The real cheater - Bush had an earpiece!

[Guest MikeSC]

Yawn.............................

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie.

I'll just go with the fact that there is nothing here to back up your baseless accusation.

-=Mike

There's no 100% clear cut pinpoint evidence

And with that, your point is moot. Got it.

-=Mike

So let me get this straight again.. Kerry is a cheater for taking a pen out of his jacket, but Bush isn't a cheater for an EARPIECE? There's much more evidence for the latter.

 

Stop trying to dodge the POINTS, and then just pick and choose what you want to quote.

You have no points --- what with that lack of 100% proof or anything.

 

Kerry's a cheater for bringing something into the debate. Bush isn't because you've yet to show that he, you know, brought anything.

 

Again, that whole lack of proof thing.

 

Especially if you consider that Kerry had a pen in hand WHILE digging into his pocket for --- if your claim is true --- he pulled out a second one.

 

I'm not "dodging" the points --- I'm simply highlighting the only relevant point you've made to date.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

And GreatOne, you need to stop these terrible attempts at humor. Everytime I see you post in a Current Events topic, the quality of the subject sinks further and further. If you're going to try to prove someone wrong, at least attempt to use some kind of facts behind your statement. Your jokes are not only unfunny, but they've hurt nearly every single topic you've posted in so far.

 

But then again, that IS just my opinion.

Of course usually when the topic is along the lines of 'K3rry r00ls duder BUSH IS TEH SUXORS' it's kinda hard for it to sink any further.

 

And your opinion is supposed mean exactly what to me?

The topic isn't along those lines at all.

 

This topic is about trying to discover, with visual evidence, whether or not Bush had someone feeding his lines to him.

 

If he did, then that is an incredible breach of morality when it comes to this Presidential election, and it really COULD cost him the entire election in the end.

 

There's no point in closing your eyes and shutting your ears when it comes to this particular topic - especially since it could have such a huge effect in the next month.

 

Try reading the material, thinking intelligently, and making a well-thought post next time, instead of saying the topic is about "K3rry r00ls duder BUSH IS TEH SUXORS". You're clearly not understanding this material, or at least not even trying to.

Poster A trying to make a story out of a non-story to Poster B: Quit closing your eyes to the reality

 

Alright, gotcha.

 

Wouldn't you think expression problems would seem to indicate at least GENUINE answers instead of, well as Steve Austin would say, regurgitated crap off a piece of paper (or earpiece in this case)?

 

Of course you'll dismiss this as a nonsensical, lack of thought post too (you missed the unofficial 'Kerry victory party' here over the weekend) to which I say, I'm supposed to care where?

[UZI Suicide 0]

Yawn.............................

A.K.A. - Damn we're really fucked on this one, I'll just pretend like it's no biggie.

I'll just go with the fact that there is nothing here to back up your baseless accusation.

-=Mike

There's no 100% clear cut pinpoint evidence

And with that, your point is moot. Got it.

-=Mike

So let me get this straight again.. Kerry is a cheater for taking a pen out of his jacket, but Bush isn't a cheater for an EARPIECE? There's much more evidence for the latter.

 

Stop trying to dodge the POINTS, and then just pick and choose what you want to quote.

You have no points --- what with that lack of 100% proof or anything.

 

Kerry's a cheater for bringing something into the debate. Bush isn't because you've yet to show that he, you know, brought anything.

 

Again, that whole lack of proof thing.

 

Especially if you consider that Kerry had a pen in hand WHILE digging into his pocket for --- if your claim is true --- he pulled out a second one.

 

I'm not "dodging" the points --- I'm simply highlighting the only relevant point you've made to date.

-=Mike

Kerry didn't have anything in his hand, he shook Bush's hand with his right hand, then walked over to the podium and took out a pen with his left.

 

If it's not a pen, then what is it? Obviously it's something not visible from seeing the tape, so I doubt he could have a whole sheet of facts on something that small.

 

Do you really think he's dumb enough to do that on National TV? Just reach in his jacket and take something out? You're grasping for straws.

[Guest MikeSC]

Says the guy assuming Bush had an earpiece.

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

Says the guy assuming Bush had an earpiece.

      -=Mike

There's a lot more risk involved in REACHING INTO YOUR JACKET in front of a national audience of millions and millions of voters, than wearing a fucking piece taped to your back that nobody watching at home can see.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Like I said, obviously Bush did not cheat. But, do you think anyone would have been accused of cheating had Kerry not won?

[Guest MikeSC]

Says the guy assuming Bush had an earpiece.

      -=Mike

There's a lot more risk involved in REACHING INTO YOUR JACKET in front of a national audience of millions and millions of voters, than wearing a fucking piece taped to your back that nobody watching at home can see.

Yup, NO chance of that backfiring.

 

Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that even IF Kerry brought more than a pen in --- it does not even remotely matter.

 

Kerry did not "win" due to substance --- he "won" on presentation.

 

Did Kerry bring something in? Absolutely. Was it against the rules? Yup -- but provided it was only a pen, it's as thoroughly irrelevant as a story can be. It was dumb of him (the debate people PROVIDED pen and paper) --- but so be it.

 

Did Bush bring anything in? Nope.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

Poster A trying to make a story out a non-story to Poster B: Quit closing your eyes to the reality

 

The potential that George Bush had a concealed earpiece giving him information during the debate is a potentially HUGE story.

 

I'm not saying that the idea is a reality. But I'm saying that right now, especially with that odd picture, it could at least be a possibility.

 

You shut your eyes to it all together.

 

Which is worse?

 

Wouldn't you think expression problems would seem to indicate at leats GENUINE answers instead of, well as Steve Austin would say, regurgitated crap off a monitor (or earpiece in this case)?

 

Actually, no.

 

Bush should be prepared to answer the questions right from the very beginning. He obviously knew the types of questions that would be asked. He should have been prepared to answer them from the very beginning. Especially if his convictions in his answers are as strong as he likes to display to the country. He shouldn't need to stall for five to ten seconds in order to come up with the right answers concerning certain questions in Iraq - it's the major grounds on which he built his entire campaign!

 

Meanwhile, if he DID have an earpiece- that COULD explain why he had so many expression problems during the debate. It could explain why he hesitated so much and why he looked so unsure in what he was repeating to the audience. Looking at certain clips of the debate with this new idea in your head, it's quite noticeable that Bush even looked confused to be saying some of the things that were coming out of his mouth. Couple that in with the "Now, let me finish" comment to no one in particular, and this situation looks incredibly odd.

 

Of course you'll dismiss this as a nonsensical, lack of thought post too (you missed the unofficial 'Kerry victory party' here over the weekend) to which I say, I'm supposed to care where?

 

The fact that you won't even try to disprove the evidence - instead, attempting to completely dismiss it with your childish bullshit like "OMG! KERRY RULZ! LOL!!!" - shows your impressive ability for nonsensical posts.

 

Why should you care? No reason, other than to actually show people that you may possibly know what you're talking about. It just seems counterproductive, especially if you want posters to even bother reading your opinions in the future. Otherwise, it's just like you're talking to yourself. My main gist of you right now is that you're proud to prove to people that you don't know how to intelligently post or use facts - and I don't understand this concept at all.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Says the guy assuming Bush had an earpiece.

      -=Mike

There's a lot more risk involved in REACHING INTO YOUR JACKET in front of a national audience of millions and millions of voters, than wearing a fucking piece taped to your back that nobody watching at home can see.

Yup, NO chance of that backfiring.

 

Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that even IF Kerry brought more than a pen in --- it does not even remotely matter.

 

Kerry did not "win" due to substance --- he "won" on presentation.

 

Did Kerry bring something in? Absolutely. Was it against the rules? Yup -- but provided it was only a pen, it's as thoroughly irrelevant as a story can be. It was dumb of him (the debate people PROVIDED pen and paper) --- but so be it.

 

Did Bush bring anything in? Nope.

-=Mike

How can you say with 100% conviction that he brought nothing in? You have got to be able to admit that the evidence looks a bit damning in this situation. If this happened to Kerry, you would NEVER shut up about it and this would be a 4 page thread already.

[Guest MikeSC]

How can you say with 100% conviction that he brought nothing in?

The utter lack of evidence is a big stumbling block.

You have got to be able to admit that the evidence looks a bit damning in this situation.

Umm, no, I really don't. Considering that there is no, you know, evidence.

If this happened to Kerry, you would NEVER shut up about it and this would be a 4 page thread already.

Sucks for Kerry, doesn't it?

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Kerry did not "win" due to substance --- he "won" on presentation.

