IS bush a dry drunk?

[madame_zora]

Once again, I am not speaking for all of psychology, I was addressing this ONE article written by this ONE author, and the only way you seem to be able to argue with me is to make archetypes of the issues to shoot them down.

What I really wanted to discuss was the phenomena that so many people seem to be able to reconcile ignoring the blatantly obvious, when something like this was written fully four years ago, and we're just now getting around to discussing the possibility that his thinking may not be quite grounded. Well, duh!

I'm also not seeking to condemn him, but I'd sure sleep better at night if I could just understand "why". There are enough unanswered questions in my life, that if I could get a basic grasp of why my president is leading my country into financial and moral bankruptcy, that might just help a little.

I think that different people offer different things of value to society, and MAYBE there could even be some valuable contributions from the field of psychology to help explain human behavior. I was hoping this thread would launch a conversation, I was not attempting for the article to be taken as authoritative. I'M certainly no expert on anything! Yet, in every single response of yours you have accused either me, or the author, or the whole field of psychology of taking an authoritative tone that it/we did not deserve. Can you say "transferrence"?

Why can't someone present a point of view, and open a discussion, without being accused of using underhanded tactics to gain authority? I think the answer lies, once again, in the realm of the extremely obvious.

There are some simple, basic ideas that the field of psychology has made available to the world in general. That so many choose to ignore it is NOT to the benefit of the race of man as a whole. I wouldn't want to see a discipline develop without skeptics, and a healthy set of checks and balances, but SOME lattitude is necessary in a new discipline or nothing new could ever develop.



Once again, I submit this early profile of bush, based on his drinking history, and compared to what we know about the behavior of alcoholics who stop drinking, but do not attend any kind of treatment classes to deal with their personality issues. Anyone care to comment on THAT?

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

If I may be so bold, I don't think that this thread was a failure. I felt it did launch a number of interesting conversations on Bush related topics. I enjoyed our talk however I'm sorry if I allowed my concerns about the nature of the endeavor to take the forefront and dominate the discourse to the exclusion of all others.

 

[Freddie53]

Once again, I am not speaking for all of psychology, I was addressing this ONE article written by this ONE author, and the only way you seem to be able to argue with me is to make archetypes of the issues to shoot them down.

What I really wanted to discuss was the phenomena that so many people seem to be able to reconcile ignoring the blatantly obvious, when something like this was written fully four years ago, and we're just now getting around to discussing the possibility that his thinking may not be quite grounded. Well, duh!

I'm also not seeking to condemn him, but I'd sure sleep better at night if I could just understand "why". There are enough unanswered questions in my life, that if I could get a basic grasp of why my president is leading my country into financial and moral bankruptcy, that might just help a little.

I think that different people offer different things of value to society, and MAYBE there could even be some valuable contributions from the field of psychology to help explain human behavior. I was hoping this thread would launch a conversation, I was not attempting for the article to be taken as authoritative. I'M certainly no expert on anything! Yet, in every single response of yours you have accused either me, or the author, or the whole field of psychology of taking an authoritative tone that it/we did not deserve. Can you say "transferrence"?

Why can't someone present a point of view, and open a discussion, without being accused of using underhanded tactics to gain authority? I think the answer lies, once again, in the realm of the extremely obvious.

There are some simple, basic ideas that the field of psychology has made available to the world in general. That so many choose to ignore it is NOT to the benefit of the race of man as a whole. I wouldn't want to see a discipline develop without skeptics, and a healthy set of checks and balances, but SOME lattitude is necessary in a new discipline or nothing new could ever develop.



Once again, I submit this early profile of bush, based on his drinking history, and compared to what we know about the behavior of alcoholics who stop drinking, but do not attend any kind of treatment classes to deal with their personality issues. Anyone care to comment on THAT?

I am not a pscyology expert either. But I can read. And I did take the time to read the article, all of it.

I was appalled. Espcially since the evidence since then has continued to back up the theory. I wish the evidence didn't. But it does. That is not Zora's fault or my fault. It might not even be something that George himself recongizes. But it is still there.

Whether or not Bush is a dry drunk or not is something that can be debated. The evidence though that is there is there and can't be swept under the rug.

For years I have heard people say that this Iraq war was for Daddy. No new news.

I talked to someone from the Middle East. An assyrian Christian. It is ironoic that Sadamn was a secular Muslim. He did not practice the religion himself. His mother was a Christian. Christians were given freedom of religion under Sadamn. Now that the Shiite Muslims are running the show, Christians have less freedom now than before.

We didn't go in to help out our "Chrisian friends" We didn't go in to find weapons of mass destruction. Just why did we go in.

