It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
From Capitol Hill Blue:



Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior

President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.


Factual report or political hit piece? You decide.




posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   


Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World

George W. Bush is withdrawing more and more from aides and senior staff, retreating into a private, paranoid world where only the ardent loyalists are welcome.

Cabinet officials, senior White House aides and leaders on Capitol Hill complain privately about the increasing lack of “face time” with the President and campaign advisors are worried the depressed President may not be up to the rigors of a tough re-election campaign.


Another article which uses a lot of the same boilerplate.

I debated about whether or not this is more suited to ATSNN, but in light of the source and the nature of the articles, am reluctant to present this as "news".

Then again, maybe it is, just somewhat light on named sources. Hmm, maybe that does make it "news", in light of current journalistic standards surrounding unnamed sources.

I'll leave it to the moderators and my fellow ATS members to decide.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
All I can say after reading the Faq page of this source is, they don't even take themselves seriously. So there is almost no point debating this story as there is no credible information beyond speculation that gives any weight to this theory.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
All I can say after reading the Faq page of this source is, they don't even take themselves seriously.


Here's the FAQ in question: Just the FAQs ma'am

Relentless makes a very good point, and the nature of the source of these articles is the main reason I am reluctant to label it "news".

As for taking themselves seriously, I'm not sure if that establishes credibility. Jayson Blair seemed to take himself seriously, and certainly all his articles were clothed in the pomp and circumstance of the "traditional news" establishments, who build up an image of themselves as sources you should trust unquestioningly.

But there's more to these stories than their contents. What interests me is the fact that Capitol Hill Blue sees fit to publish not one, but two interrelated stories questioning the President's sanity. Will others pick up the ball? You can already see references to these articles emerging on the Internet.

The meme has been constructed and is now being propagated: President Bush is mentally unstable, on medication for his psychiatric problems, and has been publicly diagnosed:


From the Sullen, Depressed President article:

Dr. Justin Frank, a prominent Washington psychiatrist and author of the book, Bush on the Couch, Inside the Mind of the President, says the President suffers from “character pathology,” including “grandiosity” and “megalomania” – viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable.

Emphasis added.


Whether or not any of this is true, someone wants you to think it’s true.

In my opinion, that’s the real story. I submit these articles for discussion here precisely because there is more to these stories than the stories themselves.

If you are Pro-Bush, you should be aware that CHB and undoubtedly others are publicly promoting the idea that President Bush is mentally unstable and a threat to national security.

If you are Anti-Bush, you should be aware that somebody wants you to believe these stories are true.

This is called "perception management". It is being used rather blatantly in this case but is usually accomplished with much greater subtlety. Articles like these illustrate the kinds of techniques certain people are willing to use to help you make up your mind.

This is just a drop in an endless sea of this stuff. If you are not already aware of what perception management is, and how rampant it is, I recommend looking into it.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Majic, why are you starting a new thread to discuss this issue? This issue has already been extensively discussed in the thread

Bush on Anti-Depressants

Why didn't you just post your comments in the existing thread? Why did you feel the need to start a new thread to post your insinuation that the Capitol Hill Blue article is a political hit piece?

Don't bother answering, I know the answer. You wanted to draw as much attention as possible to your insinuation.

Of course, the sources of the Capitol Hill Blue article are anonymous. If any of these anonymous sources went on the record, they would immediately be fired.

Fox News constantly uses the technique of "some people say" to introduce Republican talking points as news stories. Even reputable news organizations like the broadcast networks frequently attribute news stories to "high administration officials", or other euphemisms for unnamed sources. If you want to dismiss all news stories which don't name their sources, fine. But don't single out the Capitol Hill Blue article as a political hit piece.

By the way, I notice you didn't claim that Capitol Hill Blue has a left-wing bias. These people are actually disgruntled Republicans who are fed up with George Bush. You can find articles critical of John Kerry and Michael Moore on their website. When Bill Clinton was President, Capitol Hill Blue bashed him mercilessly. In the thread previously mentioned, Seth Bullock posted an example of this Clinton bashing.

By the way, if Bush is indeed using mood-altering drugs to control depression and erratic behavior, do you think this information should be disclosed to the public? Do you think it is irresponsible for the Bush administration to keep this information secret?



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Whether or not any of this is true, someone wants you to think it’s true.

In my opinion, that’s the real story. I submit these articles for discussion here precisely because there is more to these stories than the stories themselves.

If you are Pro-Bush, you should be aware that CHB and undoubtedly others are publicly promoting the idea that President Bush is mentally unstable and a threat to national security.

If you are Anti-Bush, you should be aware that somebody wants you to believe these stories are true.

This is called "perception management". It is being used rather blatantly in this case but is usually accomplished with much greater subtlety. Articles like these illustrate the kinds of techniques certain people are willing to use to help you make up your mind.

This is just a drop in an endless sea of this stuff. If you are not already aware of what perception management is, and how rampant it is, I recommend looking into it.


Excellent points. The scary part is how many people will use these types of stories to further their agenda without any basis in fact.

Of course people are free to believe these types of stories but using them in debate of the issues is quite tiresome.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Why didn't you just post your comments in the existing thread? Why did you feel the need to start a new thread to post your insinuation that the Capitol Hill Blue article is a political hit piece?

Don't bother answering, I know the answer. You wanted to draw as much attention as possible to your insinuation.



The link you provided is in the Mud Pit. Not everyone has access to that forum.

I really think assuming other posters intentions is going a bit too far and adds nothing to these threads.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   
donguillermo: I don't have access to the Mud Pit, so that's one reason why this isn't posted there, but not the only one.

I'm using the thread Mud Pit -v- Political Scandal as my guide.

This topic seems suited to this forum.

As for your knowing my reasons, it is stunningly clear from your posts that you know far less about me and my reasons than you seem to think you know, but you are free to assume whatever you wish.

Note: This article suggests an interesting bit of synchronicity: Moderators Only » Trash Bin » (submission) (politics) Bush losing it?

The meme has been created, is being propagated, and is finding viable hosts.


Edits: Note and thread refs.

[edit on 7/31/2004 by Majic]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by donguillermo
Why didn't you just post your comments in the existing thread? Why did you feel the need to start a new thread to post your insinuation that the Capitol Hill Blue article is a political hit piece?

Don't bother answering, I know the answer. You wanted to draw as much attention as possible to your insinuation.



The link you provided is in the Mud Pit. Not everyone has access to that forum.

I really think assuming other posters intentions is going a bit too far and adds nothing to these threads.


I really think you don't know what you are talking about. I am not assuming anything about Majic's intentions. I am drawing a reasonable inference, based not just on this thread, but his performance in previous threads.

Majic talks ominously about "perception management", and suggests that dark forces want you to believe these stories are true. Majic is actually a master propagandist himself, and constantly engages in perception management. He strikes a pose and conveys the impression that he is a disinterested, objective seeker of truth. He is actually a right-wing apologist and tireless defender of George Bush. I am not going to bore you with the details, but if you go to his posting history and read his posts, you will see that he is constantly rebutting criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. He tried to promote the non-story about the Sandy Berger fiasco, being pushed by the Republicans and right-wing media sources. I made some harsh criticisms of Majic, and I cited specific facts and gave links. Majic responded with a long character assassination rant, accusing me of being the worst troll and flamer to ever infest the internet. Of course he didn't give any proof for these allegations. He claimed that my documented, linked criticisms were ample proof for his assertions.

So please, don't lecture me about assuming Majic's intentions. I know everything there is to know about Majic's intentions. And it is not a pretty picture.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
[Long pot-calling-kettle-black comments not re-quoted]

I know everything there is to know about Majic's intentions.


The most satisfying thing about reading comments like this one is knowing how and why they are wrong.

As for my posting history, I post things with the intention of their being read. If anyone wishes to review my posting history and compare their impressions with Don's, I would, of course, be flattered by the attention.

But please don't let me shatter any cherished illusions. I am only interested in shattering illusions you can live without.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
donguillermo: I don't have access to the Mud Pit, so that's one reason why this isn't posted there, but not the only one.


Well, I previously asked you why you didn't spend 500 points on the Mud Pit, and you said you were saving your points to buy access to the RATS forum. I have been keeping track of your points, and it looks to me like you have spent 3500 points for RATS. Am I correct? If so, why don't you spend 500 points for the Mud Pit?


As for your knowing my reasons, it is stunningly clear from your posts that you know far less about me and my reasons than you seem to think you know, but you are free to assume whatever you wish.


Please, spare me the perception management. You may be able to sell your image of a disinterested truthseeker to more gullible posters, but you can't BS me. As I stated in my reply to Relentless, you are a Republican apologist and Bush defender.

