Psychoanalysis = Quack Science

Psychoanalysts = Quacks...

and about as professionally respected as ambulance-chasing lawyers, like John Edwards.

DD

Double D

perhaps you should find out for yourself.

Double 😨 are you calling US military researchers quacks? lol sorry, but this is the same form of behavioral science that our military uses to assess everyone from rank-and-file soldiers to world leaders.

two things here -- 1. i read another personality profile of GWB that essentially adds up to him being a "dry drunk." for those not familiar with the term, an alcoholic can be DRY (not actively drinking) without being SOBER. someone who is dry but not sober has stopped drinking but has replaced alcohol with something else (gambling, religion, etc.). that something else may appear to be a positive thing (like religion), but it in essence does the job that alcohol used to do -- cover up pain, numb emotions or give a sense of elation or a "high," etc. i talked to several alcoholism treatment professionals who agreed with the synopsis.

2. analyze ANYONE and you're going to see a lot of stuff that sounds like the person is full-blown bat crap crazy and out of touch with reality. especially when you get into freudian territory, the very terminology sounds "creepy" and "weird." you can take the most well-respected person in the world, and when you start talking about his urge to kill his dad and have sex with his mom... well, that's some pretty freaky stuff, period!

personally, i give props to freud for being the father of modern psychology ONLY in that he made it permissable to talk about the "reasons underlying the reasons" for human behavior. i do NOT subscribe to his view that child development is all about sexual urges and such, and i also don't trust his theories because he saw what was going on at the time (namely, girls and women being molested) and, due to victorian values, refused to DO anything about this; instead he came up with the theory that these women were merely WISHING that their fathers, cousins, and uncles were having sex with them. outrageously unethical. not to mention the fact that freud did enough cocaine to kill an army. 😛

Rick

You are possessed! Get over it and come to real world! As I have said before go back to watching and reporting on birds.

Charlie

Rick, when you get my "official" dubya photo, I want you to set it on fire & then put out the flames by pissing on it.

I'd send you his stinkin' X-mas card but my wife threw it out with the fish already.

blood

Yo Rick;

I think it's time you visit Dr. Phil for two reasons:

1) your extremely unhealthy fixation with GW, there maybe sexual reasons behind it masked by your hatred.

2) your forever backing of Danny, at first I thought it was a father/son thing but now you have me worried.

So please contact Dr. Phil before it's too late.

JonR

who is dr phil?

Bush/Cheney in '04

J

PS Get your dirty hands off my country, you damned dirty democrats!

What I find interesting is that the last war we outright won.......we were lead by Democrats.

Dr Phil doesn't appear on left wing propaganda web sites, nor does he show up in extremist print. Therefore, Rick would not know of him.

i watch judge judy.

AVB,

What war are you talking about?

Oh, you must have meant Clinton’s war on Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/war/clinton_sudan_war08-98.html 

Or maybe was it Clinton’s war against Serbia.
http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html 

Oh, I get it… it was Clinton’s war on AIDS.
http://specials.rediff.com/money/2003/nov/22sld1.htm 

By all accounts, these must be the last wars outright won by a democrat… unless I missed something.


Here I was thinking that we outright won the war in Iraq, because our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I didn’t know he was still president of Iraq. Also, I thought we won the last Iraq war when our objective was only to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Is he still there? I guess those were miserable failures compared to Clinton’s war on Bin Laden. Thanks for educating me AVB… appreciate it.

avb;

I'm sure the gulf war veterans will be surprised to hear that we lost that one. Oh wait, I guess Bush Sr. was a Democrat. No, that's not it either. Hmm.

J

I was there for the first gulf conflict and in my little 30 years of service I don't consider that a victory. It's like saying we won Korea because everything was back to the same border.

I'm pretty sure I can speak for all the WWII/Korea/Vietnam vets that I know and knew, 100 hours may be a battle but it isn't a war.

As far as the current situation. When you lose more men after "mission acomplished" it doesn't quite seem to be a true statement. You have to go back to the Civil War to find more men dying after the peace was signed or declared. Slow communications was the culprit then, something we can't use as an excuse this time.

We haven't won outright since WWII.

Well shame on us for loosing so few soldiers on the march to Baghdad. I guess you’d prefer us loosing thousands on the first day like Normandy. You have a messed up barometer for success my friend.

I don't see where I put any numbers on the battle or war, just what happened after the peace. I'm sorry you can't read what you want in my post.

AVB,

You're comparing this war to WW2, and you simply can't do that. It's hard to lose more men after peace is declared when we lost 250,000+ men during the war. Does this mean we handled the rebuilding efforts better in WW2? I searched but couldn't find any numbers, but I'd venture to guess that peace time casualties in WW2 were not something to be proud of either. I'm sorry you can't read my post correctly...

We are doing far worse now. You seem to forget there were 15 million people in uniform then vs. 1.1 million now.