Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (646233)	10/16/2004 10:42:56 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I'm sure it would put the questions to rest, did he have something back there Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I think you're the first SI person to suggest they don't see anything with their own two eyes under Bush's tee shirt, and then suit, in the pictures. Did you look at them? The tee shirt one: is there a "question to put to rest" in your mind about "did he have something back there"? The WH says there's nothing there. A "wrinkle" is all. You agree? You're weighing in late on this subject, and I don't feel like going back to that conversation get the links, but they're there, in case you didn't look at them before you commented. I guess you're among those that thinks it's not of interest what that thing is the WH says we shouldn't trust our lyin' eyes about. That surprises me a lot, to tell you the truth, RDW. I would have bet good money you'd say, "Hey, what the heck is that on the president's back in all those photos?" If it's a flak jacket, well, so what, why wouldn't they just tell the truth about it? If it's a back brace, so what? Why lie about that? It's the blatant lie that makes it of interest. "Back brace; he was clearing brush" isn't interesting. If it is, as some experts have testified, equipment that allows him (but not his opponent) to get replies fed to him from parties elsewhere, we differ in that I would want to know that and you wouldn't want it discussed; is that correct? But we agree about one thing: If Kerry had something mysterious in his pocket or hand in the first debate, and I've seen a bunch of photos of it taken straight from the video feed, and the Kerry campaign is saying, "It's not there, believe us, don't believe your lyin' eyes," I want to know what in the world it is they're lying about. This is the first time I've heard of it. I still have that debate on TiVo, I've still not looked at it, so I can check it out if you tell me what to look for. Are there links you can give me to a still photos from the video feed of that object or moment in the debate to show me what to look for? If Kerry demonstrably had something with him at the debate and/or elsewhere, the existence of which is being denied by his campaign, that would have a bad smell, and would suggest to me that they are keeping a secret from the voters. Are you saying that you think it's possible Kerry was using this object to cheat in the debate, as, if Bush were "wired" (really there are no wires) with the radio device, he would have been doing? What did it look like? Give me any info, and links to photos, that you have, and I'll check it out with my own eyes on my TiVo recording of it. I'm curious to see that debate anyway.

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (646233)	10/16/2004 10:43:16 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

BTW, did you read this earlier, RDW? What do you think about it? I'd be interested in your reaction. An Inexplicable Vote for Death EDITORIAL, NYTimes on the Web, October 9, 2004 Paul Gregory House was convicted of murdering a neighbor in 1985, before the era of DNA typing. The Tennessee jury that found him guilty was told that the semen found on the body of the neighbor, Carolyn Muncey, matched his blood type. The jury, citing the fact that Mrs. Muncey had been raped, said Mr. House should be sentenced to death. It's hard to believe that the jurors would have come to that conclusion if they had known that the semen's DNA matched that of Mrs. Muncey's husband, Hubert, not the defendant. A 15-judge United States Court of Appeals panel in Cincinnati that heard a request to reopen the case knew that. Yet the judges recently voted, 8 to 7, that Mr. House should neither be freed nor given a new trial. They were not swayed by six witnesses implicating Mr. Muncey. Two said Mr. Muncey had told them he had killed his wife while he was drunk. That eight judges would condemn a man to be executed under these circumstances is shocking. What's worse is that the judges divided along partisan lines. The eight judges appointed by a Republican president voted to keep Mr. House on the road to the death penalty. Six judges appointed by a Democrat wanted to free him, and the seventh called for a new trial. It's hard to dismiss the thought that the Republicans voted as a show of support for capital punishment, not on the merits of the case. For Mr. House, the next stop is the Supreme Court. For the rest of us, his case should serve as a reminder that when we elect a president, we are also deciding the makeup of our courts.