Bush the Drunk Hits the Bottle Again!

[RBS]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426

Yeah, it's the Enquirer, but so what?

At least they're entertaining, and they're more reliable than Fox News.

[groover]

For anyone interested, here's a link to the story that actually works:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426

[Doc Martin]

Thanks Groover

Originally Posted by "Family Source" from Artilce

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.

Personally, I’d take Jim Beam

[Monte Smith]

Hey, it's your old buddy from Capitol Hill Blue, RBS. What are the odds?! This is the third thread you've started for this guy.

"Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great."

[rollhead]

He's no doubt suffering from "Compassion Fatigue."

[walto]

Originally Posted by monte

This is the third thread you've started for this guy.

Actually, Brian O. started the middle one.

Goddamn Ollie.....................

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by rollhead

He's no doubt suffering from "Compassion Fatigue."

And maybe, even a little Submissive Urination.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by walto

Actually, Brian O. started the middle one.

Nobody does any fact checking around here. You'd find, if you did, that the threads "George W. Bush, Psycho" and "George W. Bush, Psychopath" were both initiated by RBS in order to publicize the incredible diagnoses of Dr. Frank. What ideas distinguish the two threads is anybody's guess.

But you're right that Brian did post an article from Capitol Hill Blue that "documented" a turn in Bush's private language toward the obscene. I think Brian--correct me if I am wrong, BO-- viewed the piece as a hilarious satire if not meant as nonfiction.

[Chuck Nessa]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Nobody does any fact checking around here. You'd find, if you did, that the threads "George W. Bush, Psycho" and "George W. Bush, Psychopath" were both initiated by RBS in order to publicize the incredible diagnoses of Dr. Frank. What ideas distinguish the two threads is anybody's guess.

But you're right that Brian did post an article from Capitol Hill Blue that "documented" a turn in Bush's private language toward the obscene. I think Brian--correct me if I am wrong, BO-- viewed the piece as a hilarious satire if not meant as nonfiction.

We might be at a point in the life of america where facts don't matter.
I'm not joking.

Well, if you're not, then could you please explain your opinion a bit further?

[Dr Dave]

This was in the National Enquirer. That's fucking amazing. The Enquirer sells more than two and three-quarter million copies a week. If this is at it appears to be, this is the beginning of the end for George W. Bush. Who reads the National Enquirer? Lotta Bush voters, you betcha.

We got hurricanes, we got huge variations in energy prices on very short notice, we are getting close to 2,000 of our fellow citizens dying in Iraq, for reasons that simply will not become clear, oh, man, I as much as I am distressed by my Dear Leader's performance so far, I dread what is to come. Those who soar high will also dip low.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Who reads the National Enquirer? Lotta Bush voters, you betcha.

There is no measurement for this, but I'm going to assume that mostly non-voters read the National Enquirer.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

There is no measurement for this, but I'm going to assume that mostly non-voters read the National Enquirer.

But I would assume if you polled voters, or people who had a definite opinion about the Bush admin, you'd find that there were plenty more Bush supporters among the readers of the National Enquirer.

Why?

Because these people are, generally speaking, people who believe: a) in creationism b) that global climate change is a fallacy c) that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 d) that tax cuts are the most important thing a government can do for its citizens

[Brian Olewnick]

Help GW!


http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

[Monte Smith]

Whee! That's fun, Brian.

Adam, I'd spot the Dems all the Enquirer votes without fear it'd tip the scales.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

There is no measurement for this, but I'm going to assume that mostly non-voters read the National Enquirer.

Hm.

Isn't it interesting how everybody on this BBS can blast me without any kind of "measurement."

[Paul B]

Well, if you're not, then could you please explain your opinion a bit further?

Only an idiot would need further explanation.

The cases of "facts not mattering" might include there being no WMDs in Iraq (where democracy--of course--will flourish and change the entire Middle East); Saddam not being responsible for 9/11; tax cuts for the wealthy few not helping the economy; the list goes on. Of course Bush--and his idiot minions--believed just the opposite in all three cases. You see, facts, as Mr. Nessa says, really don't matter in this country. But illusion, delusion, and sheer stupidity do. Or in Bush's case, just out and out lying. Regardless, facts--the truth--seem to matter little to many Americans, and certainly not at all to conservatives.

