Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Was the president wired during the firstdebate?

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Look I watched the debate, I was not paying any attention to the
president's back to notice the object, I was more focused on what was
being said at the debate. I did not record it so I cannot go back and
verify it either way so there you go. DOes that make my opinion any
more or less important, after all we are just putting up our opinions
here.

Look, cloth does things, to say the presidents tailor is incorrect is
as absurd as saying there was something under the jacket. I looked at
the pictures, I looked at them again just a few minutes ago. And I
cannot say on my own experience that there was or was not something
there. So in the absense of someone else coming out and saying they
have conclusive evidence that there was something, I have to go with
what I am told in this matter. Especially considering the source of
these rumors.

As to the source, the New York times say they got the rumor from the Internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html
Washington Dispatch ditto
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html

The associated press even get it from the Internet

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/election2004/9880008.htm
(notice the by line on the story)

so you see, this is something generated from the Internet and forced
into the mainstream by the buzz that is being generated.

Oh and if you read the stories, you will note this whole thing was
fired up because FOX NEWS broke the rule of not filming from the back.
Notice there is no shots of Kerry's back on the Internet, I wonder if
he had a mysterious bulge too?

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:44:48 -0500 (CDT), Mike Miller
<EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Vern Green wrote:
> 
> > I was mistaken, Gibson was at the second debate, though if I remember
> > correctly you said the same odd lump was under the jacket on the second
> > debate as well. I might be mistaken about that, but I do clearly recall
> > someone making that connection on this board, maybe I should go back and
> > find it.
> 
> I didn't see it in the second debate.  It did look like there might have
> been a wire under there in the second debate, but that could have been a
> fold in Bush's shirt or any of a number of things.
> 
> 
> > But more importantly let's get this straight. It is much more plausible
> > that there is medical device, transmitter or some other foreign object
> > under Bush's jacket in the first debate, perhaps even the second debate.
> > This object is not being talked about by anyone other than a bunch of
> > arm chair quarterbacks on the Internet.
> 
> It was in NY Times, CNN Headline News, and many other places.
> 
> 
> > It has not been mentioned by Kerry, Lehrer, Gibson, or anyone else
> > involved with either campaign or the debates.
> 
> I don't know that.  It would not have been visible to Lehrer because he
> was positioned in front of the candidates.  It was not present in the
> second debate so it would not have been visible to Gibson.  Kerry has
> nothing to gain from saying something about it.
> 
> 
> > This object has now been disavowed by the people closest to the
> > president, but that can't be true can it?
> 
> If it is a medical device, or something used in cheating, they would deny
> its existence, so that doesn't impress me much.
> 
> 
> > After all these people are connected to the president and have a vested
> > interest in not telling the truth.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> > Yet this mysterious object only caught at one point of the debate I
> > might add,
> 
> I saw it every time they showed his back, so I don't think you are right
> on this one.  I don't know where you came up with that claim.
> 
> 
> > is somehow this all important thing in this election? Are you so blinded
> > by your hatred for Bush that you cannot see the idiocy of this argument?
> > Here we are arguing whether Bush had an object under his jacket or not.
> 
> I don't think your argument should be taken seriously because you do not
> deny that you did not watch the debate.  It strikes me that you want the
> claim to be false.  Why else would you argue against it repeatedly when
> you clearly did not see the debate.  You've seen photos that show clear
> signs of an object.  If someone is blinded, it is you.  I can see the
> object under the jacket.  Many other people could see it too, and that's
> why it's in the mainstream news.  The Republican claim that the bump was
> caused by bad tailoring is just absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 


-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion