1
   

This Could Be Interesting News

 
 
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 08:59 am
if it turns out to be substantiated....could explain a lot....and of course be one more good reason bush ought not to be president..... more importantly...many members of the church of bush will get to click their tongues, shout conspiracy theory and do the church lady dance.....a fun time for all....

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/136872/index.php
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,701 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 09:08 am
This one has been around for a while - since the debates, at least. I can't find it on Snopes...but, if there was any real evidence for it, I imagine it would have become a much bigger story.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 09:11 am
probably correct dlowan...but interesting none the less....and if it was true I imagine the administration of ANY sitting president..right or left would want to keep it under wraps so to speak...
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 09:15 am
This would explain many factors, wouldn't it, Bi. As a person, it makes me feel sad for him; as a citizen, it gives me cause for alarm.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 09:16 am
Sure - like JFK's back and Addisons - and the extent of Roosevelt's paralysis.....don't know if they can do it so well these days.

Is there REALLY any hard evidence of Bush being unusually cruel to animals? That gets mentioned as part of the psuedo-analysis that this article brings up - you know - the fella who wrote "Bush on the Couch."
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 09:22 am
I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself......but I'm sure there's loads kept hidden from the public with the tacit agreement of the press, both home and international. There was quite alot of debate in the English press re: the hump in the jacket, at the time. I'm afraid the English point of view of Dubya is that he is regarded as a bit of a buffoon (whatever your politics) as I'm sure Tony Blair is by our American cousins.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 10:01 am
When we were discussing that lump at length, Lash postulated it was something medical. I really think Kerry felt it when he thumped him on the back after the (third?) debate, and this is one of the only reasons I can think of for him to keep quiet about it.

Who knows.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 10:15 am
I still think it is most likely that he is wearing a bullet proof vest. There are a number of security precautions surrounding the President that the public is not generally aware of.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 10:41 am
I believe that a majority of Americans believe, as I do, that PM Blair is a courageous statesman. These are tough times and many shrink from the fire. Our two nations are fortunate to have elected leaders willing to face harsh (though unfair) criticisms from those they are working to protect. Both have from time to time make mistakes, but they are honorable men. Why would one choose to believe the worst of our leadership, when the enemy that we are fighting so clearly needs fighting?

The enemy this time isn't clearly uniformed soldiers acting in the service of any nation. They are gangs of international criminals who strike indiscriminately from hiding. They kidnap those who are trying to help reduce the suffering of the Iraqis, and to rebuild a country brought to ruin by an admirer of Hitler and Stalin. They murder unarmed Iraqis and are trying to prevent elections that will lead to a democratic Iraq. They set off bombs in public places murdering children knowing that many in the West will wring their hands and blame everyone but the murderers themselves. They permit no deviation from their dictates. This enemy claims to be motivated not by nationalism, but by the desire to impose a dictatorship of the most radical and oppressive forms of Islam. They want women returned to a state of virtual slavery. They want to remove justice from the courts and put it instead in the hands of a religious elite. They want to control what is thought by individuals, and to impose censorship of all news and entertainment. They will never be content with imposing a religious dictatorship on Southwest Asia, they aim to destroy all other societies and bring them too under their thumb. These are folks who send children strapped down with explosives to deliver their message of hate. Yet some will take their side over that of the United States and Great Britain.

Here, the media print whatever they wish and that will sell. In our two countries, a person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. The courts are open, and the forces of the law are constrained. Diversity is so engrained in our culture that even the thought that someone might demand uniformity is enough to trigger massive protests. Every sort of religion, except those that deal in human sacrifice, are practiced, and there are countless sects and schools. Religion may be an important part of any persons life, or a person can hold no religious views at all. No religion is officially required and religion is not permitted to affect public policy at home or abroad. Our People, nations and interests have been under attack by the radical Islamic terrorists since 1994, but we were patient and restrained in our responses. That restraint only encouraged further terrorism that finally resulted in the massive attack on 9/11. 9/11 wasn't just an attack on the United States, it was an attack on Western Culture by a relatively small band of fanatic terrorists. What sense does it make to condemn our national leadership, our society and culture, when it is under attack by a band of murderous thugs?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 10:47 am
I remember Lash bringing up the medical device and thought it possible. Not sure I buy into the "Bush on the Couch" stuff, but if it is a medical device it would explain the pretzel, scooter and bike incidents.

Also, not sure I remember where I saw it now, but a few days ago there was a clip of Bush at a press conference and he, mid sentence, looked down and mumbled something into his tie.

Anyone know about that? Would be interested in knowing if he adjusted his tie or tucked his coat or anything as he did it.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:09 am
The suspect bulge is the IMMBMD (Intermodal monitoring and Behavior Modification Device)... it connects the subject via radio with his "handlers", allowing them to monitor activity and communication, and to input corrective measures.
The Command Center can monitor the subjects inter-personal interactions and supply input via the concealed earpiece, and, should the subject display inappropriate behavior, electroshock may be delivered as a corrective (a la the same mechanisms employed with the "Invisible Fence" systems used to confine dogs to the environs/immediate premises of their owners/handlers).

"Every time a bell rings, a dog drools".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:19 am
Tangential, but likewise interesting (in a slow-the-car-to-rubberneck-an-auto-accident kinda way):

This link will open in your media player.

The above is a brief video snippet of Bush at a press conference on 12/20 (Monday of the week just past).

Bush is on a roll, then he suddenly stops, lowers his head and mumbles into his tie, then lifts his head and continues.

Let me repeat that:

He is in the middle of speaking to the media and he suddenly drops his head and mumbles something and then immediately continues speaking.

It is one of the oddest things I've ever seen.

Can anyone tell what he says? What the hell was that? Does he have Tourette's? Is he talking to his necktie? Did his shoe fall off?

Seriously, I have never seen anything like this.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:22 am
Asherman
Asherman, you are an historian and you know the main fact is clear. Radical Islamists (including the Baath Party in Iraq and Syria) are classic Fascists. You and I are old enough to remember Fascists movements (Hitler's The Nazional Socialist Party) before WWII and recognize their modern guise however much they may be wrapped in the cloak of religion. The Taliban and bin Laden's al Qaida are another branch of the Baathist Fascist movement even though they hate each other, but put this aside to fight their common enemy. In fact, I see little difference between the common dictatorships in Moslem countries and classic Fascist regimes.---BBB

Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party: Political party and movement influential among Arab communities in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq. The Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party's economic dogma: "Unity [Arab], Freedom [from colonialism], and Socialism" are still the watchwords. From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination. Moral and cultural deterioration, it was felt, had so weakened the Arabs that Western supremacy spread throughout the Middle East. Arabs needed a regeneration of the common heritage of people in the region to drive off debilitating external influences.

Articulated as the principle of Arab nationalism, the Baath movement was one of several political groups that drew legitimacy from an essentially reactive ideology. Nevertheless, Baathist ideology spread slowly by educating followers to its intellectual attractions. The three major proponents of early Baathist thought, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, and Michel Aflaq, were middle-class educators whose political thought had been influenced by Western education.

During the 1930s Arsuzi, Salah, and Aflaq expounded their vision of Arab nationalism to small audiences in Syria. By the early 1940s Salah and Aflaq had taken the initiative to extend the movement's operations in Damascus by organizing demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali al-Kailani's government in Iraq against the British presence there. By 1945 the word baath (Arabic for "resurrection" or "renaissance") had been applied to what was then officially a party rather than a movement.

The official founding of the party may be dated from its first party congress in Damascus on April 7, 1947, when a constitution was approved and an executive committee established. However, significant expansion beyond Syria's borders took place only after the war of 1948, when lack of Arab unity was widely perceived as responsible for the loss of Palestine to the new state of Israel.

The Iraqi branch of the Baath party was established in 1954 after the merger of the Baath with Akram al-Hurani's Arab Socialist Party in 1952, to form the Arab Baath Socialist Party. In February 1963 the Baath Party came to power in Iraq and one month later, in March 8, it came to power in Syria after the March Revolution. Inter-party disagreements were one of the major factors that led to the Correction Movement led by Hafez al-Assad, the movement ended years of conflict within the party. A new constitution, approved in 1973, stated that the Baath Party is "leading party in the state and society".

In 1972, the Baath also became the leader of the 7 Syrian parties forming the National Progressive Front NPF. The national committee of the Baath is the effectively the decision making body in Syria. Number of members in Syria exceeds million.

The Syrian Encyclopedia
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:31 am
Pdiddie - Thanks, that was the video I was looking for. No idea what he is saying, but it is VERY ODD!!
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:38 am
Morn'n Aunt Bea. Hope you had a wonderful Christmas. Shannon was back for Seoul on business and stopped with us a few days. Many of our gifts seem to have gone astray, but Natalie and I are still enjoying the holidays. We aren't having an open house this year because there was so many distractions leading up to Christmas. Paintings going well, and I may spend the afternoon in the studio. Ash
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 12:17 pm
President Grover Cleveland...a distant cousin of mine...once underwent unbelievably painful oral cancer surgery on his yacht out on the water in order to conceal his condition from the people, so there are many precedents for this type of medical cover up. It was later discovered that after all that, Cleveland did not even have cancer. Ouch.....
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 04:09 pm
Bi, wasn't Cleveland the one who openly admitted to having a child that wasn't a product of marriage? I do remember his having been one president who was elected to two terms, but not consecutively.

So many presidents have kept their health under wraps because of speculators. I remember my father having talked about Roosevelt's polio and how difficult it was for Franklin to hide the fact that he wore heavy braces.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 05:23 pm
I think that lump is where he keeps his stash.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 05:37 pm
Didn't Ike have 3 heart attacks while in office?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 05:41 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Tangential, but likewise interesting (in a slow-the-car-to-rubberneck-an-auto-accident kinda way):

This link will open in your media player.

The above is a brief video snippet of Bush at a press conference on 12/20 (Monday of the week just past).

Bush is on a roll, then he suddenly stops, lowers his head and mumbles into his tie, then lifts his head and continues.

Let me repeat that:

He is in the middle of speaking to the media and he suddenly drops his head and mumbles something and then immediately continues speaking.

It is one of the oddest things I've ever seen.

Can anyone tell what he says? What the hell was that? Does he have Tourette's? Is he talking to his necktie? Did his shoe fall off?

Seriously, I have never seen anything like this.


I think he got lost and was looking down at his notes in an awkward moment.

Looks kinda funny, though unremarkable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This Could Be Interesting News
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 05:20:03