Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Physician sees 'presenile dementia' in Bush's faltering speech

By Jerry Mazza

Online Journal Contributing Writer

.

September 18, 2004—In a letter to the editor of Atlantic Monthly, October 2004, Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Michigan, comments that James Fallows' July/August Atlantic article on John Kerry's debating skills ("When George Meets John"), "was interesting, but most remarkable was Fallows's documentation of President [sic] Bush's mostly overlooked changes over the past decade—specifically 'the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills.'" Dr. Price understands Fallows' initial "speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's [sic] peculiar mode of speech, a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder."

Quoting Fallows, Dr. Carson also agrees with him that "The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate." Yet, Dr. Carson stated he felt "that something organic was wrong with President [sic] Bush, most probably dyslexia, but . . . was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush's problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater." He was as Fallows said, "artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects . . . [one] who did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones." As Dr. Carson suggests, "Consider, in contrast, the present: 'the informal Q&A he has tried to avoid,' 'Bush's recent faltering performances,' 'his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot,' 'speaking more slowly and less gracefully.'"

Dr. Price suggests that "not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush's problem cannot be 'a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia,' because patients with those problems have always had them." The doctor. goes on to say, "Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President [sic], can represent only one diagnosis, and that is 'presenile dementia'! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer's situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age."

Again, an observation by a medical professional. Who knows if he's right - but he is basing it on his observations. Again, I don't see anything wrong with this. It appears that there is a medical concern here.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

From Publishers Weekly

Lifton brings his unique psychiatric and psychohistorical perspective to the heated issues of the war on terror and America in a unipolar world. Lifton defines superpower syndrome as an aberrant "national mind-set... that takes on a sense of omnipotence, of unique standing in the world that grants it the right to hold sway over all other nations." He examines parallels with other instances of apocalyptic nations, which he has explored in groundbreaking works about Hiroshima (Death in Life), the Holocaust (The Nazi Doctors), the Vietnam War (Home from the War) and global terrorism (Destroying the World to Save It). Bush's war on terror can be seen as apocalyptic, Lifton says, because of its call for an amorphous battle unlimited in time or space and encompassing the absolute eradication of evil. The perceived threat of group annihilation leads apocalyptics to "merge with God in the claim to ownership of death," asserting the right to "murderous purification" and to decide who lives and who dies. The U.S. response to Nazi violence was similarly apocalyptic, in Lifton's analysis, a battle "for global salvation through the flames of destruction," such as the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima. The latter in turn fed into the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult in Japan in the 1990s. Similarly, the Bush response is "part of an ongoing dynamic in which the American apocalyptic interacts, almost to the point of collusion, with the Islamic apocalyptic"-an escalation that, Lifton believes, "has in it the potential seeds of world destruction." Yet escalation isn't inevitable, and with guarded hope, Lifton provides a complex yet clearly articulated roadmap to national self-reflection rather than international destruction.

Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

bush said God told him to invade Iraq.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

from Justin Frank, MD

That is best explained through a psychiatric model. Many diagnostic categories may be applied to Bush (and we can only speculate on them since one of his psychological obstacles is that he has no interest in or inclination towards introspection). But perhaps the most accurate and telling one is that he is indeed a sociopath.

A sociopath is someone (to grossly generalize) who exhibits external and surface empathy and amiability, but internally cannot actually empathize with the pain and suffering of others. In fact, a sociopath may take hidden pleasure in being able to cause emotional distress, suffering, and even death to others, while -- on a day to day basis -- appearing as Mr. Affability.

That, you might say, fits Bush to a "T." And that, you might say, is why he is willing to have everyone sacrifice for his own sociopathological "goals" (as unarticulated as they may be to even Bush) except for himself, his family, and friends.

On December 27 of 2006, we interviewed the author of a book, Bush on the Couch, that has kept haunting us over the past couple of years because it is a kind of Rosetta Stone to the Bush psyche. Written by a nationally prominent psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, it gets to the core of Bush more accurately and perceptively than a thousand blathering books on foreign policy and political science.

Bush on the Couch, by Justin A. Frank, M.D., deserves a wide audience.

Because when Bush holds a PR press gathering, we don't need reporters, we need a room full of psychiatrists to analyze him.

We have a sociopath who has his hands on the steering wheel of America -- and that is a very dangerous thing indeed.

bush said he slept well at night with reference to the Iraqi war and also laughed about looking for WMD's under the oval office desk. How many soldiers died for those non-existant WMD's.

With reference to none of these authors meeting bush. Well republican Sen. Frist made a diagnosis of Terry Schiavo from miles away and made outrageous (and wrong) claims about her abilities.

Also, I did not see any of them saying bush had Down's Syndrome or autism.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[tdslf1 0]

Ari says,

Very convenient. You don't care what they said then, but now, oh boy. He does have socialist style policies he'd like to bring forward. And he's surrounded himself with admitted socialist and communist, and people who are terrorist. So if someone calls him those things, it's not entirely surprising. If you hang out with a certain group of people it's quite likely you'll be associated and called whatever it is that they are ie liberals, conservative, gangster, rocker etc. etc.

I didn't say Bush's name calling was irrelevant. As I stated, I saw the leap people made for calling him a terrorist by taking us to war for little or no reason. I can see how the leap was made, not that I subscribed to it. I never called him a terrorist. I was actually proud of Bush for a minute even though I never voted for him. I soon found out that pride was misplaced with the deception that followed to get us there, but never called him names except a liar.

1.What socialist policies? Like social security and medicaid, medicare, etc? We already have policies that are somewhat socialist.

We all grew up on those. These are a part of my history and yours and Obamas. The leaders before us thought they were right for the country and we adopted them. Then, they turned out to be staples of the American landscape. Who would have thought that socialist policies would work? Bad socialist policy, bad. I could see if we had NO policies like that and then Obama wanted to introduce some, then we have an argument. This is not an argument for reasons stated above. Stop riding that dead horse.

2. Give me a name of a communist who influenced Obama?

More importantly, how does this manifest itself in his philosophy and how he runs the country?

3. What terrorist has influenced Obama?

-Keep in mind, don't run the BS about he sat on a board with one because I can sit on a board with people and not have them influence me too. The people who raised me help form my views and outlook on life, same as Obama.

-Also don't run the BS that Aires introduced Obama to politics because that myth has been debunked as well. A bona fide terrorist who influenced him, bring it.

I can ride a bus everyday with a pedophile, a communist and a socialist and still come out on the other side uninfluenced by them because my views have already been formed, same as Obama. I just fall over when I hear he sat in a church for 20 years and the minister help form him into a racist. I have been to church all my life and the church telling me abortion is sinfull still does not influence whether I have one or not. People can listen to garbage all day long at work but you still go home and do what they want to. His church attendance means nothing. That is not a legitimate argument

As stated earlier, baseless nonsense

Edited May 11, 2010 by tdslf1

[ariscus99 1]

[color[/color]

I didn't say Bush's name calling was irrelevant. As I stated, I saw the leap people made for calling him a terrorist by taking us to war for little or no reason. I can see how the leap was made, not that I subscribed to it. I never called him a terrorist. I was actually proud of Bush for a minute even though I never voted for him. I soon found out that pride was misplaced with the deception that followed to get us there, but never called him names except a liar.

1.What socialist policies? Like social security and medicaid, medicare, etc? We already have policies that are somewhat socialist.

We all grew up on those. These are a part of my history and yours and Obamas. The leaders before us thought they were right for the country and we adopted them. Then, they turned out to be staples of the American landscape. Who would have thought that socialist policies would work? Bad socialist policy, bad. I could see if we had NO policies like that and then Obama wanted to introduce some, then we have an argument. This is not an argument for reasons stated above. Stop riding that dead horse.

2. Give me a name of a communist who influenced Obama?

More importantly, how does this manifest itself in his philosophy and how he runs the country?

3. What terrorist has influenced Obama?

-Keep in mind, don't run the BS about he sat on a board with one because I can sit on a board with people and not have them influence me too. The people who raised me help form my views and outlook on life, same as Obama.

-Also don't run the BS that Aires introduced Obama to politics because that myth has been debunked as well. A bona fide terrorist who influenced him, bring it.

I can ride a bus everyday with a pedophile, a communist and a socialist and still come out on the other side uninfluenced by them because my views have already been formed, same as Obama. I just fall over when I hear he sat in a church for 20 years and the minister help form him into a racist. I have been to church all my life and the church telling me abortion is sinfull still does not influence whether I have one or not. People can listen to garbage all day long at work but you still go home and do what they want to. His church attendance means nothing. That is not a legitimate argument

As stated earlier, baseless nonsense

The first is the easiest, he very clearly said he'd like to spread the wealth around. That is socialism. Taking from the rich giving to the poor, redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Van Jones is a self confessed communist.

And what's wrong with Aires? he is a bona fide terrorist, and it's been proven that he spent more time with bo then he lead us to believe. While he may not have got bo into politics they did know each other better than bo said, and he may, or may not have been influenced by him, we'll never know.

