel after &#39;scoring a point.&#39;
Click to expand...

I think that&#39;s a very pessimistic point of view. I&#39;ll agree that the number of minds out there that are open to change is very small, but they&#39;re still out there. If there were no undecided voters in the population, both parties would save a bundle on advertising.

"Whether it&#39;s politics or religion doesn&#39;t matter" -- agreed. There must be people who are &#39;undecided&#39; about their religion as well; otherwise, why proselytize? Why knock on people&#39;s doors to pass out Watchtower magazines?

My goal here is not to score ego points. When I&#39;ve argued with Tender, it&#39;s not because I hope to change her mind, or even to "win" against her. It&#39;s to keep her from changing other people&#39;s minds -- and given that you believe "nobody&#39;s mind is ever changed", here&#39;s where we disagree on tactics. Her ideas -- and her manner of presenting them -- were sufficiently offensive to me that I felt it important to challenge and counter them to other people reading the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom