The reasoning that leads to a reasonable and accurate result is this:
The President wears bulletproof vests.
The creases in the back of his jacket are consistent with bullet proof vests.
there for, he was wearing a bpv.
The blogosphere, as my son has shown me, has promoted that Bush was wearing:
a) a defibrillator
b) a harnassed listening device
c) something else but I forget what.
I did not mean to ridicule you on this, but I really think the straight forward explanation makes sense. The blogosphere explanations don't.
Bush's performance in the debates was his usual awkward and highly variable-performance self. He did not need to be wired to support his performance or his heartbeat.
He did need to wear a bpv.
Ed
Current Events » in reply to I don't have a lot of time for this
With all respect
The whole thread (31 posts)
- So We Have the NYT Avoiding an "October Surprise" Story for Fear of What Republicans Might Say
- Al, chill! This is silly
- The analysis is at least as good as the analysis of UFO abduction claims. (n/t)
- Or possibly, the NYT decided that the story was full of hot air?
- Cripes, alcaray. I didn't think you were in this category.
