From: www.electoral-vote.com
Salon.com reports that Bush had a radio receiver taped to his back
during the first debate so he could receive messages via a tiny
hearing-aid-like device in his ear. They back this up with a photo. I
have no way of verifying the story, but the Commission on Presidential
Debates has verified that one of the rules of engagement the Bush
campaign insisted on was no camera shots of the candidates from behind
(which one of the pool cameras did anyway). This story is either
investigative journalism at its best or wishful thinking. If you are
not a Salon.com subscriber, you have to sign up for a free day pass to
read the full story.
I obtained a copy of the debate video and the Red Hawk image
intensification software (developed for NASA), which combines multiple
images into a sharper image and then had the contrast enhanced with
Photoshop. Other than cropping and resizing of the image, no other
manipulation was done. I stand 100% behind the fact that this image
was taken from the debate video, independently confirming the
Salon.com photo, but interpretation is up to you.
Attached files
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
You're acting like Bush using an earpiece in the debate is a bad thing. I think if it were true, it would be a good thing. Two reasons:
1. It would make the debate more "fair and balanced," and level the playing field.
2. Bush is probably not the brains behind his administration's actions or policies anyway. It would be better for us to hear Kerry debate who that really is.
1. It would make the debate more "fair and balanced," and level the playing field.
2. Bush is probably not the brains behind his administration's actions or policies anyway. It would be better for us to hear Kerry debate who that really is.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
Colinc wrote: Yes..it is so easy to laugh at GWB and to ignore the powers behind him. The danger is that underestimate what damage he can do.
Really. A bunch of Supreme Court vacancies are expected in the next four years. Americans may kiss your civil liberties goodbye forever if Bush gets re-elected. People look at the war and the economy and have no inkling of what's really at stake in this election. Our whole way of life and everything we stand for. I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.
Some of us believe that America is destined to fulfill a role in Bible prophecy as "the False Prophet" in the Book of Revelation (the power that forces the mark of the beast upon the world). While I'm not happy about what all that involves, and expect to suffer greatly because of it, verse one says that the book is given "to show His servants what must soon take place." That's the way I look at it. If these things have to happen before Jesus can come, I must trust God whatever happens. But I have no faith obligation to vote for the ones I expect one day will throw me in prison for what I believe.
Oh, yes. I have been watching these developments very closely and with great interest for some years now, and everything is falling into place just as it was written. You have to keep a sense of humor to prevent your heart failing you because of fear.
Really. A bunch of Supreme Court vacancies are expected in the next four years. Americans may kiss your civil liberties goodbye forever if Bush gets re-elected. People look at the war and the economy and have no inkling of what's really at stake in this election. Our whole way of life and everything we stand for. I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.
Some of us believe that America is destined to fulfill a role in Bible prophecy as "the False Prophet" in the Book of Revelation (the power that forces the mark of the beast upon the world). While I'm not happy about what all that involves, and expect to suffer greatly because of it, verse one says that the book is given "to show His servants what must soon take place." That's the way I look at it. If these things have to happen before Jesus can come, I must trust God whatever happens. But I have no faith obligation to vote for the ones I expect one day will throw me in prison for what I believe.
Oh, yes. I have been watching these developments very closely and with great interest for some years now, and everything is falling into place just as it was written. You have to keep a sense of humor to prevent your heart failing you because of fear.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
Colinc wrote: It amazes my how a whole nation can "slide" down a particular path. At the time everything seems ok...but when the problems multiply we all turn round and wonder how we got there.
I'm glad that you noticed that the problem is bigger than this present administration. Societies get the leaders they deserve.
What alarms me most is that people no longer take the words of the author of our constitution as if he knew what the document he wrote was about. Jefferson said that there must be a "wall of separation between church and state." When I was a kid in grade school and we studied the Bill of Rights, we were taught that those principles were monuments of freedom, something sacred and inseparable from our patriotism and our identity as Americans. We thought they were the ideals that made us the envy of the world (as once upon a time America may have been).
Now we have a chief justice of our Supreme Court, who swore blind, unpolitical allegiance to the constitution, and yet who calls it's author a liar. Rehnquist called Jefferson's principle of a wall of separation between church and state, "a metaphor based on bad history which should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Antonin Scalia, the most powerful idealogue of the ultra-conservatives on the Court said that religious liberty is "a luxury we could no longer afford."
I saw a video clip of Jimmy Swaggert prowling the stage and hissing, his face contorted in an expression of rage, as he ranted and raved about the evils of separation of church and state.
Lots of good people, church people have heard this preached by robed figures from pulpits, and come to believe it must be true. That's how we slide down the slope from being a wise and good nation to a persecuting power.
America indeed plays a role in Bible prophecy. But it isn't the role most American Christians think it is!
(sorry, I went way off topic. Subject for another thread I'll do when there's time.)
I'm glad that you noticed that the problem is bigger than this present administration. Societies get the leaders they deserve.
What alarms me most is that people no longer take the words of the author of our constitution as if he knew what the document he wrote was about. Jefferson said that there must be a "wall of separation between church and state." When I was a kid in grade school and we studied the Bill of Rights, we were taught that those principles were monuments of freedom, something sacred and inseparable from our patriotism and our identity as Americans. We thought they were the ideals that made us the envy of the world (as once upon a time America may have been).
Now we have a chief justice of our Supreme Court, who swore blind, unpolitical allegiance to the constitution, and yet who calls it's author a liar. Rehnquist called Jefferson's principle of a wall of separation between church and state, "a metaphor based on bad history which should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Antonin Scalia, the most powerful idealogue of the ultra-conservatives on the Court said that religious liberty is "a luxury we could no longer afford."
I saw a video clip of Jimmy Swaggert prowling the stage and hissing, his face contorted in an expression of rage, as he ranted and raved about the evils of separation of church and state.
Lots of good people, church people have heard this preached by robed figures from pulpits, and come to believe it must be true. That's how we slide down the slope from being a wise and good nation to a persecuting power.
America indeed plays a role in Bible prophecy. But it isn't the role most American Christians think it is!
(sorry, I went way off topic. Subject for another thread I'll do when there's time.)
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
telaquapacky wrote: Antonin Scalia, the most powerful idealogue of the ultra-conservatives on the Court said that religious liberty is "a luxury we could no longer afford."
this is a distortion by omission of what the justice said in the majority decision in the 1991 case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith.
i would recommend a reading of the actual decision.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=872
the point of the decision was that a law imposed on the general populace, which also restricts free exercise, but which is not *directed at* restricting the free exercise of a religion, is legitimate.
here's a quote from the decision that may demonstrate the basis is less inflammatory than suggested:Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
if a religion required that a virgin be gang-raped then set afire, would society be required to allow this, because stopping it would be interfering with the free exercise of a religion?
of course not.
this is a distortion by omission of what the justice said in the majority decision in the 1991 case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith.
i would recommend a reading of the actual decision.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=872
the point of the decision was that a law imposed on the general populace, which also restricts free exercise, but which is not *directed at* restricting the free exercise of a religion, is legitimate.
here's a quote from the decision that may demonstrate the basis is less inflammatory than suggested:Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
if a religion required that a virgin be gang-raped then set afire, would society be required to allow this, because stopping it would be interfering with the free exercise of a religion?
of course not.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
anyone who watched the debates and still maintains that GWB is stupid, is delusional - blinded by their ideology.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
anastrophe wrote: this is a distortion by omission of what the justice said in the majority decision in the 1991 case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith...
...if a religion required that a virgin be gang-raped then set afire, would society in be required to allow this, because stopping it would be interfering with the free exercise of a religion?
Justice Scalia's hostile activism against religious liberty is well known and requires no exaggeration or distortion. One need not read the text of the decision to know what effect that decision has had on the protection of religious liberty in America.
Previous to Smith, there was a well understood and workable principle called the "Compelling State Interest Test." It went like this: If a religious practice was so harmful that the state could show a compelling interest against it (for example gang-raping and burning virgins), then it would be not be a religious practice protected by the "free exercise" clause of the first amendment.
Smith was a textbook cast for the Compelling State Interest Test. Two native American state employed drug counsellors were fired because it was discovered that they regularly used peyote in their religious rituals. When they applied for unemployment, they were denied because of the rationale of their dismissal.
Their case came to the Supreme court. A ruling against them would easily been given based on the compelling state interest that you don't hire illegal drug users (regardless of why they use) counselling illegal drug users. Simple. But Scalia threw the baby out with the bathwater. His opinion in effect stripped the test of it's significance. He established a new test that in effect made any religious observance, however benign, not entitled to "free exercise" protection by law if it deviated sufficiently from the practice of the majority of Americans.
the point of the decision was that a law imposed on the general populace, which also restricts free exercise, but which is not *directed at* restricting the free exercise of a religion, is legitimate.
That's just the point. If a law is general enough that it affects everybody, as long as the majority goes along with it, if it happens to step on the toes of a few, well, that's just too bad.
For example, there are Sunday laws on the books in most states, many times not enforced. Please look at the Ten Commandments. The fourth calls for the observance of a day of rest on the biblical Seventh day of the week, which is not Sunday, but sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. Obviously the majority doesn't see things this way. But for those who do they often find themselves having to make the choice between obeying God and obeying man.
Incidentally, Scalia wrote an essay in defense of his opinion quoting two colonial cases in which Sabbath-keepers lost their cases because their court dates had been set on Saturday, and they failed to appear.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29)
Anastrophe, I don't blame you for not having a burden for this. If religious liberty goes down the tubes in this country, being an unbeliever, you don't stand to lose anything.
...if a religion required that a virgin be gang-raped then set afire, would society in be required to allow this, because stopping it would be interfering with the free exercise of a religion?
Justice Scalia's hostile activism against religious liberty is well known and requires no exaggeration or distortion. One need not read the text of the decision to know what effect that decision has had on the protection of religious liberty in America.
Previous to Smith, there was a well understood and workable principle called the "Compelling State Interest Test." It went like this: If a religious practice was so harmful that the state could show a compelling interest against it (for example gang-raping and burning virgins), then it would be not be a religious practice protected by the "free exercise" clause of the first amendment.
Smith was a textbook cast for the Compelling State Interest Test. Two native American state employed drug counsellors were fired because it was discovered that they regularly used peyote in their religious rituals. When they applied for unemployment, they were denied because of the rationale of their dismissal.
Their case came to the Supreme court. A ruling against them would easily been given based on the compelling state interest that you don't hire illegal drug users (regardless of why they use) counselling illegal drug users. Simple. But Scalia threw the baby out with the bathwater. His opinion in effect stripped the test of it's significance. He established a new test that in effect made any religious observance, however benign, not entitled to "free exercise" protection by law if it deviated sufficiently from the practice of the majority of Americans.
the point of the decision was that a law imposed on the general populace, which also restricts free exercise, but which is not *directed at* restricting the free exercise of a religion, is legitimate.
That's just the point. If a law is general enough that it affects everybody, as long as the majority goes along with it, if it happens to step on the toes of a few, well, that's just too bad.
For example, there are Sunday laws on the books in most states, many times not enforced. Please look at the Ten Commandments. The fourth calls for the observance of a day of rest on the biblical Seventh day of the week, which is not Sunday, but sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. Obviously the majority doesn't see things this way. But for those who do they often find themselves having to make the choice between obeying God and obeying man.
Incidentally, Scalia wrote an essay in defense of his opinion quoting two colonial cases in which Sabbath-keepers lost their cases because their court dates had been set on Saturday, and they failed to appear.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29)
Anastrophe, I don't blame you for not having a burden for this. If religious liberty goes down the tubes in this country, being an unbeliever, you don't stand to lose anything.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
telaquapacky wrote:
Anastrophe, I don't blame you for not having a burden for this. If religious liberty goes down the tubes in this country, being an unbeliever, you don't stand to lose anything.
i beg your pardon? excuse me? pardon me? can you please explain on what basis you state that i'm an unbeliever? for that matter, can you please explain exactly what you mean by 'unbeliever'? are you stating (with no evidence to hand) that i'm an athiest? that i'm not a christian?
where the hell do you get off stating that other people are 'unbelievers'? oh, wait. now i see. having read some of your previous posts in this thread, i see you're one of those incredibly intolerant religious fanatics, to whom anyone who does not believe *exactly* what you believe is an unbeliever. an infidel if you will.
when will you begin the beheadings?
Anastrophe, I don't blame you for not having a burden for this. If religious liberty goes down the tubes in this country, being an unbeliever, you don't stand to lose anything.
i beg your pardon? excuse me? pardon me? can you please explain on what basis you state that i'm an unbeliever? for that matter, can you please explain exactly what you mean by 'unbeliever'? are you stating (with no evidence to hand) that i'm an athiest? that i'm not a christian?
where the hell do you get off stating that other people are 'unbelievers'? oh, wait. now i see. having read some of your previous posts in this thread, i see you're one of those incredibly intolerant religious fanatics, to whom anyone who does not believe *exactly* what you believe is an unbeliever. an infidel if you will.
when will you begin the beheadings?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
My dear brother Anastrophe, how can you ever forgive me. When I went looking for the post I thought I remembered which gave me the impression that you were not a believer, I never found it, rather much evidence to the contrary. To my horror, I had confused you with somebody else. I am sincerely sorry and apologise unreservedly. I intended no disrespect. I promise to read your posts more carefully in the future.
Sincerely Yours, Telaquapacky
Sincerely Yours, Telaquapacky
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
telaquapacky wrote: My dear brother Anastrophe, how can you ever forgive me. When I went looking for the post I thought I remembered which gave me the impression that you were not a believer, I never found it, rather much evidence to the contrary. To my horror, I had confused you with somebody else. I am sincerely sorry and apologise unreservedly. I intended no disrespect. I promise to read your posts more carefully in the future.
Sincerely Yours, Telaquapacky
thank you, i appreciate the honest apology. i should note that my rant at the bottom of my reply was intended to be ironic - you accused me of being a non-believer, so i accused you of being a fanatic. it was probably lost however in the actual rancor of my post. so for that i apologize as well.
i have thin skin and a short fuse - what a combination! :-5
Sincerely Yours, Telaquapacky
thank you, i appreciate the honest apology. i should note that my rant at the bottom of my reply was intended to be ironic - you accused me of being a non-believer, so i accused you of being a fanatic. it was probably lost however in the actual rancor of my post. so for that i apologize as well.
i have thin skin and a short fuse - what a combination! :-5
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
i once owned a desert tortiose. he eventually died.
the end.
the end.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
anastrophe wrote: i have thin skin and a short fuse - what a combination!
Told you we were brothers. Know what else? Our governor can beat up anybody else's governor!
Told you we were brothers. Know what else? Our governor can beat up anybody else's governor!
Look what the cat dragged in.
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
I also don't think GWB is stupid, I think he is dishonest. When a person has much to hide it is hard to speak openly. Many of the blunders I have seen seem to be the result of restrained conversational skills.
If half of the things in Fahrenheit 911 are correct then GWB has a lot on his mind that he needs to make sure he doesn't reveal. It must be very hard to keep secrets...I know I'm not very good at it.
If half of the things in Fahrenheit 911 are correct then GWB has a lot on his mind that he needs to make sure he doesn't reveal. It must be very hard to keep secrets...I know I'm not very good at it.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
He is a patsy in all of this. He is being used and he doesn't even know it. But, as regards to the hidden rarpiece, most politicans today do the same. They call it political advisors. 
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
koan wrote: I also don't think GWB is stupid, I think he is dishonest. When a person has much to hide it is hard to speak openly. Many of the blunders I have seen seem to be the result of restrained conversational skills.
If half of the things in Fahrenheit 911 are correct then GWB has a lot on his mind that he needs to make sure he doesn't reveal. It must be very hard to keep secrets...I know I'm not very good at it.
thankfully, since F/911 is a work of fiction, not fact, you have little to worry about. it is a masterstroke of propoganda. leni riefenstahl would have been proud.
If half of the things in Fahrenheit 911 are correct then GWB has a lot on his mind that he needs to make sure he doesn't reveal. It must be very hard to keep secrets...I know I'm not very good at it.
thankfully, since F/911 is a work of fiction, not fact, you have little to worry about. it is a masterstroke of propoganda. leni riefenstahl would have been proud.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
anastrophe wrote: thankfully, since F/911 is a work of fiction, not fact, you have little to worry about. it is a masterstroke of propoganda. leni riefenstahl would have been proud.
Having worked in film, I could see clear moments of propoganda ie) how dare someone presume to know what thoughts are going through a person's head! For me these took away from the film but I am very thankful that a film so clearly bashing the president was able to be released. What a show of liberty. If it is Nazi propoganda you refer to...wasn't that all produced by the government and for the benefit of the current government continuing in power?
However, like or dislike the president...there is always corruption in politics. The only people fit to rule a country, in my mind, are the people who wouldn't want the power in their hands. Bit of a catch 22.
I watched a good, sincere man become a tyrant when he became president of a film union...and that's just small fry compared to presidency of a nation.
This is "conspiracy theory" room. How far do you think the corruption runs. Doesn't matter which political party you vote for. The corruption is there. Do we just choose the lesser of evils?
Having worked in film, I could see clear moments of propoganda ie) how dare someone presume to know what thoughts are going through a person's head! For me these took away from the film but I am very thankful that a film so clearly bashing the president was able to be released. What a show of liberty. If it is Nazi propoganda you refer to...wasn't that all produced by the government and for the benefit of the current government continuing in power?
However, like or dislike the president...there is always corruption in politics. The only people fit to rule a country, in my mind, are the people who wouldn't want the power in their hands. Bit of a catch 22.
I watched a good, sincere man become a tyrant when he became president of a film union...and that's just small fry compared to presidency of a nation.
This is "conspiracy theory" room. How far do you think the corruption runs. Doesn't matter which political party you vote for. The corruption is there. Do we just choose the lesser of evils?
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
President Bush Using a Hidden Earpiece?
There is a saying in this part of the world. If you want to run for President of the United States. You have to be a cowboy first. :wah: