President Bush still drinks?

[TruthByDecree]

George "Dubya Gump" Bush getting DRUNK @ G8 summit

-zOzraqHHgE

President Bush still drinks?

[EBU]

Maybe it's one of those nonalcoholic beers?

[TruthByDecree]

Maybe it's one of those nonalcoholic beers?

Maybe? Did someone ask and that's what he answered?

[TruthByDecree]

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/81/5636/

Ok if this is it it's a low alcohol beer. 1.5%? But I thought alcoholics weren't supposed to have any alcohol? I thought these beers were like an alternative if you’re at a party or bar and you're the designated driver.

[TexasJack]

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/81/5636/

Ok if this is it it's a low alcohol beer. 1.5%? But I thought alcoholics weren't supposed to have any alcohol? I thought these beers were like an alternative if you’re at a party or bar and you're the designated driver.

Who cares?

[CFLarsen]

George "Dubya Gump" Bush getting DRUNK @ G8 summit

-zOzraqHHgE

President Bush still drinks?

Whether Bush drinks alcohol or not: There is a heck of a difference between drinking and getting drunk.

It would serve your argument better if you didn't try to make a sip from a beer look like a binge.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe it's one of those nonalcoholic beers?

It looks like a Heineken label, only not green. Do they brew an NA beer?

[Rasmus]

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/81/5636/

Ok if this is it it's a low alcohol beer. 1.5%? But I thought alcoholics weren't supposed to have any alcohol?

What did you think would happen if they did that it matters to you wether he drinks?

I thought these beers were like an alternative if you’re at a party or bar and you're the designated driver.

And that would make what kind of difference to what?

(BTW: It doesn't matter how many percent of alcohol your drink hast. What matters is how much alcohol you have in your system, whether you're driving or not.)

[Undesired Walrus]

Whatever the case, he clearly can't pour a pint to save his life.

[TruthByDecree]

Whether Bush drinks alcohol or not: There is a heck of a difference between drinking and getting drunk.

It would serve your argument better if you didn't try to make a sip from a beer look like a binge.

I'm not trying to make it look like anything. He has made the claimed he hasn't drank any alcohol since his 40th birthday in response to questions about his alcohol abusing past. I guess that might have changed. It would certainly explain much.

I wonder if Cheney will invite him hunting now that they have more in common. One can only hope.

[pgwenthold]

I will say, I don't trust an alcholic who is still drinking.

[TruthByDecree]

Whatever the case, he clearly can't pour a pint to save his life.

In the Presidents defense I think that low alcohol stuff is more carbonated the the stuff he might be used to pouring. If he's a whiskey drinker he doesn't have to worry about the head at all. In any case he always looked like a straight from the bottle kind of guy to me. He was probably just putting on airs for the company. Or maybe he just had one to many. How many would that be? Forty or Fifty?

[CFLarsen]

I'm not trying to make it look like anything. He has made the claimed he hasn't drank any alcohol since his 40th birthday in response to questions about his alcohol abusing past. I guess that might have changed. It would certainly explain much.

I wonder if Cheney will invite him hunting now that they have more in common. One can only hope.

Sure you aren't:

George "Dubya Gump" Bush getting DRUNK @ G8 summit

:rolleyes:

[CptColumbo]

I'm not trying to make it look like anything. He has made the claimed he hasn't drank any alcohol since his 40th birthday in response to questions about his alcohol abusing past. I guess that might have changed. It would certainly explain much.

I wonder if Cheney will invite him hunting now that they have more in common. One can only hope.
Did he make the statement before this apparent drinking happened or after? If before, then technically he could still be telling the truth.

[fuelair]

He made the statement a long time back - after reporters brought up the stories of his problem drinking in his younger days. I believe the statement was made well before the G8 occurence. Understand though - I do not believe anything Bush says. If I hear him say something I know to be true, I will double-check it. He is at heart a lying scheming slime who would still be a failure without the help of more intelligent lying scheming slime (Cheney, Rove, etc.). Not that I am prejudiced in any way on this matter.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Whatever the case, he clearly can't pour a pint to save his life.

He can't do a lot of things. :)

[Rasmus]

I'm not trying to make it look like anything.

You claimed he was getting drunk!

He has made the claimed he hasn't drank any alcohol since his 40th birthday in response to questions about his alcohol abusing past. I guess that might have changed. It would certainly explain much.

And here you are insinuating that he's getting drunk regularly - something quite different from having a beer, or even the occasional beer.

Or what do you think it is that could be explained from the fact that the man had *one* *beer*?

[RandFan]

Whatever the case, he clearly can't pour a pint to save his life.You and I think alike. For a guy known to drink beer in the past he sure doesn't get the cause and effect notion of pouring beer into a glass.

[TruthByDecree]

Sure you aren't:



:rolleyes:

"George "Dubya Gump" Bush getting DRUNK @ G8 summit" is just the title of the YOUTUBE video in case anyone wanted to search it.

[TruthByDecree]

Did he make the statement before this apparent drinking happened or after? If before, then technically he could still be telling the truth.

With his well documented past problems with substance abuse I don't think he should even appear to be drinking anything stronger then soda-pop at a barbecue never mind a G8 summit.

The G8 summit where he acted like an ass I might add even for his low expectations.

[TexasJack]

With his well documented past problems with substance abuse I don't think he should even appear to be drinking anything stronger then soda-pop at a barbecue never mind a G8 summit.

The G8 summit where he acted like an ass I might add even for his low expectations.

This is a ridiculous thread. The guy is taking a small sip out of an unknown drink...there's plenty of other substantial reasons to criticize Bush, maybe you should be focusing on those instead of something as innocuous as this.

[hgc]

I don't like the idea of a dry drunk having his finger on the button, but that's a lot better than him falling off the wagon. I sure hope it ain't so. Especially with all those antidepressants he's been mega-dosing. W has had change you deserve for a long time now.

[steve s]

There's a video floating around the web of GWB at a wedding reception in which he appears to be inebriated. The wedding was in 1992, at least 5 or 6 years after he said he gave up drinking.

Steve S.

[Rob Lister]

The beer in question is a Buckler NA beer (.5% abv), btw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler_(beer)

[JoeEllison]

Trivia... we should stop focusing on it.

[RandFan]

The beer in question is a Buckler NA beer (.5% abv), btw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler_(beer)

The link doesn't work.

Try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler_(beer)).

[DoubtingStephen]

I suspect that the present occupant of the White House is old enough to be legally entitled to drink beer in Germany.

I don't like him at all, but this is hardly a scandal.

Now those pretzel binges...

[RandFan]

I suspect that the present occupant of the White House is old enough to be legally entitled to drink beer in Germany.

I don't like him at all, but this is hardly a scandal.

Now those pretzel binges...:D

That one was dowright bizzare. Gotta admit, our presidents might suck but they sure are entertaining. In Clinton's case though it was the intern that did the... oops, sorry. Never mind.

[CFLarsen]

You and I think alike. For a guy known to drink beer in the past he sure doesn't get the cause and effect notion of pouring beer into a glass.

There is one thing that speaks in favor of Bush not having had beer for a long time: He doesn't tilt the glass, and pour slowly, resulting in the overflow (and making the beer flat). Any beer drinker knows that.

You would pour a soft drink that way, though.

"George "Dubya Gump" Bush getting DRUNK @ G8 summit" is just the title of the YOUTUBE video in case anyone wanted to search it.

...and yet, you continue right away with:

With his well documented past problems with substance abuse I don't think he should even appear to be drinking anything stronger then soda-pop at a barbecue never mind a G8 summit.

The G8 summit where he acted like an ass I might add even for his low expectations.

:rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether Bush drinks alcohol or not: There is a heck of a difference between drinking and getting drunk.

It would serve your argument better if you didn't try to make a sip from a beer look like a binge.The vast majority of alcoholics which Bush freely admits he is, cannot drink "just a little". I suggest you do a tad bit of research on alcohol addiction and reassess this unlikely conclusion.

And I also suggest that overfilling the glass (visible as it overflows) is telling.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You claimed he was getting drunk!



And here you are insinuating that he's getting drunk regularly - something quite different from having a beer, or even the occasional beer.

Or what do you think it is that could be explained from the fact that the man had *one* *beer*?

We are supposed to be considering all the evidence, not just the fact that we only have a single video here documenting what appears to be Bush, an admitted alcoholic, having a beer.

The evidence suggests that few alcoholics can drink without relapse. From Wiki on alcoholism we have the following references to some hard data:A 2002 study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism surveyed a group of 4,422 adult alcoholics and found that after one year some were no longer alcoholics, even though only 25.5% of the group received any treatment,[10] with the breakdown as follows:

* 25% still dependent
* 27.3% in partial remission (some symptoms persist)
* 11.8% asymptomatic drinkers (consumption increases chances of relapse)
* 35.9% fully recovered — made up of 17.7% low-risk drinkers plus 18.2% abstainers....

Rationing and moderation

Rationing and moderation programs such as Moderation Management and DrinkWise do not mandate complete abstinence. While most alcoholics are unable to limit their drinking in this way, some return to moderate drinking. A 2002 U.S. study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) showed that 17.7% of individuals diagnosed as alcohol dependent more than one year prior returned to low-risk drinking. However, this group showed fewer initial symptoms of dependency.[22] A follow-up study, using the same NESARC subjects that were judged to be in remission in 2001-2002, examined the rates of return to problem drinking in 2004-2005. The major conclusion made by the authors of this NIAAA study was "Abstinence represents the most stable form of remission for most recovering alcoholics". [23]This data clearly suggests that only a few alcoholics may be able to drink without relapsing. Having worked in the field of drug addiction and having a particular interest in alcoholism since I have a family full of alcoholics, I believe that the percentage of 'recovered' alcoholics who can return to casual drinking without relapsing is considerably less than the 12-18% suggested in these two reports. What isn't known here is how long the recovered alcoholic can actually drink casually before relapsing. One has to assume the data referred to here was limited in time since recovery to casual drinking. Drink casually for a month, maybe you will see 18%, make that a year, I doubt you will see 5%. So one must consider timing since recovery in these studies to draw any relevant conclusions from them.

What we do know about addiction to any drug, including alcohol, is that relapse is a serious barrier to recovery. Seeing Bush, an admitted recovering alcoholic, spilling a beer as he refills it, is pretty strong evidence he has relapsed. There have been other rumors this is the case. The video, in my opinion, is more than just some irrelevant inconclusive evidence.

[JoeEllison]

There is one thing that speaks in favor of Bush not having had beer for a long time: He doesn't tilt the glass, and pour slowly, resulting in the overflow (and making the beer flat). Any beer drinker knows that.

You would pour a soft drink that way, though.

Or, it could be a "party foul" after a few too many.

Either way, it distracts from the fact that Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history, drunk OR sober.

[RandFan]

The vast majority of alcoholics which Bush freely admits he is, cannot drink "just a little". I suggest you do a tad bit of research on alcohol addiction and reassess this unlikely conclusion.

And I also suggest that overfilling the glass (visible as it overflows) is telling.Pure and utter BS.

Not all addictions are the same and the part about the overfilling the glass is great fun to poke shrub with but honestly it tells nothing.

Arm chair psychology and pseudo-skepticism at its finest.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rumors of Bush relapsing began as far back as 2005:

October 01, 2005
bush takes a drink, the drink takes a drink, the drink takes bush (http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2005/10/bush_takes_a_dr.html)

damnit! this is SERIOUS!!! bush IS drinking again! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/21/111317/35)Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:13:17 AM PDT
Great! Just what i needed this morning - to awaken to CNN cheerfully describing bush's visit to mongolia - and his spending time enjoying the local food the local drink of "fermented milk"!

Now i don't know about you, but this raised serious red flags for me! So, off i went to google "mongolia, fermented milk and alcohol" - not to be surprised to find that the drink contains anywhere from 3% content to 18% content (when further distilled).

Guess this answers the questions for us: is dubya drinking again? Brings to mind the old adage "how far do i have to go to get a drink aroud here!" now we have the answer: mongolia!

November 2005 / Issue No. 15 - Has Bush Relapsed? (http://www.preventragedy.com/pages/TAR/015.nov05.html)The U.S. has survived a number of Presidents who were alcoholics. Could this time be different?...

My concern isn’t over public behaviors that are easily confused with political ones. Unless blatant in politicians (such as the Huey Longs of the world), private behaviors are essential to a diagnosis of possible alcoholism or a relapse. While terms such as “crusade,” “infinite justice” and “evil doers” are more likely political terms than ones rooted in alcoholism, the inappropriate use of foul language is far more likely alcoholism-driven. Bush has reportedly used such language, “casting blame all about,” lashing out at aides, unleashing “obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him,” and exploding into tirades. He has, according to online journalist Doug Thompson (himself a recovering alcoholic with, as of August 15, 2005, 11 years, 2 months and 9 days of sobriety), flipped others the bird and been prescribed anti-depressants (alcoholism is frequently misdiagnosed as Depressive Personality Disorder). The regular use of foul language, blaming others for one’s problems, inappropriate anger and volatile mood swings are all indications of an impending relapse or an actual one. I would hypothesize that he went into relapse mode six to twelve months ago and may have hit the bottle, as reports have suggested, somewhere around August or September. One Washington source was reported to have said, “He has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him…” Family sources told reporters that when she saw him recently downing a shot, she yelled, “Stop, George.”

If such reports are true, President Bush is in the throes of the process of relapse. It is important to understand the process. He may have one drink in a sitting, or 16. The ability to have only one will make him believe he can control how much he drinks. Distortions of perception will make him think he is in control over his behaviors. The distortions themselves will prevent him from realizing he is the cause of his problems, not his staff or the American people. Because the distortions will make him believe he can do no wrong, he will be incapable of identifying alcohol as the problem. Our best hope is that Laura will do now what she did when Bush hit 40: offer a choice and let him know she will act on that decision, role as First Lady be damned.....


Those were rumors. This is video evidence.

[CFLarsen]

The vast majority of alcoholics which Bush freely admits he is, cannot drink "just a little". I suggest you do a tad bit of research on alcohol addiction and reassess this unlikely conclusion.

And Bush simply can't be among those who can drink a little. Uh-nuh! And he just has to drink an alcoholic beer. Ah-nah.

And I also suggest that overfilling the glass (visible as it overflows) is telling.

He didn't overfill the glass. The carbon dixoide level was higher than he expected.

Have you ever been in that situation without being drunk?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or, it could be a "party foul" after a few too many.

Either way, it distracts from the fact that Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history, drunk OR sober.Hear hear!

[RandFan]

Having worked in the field of drug addiction and having a particular interest in alcoholism since I have a family full of alcoholics, I believe that the percentage of 'recovered' alcoholics who can return to casual drinking without relapsing is considerably less than the 12-18% suggested in these two reports. What isn't known here is how long the recovered alcoholic can actually drink casually before relapsing.

An appeal to your authority (dubious as it is).
It was 1 glass of .5% alcohol beer.Is anyone really buying this?

[JoeEllison]

You know what this is? This is the sort of garbage that is sinking our democracy. Understanding foreign policy or economic issues requires thinking, and heavy reading, and a serious investment of time and effort to understand what's going on. This nonsense? Any idiot with an Internet connection can watch a video and say "oh, look at that sloppy drunk!!" When we play into this sort of thing, we also accept the validity of all the other shallow, trivial, non-issue BS that drives our current discourse.

I don't give a crap if Bush is drinking every day, or so goddamned sober that alcoholics sober up when he rides by in his limo. I don't care what Hillary Clinton was doing in college, or what Obama's neighbors were doing 40 years ago. I don't want to hear rumors about McCain poking some lobbyist 10 years ago, or what kind of fish was served at Al Gore's daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner.

All of this 'stuff' is lazy reporting, and leads to lazy citizenship.

[CFLarsen]

Rumors of Bush relapsing began as far back as 2005:

October 01, 2005
bush takes a drink, the drink takes a drink, the drink takes bush (http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2005/10/bush_takes_a_dr.html)

Talk radio and blogs, who use the National Enquirer as the only source.

The new face of media, gobbled up uncritically by far too many. You included.

damnit! this is SERIOUS!!! bush IS drinking again! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/21/111317/35)

O MI GOSH! BUSH IS NICE AND POLITE, FOLLOWS LOCAL CUSTOM! HE'S "DRINKING" AGAIN! THE SKY IS FALLING! :eek:

He sure must be desperate if he wants to get drunk on fermented milk...

November 2005 / Issue No. 15 - Has Bush Relapsed? (http://www.preventragedy.com/pages/TAR/015.nov05.html)

Note the question. And the absence of evidence.


An appeal to your authority (dubious as it is).
It was 1 glass of .5% alcohol beer.Is anyone really buying this?

I'm not. As bad a president he is, I find it hard to believe that Bush's alcohol consumption - if any - wouldn't be closely monitored. It's not as if he can stash booze behind the toilet...

[CFLarsen]

You know what this is? This is the sort of garbage that is sinking our democracy. Understanding foreign policy or economic issues requires thinking, and heavy reading, and a serious investment of time and effort to understand what's going on. This nonsense? Any idiot with an Internet connection can watch a video and say "oh, look at that sloppy drunk!!" When we play into this sort of thing, we also accept the validity of all the other shallow, trivial, non-issue BS that drives our current discourse.

I don't give a crap if Bush is drinking every day, or so goddamned sober that alcoholics sober up when he rides by in his limo. I don't care what Hillary Clinton was doing in college, or what Obama's neighbors were doing 40 years ago. I don't want to hear rumors about McCain poking some lobbyist 10 years ago, or what kind of fish was served at Al Gore's daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner.

All of this 'stuff' is lazy reporting, and leads to lazy citizenship.

Quite agree.

It's also bad skepticism.

[JoeEllison]

Quite agree.

It's also bad skepticism.

"Bad" in that it is irrelevant, certainly. There are two issues that we should weigh, in deciding whether or not to invest our time in an issue: "is it true?" and "is it important?".

In being skeptical, we should also ask ourselves if a stated event is worth spending any amount of time on. We could spend our entire lives debunking and railing against any given five minutes of basic cable... we need to aim at issues that actually matter.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Talk radio and blogs, who use the National Enquirer as the only source.

The new face of media, gobbled up uncritically by far too many. You included.

O MI GOSH! BUSH IS NICE AND POLITE, FOLLOWS LOCAL CUSTOM! HE'S "DRINKING" AGAIN! THE SKY IS FALLING! :eek:

He sure must be desperate if he wants to get drunk on fermented milk...I said very clearly that these were rumors in 2005. "Rumors of Bush relapsing began as far back as 2005." Yet you post your crap claiming I said those rumors were facts. Perhaps you don't understand the English translation of rumor (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rumor):1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay. Or maybe you don't understand the English translation of evidence (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence):1. something which provides ground for belief or disbeliefOr maybe you think one cannot post a reference that a rumor was circulating, even when clearly stating that one is posting the fact a rumor circulated? Would that be in the rules according to Claus? I am not familiar with such a board rule.


I posted references to research on alcoholism and those were ignored by the Bush apologists here in the thread. I then said the video was actual evidence that combined with what we know about alcoholism from the research, suggests the rumors may indeed have had a factual basis.

You simply want to distort what I have posted by claiming the only evidence here is the 2005 rumors. Try again.

Note the question. And the absence of evidence.If you ignore all the scientific research on the subject of alcoholism which again, Bush freely admits he is one, then you can claim the video and the rumors are the only evidence here. I choose to include a broader array of sources of evidence.


I'm not. As bad a president he is, I find it hard to believe that Bush's alcohol consumption - if any - wouldn't be closely monitored. It's not as if he can stash booze behind the toilet...Monitored by whom? The Republican political police? "Mr Bush, we cannot allow you to drink, and if you do, we will tell the world. We will not cover it up." :dl:

[a_unique_person]

Whatever the case, he clearly can't pour a pint to save his life.

It gets easier after the first few mouthfulls.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Bad" in that it is irrelevant, certainly. There are two issues that we should weigh, in deciding whether or not to invest our time in an issue: "is it true?" and "is it important?".

In being skeptical, we should also ask ourselves if a stated event is worth spending any amount of time on. We could spend our entire lives debunking and railing against any given five minutes of basic cable... we need to aim at issues that actually matter.A lot of people who are addicted to alcohol also manage to function. They hold steady jobs and even manage to cover up their addiction.

However, the alcohol addiction does severely interfere with their quality of work, especially decision making. Bush is a terrible President. Why that is so may not be relevant to everyone. But in my opinion, the addition of alcohol addiction would make a bad President even worse. So I do think in this case, it probably is relevant.

[JoeEllison]

A lot of people who are addicted to alcohol also manage to function. They hold steady jobs and even manage to cover up their addiction.

However, the alcohol addiction does severely interfere with their quality of work, especially decision making. Bush is a terrible President. Why that is so may not be relevant to everyone. But in my opinion, the addition of alcohol addiction would make a bad President even worse. So I do think in this case, it probably is relevant.
At this late stage, and in a world of limited resources to devote to all of Bush's flaws? His sobriety or lack thereof is the least of our current problems. Leave it to history to puzzle out the "why" of his spectacular failures. Right now, we need to move beyond the trivia, and focus on practical analysis and solutions.

And, possibly more importantly, by focusing on this issue, you are playing right into the hands of the enemies of democracy. Things like Bush's drinking are trivia, the same sort of slimy non-reporting that has turned our mainstream media into a detriment to our freedom. When we allow our discussions of politics to turn into a high-minded version of celebrity gossip, even when turned against those who deserve some measure of humiliation, we are giving up on our democracy. Every step towards making our political discourse more like TMZ is a mistake that we'll be paying for over the years to come.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a personal experience with alcoholism that affects how I view it. So I perhaps find it more serious than someone not having that personal experience might. But as far as how does this rate on a continuum of priorities to be wasting time on? Not very high. On that, I agree with you completely, Joe.

[JoeEllison]

I have a personal experience with alcoholism that affects how I view it. So I perhaps find it more serious than someone not having that personal experience might. But as far as how does this rate on a continuum of priorities to be wasting time on? Not very high. On that, I agree with you completely, Joe.

It is, in reality, worse than a simple waste of time. When we accept nonsense about Bush, we also accept the trivia and lies directed at everyone in the political spectrum. When we pretend that Bush's pouring of a fizzy beverage is an issue, by default we also accept that the lies about Gore "inventing the Internet" are also valid talking points. When we joke about Bush choking on a pretzel or wiping out on his bicycle, we are opening the door and inviting in the Swift Boat lies about Kerry.

As much as I would like to enjoy bashing Republicans... when we accept the nonsensical stories against them, we are giving consent to the media's propagation of lies against Democrats.

[CFLarsen]

I said very clearly that these were rumors in 2005. "Rumors of Bush relapsing began as far back as 2005." Yet you post your crap claiming I said those rumors were facts.

Are you nothing but a scandal monger? A gossiper? A whispering schemer? A tattletale? Someone who will spread the most vicious rumor, but only about the politicians you dislike?

Get some facts.

Perhaps you don't understand the English translation of rumor (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rumor): Or maybe you don't understand the English translation of evidence (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence):Or maybe you think one cannot post a reference that a rumor was circulating, even when clearly stating that one is posting the fact a rumor circulated? Would that be in the rules according to Claus? I am not familiar with such a board rule.

Why don't you instead dig up some evidence that Bush has lapsed into drinking?

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

I posted references to research on alcoholism and those were ignored by the Bush apologists here in the thread. I then said the video was actual evidence that combined with what we know about alcoholism from the research, suggests the rumors may indeed have had a factual basis.

You simply want to distort what I have posted by claiming the only evidence here is the 2005 rumors. Try again.

I haven't distorted anything. I have pointed out that your sources are highly dubious.

If you ignore all the scientific research on the subject of alcoholism which again, Bush freely admits he is one, then you can claim the video and the rumors are the only evidence here. I choose to include a broader array of sources of evidence.

Like the National Enquirer? You call that a credible news source?

Monitored by whom? The Republican political police? "Mr Bush, we cannot allow you to drink, and if you do, we will tell the world. We will not cover it up." :dl:

His family, his friends, his staff. He is always monitored, always watched.

Find some evidence instead of rumors. And stop complaining when people point out that you're spreading gossip instead of facts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is, in reality, worse than a simple waste of time. When we accept nonsense about Bush, we also accept the trivia and lies directed at everyone in the political spectrum. When we pretend that Bush's pouring of a fizzy beverage is an issue, by default we also accept that the lies about Gore "inventing the Internet" are also valid talking points. When we joke about Bush choking on a pretzel or wiping out on his bicycle, we are opening the door and inviting in the Swift Boat lies about Kerry.

As much as I would like to enjoy bashing Republicans... when we accept the nonsensical stories against them, we are giving consent to the media's propagation of lies against Democrats.But my experience with alcoholism includes 3 suicides in my family, (2 of which included an additional murder), a brother who almost died at the age of 38 from esophageal varices rupturing, (directly related to alcoholism), and his having been in numerous car accidents and arrests before that, (also all directly related to alcoholism), and a couple years working with addicts as a nurse practitioner. I don't see it as some minor annoyance that doesn't affect much of one's life. Alcoholism affects everything in one's life, in a big way. I think the consequences are greatly underestimated and the affliction affects many of our elected leaders.

I do not equate this to Swift Boating at all. Nor is it equal to worrying that a President was in a wheel chair or some other irrelevant disability. The disability of alcoholism does have a significant impact on a national leader.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you nothing but a scandal monger? A gossiper? A whispering schemer? A tattletale? Someone who will spread the most vicious rumor, but only about the politicians you dislike?

Get some facts.



Why don't you instead dig up some evidence that Bush has lapsed into drinking?

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?



I haven't distorted anything. I have pointed out that your sources are highly dubious.



Like the National Enquirer? You call that a credible news source?



His family, his friends, his staff. He is always monitored, always watched.

Find some evidence instead of rumors. And stop complaining when people point out that you're spreading gossip instead of facts.In 2005, I deferred the rumors as not sufficient evidence. Now there is a video that is direct evidence. Always monitored? I have no doubt. Spilling the beans about it, that is another story.

Who released the video?

[JoeEllison]

But my experience with alcoholism includes 3 suicides in my family, (2 of which included an additional murder), a brother who almost died at the age of 38 from esophageal varices rupturing, (directly related to alcoholism), and his having been in numerous car accidents and arrests before that, (also all directly related to alcoholism), and a couple years working with addicts as a nurse practitioner. I don't see it as some minor annoyance that doesn't affect much of one's life. Alcoholism affects everything in one's life, in a big way. I think the consequences are greatly underestimated and the affliction affects many of our elected leaders.

I do not equate this to Swift Boating at all. Nor is it equal to worrying that a President was in a wheel chair or some other irrelevant disability. The disability of alcoholism does have a significant impact on a national leader.

I'm deeply sorry for your losses, and just as sympathetic towards your pain.

However, whether you can see it or not, we have bigger fish to fry. There is no reason to believe that the neocon agenda would have been changed if Bush had been more or less of a drunk... and not legitimizing discussion of this non-issue is a bigger deal for America than Bush's dysfunctions, however much they might potentially destroy his family.

[CFLarsen]

In 2005, I deferred the rumors as not sufficient evidence. Now there is a video that is direct evidence.

Of what? You don't even know it's an alcoholic beer. You certainly don't have "telling" evidence.

Who released the video?

It's a news clip of some of the G8 leaders relaxing. It isn't a huge story about Bush's alcoholism, but more of a cute story of Bush's little accident.

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm deeply sorry for your losses, and just as sympathetic towards your pain.

However, whether you can see it or not, we have bigger fish to fry. There is no reason to believe that the neocon agenda would have been changed if Bush had been more or less of a drunk... and not legitimizing discussion of this non-issue is a bigger deal for America than Bush's dysfunctions, however much they might potentially destroy his family.If it were only the rumors and not the video and the evidence about the disease of alcoholism I would agree with you on the family issues, but there is the video. Denial does not help families, it enables the alcoholic.

But I agree the Neocon agenda would likely not have changed here. What does worry me however, is the rhetoric such as Bush's recent poor judgment displayed in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of what? You don't even know it's an alcoholic beer. You certainly don't have "telling" evidence.



It's a news clip of some of the G8 leaders relaxing. It isn't a huge story about Bush's alcoholism, but more of a cute story of Bush's little accident.

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?Why do you completely dismiss the research on alcoholism, on relapse, on recidivism, and on how that relates to Bush's admission of being a recovered alcoholic? A video of a recovered alcoholic spilling a beer as he pours it is far more incriminating than a video of a President having a beer because it is evidence of relapsing, not simply evidence of drinking.

[CFLarsen]

Why do you completely dismiss the research on alcoholism, on relapse, on recidivism, and on how that relates to Bush's admission of being a recovered alcoholic?

I don't.

A video of a recovered alcoholic spilling a beer as he pours it is far more incriminating than a video of a President having a beer because it is evidence of relapsing, not simply evidence of drinking.

He doesn't spill it. Why do you feel compelled to lie about this? There is too much carbon dioxide in the bottle. Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

How do you know it's an alcoholic beer?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?

[Rasmus]

Why do you completely dismiss the research on alcoholism, on relapse, on recidivism,

... we wouldn't want to draw conclusions to the specific from the general, now would we?

and on how that relates to Bush's admission of being a recovered alcoholic?

It doesn't.

A video of a recovered alcoholic spilling a beer as he pours it is far more incriminating than a video of a President having a beer because it is evidence of relapsing, not simply evidence of drinking.

No, such a video is evidence of the man "spilling" a beer. I am not now, nor have I ever been an alcoholic. Even I have, when completely sober, spilled drinks both alcoholic an non-alcoholic.

Now, even if there was data supporting that a relapsed alcoholic would be somewhat more likely to spill a beer than someone who's never been addicted, a video of a person spilling a beer proves precisely nothing other than that they spilled a beer.

And the question remains: What difference does it make?

His political decisions and actions do not become any more or less idiotic just because we know one of the underlying reasons.

[CFLarsen]

...such as Bush's recent poor judgment displayed in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Since when did Bush have good judgment?

[RandFan]

I have no problem making fun of Bush. But turning this silly little incident into a tea leaf reading deep dark mystery to be dissected from every angle is beyond absurd. Next you know people will be finding meaning in whether Obama wears a flag lapel pin... oh wait, that's been done.

ETA: In case anyone doubts my authority about lapel pins, 3 of my family members have killed themselves over lapel pins.

[Darth Rotor]

You know what this is? This is the sort of garbage that is sinking our democracy. Understanding foreign policy or economic issues requires thinking, and heavy reading, and a serious investment of time and effort to understand what's going on. This nonsense? Any idiot with an Internet connection can watch a video and say "oh, look at that sloppy drunk!!" When we play into this sort of thing, we also accept the validity of all the other shallow, trivial, non-issue BS that drives our current discourse.

I don't give a crap if Bush is drinking every day, or so goddamned sober that alcoholics sober up when he rides by in his limo. I don't care what Hillary Clinton was doing in college, or what Obama's neighbors were doing 40 years ago. I don't want to hear rumors about McCain poking some lobbyist 10 years ago, or what kind of fish was served at Al Gore's daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner.
Joe, we are in complete agreement on this.

By the way, I heard it was red fish at the Gore wedding. ;)

Scandalous! :jaw-dropp These people have no taste, it was out of season at the time.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

ETA: In case anyone doubts my authority about lapel pins, 3 of my family members have killed themselves over lapel pins.
Refreshing to find someone with as sick a sense of humor as mine.

All is right with the world. :cool:

DR

[RandFan]

Refreshing to find someone with as sick a sense of humor as mine.

All is right with the world. :cool:

DR:) Not very decorous of me but jeez. Rebbecca Romijn has an Autistic child and now she thinks she is an expert on the causes of autism and is attacking the use of vaccines. And otherwise intelligent people actually buy that. I guess I can excuse them because they are not skeptics.

Why anyone with the word "skepti" in their name would think that an unprovable assertion about familial suicide should lend them any credence in an argument carried out in a supposed skeptics forum is beyond me. Still, perhaps it is a bit presumptuous of me to assume that this is a skeptics forum and putting the word "skepti" in ones name has any meaning whatsoever.

[ddt]

The beer in question is a Buckler NA beer (.5% abv), btw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler_(beer))

You're right. What a loser. From the wiki page:
On December 31, 1989, Dutch cabaret performer Youp van 't Hek referred to Buckler beer several times during his New Year cabaret show with the words: "You know Buckler, don't you? The orthodox reformed beer. I hate them incredibly, Buckler drinkers. Yuck. Those types standing next to you in a bar that don't get drunk." His show produced the concept of the 'Buckler loser' (Dutch: Bucklerlul), which led to dropping sales. Eventually Heineken took the beer out of the Dutch market. The estimated loss for Heineken was €180,000,000.
And Youp van 't Hek was right. Buckler tasted like crap. Heineken has improved it somewhat, but it still is bad.

What incredibly poor judgement again of Bush.

[Darth Rotor]

What incredibly poor judgement again of Bush.

*W slaps self on forehead*

"I coulda had a V-8!"


(And slipped in a shot of vodka on the sly.)

DR

[pgwenthold]

I think you folks are seriously underestimating the potential problem here. An alcoholic who is drinking is completely unreliable in any way. Although there are some alcoholics who can control their problem in moderation, you do not expect it nor count on it to continue. It is a recipe for disaster.

That being said, as has been pointed out, this was likely a non-alcoholic beer, and so is not a big issue. However, if it were an alcoholic drink, you darn straight this would be a problem. Remember, he claimed he quit drinking. He doesn't claim to have his alcoholism under control. In that case, he needs to remain completely clear. It appears here he is.

[Snide]

"You can always spot the recovering alcoholics...they're the ones having the non-alcohol beer. I don't get that. If you're a pedophile, they don't give you a midget in a Cub Scout uniform!"

-Emo Philips

Sorry..as you were...

[dudalb]

A sure sign of Bush Derangment Syndrome: Spreading false rumors about Bush instead of relying on the facts..which are bad enough for Dubya.
Let's face it: Some people greatly enjoy hating Bush, and will be sorry when he leaves office since they can no longer hate him with quite that intensity.
And I am sure if he gets in we will have Obama Derangement Syndrome to deal with.

[mr rosewater]

*W slaps self on forehead*

"I coulda had a V-8!"


(And slipped in a shot of vodka on the sly.)

DR

Oh man, I did just that, twice and I feel so good!:)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Refreshing to find someone with as sick a sense of humor as mine.

All is right with the world. :cool:

DRI have a master's degree in health care, 30 years of experience, I am licensed to diagnose and treat addicted patients including alcoholics, spent some time working in that field and have a special interest because of my family history.

Some of you have a misconception about the difference between appeal to authority and recognizing education and experience. They are not one in the same.

But do carry on....

[Skeptic Ginger]

... we wouldn't want to draw conclusions to the specific from the general, now would we?Taking in all the evidence, one has an admitted alcoholic who claims to have found God and quit drinking, on video, pouring a beer which overflows, then sipping the foam off in a fairly casual way at a formal meeting with the leader of another country.

I am confident that 'more likely than not' that evidence supports the conclusion we are seeing a relapsed former recovered alcoholic. I have no issue that those with less experience in the field of alcoholism are not as confident about the "more likely than not" conclusion, nor would I expect them to, nor would I expect someone on a forum to consider my expertise and experience in their assessment of the evidence. However, I am confident it is an appropriate assessment.


No, such a video is evidence of the man "spilling" a beer. I am not now, nor have I ever been an alcoholic. Even I have, when completely sober, spilled drinks both alcoholic an non-alcoholic.

Now, even if there was data supporting that a relapsed alcoholic would be somewhat more likely to spill a beer than someone who's never been addicted, a video of a person spilling a beer proves precisely nothing other than that they spilled a beer.This isn't relevant. Carelessly pouring a beer that then overflows can result from many things, inexperience, simple carelessness, intoxication, a physical problem, underestimating the carbonation, and so on. The overflowing glass is only one bit of evidence, it isn't the evidence.


And the question remains: What difference does it make?

His political decisions and actions do not become any more or less idiotic just because we know one of the underlying reasons.So an impaired driver who crashes the car does so because they are a lousy driver? The intoxication does not affect decision making?

[TexasJack]

Wow, still talking about this. Move on people, there's nothing to see.

[RandFan]

I have a master's degree in health care, 30 years of experience, I am licensed to diagnose and treat addicted patients including alcoholics, spent some time working in that field and have a special interest because of my family history.

Some of you have a misconception about the difference between appeal to authority and recognizing education and experience. They are not one in the same.

But do carry on.... Big deal, "I have an M.D. from Harvard. I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery. I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England...Let me tell you something... I AM God."

[CFLarsen]

I have a master's degree in health care, 30 years of experience, I am licensed to diagnose and treat addicted patients including alcoholics, spent some time working in that field and have a special interest because of my family history.

Some of you have a misconception about the difference between appeal to authority and recognizing education and experience. They are not one in the same.

But do carry on....

In which case, you should know that it is unethical of you to claim to speak knowledgeably about "a relapsed former recovered alcoholic" not in your professional care.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, my posts would only be unethical if Bush were my patient, Claus. To give a professional opinion about a public figure concerning public behavior is in no way unethical in terms of patient confidentiality. Perhaps some individuals may think it improper to discuss these matters in a public forum. That is an unhelpful position and in fact contributes to enabling (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa052197.htm).

[CFLarsen]

Taking in all the evidence, one has an admitted alcoholic who claims to have found God and quit drinking, on video, pouring a beer which overflows, then sipping the foam off in a fairly casual way at a formal meeting with the leader of another country.

It is not a formal meeting: They are not at the negotiation table, they are kicking back after the day's work and merely enjoying each other's company.

This isn't relevant. Carelessly pouring a beer that then overflows can result from many things, inexperience, simple carelessness, intoxication, a physical problem, underestimating the carbonation, and so on. The overflowing glass is only one bit of evidence, it isn't the evidence.

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

You keep avoiding this, and I think there's a very good reason.

Actually, my posts would only be unethical if Bush were my patient, Claus. To give a professional opinion about a public figure concerning public behavior is in no way unethical in terms of patient confidentiality.

But you are pointing to hidden information combined with your own professional knowledge to diagnose Bush as a "relapsed former recovered alcoholic".

You cross a line when you refer to your own professional knowledge as a basis for that. You have no inside knowledge of Bush's situation, and you have repeatedly misrepresented the facts.

Perhaps some individuals may think it improper to discuss these matters in a public forum. That is an unhelpful position and in fact contributes to enabling (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa052197.htm).

Ah, I see. If we criticize your unethical behavior and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, we are merely helping Bush to become even more of an alcoholic. :rolleyes:

How do you know it's an alcoholic beer?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, you are looking for perfect research standards when the situation is simply an opinion. Opinions happen. I have no issue with the fact the information is tenuous. I fully recognize all may not be what it appears to be here.

But you have decided arbitrarily in my opinion that the standard is to prove Bush has relapsed into alcoholism. I have chosen to take the position it is more likely he has relapsed and you should be looking for evidence he hasn't.

Statistically speaking, less than half of recovered alcoholics remain alcohol free for their lifetimes. That means the evidence based approach here is that it is more like Bush relapsed than Bush did not relapse. You are the one with the burden of proof this is not evidence of relapse.

[Rasmus]

Statistically speaking, less than half of recovered alcoholics remain alcohol free for their lifetimes. That means the evidence based approach here is that it is more like Bush relapsed than Bush did not relapse. You are the one with the burden of proof this is not evidence of relapse.

You are getting ridiculous. Not only are you now trying to shift the burden of proof, you are also equating "not 100% alcohol free" with "relapsed alcoholic". Again, I am not "alcohol free", I haven't been for most of my life and I probably won't be for the rest of my life.

I drink, sometimes socially, sometimes alone and just for the taste, on rare occasions out of sheer thirst and even rarer I drink to induce sleep. On some days, I have more alcohol in the house than I have food - if you measure by fiscal value. Let me assure you, though, that I am not an alcoholic.

[mr rosewater]

Oh my, two pages of nonsense. I saw a picture recently of Hillary downing a shot of whiskey, and another more recently at Makers Mark holding a bottle of bourbon, I think she may have a drinking problem. See how it works?

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you are looking for perfect research standards when the situation is simply an opinion. Opinions happen. I have no issue with the fact the information is tenuous. I fully recognize all may not be what it appears to be here.

But you have decided arbitrarily in my opinion that the standard is to prove Bush has relapsed into alcoholism. I have chosen to take the position it is more likely he has relapsed and you should be looking for evidence he hasn't.

Statistically speaking, less than half of recovered alcoholics remain alcohol free for their lifetimes. That means the evidence based approach here is that it is more like Bush relapsed than Bush did not relapse. You are the one with the burden of proof this is not evidence of relapse.

No, I am not.

What you are doing right now is exactly what woos do: They try to deflect criticism of their claims by calling it "opinion" while maintaining that they are right because they have evidence - yet, they don't have to prove themselves right.

Stop behaving like a woo. Stop misrepresenting the facts. Stop shifting the burden of proof. Stop ignoring the questions:

Do you acknowledge that they are not at the negotiating table, but at an informal chat around the table?

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

How do you know it's an alcoholic beer?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?

[Cleon]

Oh my, two pages of nonsense. I saw a picture recently of Hillary downing a shot of whiskey, and another more recently at Makers Mark holding a bottle of bourbon, I think she may have a drinking problem. See how it works?

?!

I can only assume you are unaware of the fact that Bush has acknowledged the fact that, as a youth, he had a serious drinking problem. This is not some liberal lie, or cooked up based on a single video; this is what the man himself has fessed up to.

Recovering alcoholics can "fall off the wagon" with a single drink. If he's seen drinking something that appears to be beer, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if he's relapsed.

Comparing this to Hillary Clinton having a shot of whiskey just doesn't make any sense.

[Rob Lister]

It appears that Bush is the only one not drinking an alcoholic beverage.

That puts Bush at an advantage.

That his beverage of choice would be a non-alcoholic beer rather than a more obvious non-alcoholic choice doesn't surprise me; some social-diplomatic considerations exist.

[zigaretten]

The vast majority of alcoholics which Bush freely admits he is, cannot drink "just a little".

My understanding is that President Bush says he does not believe that he was (or is) an alcoholic.

""Well, I don't think I had an addiction........You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

And, interestingly:

"I am a person who enjoys life, and for years, I enjoyed having a few drinks. But gradually, drinking began to compete with my energy.....I'd be a step slower getting up. My daily runs seemed harder after a few too many drinks the night before."

Now I am an alcoholic and I assure you that when I was drinking (which was in my twenties) there was no running the next morning, there was only just barely walking. (All too often there was just more drinking....)

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

[Earthborn]

What incredibly poor judgement again of Bush.Surely it is far better judgement of him than if he had chosen an alcoholic beer, with him being a former drunk and all? Okay, so Dubya is a Buckler Prick. The world would have been a better place if that was the worst thing you could say about him.

[Darth Rotor]

I have a master's degree in health care, 30 years of experience, I am licensed to diagnose and treat addicted patients including alcoholics, spent some time working in that field and have a special interest because of my family history.

Some of you have a misconception about the difference between appeal to authority and recognizing education and experience. They are not one in the same.

But do carry on....
I don't doubt your experience in the field. Applying it to politics is what is getting an eyebrow raised. Furthermore, your presentation here has resulted in applying a slippery slope diagnosis to someone you have a profound political antipathy for, someone who is not in your care, and someone who may or may not be a clinically diagnosed alcoholic. What comes off is the presentation of a deliberate attempt to make a personal, political judgment with your expert witness state as a fig leaf.

On the other hand, you may be dead right, GW Bush may be a full up alkie. Don't know either way. No longer care.

I know a small amount about alcoholics thanks to my own extended family, none of whom comitted suicide, none of whom crashed cars when drunk.

In the workplace, I helped save the marriage (and career) of a chief petty officer who worked for me (a couple of decades ago) by getting him into level III treatment (ARC). I have had to work with the abuser/alkie issue among various sailors who worked for me, and a few officers who I worked with and who needed to dry out.

But as I'm not on the career clinical side, that's as far as that goes.

Depending on how much you believe that is printed in the press, Bush slowed down/stopped drinking in part due to the influence of his wife, and in part due to his adopting some of the Evangelical Christian mind set. There are a lot of Protestants who consider drinking taboo. I run into them down here in Texas frequently. Humorless dipsticks all? No, one is a lady I do a teen bible study with once a week.

So, on a single data point, and your having kept a very critical eye, a default "believe the worst filter" as well, on this politician, the slippery slope diagnosis arrives.

@pgwenthold: A similar "it is a dire issue" is noted from you. On the face of things, given seven years of this man in office, his sheer averageness and lack of talent for the position has shown, time and again, the plodding efforts of a sober yet significantly uninspired politician.

He doesn't need to be drinking to do a less than satisfactory job, he already is when sober. Hell, maybe if he had a few he'd clue up. :p

ETA:
I can only assume you are unaware of the fact that Bush has acknowledged the fact that, as a youth, he had a serious drinking problem. This is not some liberal lie, or cooked up based on a single video; this is what the man himself has fessed up to.
Yes.
Recovering alcoholics can "fall off the wagon" with a single drink. If he's seen drinking something that appears to be beer, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if he's relapsed.
You just took his comment and labeled him a "recovering alcoholic." Seems a bit of an assumption to make. As to can fall off the wagon, yep. FWIW, my own battles with tobacco have included any number of falls from the wagon.
Comparing this to Hillary Clinton having a shot of whiskey just doesn't make any sense.
Agreed.

DR

[Cleon]

You just took his comment and labeled him a "recovering alcoholic." Seems a bit of an assumption to make. As to can fall off the wagon, yep. FWIW, my own battles with tobacco have included any number of falls from the wagon.

I was actually trying not to label him a "recovering alcoholic." The whole thing is dependent on whether he is actually an alcoholic, as opposed to just having "a drinking problem."

Whether he's a capital-A Alcoholic or not, we obviously don't know for certain.

My only point is that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about, and mr rosewater was waaay off-base to say otherwise.

[RandFan]

I can only assume you are unaware of the fact that Bush has acknowledged the fact that, as a youth, he had a serious drinking problem. This is not some liberal lie, or cooked up based on a single video; this is what the man himself has fessed up to.

Recovering alcoholics can "fall off the wagon" with a single drink. If he's seen drinking something that appears to be beer, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if he's relapsed.

Comparing this to Hillary Clinton having a shot of whiskey just doesn't make any sense.



I think this whole thing is silly. Why this is being debated in what is ostensibly a skeptics forum is beyond me. In any event, if we are going to discuss this then let's establish the facts.
What exactly did Bush fess up to (please provide sources)?
You say "can fall off the wagon". What percentage of people with drinking problems fall of the wagon by drinking low alcohol beer (IOW, what is the relative risk)?

[RandFan]

IMy only point is that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about, and mr rosewater was waaay off-base to say otherwise. As reasonable thing to wonder about as whether or not there are UFO's or Aliens.

To what end is it reasonable? What conclusions can we draw from speculation? (not rhetorical)

[Cleon]

As reasonable thing to wonder about as whether or not there are UFO's or Aliens.

Well, I was going to respond to your earlier post, but...Yeah, never mind.

[RandFan]

Well, I was going to respond to your earlier post, but...Yeah, never mind.Why? It was an honest and sincere expression. How is speculating about Bush's drinking problem and the potential ramifications of this incident any different from speculating about UFO's? Do you really have such thin skin or is it because you know this is a silly thing to take seriously?

[Cleon]

Why? It was an honest and sincere expression. How is speculating about Bush's drinking problem and the potential ramifications of this incident any different from speculating about UFO's? Do you really have such thin skin or is it because you know this is a silly thing to take seriously?

You're right. There's no difference whatsoever between aliens visiting Earth and the possibility of a human being having a recurrence of an admitted-to drinking problem. :rolleyes:

Seriously...I'm just not playing, RandFan. If you want to be ridiculous, you're going to have to do it without me.

[Darth Rotor]

Why? It was an honest and sincere expression. How is speculating about Bush's drinking problem and the potential ramifications of this incident any different from speculating about UFO's? Do you really have such thin skin or is it because you know this is a silly thing to take seriously?
In a slightly related note, I trust Laura Bush to keep his kiester in line. Remember, she was at one time a school teacher, and she helped him dry out, or so the story goes.

Do you think W wants a ruler across the knuckles from his missus over a beer?

I don't.

DR

[RandFan]

're

You're right. There's no difference whatsoever between aliens visiting Earth and the possibility of a human being having a drinking problem. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

How are they different? And don't give me that, well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you BS.

What's with all the nudge nudge wink wink BS. This a GD skeptics forum. Why can't people just shoot straight?

How are they different?

We could speculate about Bush's drinking problem.
We could speculate about aliens.In the end the speculation leads nowhere so what is the point?

[RandFan]

Seriously...I'm just not playing, RandFan. If you want to be ridiculous, you're going to have to do it without me. Oh BS. If you had a leg to stand on you'd answer my questions.

[Cleon]

:rolleyes:

How are they different? And don't give me that, well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you BS.

One involves interstellar space travel and the other involved a well-known, documented affliction.

Seriously, this is a completely ridiculous line of argument. Can't you do a little better? Please?

[RandFan]

One involves interstellar space travel and the other involved a well-known, documented affliction. And how is that relevant to what I'm saying? Please, I'm dying to know. Do you even understand my point?

And where is the documentation of that affliction? Is this more nudge nudge wink wink take my word for it I'm an expert who had three family member kill themselves because of alcohol?

Please, this is so embarrassing for a skeptics forum.

Seriously, this is a completely ridiculous line of argument. Can't you do a little better? Please? Declaring that it is ridiculous doesn't make it so. What is ridiculous is that supposed skeptics can't answer a few questions.

How is speculating about aliens different from speculating about bush drinking a single bottle of low alcohol beer? Why can't you answer that question?

Can't YOU do a little better?

[Cleon]

Asked, answered. I'm done, RandFan.

[RandFan]

Asked, answered. I'm done, RandFan. You might be done but let's get one thing crystal clear. My questions have not been answered. If they were you could point to where they have been answered. So, let me note the most significant questions left on the table.

What exactly did Bush confess to regarding drinking (please provide sources)?
What percentage of people with drinking problems fall off the wagon by drinking low alcohol beer (IOW, what is the relative risk)?Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?

[TruthByDecree]

You might be done but let's get one thing crystal clear. My questions have not been answered. If they were you could point to where they have been answered. So, let me note the most significant questions left on the table.

What exactly did Bush confess to regarding drinking (please provide sources)?
What percentage of people with drinking problems fall off the wagon by drinking low alcohol beer (IOW, what is the relative risk)?Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?

Bush and his past problem with booze and drugs are well documented even by himself. Did he quit because he had no problem? The only thing that is rumor is that he has been drinking again. And there's plenty of rumor.

As for non or low alcohol beer here is an article that did some research on just that when writing about Bush and his well documented problem.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7936.shtml

In Alcoholics Anonymous, we are warned to stay away from so-called “non-alcoholic” beers or “near beer” as it is called. The brew does, in fact, contain some alcohol and can trigger a renewed desire for more.

The November issue of the Journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, cites a study by team of California scientists who report that just the smell of non-alcoholic beer may be enough to trigger cravings and a subsequent relapse among certain alcoholics.

[RandFan]

Bush and his past problem with booze and drugs are well documented even by himself.Then you shouldn't have any problem providing sources. I thank you in advance for providing them.

Did he quit because he had no problem? Is anyone saying that he had "no problem"? That's a strawman. The question is to what extent was his problem?

Bush's Life-Changing Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm)

"Well, I don't think I had an addiction........You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case." Those are Bush's words. Do you have something that refutes Bush? Everyone keeps saying "it's well documented". Ok, then provide the sources. Sheesh, how hard can this be?

The only thing that is rumor is that he has been drinking again. And there's plenty of rumor. "Rumor"? Well, lord know that if anything is proof for JREF skeptics it's rumor and the more rumor there is the more proof there is. Thank you for the argument ad populum (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/numbers.htm). A real red letter day for JREF.

From YOUR link.
None of this, of course, proves Bush is drinking again...(emphasis mine) Ah, proof, the stuff good skeptics rely on. Rumor is the stuff of woo.
The article doesn't answer my question (what is the relative risk?). Not all people respond to all risks the same.
The article is rumor and speculation.Even though it is riddled with fallacy I appreciate the fact that you responded. Some "skeptics" don't have the balls to do even that.

Oh, and I've got to say your user name is perfect for another little fallacy here. Just keep saying it's well documented and that will make it true.

[President Bush]

How is speculating about aliens different from speculating about bush drinking a single bottle of low alcohol beer?


5,878,625,373,183.61 miles = one light year
365 days drinking low alcohol beer = one Lite year

[Darth Rotor]

So how is Bush falling off the wagon with a glass LA beer a concern for his abilities (such as they are) significant? Seems LA beer can lead to a relapse, but must it? Does it always? Wouldn't some evidence of further tippling be a useful bit of info to support the worry that a fall from the wagon has occurred, and a remounting not undertaken?

Let us compare that to JFK's use of pain pills, which was at the time covered up, kept private, well hidden, covered by doctor client relationship, or whatever way one should characterize it.

Which poses the more significant problem for the President?

Does either?

DR

[RandFan]

So how is Bush falling off the wagon with a glass LA beer a concern for his abilities (such as they are) significant? Seems LA beer can lead to a relapse, but must it? Does it always? Wouldn't some evidence of further tippling be a useful bit of info to support the worry that a fall from the wagon has occurred, and a remounting not undertaken? I've asked similar questions without any luck. I hope my hard nosed rhetoric won't dissuade others from answering your questions but I doubt that my lack of decorum is truly the reason for no one answering mine so I seriously doubt anyone will answer yours.

Now, if I started a thread claiming that there was in fact WMD in Iraq I'll bet that such a thread would last 30 pages of folks debating that point no matter how heated it got.

Good luck.

[TruthByDecree]

For whom it may concern I sourced plenty on something that's already well known even though some would like to pretend otherwise. I know Dubya usually hires others to do things for him but you really don't need to go into denial for him also do you? Some problems of your own maybe? I really took note on the hand waiving of the expert opinion that someone in recovery shouldn't be drinking anything that even smells like beer when the expert opinion was asked for. So now the expert opinion doesn't agree so it must be irrelevant. Classic.

[RandFan]

For whom it may concern I sourced plenty on something that's already well known even though some would like to pretend otherwise. I know Dubya usually hires others to do things for him but you really don't need to go into denial for him also do you? Some problems of your own maybe? I really took note on the hand waiving of the expert opinion that someone in recovery shouldn't be drinking anything that even smells like beer when the expert opinion was asked for. So now the expert opinion doesn't agree so it must be irrelevant. Classic. To whom it may concern,

Your source was by it's own account NOT PROOF of anything. You haven't answered any questions or added anything to the discussion. It doesn't even look like you took very good notes. On top of that you are now adding ad hominem to the list of your fallacies. Oh, and what expert opinion?

Can you just address the issues and answer the questions?

[Dr Adequate]

I think he should start drinking again.

They still make this brand ...

http://www.bevmax.com/labels/O1563.jpg

... let's see if Lincoln was right.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are getting ridiculous. Not only are you now trying to shift the burden of proof, you are also equating "not 100% alcohol free" with "relapsed alcoholic". Again, I am not "alcohol free", I haven't been for most of my life and I probably won't be for the rest of my life.

I drink, sometimes socially, sometimes alone and just for the taste, on rare occasions out of sheer thirst and even rarer I drink to induce sleep. On some days, I have more alcohol in the house than I have food - if you measure by fiscal value. Let me assure you, though, that I am not an alcoholic.This has absolutely nothing to do with alcoholic drinking and I can't help it if you don't understand the disease.

Don't believe me, I don't care. But don't try to restate what I've said because you are uninformed about the disease and you are getting things confused here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh my, two pages of nonsense. I saw a picture recently of Hillary downing a shot of whiskey, and another more recently at Makers Mark holding a bottle of bourbon, I think she may have a drinking problem. See how it works?Is Clinton an admitted recovering alcoholic? I wasn't aware of that. See how it works?

[RandFan]

This has absolutely nothing to do with alcoholic drinking and I can't help it if you don't understand the disease. And this has what exactly to do with Bush? Who the hell diagnosed Bush as an alcoholic?

:bwall

[RandFan]

Is Clinton an admitted recovering alcoholic? Is Bush? Here's a hint, NO!


What DID he say?
"Well, I don't think I had an addiction........You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

But that doesn't matter does it folks. Just make up whatever you damn well please and that magically becomes the truth.

Skepticism, right.

[quixotecoyote]

And Lincoln rose from the grave and said, "For God's sake, don't send any of that **** to the generals' and promptly returned to decomposing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I am not.

What you are doing right now is exactly what woos do: They try to deflect criticism of their claims by calling it "opinion" while maintaining that they are right because they have evidence - yet, they don't have to prove themselves right.

Stop behaving like a woo. Stop misrepresenting the facts. Stop shifting the burden of proof. Stop ignoring the questions:

Do you acknowledge that they are not at the negotiating table, but at an informal chat around the table?

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

How do you know it's an alcoholic beer?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?Last time Claus, you are taking the position one must prove relapse and I am taking the position one must prove it is not relapse.

You are basing your position on some rule of social etiquette, don't accuse someone without evidence. I am basing my position on what is most likely for an admitted recovering alcoholic.

What is your evidence he hasn't relapsed? Your evidence is only that you have chosen the default position of Bush not having relapsed. What is your default position based on given an admitted recovered alcoholic seen carelessly pouring and drinking what appears to be a beer and additional past rumors he had resumed drinking?

Why is one default position better than another? I happen to think with the odds of relapse being high, that should be the default position.

[RandFan]

Last time Claus, you are taking the position one must prove relapse and I am taking the position one must prove it is not relapse.Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.


You are basing your position on some rule of social etiquette, don't accuse someone without evidence. I am basing my position on what is most likely for an admitted recovering alcoholic.
When did Bush admit that he was a recovering alcoholic?
What evidence is there that drinking LA beer will cause a relapse?I happen to think with the odds of relapse being high, that should be the default position.
When did Bush admit that he was a recovering alcoholic?
What evidence is there that drinking LA beer will cause a relapse?For those playing along at home skeptigirl has me on ignore. But please note that I'm not the only one asking these questions and she will conveniently ignore them. And be sure no one else will likely answer them either. This is the realm of woo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The only way we will resolve this dispute is with additional evidence. So there is not more to be said at this time. Just like I can say now you can all see I was right and Bush has proven to be an incompetent President as I assessed correctly from the beginning of his Presidency, I will say wait and see. If he has relapsed, it is unlikely he will keep it hidden for very long. And if he hasn't relapsed in the next few years then feel free to resurrect this thread and say I told you so.

So far it is Skeptigirl, I told you so, 1 (2 if you want to count no WMDs), and the Bush apologists 0.

[CFLarsen]

The only way we will resolve this dispute is with additional evidence. So there is not more to be said at this time. Just like I can say now you can all see I was right and Bush has proven to be an incompetent President as I assessed correctly from the beginning of his Presidency, I will say wait and see. If he has relapsed, it is unlikely he will keep it hidden for very long. And if he hasn't relapsed in the next few years then feel free to resurrect this thread and say I told you so.

So you can never be wrong - can you?

So far it is Skeptigirl, I told you so, 1 (2 if you want to count no WMDs),

You can't say that more information is needed and then award yourself the victory. And what the hell does WMD does have to do with Bush having a fizzled drink that fizzles over?

and the Bush apologists 0.

Wow.

Who has been a "Bush apologist" here? Just because we call your bull doesn't mean we apologize for Bush. It isn't "either you are with me or against me". Which, ironically, is something Bush says...

[BenBurch]

Only to excess.

[Dr Adequate]

And Lincoln rose from the grave and said, "For God's sake, don't send any of that **** to the generals' and promptly returned to decomposing. Possibly the quality of the product has declined since then, or possibly it just goes to show that Grant was a man of dauntless courage. Anyway, that does seem to be the answer to Lincoln's question, I looked it up on teh internets.

[CFLarsen]

Last time Claus, you are taking the position one must prove relapse and I am taking the position one must prove it is not relapse.

You are basing your position on some rule of social etiquette, don't accuse someone without evidence. I am basing my position on what is most likely for an admitted recovering alcoholic.

What is your evidence he hasn't relapsed? Your evidence is only that you have chosen the default position of Bush not having relapsed. What is your default position based on given an admitted recovered alcoholic seen carelessly pouring and drinking what appears to be a beer and additional past rumors he had resumed drinking?

Why is one default position better than another? I happen to think with the odds of relapse being high, that should be the default position.

Just answer the questions:

Do you acknowledge that they are not at the negotiating table, but at an informal chat around the table?

Have you ever been in a situation where your fizzled drink had too much fizzle - without you being drunk?

How do you know it's an alcoholic beer?

Do you call the National Enquirer a credible news source?

[RandFan]

The only way we will resolve this dispute is with additional evidence. So there is not more to be said at this time. Just like I can say now you can all see I was right and Bush has proven to be an incompetent President as I assessed correctly from the beginning of his Presidency, I will say wait and see. If he has relapsed, it is unlikely he will keep it hidden for very long. And if he hasn't relapsed in the next few years then feel free to resurrect this thread and say I told you so.

So far it is Skeptigirl, I told you so, 1 (2 if you want to count no WMDs), and the Bush apologists 0.:rolleyes:

Ego, ain't it a bitch?!

[RandFan]

...I'm not the only one asking these questions and she will conveniently ignore them. And be sure no one else will likely answer them either. This is the realm of woo.Speaking of ego... told you so.

[President Bush]

How is speculating about aliens different from speculating about bush drinking a single bottle of low alcohol beer?


Well, I heard the Mexican Air Force has what could be UFO evidence on film. On the other hand, there is no evidence on film of me having a beer anywhere at any time.

Thank you, RandFan.

[RandFan]

Well, I heard the Mexican Air Force has what could be UFO evidence on film. On the other hand, there is no evidence on film of me having a beer anywhere at any time. Now, is that supposed to be funny or a serious argument? I think most would agree it fails either way.