Us presidential election 2004

[Schoeler 0]

That is swifboat propaganda, and has been proved wrong by almost every respected news outlet in the world.

Read Kerry's transfer request for direct evidence that refutes this.

Hmm, the Boston Globe doesn't look like the bullhorn of right-wing propaganda to me, and an article in the Boston Globe of states

Quote[/b] ]"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

It is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on John Kerry, and so far, wikipedia political entries have been rather levelheaded.

The Boston Globe is indeed a right-wing rag, they are the paper running nasty editorials on Kerry all season long, AND the ones that baited Teresa into making her "shove it" comment.  Last time I heard, the New York Times called them a propaganda machine.

Kerry's transfer request stated he wanted combat on either swift boats, or failing that, PBR's.  Anyone, like myself, who has served in the Navy can tell you that seeking either assignment was seeking to get deep into the shit.

That Boston Globe quote has been trashed by all major newspapers and several cable news outlets.  Check it out for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, that one. The one that found Iraq - Al Qaeda connections, though no specific Iraq - 9/11 connections.

Nuke yourself then. USA had a lot more connections to Bin Laden than Iraq ever had....business connections, private connections and governmental connections.

All fulfilled. Ask your president, or put him to jail.

When will it get into your heads that Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other while the Bushés are special friend to the Laden family for a very long time, who actively finance Bin Laden and DO have contact to him as a wedding video clearly shows.

Funny...the guy on the video is in big business with the Bush family and financed Bush´s first oil company...

Quote[/b] ]Here in Germany you know that parties like the SPD and other left wing parties (B90:Grüne, PDS) don't like the US too much (and they did that for decades).

Bullshit. Where have you been when Clinton was running the USA ?

Bals,

This guy is absolutely right. Schroeder, Fischer and Co have their own past. In the early sixties untill the mid eighties most of them participated in leftwing streams, they refused the capitalist way of americans, they protested against the american vietnam agression and the nukes that were once stationed in germany.

But besides those noble attitudes many of them were known to be pretty anti-american during their rebellious days (logical consequence if you demonstrate all day) and judging from the behaviour today I must say, that they still are anti-american.

Or maybe they arent, but they definetly use it to impress voters. And many of their voters were active left-wingers during the student-movements of the 70ies

(remember the little comparison Bush=Hitler? Kind of embarassing for a german politician, but hey, the SPD was trying to earn votes, and the best way to do this was to talk about the evil americans)

[Balschoiw 0]

Wait a moment Albert.

Don´t mix up things and make a general route of it.

The protest against vietnam war was not only a leftist movement.

It started from the youth that tended to be left in germany at that time but then made a mass movement, covering the youth of all political parties.

Same with the pershings. The initiative certainyl came from the left, but it was carried into to right wingers also. And it bacame a mass movement, that was ...again.. covered by the political youth of all orientations.

The inititiative for such mass protests came from the left, but I wouldn´t say that was a bad thing counterweighting the right government we had at that time. It was the first time germany showed the US after WW2 that we do have an own will and that this is our country. If we do not want to have US ICBM´s in our country it´s our free will to say so.

I think that took us to another level of self esteem badly needed after the permanent bowing for WW 2 results and therefore I do see it as a good thing.

I do not agree with the violent protests, but the protesting changed a lot at that time. TO pin it to leftists only is not true as the political consequences were taken by both directions, the left and the right.

Quote[/b] ]and judging from the behaviour today I must say, that they still are anti-american.

Huh ? Is is anti - american to protest and warn off a war that is not justified and carried out on false evidence ?

Ok...then I am anti-american also.

Fischer for example. Where is he anti-american ? He was one of the radicals you do talk about. I´d say he´s the best foreign minister we had for some time. Where is he anti-american ?

Quote[/b] ]Bush=Hitler

That comment was done by Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger an FDP politician, FDP is more right than left...

And she resigned afterwards....

So that comparison was not from the left.

So how could she collect votes for the left wing parties ?

If she is not from a left wing party...Albert wrong example

I´m happy we don´t have this black and white scenario the USA has. I´m happy we have a multicoloured political spectrum. That´s why a lot of things changed in germany over the last 50 years. Look out of the window.

To see a tradition of political anti-amercian attitude is are really basic approach. I´d say we behaved pretty fair, even to Bush. We haven´t gone down to the level of freedom fries or french wine boycott. That´s not how we handle international affairs...

[vektorboson 8]

Quote[/b] ]Bush=Hitler

That comment was done by Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger an FDP politician, FDP is more right than left...

And she resigned afterwards....

I think you mix up Leutheuser-Schnarrenberger ( ) with Daeubler-Gmelin, who indeed was from the SPD. She compared the actions of Bush with the actions of Hitler; as for Leut.-Schnarr., as I remember correctly she resigned because CDU/FDP-coalition voted for the "Grosse Lauschangriff".

As you I don't see any Anti-Americanism in the current German government. They are rather hugging the Americans, just look at economy policy and inner policy.

[Balschoiw 0]

Yep...sorry...mixed them up. "Schnarre" indeed had nothing to do with the Bush Hitler comparison. Damn...all that double names make me confused from time to time.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay, lets look at the pre-iraq war phase. In many political TV-shows Schroeder and Stoiber were asked whether they would move into Iraq if the UN would vote to support the US.

Schroeder clearly said NO. Stoiber however emphasised that admiting to never supporting a war means to taking the pressure from Saddam. Wise and logical!

The SPD wasnt just trying to stand for PEACE but for the party that dares to oppose America.

And where has the strong cancelor and his criticism gone when it comes to Puttins way of wining a war?

Na-ah! SPD firmly builds on Anti-american voters!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Boston Globe is indeed a right-wing rag, they are the paper running nasty editorials on Kerry all season long, AND the ones that baited Teresa into making her "shove it" comment. Last time I heard, the New York Times called them a propaganda machine.

Kerry's transfer request stated he wanted combat on either swift boats, or failing that, PBR's. Anyone, like myself, who has served in the Navy can tell you that seeking either assignment was seeking to get deep into the shit.

That Boston Globe quote has been trashed by all major newspapers and several cable news outlets. Check it out for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

I guess their Bush National Guard service story was trash...

[Bernadotte 0]

Isn't it ironic that the most likely Al Qaida target areas of the US overwhelmingly support Kerry and the least likely target areas stand behind Bush?  (according to recent surveys)

Assuming the largest cities plus Washington DC are the most likely targets:

Kerry Bush

55% 39% New York

54% 39% California

54% 39% Illinois

78% 11% Washington DC

Assuming the largest states with lowest population density are the least likely targets:

Kerry Bush

29% 65% Wyoming

30% 57% Alaska

36% 54% Montana

If the war against terrorism is really such an important issue then it appears that its most likely American victims are certainly not very satisfied with how TBA is fighting it.

It reminds me a bit of the Balkans conflict.  Many former citizens of Yugoslavia living abroad sent money and other means of support for those fighting on all sides, probably prolonging the conflict.  There too, those that supported aggression most loudly had the least to lose.  To varying degrees the same could be said of other prolonged conflicts such as that in Northern Ireland and the American Irish support received by the IRA.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

If the war against terrorism is really such an important issue then it appears that its most likely American victims are certainly not very satisfied with how TBA is fighting it.

No, they are democratic strongholds...

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the war against terrorism is really such an important issue then it appears that its most likely American victims are certainly not very satisfied with how TBA is fighting it.

No, they are democratic strongholds...

Democratic strongholds?  How do you figure?  

In the 13 elections since 1952, the Republicans won New York 5 times, Illinois 8 times and California 9 times (69% of the time).  And if Bush was truly making them feel safer they'd easily support the Republicans again.  So, either Bush is disappointing them badly or security isn't the great issue TBA makes it out to be.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]In the 13 elections since 1952, the Republicans won New York 5 times, Illinois 8 times and California 9 times (69% of the time).  And if Bush was truly making them feel safer they'd easily support the Republicans again.  So, either Bush is disappointing them badly or security isn't the great issue TBA makes it out to be.

erm...

Illinois, California, New York, and D.C. were won by Clinton and Gore (1992-2000). The last time that New York voted for a republican president person was back in 1984. The last time Illinois and California voted for a republican person was back in 1988. Washington D.C. has never voted for a republican for president. It is not just security....

[Bernadotte 0]

Illinois, California, New York, and D.C. were won by Clinton and Gore (1992-2000).

Then according to Billybob logic all 20 states that supported Clinton and Gore are democratic strongholds.  

Get a grip, dude!!

[denoir 0]

The primary reason I would guess is that in metropolitan areas people are on average better educated, less nationalistic and less religious.

There is a very clear difference on a biological level of the type of thinking exhibited by the two camps. Bush supporters are using primarily the part of the brain called the reptilian brain' while Kerry supporters are more prone to use the neocortex.

The difference?

The reptilan brain is the oldest part of the brain and can be found in other animals such as brids and lizards. It is responsible for hieararchical, ritualistic behaviour and traits like territoriality. The range of basic survival emotions are there as well (fear primarily).

Very typical for the Bush camp -

[Hierarchical] "We support the Prez." - unconditional support for a (perceived) strong leader,

[Territorial] Excessive flag waving and overt nationalism.

[Ritualistic] Well represented by the Christian fundamentalists in the camp. Includes also the usage of the same slogan over and over again (typically relating to the 'war on terror') regardless if they have any actual meaning.

[Fear] "We have to get the terrorists before they get us" (also a bit of territorial instincts there)

Kerry supporters on the other hand tend to use the neocortex more in their political reasoning. The neocortex is responsible for our analytical thinking - what-ifs, conditional long term prediction etc

This can however be a problem since it's not as sutiable in politics, where short simple slogans are necessary.

A good example is the Iraq war:

Bush: Saddam bad. Me club Saddam.

Kerry: I voted yes to authorizing force to facilitate the WMD inspection process. Had Saddam though that we were bluffing then he would have started making trouble for the UN inspectors again. With an authorization for war we showed that we meant business - and it worked - Saddam was very cooperative in the end. If there were or were not any WMD there is actually not relevant. The inspection process had to be completed to finally solve this Iraq question once and for all. Had the inspectors confirmed that there were no WMD, then sanctions could be lifted and relations with Iraq could have been normalized. Just like Lybia, Iraq could now had been on its way back into the international community - and that would have certainly improved the lives of the Iraqi people as well. It would have also united the world in a common cause - a unity that is very necessary if we want to win the war on terror. So yes, I would have voted the same way had the vote been today. Bush however abused the vote and went to war without even trying the diplomatic solution, and without UN support (which was a condition of the authorization).

[Balschoiw 0]

In that context it´s interesting to read how former alcoholics tend to see their world. By the way this is no single Bush phenonemon but can be counterchecked in medical magazines. This story however is about Bush. Interesting read.

Quote[/b] ]Addiction, Brain Damage and the President

"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and

George W. Bush

by KATHERINE van WORMER

Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President's speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush's choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity

Grandiose behavior

A rigid, judgmental outlook

Impatience

Childish behavior

Irresponsible behavior

Irrational rationalization

Projection

Overreaction

Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, "Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme reluctance.

Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush's personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield's book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

"[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I'd lose focus." Although he once said he couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a drink, he added that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic." Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic. It's just he knows he can't hold his liquor."

Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."

That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush's family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can't drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn't drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President's thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush's history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father's as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father's footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.

To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;

"I" as opposed to "we" thinking;

the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).

His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically.

If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002)

"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and G.W Bush

Makes you understand why he is like he is sometimes. Nethertheless it doesn´t especially qualify him as president of the USA.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then according to Billybob logic all 20 states that supported Clinton and Gore are democratic strongholds.

Get a grip, dude!!

No, but the last time New York, Illinois, Cal. voted for a republican was back in the 1980s. Furthermore, Washington D.C. has never voted for a republican candidate ever since it got electoral votes.

People would be confused if Kerry won the whole South because the dems in the last couple of presidental elections have only won a few while the repub. won majority of them....

Quote[/b] ]Just like Lybia, Iraq could now had been on its way back into the international community - and that would have certainly improved the lives of the Iraqi people as well.

A big *if*

*Waits for the findings of the oil-for-food scandal*....

[Bernadotte 0]

No, but the last time New York, Illinois, Cal. voted for a republican was back in the 1980s. Furthermore, Washington D.C. has never voted for a republican candidate ever since it got electoral votes.

I'll accept that Washington DC is indeed a democratic stronghold that would not likely prefer TBA's anti-terror strategy even if it was superior to Kerry's.  However, the way any of those states voted during 2 successive administrations do not a stronghold make.

Quote[/b] ]People would be confused if Kerry won the whole South because the dems in the last couple of presidental elections have only won a few while the repub. won majority of them....

Um... so what?  I thought we were discussing likely terrorist targets preferring Kerry.  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Um... so what? I thought we were discussing likely terrorist targets preferring Kerry

erm... terrorism is not their #1 thing....

[billybob2002 0]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040926/D85BIK6O0.html

Quote[/b] ]

Candidates Gear Up for Crucial Debates

Sep 26, 4:44 PM (ET)

By NANCY BENAC

(AP) U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), right, gestures as he debates Massachusetts Gov. William Weld,...

Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - This fall's presidential debates will pit George W. Bush's folksy manner and big-picture brand of policymaking against John Kerry's more cerebral outlook and nuanced world view. Each is a proven debater who knows, only too well, what personal pitfalls to avoid: Bush must stifle the smirk, for instance, and Kerry must cut short his rhetorical rambling.

They'll be under careful scrutiny in a trio of debates, 4 1/2 hours in all, starting Thursday in Florida. In the past, 30 million to 40 million people have tuned in. Almost one-third say the debates will be a deciding factor in their vote on Nov. 2.

On paper, Kerry would seem to have just the right resume to thwack the president in this type of setting. A high school and college debate champ with two decades of Senate repartee under his belt, Kerry knows intimately the details of policymaking and how to argue any side of an issue.

And that may be his problem. Sometimes Kerry sounds like he IS arguing every side of an issue.

His greatest weakness, in the view of political scientist Bruce Buchanan, is "getting tangled up in qualifying locutions of one sort or another. No clear, clean expository lines. Too many qualifications. Too many embellishments. Not enough editing."

"There's an innate caution to him," says Buchanan, who teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, "indicating a fear of not having covered all the bases, and that often leads him to say too much."

The president, by contrast, is rarely accused of offering too much information. He is militantly "on message," often repeating a few set points over and over.

"Bush debates the way Chris Evert plays tennis - no unforced errors," says Democrat Paul Begala, who played the part of the president in rehearsals with Al Gore for the 2000 debates. "He doesn't get out of his game. He won't try to get into philosophy and nuance and deep thinking."

Where Bush can get into trouble is if he's forced out of his comfort zone, and becomes flustered. Or if his single-mindedness starts to look simple-minded, given the profound uncertainties surrounding Iraq, the war on terrorism and other matters, says Wayne Fields, an expert on political rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis.

"His strongest quality is also a kind of weakness to be exploited, so you don't know how this is going to play out," said Fields. "If all of a sudden the situation looks more complicated, and Kerry is able to show he can take things on and master them, then this could turn against Bush."

Viewers will tune in as much to get a feel for the candidates' personas as for their policies. Everything from their hand gestures and mannerisms (remember Gore's heavy sighs in 2000?) to their physical appearances will be open to judgment. It all feeds into voters' decisions about whether they can relate to candidates, and trust them.

Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, said that when she turns down the volume and just watches Bush and Kerry, "it clarifies why Bush is more effective. He has the nonverbal stuff, the facial expressions and gestures." He furrows his brows, he seems to look through the camera to make eye contact, she says.

Kerry, by contrast, "really has no facial expression," says Lakoff. "He just talks. ... I think Kerry's long sentences and lack of intonation and facial expression say, 'Yes, I'm very smart but I'm kind of phoning it in.'"

Jurgen Streeck, a communications professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said that while Kerry is not a very lively communicator, the debates may provide a good setting to showcase him as "a thoughtful speaker."

Bush, meanwhile, must guard against smugness.

"He has that kind of smirk," says John Fritch, head of the communications department at the University of Northern Iowa and director of the National Debate Tournament. "Given the issues that we're dealing with, the casualties in Iraq, an inappropriate smile will not go over well."

Says Begala, "If I were prepping Bush, I would warn him about crossing the line from self-confident to cocky. People like his self-confidence but there are moments, particularly when he's jacked up on adrenaline, when he crosses that line."

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just like Lybia, Iraq could now had been on its way back into the international community - and that would have certainly improved the lives of the Iraqi people as well.

A big *if*

Far smaller if than the chain if Saddam had WMD and if he had dealings with AQ and if he would share his secrets and if AQ would be able to use it against the US.

But we're not thinking like that now. It's analytical - neocortex stuff. We're doing like Bush supporters - use the reptilian brain:

Saddam bad. Me have big club. Me club Saddam.

Edit: On that note, I read a a text on how to deal with people who use the reptilan brain rather than the neocortex:

• Show them they are safe and assure them they will survive.

• Actively listen by reflecting back both the content and the feelings they are expressing.

• Let them vent and get their feelings out.

• Do not counterattack. Responding in kind only escalates the situation.

So basically trying to convince them through analytical thinking is just probably going to make things worse. And showing agression is out of the question. Look how Bushites go through the roof if you just mention Mike Moore...

You may call 'reptilian thinking' primitive, but it is also very fundamental in human beings. The WTC attacks did make a strong impression on a lot of Americans. And when you are scared shitless, analytical thinking is worth shit. Bush gives them the reassurance they need on the level they need it. It doesn't matter what his actions actually do. They don't need an intelligent plan - they need reassurance. And that's what they get through Bush. One should not underestimate the strength of the basic instinctive brain functions.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Far smaller if than the chain if Saddam had WMD and if he had dealings with AQ and if he would share his secrets and if AQ would be able to use it against the US.

But we're not thinking like that now. It's analytical - neocortex stuff. We're doing like Bush supporters - use the reptilian brain

.......

Whatever you believe...

[denoir 0]

Whatever you believe...

It's not what I believe, it's biology. I'll be happy to provide you references to medical texts if you don't believe me.

It doesn't mean that Bush supporters don't use their higher brain functions (neocortex), but there is a clear dominance of reptilian traits in the political arguments and rethorics.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not what I believe, it's biology. I'll be happy to provide you references to medical texts if you don't believe me.

It doesn't mean that Bush supporters don't use their higher brain functions (neocortex), but there is a clear dominance of reptilian traits in the political arguments and rethorics.

Hmm.. your belief that somehow Saddam would of been reaccepted. That is like saying Hitler (yes, I'm using him) put under the same Saddam "conditions" (pushed back to his border and sanctions applied) could of reaccepted in the 1950s. Nothing is not that easy...

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not what I believe, it's biology. I'll be happy to provide you references to medical texts if you don't believe me.

It doesn't mean that Bush supporters don't use their higher brain functions (neocortex), but there is a clear dominance of reptilian traits in the political arguments and rethorics.

Hmm.. your belief that somehow Saddam would of been reaccepted. That is like saying Hitler (yes, I'm using him) put under the same Saddam "conditions" (pushed back to his border and sanctions applied) could of reaccepted in the 1950s. Nothing is not that easy...

Rather simplistic comparison that holds no water. Hitler was a clear threat to his neighbours, was actively seeking rearmament, and HAD banned weapons (Including an airforce, which germany was NOT allowed to have under the treaty of versaille). Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours, his attempts to rearm had been thwarted by UN sanctions and had NO WMD's. Next time when you try to pervert history get your facts straight.

[Homefry 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours

Kuwait... I'm sure they would agree... as would Iran....

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours, his attempts to rearm had been thwarted by UN sanctions and had NO WMD's. Next time when you try to pervert history get your facts straight.

erm.... I said if Hitler was pushed to his border and sanctions applied like what happened to Iraq....