See, the difference between you and me is that I am much more honest and upfront about my political positions. I don't make any secret of the fact that I am a left-wing liberal. Unlike you, I don't try to create false impressions so people will be more likely to buy into my political message.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

"I really think you don't know what you are talking about. I am not assuming anything about Majic's intentions. I am drawing a reasonable inference, based not just on this thread, but his performance in previous threads."

"I made some harsh criticisms of Majic, "



Okay, honestly, mabe it's a matter of perception, but I do think you were stating your opinion of his interntions for not posting on the existing (inaccessible to some) thread.

My perception of your posts is that they are frequently making insinuations about other posters along with your debates of the issues (this is not limited to Majic) . It is very unnecc. & distracting as your posts do contain a great deal of good information. I am just suggesting that you would be more effective in your arguments if you stuck to comments about the post instead of the poster.

(Granted, that's what I am doing now myself, but I do try to avoid it most of the time.)


As for Majic's intentions regarding the point of his posting this thread I do think it's a valid topic of discussion for both sides of the political debate, and in fact I think we all wish that we could count on the information out there being a little more trustworthy than it currently is. Isn't that why you are constantly educating people with facts and attempting to dispel misinformation?



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
You know guys, Friday Night Fights was on last night, this is getting old. BTW, I think Hillary would look better in a tube top.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by donguillermo
[Long pot-calling-kettle-black comments not re-quoted]

I know everything there is to know about Majic's intentions.


The most satisfying thing about reading comments like this one is knowing how and why they are wrong.


Typical Majic tactic. You accuse me of making pot-calling-kettle-black comments, but you don't offer any examples. Why don't you do what I have done with so many of your posts? Why don't you do a line-by-line deconstruction of the post in question, giving evidence and links showing why each of my comments is an example of pot/kettle/black? This is your standard modus operandi. You make statements but you never give any evidence. When, challenged, you still do not provide evidence. Do you want me to post some examples of this behavior? I have several examples.


As for my posting history, I post things with the intention of their being read. If anyone wishes to review my posting history and compare their impressions with Don's, I would, of course, be flattered by the attention.


I also hope other posters will read through your posting history. I am confident they will agree that my characterization of you is accurate.


But please don't let me shatter any cherished illusions. I am only interested in shattering illusions you can live without.


I have no illusions about you. I saw through your BS long ago.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Well, I previously asked you why you didn't spend 500 points on the Mud Pit, and you said you were saving your points to buy access to the RATS forum. I have been keeping track of your points, and it looks to me like you have spent 3500 points for RATS. Am I correct? If so, why don't you spend 500 points for the Mud Pit?



Geez, what are you stalking him? Too much interest in the poster as oppossed to the posts.

By the way, even if he had access to the Mud Pit it still limits the debate to other people who do. Seems a moot point to me and irrelevant to speculate how someone here chooses to spend their points.

Maybe he's saving them to get some T-Shirts to distribute to the homeless.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
I have been keeping track of your points, and it looks to me like you have spent 3500 points for RATS.


Someone has TOO much time on their hands.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Well, I previously asked you why you didn't spend 500 points on the Mud Pit, and you said you were saving your points to buy access to the RATS forum. I have been keeping track of your points, and it looks to me like you have spent 3500 points for RATS. Am I correct? If so, why don't you spend 500 points for the Mud Pit?


How I spend my points is up to me. Based on what I know about ATS, my interest in this site lies almost entirely outside the Mud Pit. Political debate forums are a dime a dozen. ATS is special because it offers discussion on other topics, and the potential for discussing politics outside the boundaries set by professional opinion manipulators. A potential I hope to see realized someday.



As I stated in my reply to Relentless, you are a Republican apologist and Bush defender.


You are wrong. I am neither a Republican apologist or a Bush defender. I am decidedly opposed to Marxism, however, so I can understand the confusion. It is not clear to me that being opposed to Marxism is necessarily the same as being "right-wing" (except in a bipolar view of politics), and I take great personal exception to a lot of what is considered "right-wing".

But frankly, I don't come here to talk about me.

What I do seek to avoid is the use of labels and broad brushes to paint misleading pictures of me. That naturally puts me at odds with your desire to identify, categorize, label and dispose of me for your convenience rather than consider what I am actually saying.

You are right about one thing at least: there is a message behind my messages. You don't seem to have gotten it -- yet. But I prefer to remain optimistic.

Just remember that your use of inaccurate labels is a handicap you impose only upon yourself and those who believe you. I know who I am, and thus know what you do not.



See, the difference between you and me is that I am much more honest and upfront about my political positions.


For reasons that should be obvious to everyone about now, I try to avoid having the topic revolve around my personal political positions. However, it is wrong to suggest that I am not honest about them. When I volunteer a personal opinion about a political topic, it is my genuine opinion.

Aside from all that, there are other characteristics which distinguish us far more dramatically than candor about our politics.



Unlike you, I don't try to create false impressions so people will be more likely to buy into my political message.


My political message is, in part: Look beyond the hype. Don't believe everything people tell you. Look for the truth. Don't let others think for you. Make informed decisions.

It is a controversial message, I know. But it is a message I believe in, and I am very up front about it.

All this is an interesting side note to the topic, which you are illustrating masterfully. So thanks!



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

Geez, what are you stalking him? Too much interest in the poster as oppossed to the posts.


I don't consider my behavior in this, or any other thread, stalking. I see this new thread by Majic on an existing topic, and I immediately think "WTF is he starting a new thread on this?" My conclusion, as stated, is that he started a new thread so he could highlight his insinuation that the Capitol Hill Blue article is a political hit piece.

The real story here is that there are reports that Bush is sullen, depressed, and withdrawn, that his behavior is erratic, and that he is taking mood-altering drugs to deal with these symptoms.

Majic is claiming that the real story here is that someone wants you to believe this story about Bush.

No, the real story is that Majic is using his standard smokescreen tactics to distract you from the story about Bush, by insinuating that the Capitol Hill Blue article is a political hit piece, and by talking learnedly about perception management.

Since Majic is the real story in this thread, my posts are on-topic, not stalking.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Why don't you do what I have done with so many of your posts? Why don't you do a line-by-line deconstruction of the post in question, giving evidence and links showing why each of my comments is an example of pot/kettle/black?


The short answer: Because it's boring.

That sort of stuff is great in alt.flame (and, I presume, the Mud Pit and Debate forums), and leads to glorious cascades of point/counterpoint repartee that almost nobody except a connoiseur will read.

I've done more than my share of that in my day, but prefer to respect the ATS philosophy encouraging minimal quoting and brevity balanced with clarity.

As for the need for a step-by-step rebuttal with citations and footnotes, I think it is possible to address the topic at a conceptual level without sacrificing anything significant.

If some detail needs attention, call attention to it. Rattling off long lists of details and meticulous rebuttals is not much better than spam.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by donguillermo
Why don't you do what I have done with so many of your posts? Why don't you do a line-by-line deconstruction of the post in question, giving evidence and links showing why each of my comments is an example of pot/kettle/black?


The short answer: Because it's boring.


Yes, it is boring to actually provide evidence to back up your assertions. It is much more interesting to make false statements with no evidence, then ignore requests to provide evidence. That is exactly what you have done in the pot/kettle/black case. You have just provided one more example to support my assertions about you.


That sort of stuff is great in alt.flame (and, I presume, the Mud Pit and Debate forums), and leads to glorious cascades of point/counterpoint repartee that almost nobody except a connoiseur will read.


Actually, anybody who is interested in your credibility will read the material. Anyone who reads some of our previous interchanges will learn that you regularly make false statements and refuse to give evidence when challenged, and that you regularly misrepresent what other posters are saying by constructing strawman arguments.


I've done more than my share of that in my day, but prefer to respect the ATS philosophy encouraging minimal quoting and brevity balanced with clarity.


Actually, the ATS rule is about making long quotes from another poster. If you feel the need to address many points in one post, you are supposed to break the post down into several quotes, like I am doing in this post.


As for the need for a step-by-step rebuttal with citations and footnotes, I think it is possible to address the topic at a conceptual level without sacrificing anything significant.


ATTENTION READERS!!! This is Majic speak for justifying making false statements without evidence, then refusing to provide evidence when challenged.



If some detail needs attention, call attention to it.


I have callted attention to the fact that you dismissed one of my posts as pot/kettle/black. I challenged you to provide pot/kettle/black examples in my post, together with evidence and links that I am guilty of the behavior I was criticizing you for. So far, you have responded to my challenge with more smokescreen BS.


Rattling off long lists of details and meticulous rebuttals is not much better than spam.


Actually it is a lot better than spam. What is spam is making false statements with no evidence, then refusing to provide evidence when challenged.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join