This article explains it well. I am not going to accuse any one particular person, but I suspect some have contributed to this thread that never read the article in the first place: A must to intelligently discuss this topic.

I for one and glad that Zora found and shared the article. To me it explains so much about Geroge Bush.

PROJECTION INTO THE FUTURE:

Year 2275:

Test in an non American nation:

next question number 10.

Name the first emporer of the American Empire?

Correct answer: George Bush.

Number 11.

Name the last President of the American Republic.

Correct Answer: Bill Clinton

Number `12

When did George Bush become the new Emporer and why?

In December 2008 when Jeb Bush was defeated by his Democratic opponenet. Bush seized complete power to prevent the return of power to the Democrats.

Number 13

How long did the Bush dynasty last?

112 years. The last Bush emporer was a playboy who let parts of the nation's capital burn. Supposedly the last Bush was listening to CD's as the fire went through the ghetto parts of town.

Number 14

Who was America's Joan of Arc during America's second civil war folowing the cornation of Emporer George Bush.

Correct Answer: Madame Zora, who led a rag tag army from the LPSG who almost made a successful raid on the White House with her second in command Freddie 53. The two were exiled on a beautiful bay there in Cuba for the remainder of their days, where there lodgings allowed them to enjoy nature in its most natural form. Rumor has it that it just being the two of them that Madame Zora turned Freddie into a flaming straight hunk with a 14 inch dick. However, most historians dismiss this as legend. There is no evidence that Madame Zora had the power to change orientation or make adult dicks grow in length and girth.

The Zora and Freddie Historical Society still exists in parts of Europe though still banned in America.

The two were buried in unmarked graves to prevent cults form gatheirng and making their graves unofficial national monuments.

 

[AndrewEndowed24]

besides, you're turning this around. you were the one who first argued that psychological claims were not supposed to be scientific. That's an general claim, not a specific one. I was referring to that.

Besides, I argued originally that all of the terms used as a criteria could have multiple causes and seemed fairly consistent with his personal history. If you don't call that arguing the issue, then you won't be happy until i accept your thesis. I wasn't creating a general archetype, I was saying that in this specific instance, I didn't think we could tell based on the vagueness of the disorder. Like it or not, that is a form of arguing the issue because it takes into account Bush's behavior as well as the labels we would like to put on his behavior and determines what can be made of the two. That's the whole point.

 

[Shelby]

Not just a dry drunk. A coocoo dry drunk.
​

 

[Freddie53]

Not just a dry drunk. A coocoo dry drunk.​

Do click on coocoo. There is an aritcle there. Very troubling to say the least. Nothing I didn't already suspect though.

 

[madame_zora]

Not just a dry drunk. A coocoo dry drunk.​

OMFG Shelby, you out-weirded me! Wanna fuck?

 

[B_IanTheTall]

He isn't a dry drunk, while visiting in Mongolia, he drank fermented yacks milk. A know alcoholic drank alcohol to celebrate a third world country sending 53 troops to a disastrous war zone. Great!!!! This explains almost every thing...

 

[madame_zora]

He isn't a dry drunk, while visiting in Mongolia, he drank fermented yacks milk. A know alcoholic drank alcohol to celebrate a third world country sending 53 troops to a disastrous war zone. Great!!!! This explains almost every thing...

That's certainly interesting. Several posters seem to think he's not "dry"- is there any evidence?

 

[Hatched69]

That's certainly interesting. Several posters seem to think he's not "dry"- is there any evidence?

The drool hanging from his chin when asked a question he has no clue about..??

 

[B_IanTheTall]

The drool hanging from his chin when asked a question he has no clue about..??

That might explain why there was no draught this year.

 

[madame_zora]

The drool hanging from his chin when asked a question he has no clue about..??

Oh, no fair using the blatantly obvious, we wants NEWS facts from FOX!

 

[B_IanTheTall]

Oh, no fair using the blatantly obvious, we wants NEWS facts from FOX!

They are busily trying to explain away the lack of a draught... with evidence that was obtained through methods of persuasive interrogation, of which the specifics not be shared, due to sensitive matters of national security.

 

[madame_zora]

They are busily trying to explain away the lack of a draught... with evidence that was obtained through methods of persuasive interrogation, of which the specifics not be shared, due to sensitive matters of national security.

I think I just popped a boner with my new gay dick.

 

[Hatched69]

I think I just popped a boner with my new gay dick.

What about your freshly discarded "Bush".?..:biggrin1:

 

[madame_zora]

What about your freshly discarded "Bush".?..:biggrin1:

Like most bushes, I have no use for it any longer.:tongue:

*shaves quickly*

 

[Hatched69]

Like most bushes, I have no use for it any longer.:tongue:

*shaves quickly*

**watches in awe** :biggrin1: