New version of Toledo Talk

Bush Needs Transmitter Help to Answer Questions During Debate? - While observing the last presidential debate, I could have sworn that I saw something like a wire running up from Bush's suit towards his ear. It resembled an extremely thin wire. I tossed it off as an artifact of my imagination. However, just yesterday I saw a picture of Bush during the St. Louis debate from behind, clearly showing a rectangular bulge on his back. It looked to be about the size of a small transistor radio. There was no possible way that it could have been caused by "a fold or wrinke in his suit," as his supporters claimed. It was very clearly a solid rectangular object, just underneath his suite, about 10-12 inches below his right shoulder blade.

I know that Bush has trouble in a debate, particularly when he is the resipient of unscripted questions, or when faced with defending policies that have not worked (jobs, the economy, health care, Iraq, Haliburton, failed war on terror, etc.). So, it came as a surprise to me that many others have found evidence of a hidden Bush receiver in his suite coat, as well as a wire above it. The Internet is swarming with evidence of this mysterious object on Bush's back, under his suit coat. Pictures don't lie, particularly when seen on the most repudable sites (CNN).

I've always suspected that Bush is one of America's weakest president, in terms of intelligence. He memorizes or reads lines without much difficulty, but struggles mightily when he has to think and speak on his own. In the first two debates, Bush stuttered, stammered and paused each time he could not answer a question. He then quickly changed the subject.

I have also seen articles that seem to indicate that both Bush presidents have lower IQs than virtually all presidents of the past 100 years. This Bush had poor-to-mediocre grades in college and has avoided public debates and press conferences. He offers memorized lines in campaign stumps where he takes only scripted questions from the audience.

I wonder if we will ever be able to determine if Bush surrepticiously wore a receiver during the debates and, if so, who was on the transmitting end (Karl Rove?). If so, he will have brought a new low to the highest office in the land.
posted by Chaz to politics at 2:48 P.M. EST     (10 Comments)

Comments ...

Bush was asked point-blank to name three mistakes he has made, and he didn't answer the question.

The man can't admit to being wrong.

Instead of saying "I'm terribly sorry that I got 1000 troops killed in Iraq when it turns out that Saddam didn't have the WMD our broken intelligence system said he had", he makes excuses and attacks Kerry harder.

Sure, no politician admits to being really wrong, admitting wrongdoing is a sign of weakness, but at least Kerry will take some new information in and say "the situation's changed, we must adapt" vs "stay the course".

Bush was clearly stunned about his timber interests, too. Our pResident doesn't know that he's got wood! FactCheck.org (which Cheeny didn't check his facts on and said was FactCheck.com, ha!) showed Dubya to be a liar. The man can't keep track of his own finances, so how can we trust him with the finances of the nation?
posted by Guest at 04:12 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 11, 2004     #

Here's another thought....

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001873.html

...don't know if I'd believe everything the Oliver Willis says either.
posted by micah at 09:01 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 11, 2004     #

I went that site. An "unnamed" scientist described a rectangular object the size of a radio as "as spine." That's hilarious. Only an extraterrestrial could have a spine with a large rectangle in the middle. That's the best that the Republicans could come up with?

Besides, we already knew that Bush, who lacked the guts to fight for his country (no, training does not qualify) has no spine.
posted by Chaz at 10:15 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 11, 2004     #

Standard Operating Rhetoric by liberals from page one of their manual:

"I've always suspected that [insert Republican president here] is one of America's weakest president, in terms of intelligence."

Like Gore, Kerry is too smart for average dolts to understand. Too smart to be president.
posted by jr at 11:08 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 11, 2004     #

The Scrappleface site is a satire site.
------
"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry."

Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features."
------
Highly simplified version.

Bush stands up for what he believes (ie has a backbone)

Kerry is a jellyfish.
posted by micah at 12:29 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 12, 2004     #

If he really had a spine he would have fought for his country, instead of sleazing out of the National Guard early. That "jellyfish" you mentioned had the courage to go to Viet Nam and fight. So, who would you rather have as president, a spineless Bush who ran away when his country called, or the war hero John Kerry who had the guts to go and fight when his country needed him?

I find it disgusting that Bush lacked the courage to even complete his Stateside National Guard duty, but finds it easy to send our sons and daughters to be killed in Iraq, a war that he failed to justify. You know, virtually nobody in the Guard fails to show for a physical exam for flight readiness. It's literally unheard of. What was Bush hiding? Was he already drinking heavily then?
posted by Chaz at 11:34 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 12, 2004     #

"So, who would you rather have as president, a spineless Bush who ran away when his country called, or the war hero John Kerry who had the guts to go and fight when his country needed him?"

Which means, Chaz, you must have voted for Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bob Dole in '96, right?

Didn't Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton use the ROTC to dodge the Vietnam draft? And didn't Bill Clinton defeat two WWII vets in Bush Sr. and Bob Dole?

And how many times did Bill Clinton deploy the U.S. military?

Chaz, why are you and many others still stuck in Vietnam? Maybe it matters to the over-50 crowd, but for others, it's history to be learned from but time to move on.

