Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior?

Just to add yet another ironic twist in light of my post on excessive quoting, I'll indulge in a little bit of point/counterpoint using the exact same technique I consider boring:

Originally posted by donguillermo
I don't consider my behavior in this, or any other thread, stalking.

The definition I have seen develop over the years for "thread stalking" is the act of carrying discussion, especially personal attacks or criticisms, from one thread to another. By that definition, which is accepted and understood on every other discussion board I have visited, you do indeed engage in "thread stalking". Habitually, I might add.

It originally offended me, but once I realized you do it to everyone, I got over it. Now I find it amusing and illustrative for others who read these threads.

Besides, once I figured out what the story was, I had a wonderful and cathartic epiphany. You make me laugh, and I always enjoy it when we can drop our egotistic poses a little and just have a good old time talking about stuff.

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: I was searching for information on Rife Instruments for another thread (see The Rife Microscope, a topic of recent and growing interest for me).

My search led me, among other places, to Rense.com. Here�s Rense�s Rife section.

These articles are in a little section called �DRUGGED PREZ� on Rense�s home page. They caught my attention, I read one and said �Hmm, this looks interesting, I wonder if there�s a thread on this in ATS?�. I searched and didn�t find anything that seemed to address these articles in particular, and decided to post. Voila: A thread is born.

Yes, my motive in posting these articles is to call attention to what I consider the agendas behind them, but not necessarily for the reasons you state. Both major U.S. parties use these techniques. A lot. They are not alone. The U.S. government and pretty much anyone with money and a cause to promote does the same thing. �Got milk?� These people are paid to tell you what to think.

�Public diplomacy�, �perception management�, information warfare and psychological warfare are topics of particular interest to me, and one of my �agendas� is calling attention to this activity.

I don�t consider this to be a partisan political matter at all. It goes way beyond mere politics.

It�s mind control, and our minds are the objects being controlled. So if calling attention to this fact is �sinister�, then consider me sinister.

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.

This may very well be true, but I don�t think it�s unreasonable to want a little more substantiation than what has been presented so far. Claiming that it�s �being suppressed� is a non-starter for anyone familiar with how that excuse gets abused in the conspiracy theory circuit.

I don�t have evidence that Bush is mentally unstable or on drugs. What I do have is undeniable evidence -- absolute proof -- that some folks want me to believe he is, and I presented it in starting this thread.

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

Yes, and that should be self-evident, unless you wish to speculate that the authors of the article wrote hoping you would not believe it. And hey, you never know -- maybe that�s the idea.

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.

Actually I am hopeful that people will read the articles in question and decide for themselves. I think they are hit pieces, but neither you or anyone else needs to agree with me on that.

As for perception management, I invite you and everyone who reads any of this to look into it. It is a huge -- and disturbing -- topic, worthy of study by anyone who values their psychological independence, or illusion thereof.

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

My ego and I are flattered by your attention, and I don�t want to discourage anyone from talking about me or maybe sending me money, but it�s getting to the point where you should probably just start a thread about me and all the things you think I�m up to.

Since I�ll be traveling and have limited access to computers for about the next two weeks, you may be able to build up a bunch of stuff about me without any rebuttal on my part. I recommend focusing on anything I�ve posted that contradicts something else I posted, since I�m sure I must have done that somewhere.

Don�t forget to mention that Michael Moore send-up I posted that you wanted me banned for. That was some delightful drama and watching me, as a new member, squirm at the thought of being banned is just priceless.

I think you should go for it. I�ll bet it becomes a popular thread.


P.S. I am familiar with the tactic of closing down threads by flaming. I am hopeful that such a thing won�t happen here, and request that the moderators bear such tactics in mind before pulling the plug on a thread such as this. Hopefully, awareness of such tactics may reduce their effectiveness.


Edit: Replaced almost everything with an exact replica.



[edit on 7/31/2004 by Majic]

I think Hillary would look better in a tube top.

Hey, warn a guy before scaring him like that!!!

Any minute now, these two are going to "step outside" hehe....

Originally posted by Gazrok
Any minute now, these two are going to "step outside" hehe....

Naw, Don and I are good buddies. We flame because we love.

What fascinates me about this is that it is our similarities that Don seems to object to most. Kind of like two cats in a shoebox, I suppose.

Don is good. Very good. Which leads me to wonder...


By the way, "Smilling Bob" is an excellent meme.

Just as a point of clarification, I thought I would explain what I meant by using the phrase "Long pot-calling-kettle-black comments not re-quoted" in reference to one of Don's historical laments.

donguillermo's modus operandi is to control the terms of discussion, and he will flame you to high heaven if you don't abide by his terms.

donguillermo's complaint against me is my persistent refusal to pursue discussion on his terms.

Thus his objection amounts to an indictment against me for doing what he does: controlling the terms of the discussion. That is known in the vernacular as "the pot calling the kettle black".

The truth is that sometimes I play it his way, sometimes I don't. As time goes by, I'm trying to play it more my way, a fact which Don apparently considers unacceptable, especially in light of my named status as a Republican apologist and Bush supporter (dare I reveal the truth about my voting habits? Naw, that might ruin everything.).

While Don no doubt has plenty of other criticisms of me -- far more, I am sure, than I could ever list, let alone respond to -- it is that particular charge that I was referring to by using that phrase.


Edit: Refinement of terms in accordance with my sinister agenda.
Edit: Potentially damaging information about my voting habits removed.

[edit on 7/31/2004 by Majic]

Jesus H. Christ, Majic. Have you ever heard the saying that, when you are in a hole, you should stop digging? In this thread, you have made post after post consisting of nothing but misleading statements and smokescreen BS. I keep going through your posts pointing out the misleading statements and smokescreen BS, but you keep putting up new posts faster than I can answer them.

Newsflash: I Know More About Me Than You Do

I sincerely doubt that. I have previously documented your hypocrisy, false statements, plagiarism, and strawman arguments. Such behavior has led me to the conclusion that you have zero intellectual integrity. People with zero intellectual integrity rarely have an accurate self-image.

You are wrong. I am neither a Republican apologist or a Bush defender.

You are making another false statement here. Your posting history clearly shows that you are, in fact, a Republican apologist and Bush defender. I could trot out numerous examples of this, but I am content to let any interested readers look at your posting history and decide for themselves if I am accurately characterizing you.

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".

Are you saying that people who disagree with you are Marxists? In particular, are you implying that I am a Marxist? This looks suspiciously like a velvet-glove version of the standard right-wing smear tactic of calling political opponents communists.

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.

The labels I have put on you are accurate, and I am not painting a misleading picture of you. I do consider what you are actually saying, and all I see is BS, smokescreens, false statements, strawman arguments, and a refusal to respond to challenges with evidence.

For reasons that should be obvious to everyone about now, I try to avoid having the topic revolve around my personal political positions.

Yes, the reason is very obvious. You try to present yourself as a disinterested truthseeker, so your Republican talking points will seem more plausible.

However, it is wrong to suggest that I am not honest about them.

No, it is not wrong to suggest that. You have been dishonest about your political positions in this thread. You have denied being a Republican apologist and Bush defender. As I have stated several times, your posting history confirms that you are, in fact, a Republican apologist and Bush defender.

ATTENTION READERS!!! Notice that several times in this thread I have stated that Majic's posting history confirms that he is a Republican apologist and Bush defender. Notice that Majic has never challenged me to back up this assertion with examples from his posting history. That should tell you that I am accurately characterizing his posting history.

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.

First of all, this is not a political message. It is an epistemological message. Second of all, thanks for enlightening us with your great wisdom. Look beyond the hype. Don't believe everything people tell you. Gee, I never thought of that before. Thanks for the advice.

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

This is a joke, right? You think what you call your political message is controversial? LMFAO!

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

And what topic would that be, O Master of Smokescreens and BS?

As an evaluating employer of my public fund supported employee, George W. Bush (and his support role as my President), I'll apply the same due process standards staunchly supported by his conserva-corporate cabel known as "Employment at Will."

Under this archaic 19th century doctrine employers have the right to fire their employees at will, at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all.

Considering I like to think I'm more fair than your average CEO, let's see if there's anything to this nasty rumor about my employee being emotionally distressed, unstable and on mind altering drugs.

Were he anyone else, I'd simply have Human Resources ask him directly and consider his forthright acknowledgment or lack thereof as integral in my determination. Were he to assert his so called "right to privacy" (or the interests of "National Security" ...the very rationale for my initial concerns) I admit, my suspicions would be elevated.

Said "National Security" disallowing me from either forcing a drug test, or conjuring up a more Constitional "random" test from among his entire cabinet designed to eventually get at what I'm after... the President's urine; I may go to Human Resources and press my rights as CEO (the one who's "will" conveniently employs HR) for a sneaky peaky at requested time off for "Doctors visits" or even insurance reimbursement submissions. I can do so because one's employer is without doubt the best and only proper provider for access to healthcare and mental care providers.

Given the "official" HR response that I'm not allowed to look, but subsequent discussion about employee George's excessive vaction requests...I have what I'm after...RUMOR AND INNUENDO!

See I had my suspicions about George from day one. His application had red flags all over it. Not only did a less than youthful indiscretion turn up at age 30 for a DUI, but his license number was changed at his previous employer (The State of Texas) barring my right to investigate an employee. When asked about prior arrests or possible drug use, he said his record wasn't clean and he'd made mistakes but out of respect for his children he wouldn't discuss it. Always a sucker for the kid card, I hired him.

Okay, fine. So he "use" to be an alcoholic and has some mystery arrest I can't investigate further. No problem. I'll just keep an eye on him for the tell tale erratic behavior I've implemented to fire people for years.

I was particularly concerned when George showed up for work one Monday morning looking like this, claiming he "fell off a couch eating pretzels."



I probably should have fired him then, but hey...I liked the guy. Plus think of the kids! But since then the rumors have really bugged me. Every time he taunts our suppliers, corporate allies and even competitors with his brash, sassy style...I always think about active addicts and alcoholics I've known that act like that. Rush Limabugh really let me down there.

But back to what I can "prove." The guy can't ride a bike. At all. Or something more sinister is really going on. After the first time he had a nasty scrape a couple months ago, I joked he better lay off the "weekend activities", but here we go again the other day while on "vacation" in Crawford.

(sigh) I just don't know what to do about employee George. I was furious when he walked out of the press conference angry over Enron questions. I mean I hired the guy to represent my company to the public! Now the rumors are getting worse. He's become the story, not my company.

Still I can't prove anything, though the rumors only serve to confirm what I've suspected all along. The guys a loose cannon. And worse, an easy target. Even if he's innocent, what does that have to do with anything? He's making me look bad. It's my company. My "employment at will."

I've decided. I'm firing the poor guy. It's probably best for everyone. I think this job is killing him.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Have you ever heard the saying that, when you are in a hole, you should stop digging?

It depends on whether or not you wish to dig a hole. I think there may be something valuable at the bottom of this hole, so let's keep digging -- together, you and I. Let's give the people what they came for!

[Long list of flattery not included.]
Are you saying that people who disagree with you are Marxists?

Nope. I said, and I quote: "I am decidedly opposed to Marxism, however, so I can understand the confusion." When I say that I'm opposed to Marxism, it's amazing how many people, including yourself, apparently, assume that I am therefore "right-wing". That was my point.

For what it's worth, if I were "right-wing", it would not necessarily mean I'm a Bush supporter. Pat Buchanan is generally understood to be "right-wing", and he hates Bush in about so many words.

In particular, are you implying that I am a Marxist? This looks suspiciously like a velvet-glove version of the standard right-wing smear tactic of calling political opponents communists.

Nope. All I know about you is what you tell me, and admittedly, I've probably forgotten most of even that. You have referred to yourself as a �left-wing liberal�, and I am aware that such a self-description does not necessarily imply an embrace of Marxism, but can. But you should know by now that setting out to label you is not my game.

The labels I have put on you are accurate, and I am not painting a misleading picture of you.

Matters of opinion, and I can assure you, not necessarily of fact.

You try to present yourself as a disinterested truthseeker, so your Republican talking points will seem more plausible.

Actually, I tend to present myself as a simple observer, and no one of consequence. These things are true. I also choose to comment on my observations, but that does not diminish the truth of my self-presentation. By and large, I�m a pretty simple guy, and I guarantee you�ve never heard of me.

You have been dishonest about your political positions in this thread

Not at all true, and you know it. Every political opinion I have given is my own. What you object to is my refusal to accept your labels as fact. The reason I refuse them is because they are wrong. That�s all there is to it.

ATTENTION READERS!!! Notice that several times in this thread I have stated that Majic's posting history confirms that he is a Republican apologist and Bush defender. Notice that Majic has never challenged me to back up this assertion with examples from his posting history. That should tell you that I am accurately characterizing his posting history.

Attention Readers: Decide for Yourselves

What you will find is that I take strong objection to both the "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling" parties. The two-party system is a scam perpetrated by vested power interests as a tool of control, and we are its victims.

They are both different sides of the same coin, a token of psychological control for ruling what should be a democracy. Don't eat their prolefeed garbage, no matter how sweet it may smell to you.

The bottom line is that both major U.S. parties are in bed with each other, giving us a government that is a petulant, bastard child of privilege instead of a servant to the people.

There are many, many people tasked with preserving this system of control, as should be eminently obvious at this point.

And what topic would that be, O Master of Smokescreens and BS?

May I suggest: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior?

Don�t worry, Don, we�ll work it all out.

There's a reason I'm putting up with all of this, and I am fairly confident that it will eventually become clearer to you.


Edit: Removed part where I admit to being an Illuminatus.




[edit on 7/31/2004 by Majic]

Originally posted by RANT
I've decided. I'm firing the poor guy. It's probably best for everyone. I think this job is killing him.

I can see it now:

RANT: George, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid we are going to have to let you go.

Bush: But you can't! I'm the Preserdent of Amurica! God says I am!

RANT: [Hits buzzer on desk] Security? Please escort Mr. Bush from the premises.

Bush: [Being dragged out the door of the Oval Office] Damn you RANT! I'll get you! I know the death penalty, pal! You're misunderestimating me! You ain't heard the last of me...

RANT: [Hits buzzer on desk] Send in the next applicant, please.

Thanks for a hilarious image!

It looks like a shot at Bush to me. Not a whole lot of verifiable fact. I said as much in the mud pit, but I�ll say it here for those who don�t have access. Don and I got into a point-for-point discussion about it and I came to the realization that we could argue all day about it and not change each other�s minds, so I did my best to bow out gracefully.

And yes, we should be ever-vigilant of the dangers of misunderestimation. This looks to be going the way of the "Grammar and Punctuation" post.

EDIT - double-assertified myself, wording

[edit on 7/31/04 by para]