I didn't say people you see in passing, if you would take the time to read the post, you would see that I said people you associate with regularly, so unless you hop of the bus and go to coffee with the pedophile you missed the point.

[tdslf1 0]

Ari, don't give me Fake Noise talking points. I and the majority of americans have heard them and they don't hold Water. That is why we won, they hold NO water.

I got all your points and as stated earlier, the leap is just too far for rational thought. Just because I spend time with people and they talk crazy does not mean I am crazy or prone to thoughts of craziness. That is your argument. Since he spent time with Aires, he must think like Aires, BS. I have family members that talk crazy all the time and I see them at least once a week and they have never influenced my thought about subjects. I have a childhood friend who is a drug dealer and I run across him at least once a week, probably one of the biggest in my city but he has never influenced my thought about doing drugs, selling drugs or anything else. Your argument holds no water.

I like diverse thought and people who do not always think like myself. I have been a counselor in jail, shelters for years and yet, these people have never influenced my thought to turn my thoughts from what I was raised with. And a guy I sat on the board with maybe once a month, a guy who came to parties I had which I didn't have every week, a guy who lived in my neighborhood and said hi to when we happen to be outside with, does not change my way of thought and what is right and wrong from what my parents taught me.

If a person thinks that Aires had that much influence and that people like Aires would have that kind of influence on them, then I say the moral compass has been dropped in the woods, long time ago. From what I understand he had great role models and grandparents that influenced him and thus the argument that a man he met when he was in his late 30's could have a radical influence on Obama, is ludicris to me and most of america.

He wanted to spread the wealth around. Don't play dumb. You know what he meant by that. The rich got richer under Bush. Time for the middle class to get the same breaks. That is what he was talking about and you know it. Baseless.

As stated earlier, the leap is too great, I cant catch that other side and most people weren't able to make that leap either, thank goodness. Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true. Give me stuff that I can get to the other side with.

Baseless.

Edited May 11, 2010 by tdslf1

[BJean 16]

I am going to have to change my position and side with the NRA (as much as it pains me to say those words) I was thinking about this last night and the reason we have the right to bear arms is to keep the government in check. If this law passed technically the government could put the names of dissenters on the list and compel us to agree with them. So in the name of our freedoms I am going to have to say I am against having to check a list to buy a gun.

I am not against gun ownership at all. And I get it about the "right to bear arms" and "keeping the the government in check" mantra. But I have to strongly disagree with you here, Leigha.

If we weren't such an open nation it might be different, but we have so many people here illegally, some who are terrorists making plans as I type, and true gangster Americans who are willing to kill and be killed for money and power. None of them should be able to buy any kind of weaponry here. And how can we stop them unless we law abiding citizens are willing to fill out the forms and have our names cross referenced and even our finger prints taken and checked out (what's wrong with that?) before we buy a gun?

Too many murders are committed in the heat of passion and waiting until it is confirmed that you are a law-abiding American citizen should not cause any gun purchaser any grief if they have don't have plans to do something illegal.

Most of the NRA and gun lobbies are controlled by the weapons manufacturers. So once again, big business is controlling our safety in this country. When are we going to stop allowing greed to influence us?

Bottom line: we can own guns and still have checks and balances to protect the innocent.

[BJean 16]

Most of the mortgage lending sins were motivated by zealous liberal legislators who thought everyone deserves a mortgage regardless of their economic circumstances. I blame them.

I blame the greedy mortgage lenders who came up with the outrageous programs that allowed people to own homes they couldn't afford. The congressional law makers did not think those up. In fact, if they knew it would go that far, they would have imposed regulations instead of trusting that the lenders would do business in a morally upright fashion.

[tdslf1 0]

Ari said

Van Jones is a self confessed communist.

At what time did this person influence Obama about his life philosophy, opinions and life compass? Some green leaf guy in his administration did this? A guy who said he was a commuist, nationalist, then renounced it as his views changed, years ago? On top of that, when did Obama meet this guy,that this guy would cast communistic thought on Obama and what he thought?

What you said was;

Obama is a communist because he gave a job to a green guy who used to be a self proclaimed communist years ago, thus Obama is a communist.

Do you know how loony that sounds to rational people?Apparently you don't since you keep saying it. Baseless rhetoric and this fact is disheartning that there are people who make these gigantic leaps in thought to the other side of reality. Disheartning. There is no middle ground, just air, dude.

[BJean 16]

Lets get this straight, PG. Calling commentators retards are not similiar to calling someone the N word. Why? Simply because the word retard was used to describe the handicapp many years ago which was then socially acceptable. Then it was replaced by the better term, mentally challenged and so forth. The N word can never be changed to make it sound acceptable. It has NO replacement. Retard does. Thus NO equivilent.

Origins

The origin of the word, "nigger," is in the Latin "niger," meaning "black." The word, as "niger," entered into Spanish and Portuguese. Early Modern French obtained it from Portuguese where it became "negre" and "negro," respectively. English acquired the word from French, which was manifested in earlier English variants, such as "negar," "neegar," "neger," and "niggor." "Neger" is a current word in both Dutch and German.

The word is thought to have come into its current form via the Southern pronunciation of "negro," which yielded phonetic mistranscriptions as "nigra." For much of its history, until the early 20th Century in America, it was simply descriptive ("nigger" meaning "Black American" in an informal, esp. Southern sense [bi-racially]), and occasioned little controversy among speakers of any ethnicity, save occasional annoyance. It later became symbolic of racial prejudice and racist laws (and lynchings) against Blacks in the American South, and began to symbolize a mindset by which, through easy use of such terms as "nigger," White interests mobilized against African Americans.

So, you see, Niger wasn't always a racial slur. It was a word which meant 'black'. Now it is a racial slur. An offense to people. Retard was not an offensive word to people at one time. Now it is. So stop using it, and trying to justify your using it! You are no better than those who you say are using the N word.

Now give us the background on the word 'retard' and how it was originally used and what it has come to mean today.

[ariscus99 1]

I got all your points and as stated earlier, the leap is just too far for rational thought. Just because I spend time with people and they talk crazy does not mean I am crazy or prone to thoughts of craziness. That is your argument. Since he spent time with Aires, he must think like Aires, BS. I have family members that talk crazy all the time and I see them at least once a week and they have never influenced my thought about subjects. I have a childhood friend who is a drug dealer and I run across him at least once a week, probably one of the biggest in my city but he has never influenced my thought about doing drugs, selling drugs or anything else. Your argument holds no Water.< /p>

He wanted to spread the wealth around. Don't play dumb. You know what he meant by that. The rich got richer under Bush. Time for the middle class to get the same breaks. That is what he was talking about and you know it. Baseless.

We'll start with the first paragraph, because you still obviously are not getting what I'm saying. I did not say he is a terrorist, or a socialist, or a communist, BECAUSE of who he socializes with. I said that it is understandable that someone might think those things of him because of who he socializes with. That is the same point I made about you hanging around with certain types of people. I'm not saying that they influence you, I'm saying that they influence how people perceive you. If you either don't see that, or are denying it, you need to wake up. So let me ask you this point blank, yes or no; you see a group of guys standing on a corner, one is visibly selling drugs, do you, or do you not assume that they all are either drug dealers or drug users because of who you see them socializing with?

Or are you so Enlightened that you think "well, the one in the middle is a drug dealer but the other four are probably upstanding citizens, businessmen probably just hanging out with a friend who is a drug dealer."

As for the other part. No I don't know what he meant by that statement, and given that he's talking about has raised taxes for the rich to support the poor, I'm gonna stick with the socialist style politics. That's not saying he's a full on socialist,(also not saying he's not)because he hasn't done anything policy wise to that affect yet. But he is taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

[BJean 16]

Very convenient. You don't care what they said then, but now, oh boy. He does have socialist style policies he'd like to bring forward. And he's surrounded himself with admitted socialist and communist, and people who are terrorist. So if someone calls him those things, it's not entirely surprising. If you hang out with a certain group of people it's quite likely you'll be associated and called whatever it is that they are ie liberals, conservative, gangster, rocker etc. etc.

You hang out with patty I presume?

[ariscus99 1]

Ari said

Van Jones is a self confessed communist.

At what time did this person influence Obama about his life philosophy, opinions and life compass? Some green leaf guy in his administration did this? A guy who said he was a commuist, nationalist, then renounced it as his views changed, years ago? On top of that, when did Obama meet this guy,that this guy would cast communistic thought on Obama and what he thought?

What you said was;

Obama is a communist because he gave a job to a green guy who used to be a self proclaimed communist years ago, thus Obama is a communist.

Do you know how loony that sounds to rational people?Apparently you don't since you keep saying it. Baseless rhetoric and this fact is disheartning that there are people who make these gigantic leaps in thought to the other side of reality. Disheartning. There is no middle ground, just air, dude.

You better put the real quote in there real fast, because I'm gonna go ahead and call you flat out LIAR for that statement, I NEVER SAID THAT.

[LeighaMason 19]

Ari--I hang out with a group of old republican men, nobody is going to confuse me with one of them (and they have not influenced my thinking about politics either)

[ariscus99 1]

You hang out with patty I presume?

bazinga:rolleyes: