Actually, it has a national release this week. It's not a plot line, it's a documentary. Actually, it's a real life "Blair Witch" in which the camera was recovered after the two people were eaten by one or more grizzly bears.

It starts as a nature film, but the film is really about a man whose solved his personal crisis by fixating on bears.

Well, that's interesting. So a schizphrenic wouldn't know the difference between what's real and not, but someone with a personality disorder would KNOW, and perhaps pretend that he didn't? Is that it?

Pretend that he didn't or not actually care.

Query: Is that it?

Kind of. It's rather a lot more complex than that, of course.

WOW! So like the ax murderer would have possibly understood that his version of reality was false, but he would have felt a sort of sublime indifference to this fact?

Well, if he got eaten or killed or whatever, it doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. He'd have been better off joining AA! :headshake

I'm going with richlevy on this one...I liked your point


then again..all I want to say... otherwise is look at Kansan favorite the BTK killer.. uh... church leader and then again someone who took his name from blind torture kill.. uh... bush is a whackjob.

and crap! are we going to get into a psychological abyss!?!?!? oh wait.. analitical arguement of something we have absolutley no access to? uh... okay I'm game. bush is a whack job... unrepaired alcoholc.. megalomaniac.. I dunno never met the guy.. but.. there is something wrong with him.. give the nancy sheehan case.. uh.. what's so wrong (with being of the 'leader' of the free world and having a word with the woman?) I don't know but I tell ya it really un-nerves me even more about the guy.. your're scared of a citizen? uh.. Abraham Lincoln would (and did) talk with the masses... these are not my old republican party... ah! and what a party it was.. mmmm tailhook et al.

When Clinton was in office, righties accused him of having a psychological problem too.

My theory is that the people who accuse Presidents of having psychological problems, have psychological problems. They kind of know they are being stupid and delusional, but they are sublimely indifferent to it.

Well, being human, they probably do. The question is whether a person's emotional and psychological baggage interferes with their job.

If Bush had simply been ethical, but recognized that there are other religions and viewpoints, there wouldn't be a problem. Looking at his positions on stem cells, abstinence-only education, intelligent design, etc, it seems that he cannot separate his personal beliefs with his policy beliefs.

It's obiously wonderful that he saved himself. What isn't is that he believes the exact same process and beliefs are right for 250 million other people. No other president seems to have had this problem.

Can't be sure of that. With a press that kept a "respectful distance/silence" and a Congress that wasn't filled with sheep, it would be hard to tell. :eyebrow:

That's a load of hooey Rich, and I disagree with Bush on each of those issues. Every President pushes things their way. They get to do that because they are elected. If you can't see it, it's because you believe that Clinton's issues, such as gays in the military and federally socialized medicine, are the necessary course of action, not just a personal belief imposed on an unwilling country in the name of leadership.

Except that Clinton was expanding freedoms rather than restricting them, while maintaining a separation of church and state.

That's a load of hooey and you can't see it because you believe that gun restrictions, expansion of the federal death penalty, increased taxes, the DMCA, and attacking Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Waco, TX were necessary courses of action and not at all restricting freedom.

As long as they separate church and state, I guess. Well except for Waco, I guess.

You seem to be on "hooey" overload today, UT. Clinton attacks "Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq" and he was wrong? Bush attacks Iraq and he was right? You've lost me.

As far as Clinton being a champion for the cause of a national medical care program versus Bush's stance on stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and intelligent design, among others: The last I heard, there is no religous group that pushes national health care as part of their agenda. Although the thought of national health care makes you break out in "hooey" fits, UT, a rational, scientific argument can be made in its favor. Not so with the Bush issues, which are backed largely by fundamentalist Christian nut case groups. :eyebrow:

Hear, hear.

At this point in the game, any more justification for hating Bush is just redundant and asinine. Instead of boorishly coming up with more factoids to support your dislike for the guy, why not just say it and shut up?!

This will never happen.