 

I have no beef with this. For you to admit Kerry won on content, he would have had to change your mind on an issue, and honestly, what is the chance of that happening? None. You obviously know what you believe on the issues, and therefore, all that is left is presentation. You admit that Kerry did the better job.

 

I truelly think the Bush "story" is an immature respone to the rediculous accusation that Kerry cheated. Neither cheated, Kerry simply did better.

[UZI Suicide 0]

How can you say with 100% conviction that he brought nothing in?

The utter lack of evidence is a big stumbling block.

You have got to be able to admit that the evidence looks a bit damning in this situation.

Umm, no, I really don't. Considering that there is no, you know, evidence.

If this happened to Kerry, you would NEVER shut up about it and this would be a 4 page thread already.

Sucks for Kerry, doesn't it?

-=Mike

Ok, what would you need to see, short of a picture of Bush shirtless wearing the actual piece, that you would consider evidence?

 

Because so far we've seen the piece STICKING OUT of the back of his jacket, combined with his flustered speech patterns, and always going back to topics after he's already answered them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok, what would you need to see, short of a picture of Bush shirtless wearing the actual piece, that you would consider evidence?

More than a weird looking lump in his jacket would help.

Because so far we've seen the piece STICKING OUT of the back of his jacket, combined with his flustered speech patterns, and always going back to topics after he's already answered them.

Except Bush ALWAYS talks like that.

 

But, hey, go ahead and build up a vast conspiracy without anything resembling the tiniest sliver o' evidence.

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

More than a weird looking lump in his jacket would help.

 

Have you ever seen what it would look like to have it taped to your body? A strip going up and down, and then tape going across, almost shaped as a T. Hey look at that, looks like what Bush was wearing!

 

Except Bush ALWAYS talks like that.

 

Yes, during interviews. So who's to say he doesn't wear these a lot during interviews? This stuff doesn't happen during speeches.. sure he may fumble a few words, but he never has pauses like that, or "goes back" to touch on previous points.

[Guest GreatOne]

The potential that George Bush had a concealed earpiece giving him information during the debate is a potentially HUGE story.

 

What info would that be anyway? So I guess he's been using it for the two years? How far you wanna go with this?

 

You shut your eyes to it all together.

 

Which is worse?

 

I usually shut my eyes to non-stories, which I hate to inform you, but this is.

 

The fact that you won't even try to disprove the evidence

 

What 'evidence'?! The 100% clear-cut evidence that doesn't exist?

 

Otherwise, it's just like you're talking to yourself. My main gist of you right now is that you're proud to prove to people that you don't know how to intelligently post or use facts - and I don't understand this concept at all.

 

Oh damn, somehow I'll find the strength to carry on after that stunning knockout.

[Guest GreatOne]

You admit that Kerry did the better job.

On presentation, big difference...................If 'RAH RAH RAH IT WAS LIKE MY FIRST DAY IN VIETNAM' is more important to you then that's your preference....................

[Downhome 0]

I love the CE folder, I really do. I don't ever post much in here, but I really enjoy reading threads like this.

 

Then again, it also really worries me, that there are actually people out there who take these conspiracy theories seriously to the point of allowing such bullshit to alter opinions.

[Guest MikeSC]

More than a weird looking lump in his jacket would help.

 

Have you ever seen what it would look like to have it taped to your body? A strip going up and down, and then tape going across, almost shaped as a T. Hey look at that, looks like what Bush was wearing!

 

Funny, no "Strip" going up from that lump. Odd. No wire to the ear. Nothing in the ear.

 

Hell, I could argue that Kerry pulled out a receiver for an earpiece and have identical levels of believability.

Yes, during interviews. So who's to say he doesn't wear these a lot during interviews? This stuff doesn't happen during speeches.. sure he may fumble a few words, but he never has pauses like that, or "goes back" to touch on previous points.

During speeches, he's reading the speech. That tends to smoothe out the normal speech pattern problems. Also tends to prevent him from going back to something, as, you know, HE'S READING THE SPEECH.

 

However, continue conpiracizing. It's funny at this point, watching you clutch and all.

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Um, am I the only one who thought the post was a joke thread making fun of the "cheat sheet" stuff (which turned out to be pen).

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Unless someone was able to remotely scramble an earpiece in that place.. which is sorta unlikely.. then I doubt Bush had an earpiece.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

QUOTE (whitemilesdavis @ Oct 4 2004, 03:31 PM)

You admit that Kerry did the better job.

