Is Bush neuro-impaired?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 2 of 10
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.
What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.
What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B. on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
Oh please! Spare us the charades.
"This kind of talk was due to come out right before the election. Seems some folks just get that despirate(sic} for ANY sort of an edge, and smearing the opponent by any means is 'ok' to some."
Actually, I've been noticing this for some time (as I mentioned before). As to trying to somehow 'convince' people to not vote for Bush, there are other points to make for anyone with 'reality based' thinking.
For what it's worth, I have a rather large long-standing bet going with a co-worker that Bush will be re-elected. Not that it's what I hope for, it's just how I think things will go.
But I wonder, won't you feel stupid when the doom Bush seems bent on pursuing actually comes to pass?
You know, maybe I'll start a list of everyone who thinks Bush walks on water, and get new postings going for each fresh hell of Bush's making, just to see you run in circles trying to rationalize the whole thing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue: HAHAHAHA!!!!
Auraptor-
You have two choices, neither of them particularly attractive. Either Bush lied, or he's as dumb as a dust bunny. Your choice! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCAVALIER
"Could you...not do that while we're--ever?" Friday, October 22, 2004 - 07:20
Quote:
I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B.... on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.
Thanks for proving my point. You offer zero evidence, only your own perspective of Bush 'shamelessly' acting yadda yadda.... that's your OPINION,not FACT. Sorry, but me not agreeing with you does not make me disingenuous or ignorant. Petty ad hominems don't equal objective fact.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor
I noticed that you didn't responed to my post. I feel left out!
TO expand on my point, Bush's first rationale for invading Iraq was WMD, his next was terrorism (and the flypaper theory of terrorism!), his third was because "Saddam was a bad man and a threat to the USA" (despite no WMD or connection to 9-11), his fourth was to spread democracy. He was wrong three times and probably the fourth too.
So, if he wasn't lying, then he believed each and every rationale. It's possible that depsite his best efforts he was misled the first time. But then he continued to rely on the same people a second, third, and fourth time. How do you explain this pattern?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know if he's neuro-impaired or not. Two bits of information: he hasn't taken his physical this year (he's postponing the physical until after the election - which is unprecedented) and his public speaking persona has changed drastically in ten years. I'm including the following video link as a pre-president measure. Ignore the text, it's clearly biased (which does not mean it's invalid, just that there is a clear agenda). Only focus in on how Bush comports himself during his 1994 debate with Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas. Then ask yourself if he has changed.
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz/BrainTenYrs*.mov
There are many theories floating around to explain why Bush's public speaking skill has changed so drastically in ten years. For example: he had a stroke, it's the long term effects of cocaine and alcohol abuse, it's an affected characteristic designed to appeal to voters, it's a product of reading a teleprompter/listening to pre-recordings of himself reading the speech/being fed the lines through an earpiece, he just doesn't care what he says anymore, he's tired, etc. Whatever the reason, I think it's hard to deny that his ability to speak in public has changed for the worse since he became president.
Is this important? Only if there is a serious problem with his health that is being covered up until the election is over. President Cheney is not a comforting thought for me.
My personal take on this is that Bush just doesn't care how he is perceived anymore. All he has to do is go through the motions and those who support him will continue to support him. I need more evidence before I agree with the neuro-impaired theory.
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor
I noticed that you didn't responed to my post. I feel left out!
TO expand on my point, Bush's first rationale for invading Iraq was WMD, his next was terrorism (and the flypaper theory of terrorism!), his third was because "Saddam was a bad man and a threat to the USA" (despite no WMD or connection to 9-11), his fourth was to spread democracy. He was wrong three times and probably the fourth too.
So, if he wasn't lying, then he believed each and every rationale. It's possible that depsite his best efforts he was misled the first time. But then he continued to rely on the same people a second, third, and fourth time. How do you explain this pattern?
There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate. The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken. Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one. It's not that hard to understand, really.
Oh,and neither Bush or anyone in his administration ever SAID that Saddam was directly involved w/ 9-11, so claiming THAT as another 'lie' is simply a non sequitur. It was speculated OUTSIDE the Administration by all manner of 'experts' and media, but not by Bush.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate
I can't find a shred of accuracy in ANY of them Here's why...
Quote:
The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken.
The REASON why we invaded Iraq was because the Bush administration was making hysterical statements like "We know where they are" and "ready to be deployed in 45 minutes", "thousands of liters of anthrax". And strangely (or sadly) about 70% of the people who are going to vote for Bush STILL BELIEVE that WMD were found in Iraq.
In any case, the UN didn't need or ask for our help. Hans Blix said he only needed a couple more months to prove what the inspection team already understood- that Iraq did not have an active WMD program. All of the major "evidence" cited by Bush (aluminum tubes, the forged document, the attempted yellowcake uranium purchase) were demonstrated false before they were even presented to the American people.
So, since reason #1 was found out to be a bust, Bush comes up with reason #2- terrorism. You're right- he never SAID that Saddam was directly linked to 9-11. He DID say that Iraq and Al Qaida had "high-level" contacts, and that terrorists could obtain those (non-existant) WMD, and he let us infer the rest. Now, when someone is THAT careful about their wording you can also infer there was an intent to deceive right from the start. But let's assume that Bush was being led astray by the same ppl who led him astray the first time, and that he wasn't deliberately misleading us. When various commissions debunked the Saddam-terrorist threat, Bush moves on to reason #3- Saddam was a "bad man".
Quote:
Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one
It's hard for these crime to "go along with the main one" because the "main one" never existed. Be that as it may, most of the human-right violations occurred decades before Gulf War II. If you're really concerned about human right, you don't invade a nation years after the fact. If our REAL concern was because of human rights abuses we would have had more of a case invading Sudan where genocide as occuring AT THE TIME.
Even assuming that the war was justified- which it definitely was NOT- what does it say for Bush as commander-in-Chief for doing such a half-assed job? According to Pat Robertson, Bush's outlook was that we wouldn't suffer any casulites at all.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2857961 HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WERE INVADING A NATION WITH WMD READY TO BE DEPLOYED IN 45 MINUTES?
It just doesn't. You can't really believe that Iraq had a viable massive, ready-to-be-deployed WMD threat and believe that we would suffer "no casulties" at the same time. Or, if you manage to belive both, then your thinking is seriously impaired.
Ergo, this leads me back to my original statment- Bush either lied (because he deliberately spread falsehoods) or he's a dumb as a dust bunny (because he believed them). And sicne you keep defending Bush, what does this say about you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME