I have often said that Bill Clintonishte perfect example of a psychopath. I have been asked if Bush is one.
I did not answer, not becuase I don’t know the answer, but because I am desperately weary of explaining that just because I give somebody credit for something, it does not mean that I am endorsing them.
I know that Churchill was a good speaker, but I hate that bastard more than any other single person in history. He took baths regularly, and I am silling to admit it, but that does not mean I love him.
So if I say Bush is not a psychopath, I will get a retort about how the person I am talking to thinks Bush is awful and I am saying he is nice.
Actually I think Bush will have a worse time at Judgement than Bill Clinton or Ted Bundy will. ZThe Catholic Church actually has a dotrine called Invincible Ignorance, where a person is INCAPABLE of understanding that some things are wrong. A psychopath, like a child, is a moral innocent.
So let me tell you why I know Bush is not a psychopath.
I watched him the first time that his orders actually led to a couple of soldiers being killed. He was shaken when he went to the press conference, thought he tried not to show it.
Ther is a particular reaction in a person who gets shot at personally. That is, not when the general exchange of bullets and explosions of shrapnel are occurring, but when someone shoots at HIM, personally. The most battle-hardened et is shaken by that experience the first time.
It is the same when you know that YOUR orders led to soebody actually getting killed. Neither reaction makes sense.
If you have been putting yourself in firefights, someone is going to eventually shoot at YOU. If you are constantly giving orders to people to go in armed, somebody will eventually get killed. So neither emotion makes any sense at all.
Emotions do not make sense.
Clinton could send a division in to certain death and he would wail and cry at the press conference, but I could tell it was a show. Bush was shaken at two deaths at his orders.
No, Bush is not a psychopath. His evil is genuinely, PERSONALLY evil.
#1 by Sam on 08/22/2006 - 1:40 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
It’s well known that i am a lousy writer, the length of my posts reflects that. If this is in relation to my post that’s not what i was asking. In fact i didn’t ask anything.
I did not say Bush was a psychopath, i’ve always believed that he was aware of what he was doing.
Bob says: “So if I say Bush is not a psychopath, I will get a retort about how the person I am talking to thinks Bush is awful and I am saying he is nice.”
I cant see how anyone would do that. Either they don’t understand your point or they are looking for an argument. but i can see how tiring that is to have happen repeatedly.
#2 by Dave on 08/22/2006 - 1:41 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Bush is a “CEO” and like most CEO’s the real question is his ability to handle the stress and remain poised and centered.
Here’s the pattern: Unlike Churchill, Eisenhower could handle the stress. Kennedy couldn’t handle the stress. LBJ couldn’t handle the stress. Nixon couldn’t handle the stress. Carter couldn’t handle the stress. Reagan could handle the stress. Bush Sr. couldn’t handle the stress. Clinton couldn’t handle the stress. Bush Jr. cannot handle the stress.
Out of all those “CEO’s”, I only count two who could handle the stress. Eisenhower and Reagan. The rest started out as nut cases, or became nut cases. All were evil.
If you accept that volunteer militaries place the moral onus on the soldier himself, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton have no direct responsibility for causing American soldiers to die on the battlefield,
Churchill, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ were direct murderers in that they coerced men into being soldiers through the “draft” (slavery).
A man who volunteers to be a soldier is voluntarily taking up the gun. No one need weep when he dies. He fate was his doing.
Also, when he kills, that is his choice too.
He who volunteers for the military is agreeing to follow orders. Therefore, he shouldn’t be surprised to be ordered to war under circumstances he personally finds abhorrent.
He had plenty of time to consider that possibility before he volunteered.
Myself, I will never voluntarily accept “jurisdiction” of any military.
Therefore, I am not subject to officers’ orders unless they coerce me through kidnapping (threat of prison) or through threats of violence.
Any criminal has the same option.
#3 by Shari on 08/22/2006 - 2:18 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
I just bet he did look shaken! Since he was put into office to start the killing it was another line crossed. He thinks that he’ll do it much better than daddy, but nothing he does will work. Actually, I still do offer some prayers for him, but they certainly aren’t,” Oh Lord help him to make wise decisions.” I have a notion that Jesus doesn’t think much of stupid prayers either.
#4 by Shari on 08/22/2006 - 4:44 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
There are many decent young men, and sadly young women in the military. They just don’t have rich daddies. I think that part of saving our race means having some concern for those who aren’t POOR, but are being made poor by the unjust rich and their funny money. We should be more concerned about them than the whole third world. Too many in the middle class are too comfortable to see it.
#5 by Mark on 08/22/2006 - 8:33 pm
“Actually, I still do offer some prayers for him, but they certainly aren’t,” Oh Lord help him to make wise decisions.”
I wonder how many people, knowing they are about to be murdered or molested or raped or (fill in the blank) pray to god to make it stop? And I wonder how they feel once the deed is done to them (provided they are still alive) and they realize god didn’t stop the dark act, even though he promised he would in his inspired scriptures as long as the request was made in his name?
When faced with people praying for help or change I’m reminded of Anton Levay and his belief that prayer helps no one because it takes time away from actually doing something about the problem.
#6 by Shari on 08/22/2006 - 9:02 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
Good Grief, Mark! You aren’t a disciple of Anton Levay are you?
#7 by Mark on 08/23/2006 - 8:41 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
Good Grief, Mark! You aren’t a disciple of Anton Levay are you?
Comment by Shari — 8/22/2006 @
No Shari, I’m not a “disciple” of anyone, whether it be man or man-made gods — and yes I include the Jehovah’s and Jesus’s and Satans Freyjas and whoever else in that category. I get my jollies by not being afraid to read the writings of conflicting opinions by a varied assortment of authors. You should try it sometime — provided you’re not afraid that by doing so will invite (shudder) the devil into your home.
#8 by Shari on 08/24/2006 - 7:55 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
I hesitate to reply for a couple of reasons. One is that this is Bob’s blog and this is a side issue, and the other is that I’m not wanting my own argument. So, I will say that I think that anyone should read what ever they want. I’m not superstitious. Having said that, I also think you should also consider who you are reading and what point they are really trying to make. Not to do that, will not help to hammer out what you really DO think, but just leave you reacting to what bothers you.