Almost a year ago now. From an October 15, 2003 news story.

"Howard Dean’s presidential campaign sharply criticized Sen. John Kerry yesterday for seemingly flip-flopping on the importance of serving in Vietnam in presidential politics."

"Kerry seeks to distinguish himself from his White House rivals — both Democratic and Republican — by drawing attention to his war record. But this emphasis stands in marked contrast to his past utterances about service in Vietnam as a qualification for the highest office."


Hence, the reason why many of us wonder how Kerry is able to stand erect without a spine.


"On numerous occasions this year, Kerry cited his distinguished war record as a decisive factor in who should be the nominee."

"A decade ago, however, Kerry rose in the Senate on two separate occasions to decry presidential candidates who used their military service record as a qualification for the highest office."

"On Feb. 27, 1992, Kerry defended then presidential candidate Bill Clinton against an attack by his Democratic rival Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). As the primary season unfolded, Kerrey, who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, had peppered Clinton with uncomfortable questions about whether the Arkansan had evaded the draft."

Maybe the most important thing Kerry said from 1992:

"Kerry hit back at his Senate colleague, saying: “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.” "

Kerry complained about re-fighting the Vietnam conflicts in 1992, but he has had no problem exploiting those same conflicts for his own benefit 11 and 12 years later. Where's the logic and the consistency? Oh wait, it's politics. Neither exists for any political party. As usual, politicians do whatever it takes to gain power. It's not about serving the U.S. citizens, it's about power.

My suggestion, ignore all politics. Doing so, will improve your health. Stay home and don't vote on November whatever.


The original post was about Bush's supposed lack of intelligence. Yet, what the hell is this?

"Yesterday John Edwards said, "When John Kerry is the president people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk again!" implying that Christopher Reeve could have been helped by embryonic stem cell research."

Or is Edwards implying that John Kerry is Jesus Christ?
posted by jr at 02:46 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 12, 2004     #

And while on the subject of a person's intelligence, what about John Kerry's remark the other day about terrorism?

"... in an interview in The New York Times Magazine [Kerry said], "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended."

Terrorism a nuisance? Those orange, biting lady bug-like beetles are a nuisance.
posted by jr at 03:36 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 12, 2004     #

Darn, you beat me to Clinton's dodging of the draft.

I do agree. Less politics = longer life
posted by micah at 12:48 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 13, 2004     #

Because of Bush'a lack of good judgement (let's leave his lack of intelligence alone for a moment), his diplomatic efforts have been a dismal failure. Today,we are hard pressed to find a friend in the international community. American tourists now report widespread hatred of US leadership in virtually every country they visit. Bush's war mongering has given the entire Muslim world reason to believe that we are indeed the evil Crusaders that the clerics have painted us to be. With prisoner abuse scandals, we have even given the Muslim world ample evidence of our satanic principles. As bad as that is, North Korea and Iran are publicly thumbing their noses at us while they ready their new weapons of mass destruction. Iran can now not only reach Israel with their nuclear missles, they can reach southern Europe. North Korean missles can already reach Seattle, San Fransisco, Los Angles and San Diego. Kim Jung Il is clearly demented and he's shaking his fist at the US now more than he ever did during the Clinton administration. Why? Because Bush labeled North Korea as part of that famous "Axis of Evil, trying to frighten them into submission, and then refused to meet with their leaders one on one. How can you engage in diplomacy when you refuse to meet? Bush was so afraid of diplomatic failure that he required other Asian nations to participate - giving him a scapegoat in case of failure. Guess what happened? The multinational talks failed.

The world is a more dangerous and combustable place because of Bush's sophomoric leadership. His cowboy antics have made it MORE likely that we will be hit again at home by terrorists. Why? Because Bush generates hatred toward us everywhere, but especially across the Muslim world. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will get. Each day our best are cut down, killed and wounded. And for what? Oil? Democracy? Haliburton? Is it worth it?

We've planned to spend about $200 Billion trying to restore Iraq's infrastructure. Now, it seems that amout will be needed for security. What if we had spent $200B on Alzheimers research, funding American education or providing health care for Americans without it? Hell, we could have even used it to replace the aging NASA Shuttle fleet. But we wasted on a country that we deliberately destroyed in order for Bush to feel like a real man, like a real cowboy. And every day we remain, Bush creates more hatred towards us. We are occupiers in a land where we are not wanted. Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but so are about fifty other world leaders. So, why are we not attacking the other 49? Or, is that yet to come?

I'd hate to have a ten year old child today. Because, if Bush wins in 2004 that kid could well be drafted and sent to the front lines eight years from now. Those poor kids will surly be needed as yet another generation of Muslim US-haters will hit us in the future.

We must stand up to our enemies. That's true. But Bush creates more enemies in a never-ending powerplay, then bumbles the diplomacy. We can't afford a miscalculation with those labeled as "evil" since some of them really do have WMD
posted by Chaz at 08:44 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 14, 2004     #

<< Older The Holy Toledo Creative Class    |    Toledo bombarded by political ads Newer >>

This is an old topic and is no longer allowing comments.