Treat it like an IQ test.

[Gary Sisco]

They broke the story about Rush The Junkie and were right.

[Gary Sisco]

They also broke the story about Clinton, Lewinski, and the cigar and were right.

[Gary Sisco]

PS -- I'd choose the Jim Beam, also.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

They also broke the story about Clinton, Lewinski, and the cigar and were right.

Actually, that story was broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek but withheld from publication. While the editors were deciding if it was newsworthy, Drudge got a hold of it and broke the story of the blue dress and its proteins. And wasn't the Republic grateful.

[GoodSpeak]

Gary,

It only proves that even a blind squirrel can find a nut in the forest once in a while.




I figure a few wrestlers do, in fact, bleed when they "wrassle" but I don't put much stock in the WWF either.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

There is no measurement for this, but I'm going to assume that mostly non-voters read the National Enquirer.

I'll gladly concede the point. But as Achilles points out, they are His People. Which is to say that if they had it together enough to vote, they'd vote for that guy who looked good in a flight suit.

[Gary Sisco]

The National Enquirer is America's real paper of record. There isn't a newspaper in the US whose publisher wouldn't auto-orgasm if he or she had its paid circulation. If you think those people don't vote, you've never been to a Nascar event. They vote as much as any other discrete group of people in the US. (It's always a minority of eligible voters, of any stripe, that vote in American elections.) Their readership is exactly the "heartland" America politicians talk about whilst shitting all over them, daily.

By the way, alcohol would provide at least a rational explanation of Junior's behavior. He behaves very much like an alcoholic, especially in his engrained refusal to accept or even admit the consequences of his own behavior, and in his apparently pathological need to blame others for it. If he's still sober, he's on what AA'ers call a dry drunk. Meaning, he might not be drinking but he's acting the same way he would if he was.

Apart from that, the only other rational explanations would be 1) he's retarded, or 2) in dire need of a competent shrink.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The National Enquirer is America's real paper of record. There isn't a newspaper in the US whose publisher wouldn't auto-orgasm if he or she had its paid circulation. If you think those people don't vote, you've never been to a Nascar event. They vote as much as any other discrete group of people in the US. (It's always a minority of eligible voters, of any stripe, that vote in American elections.) Their readership is exactly the "heartland" America politicians talk about whilst shitting all over them, daily.

By the way, alcohol would provide at least a rational explanation of Junior's behavior. He behaves very much like an alcoholic, especially in his engrained refusal to accept or even admit the consequences of his own behavior, and in his apparently pathological need to blame others for it. If he's still sober, he's on what AA'ers call a dry drunk. Meaning, he might not be drinking but he's acting the same way he would if he was.

Apart from that, the only other rational explanations would be 1) he's retarded, or 2) in dire need of a competent shrink.

If President Bush is an alcoholic, in the classic sense, even if he never drinks again, he is still an alcoholic. But, as anyone who is either close to an alcoholic, or is an alcoholic who has embraced the philosophy of AA knows, they deal with their addiction one day at a time. It's always the first thing on their mind, to not drink today.. To be so focussed on one personal thing would seem to push more pressing problems, affecting others, to at best second place.
But alcoholics must first admit that they are alcoholics and as far as I know, President Bush has never done that. Instead he has presented a rather fuzzy treatese of his having been saved from his wicked ways by faith alone.
His public piety and his having been saved by his faith and a good woman has never rung true to me.
I think that he was simply a classic hard-drinking, carousing, irresponsible grown-up rich kid, enabled by his family and connections by their giving him opportunity after opportunity to fail, the latest being as President of the United States.
Once again he assumed that those around him would do what was necessary, rather than require him to actually take the reins. He would have the title and the prestige without actually having to do the scutwork. Well, this last failure in a long series of failures has caused the catastrophic falling of a carefully constructed house of cards, built on PR, rather than an ability to lead.

[groover]

Even if Bush were drunk as a skunk in the Oval Office, that isn't grounds for impeachment, is it? Doesn't he actually have to do something illegal while in office, like lie under oath?

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

"the Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What precisely constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, however, uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses. Treason and bribery are very serious offenses against the state, and most experts agree that offenses encompassed within "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similarly serious. ("Misdemeanors" is a constitutional term that does not have the current meaning of an offense less serious than a felony.)"

[cookie]

Originally Posted by patricia

To be so focussed on one personal thing would seem to push more pressing problems, affecting others, to at best second place.

Bullshit. I don't know when YOUR last meeting was, but the point of working the steps in AA is to get the focus OFF of one's selfish drunk needs and on to helping others. The way to stay sober is to help others and realize that you aren't the center of the universe. Drunks are the most selfish and manipulative people in the world. I say this as a drunk.

Gary is right. Bush is very much a dry drunk. He has the same sort of selfish, myopic viewpoint.

But the idea that being sober one day at a time making one ultimately unable to focus on others is offensive bullshit to me. One day at a time has made me (and most people I know who have successfully stayed sober for years) better and MORE concerned for others.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by cookie

Bullshit. I don't know when YOUR last meeting was, but the point of working the steps in AA is to get the focus OFF of one's selfish drunk needs and on to helping others. The way to stay sober is to help others and realize that you aren't the center of the universe. Drunks are the most selfish and manipulative people in the world. I say this as a drunk.

Gary is right. Bush is very much a dry drunk. He has the same sort of selfish, myopic viewpoint.

But the idea that being sober one day at a time making one ultimately unable to focus on others is offensive bullshit to me. One day at a time has made me (and most people I know who have successfully stayed sober for years) better and MORE concerned for others.

I wasn't slamming AA cookie. Because President Bush has only admitted to a drinking problem that he claims he staved off with faith and the embracing of the pious life, along with the love of a good woman, he is still in the mode that you were, before you joined AA and learned their philosophy.
If in fact Bush is an alcoholic, which I'm not convinced he is, and had he embraced the philosophy of AA, which he hasn't, he would have discovered the wisdom that they have been dispensing for decades.
For the record, I'm not an alcoholic. My father was. Two of my three brothers are and my third brother destroyed his life with drugs. So, although I don't have first-hand knowledge of being an alcoholic, I have decades of knowledge of living with one who never admitted that he was an alcoholic.
Had he done so, he might have saved his and my mother's marriage. But, til the day he died, he insisted that everything that failed was someone else's fault. .
As anyone knows who has read my posts about my family from time to time, I adored my father. His inability to deal with his drinking was truly his only fault. But, I remember my mother saying that she was divorcing him because, despite her begging him to take control of his drinking and when he refused to do so, she didn't want to be second after the booze.

But luckily, my father only destroyed his own life and his family and not entire countries.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by patricia

It's always the first thing on their mind, to not drink today.. To be so focussed on one personal thing would seem to push more pressing problems, affecting others, to at best second place.

This comment seems to be saying that being so focused on not drinking will push pressing problems affecting others to at best second place. Meaning(to my eyes) that even a recovering drunk (because you're talking about AA) can't possibly deal with any situation as well as someone who is not recovering.

Yes, to an alkie, everything is someone else's fault. You're right, if Bush were in AA or getting SOME kind of treatment, he might take more responsibility for his own actions. Somebody would also probably deflate his ego. The latter is one of the hardest things for an alcoholic.

Anyway, I see what you're saying, but that sentence really implied that those who focus on their sobriety don't really care as much about anything else. I say that's bull. I'd stay drunk all the time if I didn't have kids to raise and feed. I care more about them than about my drinking. If it hadn't been for AA, I couldn't have put anybody or anything above my own needs. And BTW, that doesn't mean I'm perfect. It means I have people around who tell me to my face when my ego's getting out of hand. It gives me a reality check and keeps me (more or less)humble. That's important for anyone trying to beat addiction and the addicting thought pattern and yes, it's unfortunate that GW isn't taking that kind of a path in his sobriety.