 

 

 

On presentation, big difference

Could Kerry have changed your mind on any issue? No, so prestentation is all that is left. Kerry did better. Of course you don't like his content, you knew you would disagree with it before he said it. The point is, who did a better point expressing their views? Kerry.

 

'RAH RAH RAH IT WAS LIKE MY FIRST DAY IN VIETNAM'

 

Strange, I don't recall anyone saying anything like that, other than you.

[Guest SP-1]

You do realize that this is retarded, right?

 

His jacket wasn't smoothed out. I can think of no mic or reciever unit with that shape. Also: who the hell mounts one IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR FREAKIN' BACK?

 

*shakes head*

[Downhome 0]

Just smile and nod SP, it's all we can do.

 

You can laugh also, but try to contain yourself a bit. You might lose your breath in laughing so much, and die.

[Guest SP-1]

Just smile and nod SP, it's all we can do.

 

You can laugh also, but try to contain yourself a bit. You might lose your breath in laughing so much, and die.

It is pretty funny. I think I'll go look through the Comm Department here at school (since I have class there Wednesday) and see if I can find a rig even remotely like that.

 

It's logistically retarded. He couldn't adjust volume levels if he needed to (and with it under clothing, he might have needed to, probably WOULD HAVE needed to since a volume wheel is, y'know, pretty friggin' easy to move and would have been thrown off if he moved.) And don't give me, "But he didn't move much!" because it would have likely happened between when he was rigged and when he walked out to the Podium. Unless you suggest he stood at the podium all night long for hours before the debate started.

 

I guess he scratched his back alot during the debate, huh?

 

I can't wait for thie election to end. Maybe, just maybe, adults will start acting like adults again and not like children making up ludicrous stories and slinging mud in the sandbox.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

You do realize that this is retarded, right?

 

His jacket wasn't smoothed out. I can think of no mic or reciever unit with that shape. Also: who the hell mounts one IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR FREAKIN' BACK?

 

*shakes head*

While I don't think it was a radio transmitter, there are both receiver units of that size, and putting them in that location is also fairly common. Any pro cyclist wears a unit like that in a small, square shaped compartment in the back of their jersey, to communicate with the team car.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Ok, what would you need to see, short of a picture of Bush shirtless wearing the actual piece, that you would consider evidence?

We could start with a picture of an actual earpiece, not some vague shape on his back that might be a receiver. BTW, I work for a pretty high-tech government agency, and we don't have any small comm rigs shaped like that. Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to put the receiver in a jacket pocket, where it has the double benefit of not being seen, and is not susceptible to body movements? Really, across the middle of the back is about the most inconvenient place for something like that. Use a little common sense before rushing to condemn the president for nothing. I know that's asking a lot, but be a good egg and at least try, mmkay?

 

combined with his flustered speech patterns

Bush always talks like that in interviews and debates. While he's more smooth when reading a speech, his extemporaneous speaking is not very fluid. Part of me thinks he does it deliberately, to lull his opponents into a false sense of security about his skill in debating, but regardless, that's how the man talks.

 

always going back to topics after he's already answered them.

Kerry wanted some one-minute extensions, too, IIRC. Was he cheating?

[snuffbox 0]

Wow, this is sad...

 

I really thought this whole 'cheating' bit would die out in quick embarrasment, but no. These are two respectable men running for the Presidency of the United States...Neither one of them was cheating in the debates. Get over it, this is pathetic.

[Guest GreatOne]

Could Kerry have changed your mind on any issue? No, so prestentation is all that is left. Kerry did better. Of course you don't like his content, you knew you would disagree with it before he said it. The point is, who did a better point expressing their views? Kerry.

 

So this debate was all about presentation and not actually debating the issues, gotcha. So we should all vote for Kerry, because he might not be about the steak, but he's DEFINITELY got the sizzle!

 

 

Strange, I don't recall anyone saying anything like that, other than you.

 

Musta missed his 5 (6,7?) 'Nam references. I'm just flat out stating it instead of trying to veil it..............

[teke184 0]

OK, I've had enough of this shit. Kerry had a pen, Bush didn't have an earpiece, and this thread is closed.

 

If someone starts up a new one on this subject OR takes it into another thread, say "Hello!" to the Whiny Bitch Forum.