Comments on: Seized by the power?

Seized by the power?

moonbird — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:30:43 -0800

"At some time in the past, according to both [redacted] and [redacted] the President suffered what one of his aides called "a very minor seizure" and as a result of this, the President has a very difficult time following any unscripted conversations."

Note: this link comes from a rather conspiratorial website [another source], but claims to be a report from a reporter with White House access. [/caveat] Via Easybakecoven.

By: biffa

biffa — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:37:04 -0800

Wow, its just like the West Wing. Except that there's no evidence that people who take too much coke run an increased risk of having MS.

By: machaus

machaus — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:39:24 -0800

So it wasn't really a pretzel.

By: aramaic

aramaic — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:39:45 -0800

Well, it'll certainly make the election debates more interesting, that's for sure. If it's true. Which, given the source, I doubt.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:41:59 -0800

Link just goes to a blank page for me. (moz/win)

By: Nelson

Nelson — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:45:20 -0800

Metafilter: the wings that rumour flies on. I mean come on, the website is ridiculously conspiratorial and the information is uncorroborated. The best attribution we get is "reporter with access to the White House and Presidential press briefings". Um, I'm a reporter - I have a blog. And I have access to the White House and Presidential press briefings too. Maybe I'm the source! Then again rumour does have its uses. Maybe putting this on Metafilter will have a real reporter look into it and maybe, just maybe, it's true. Of course even if it is true, is this any worse than a president with Alzheimer's?

By: malphigian

malphigian — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:46:44 -0800

This sounds a lot like bullshit, it sounded vaguely plausible until the (from second link) "At one point during a staff conference, the President stood up and began to speak in an unknown language" bit. Born again or not, I don't think he speaks in tongues. Honestly people, there's plenty of real things to be concerned/outraged about, no need for conspiracy theory.

By: faceonmars

faceonmars — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:47:50 -0800

The link is a little better in Opera 7.x but quite a bit is still [redacted]

By: headspace

headspace — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:50:24 -0800

I think somebody forgot to put on their Velostat hat this morning.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:53:51 -0800

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:00:52 -0800

Their source is TBR News, which is The Barnes Review. From The Barnes Review site, you can reach charming book order pages like this one. 'Nuff said, I think.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:01:06 -0800

Come on. An unsubstantiated "report" from a clearly biased site (or two)? Isn't his reliance on completely scripted public appearances better explained simply by him being a terrible speaker and completely in over his head as POTUS? Absolutely! Honestly, who the heck knows, but I find explanations like this for genuine imbecility rather fascinating. Here's a grain of salt for ya...

By: mmcg

mmcg — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:05:56 -0800

After doing a little footwork, I'm satisfied that this is complete bullshit. The first link does not work for me (blank page, mozilla, etc) but the Guerilla News Network post claims that the article comes from here, which finally attributes the article to TBR News. The actual article on TBR News is different from the one posted on the other sites, as it includes a lot of discussion about some sort of fundamental Christian conspiracy within the Whitehouse. Here's a letter to the editor of TBR News, the response to which claims that the author of the article is an "Orthodox Jew who is really offended by the rampant, aggressive Pentecostalism practiced [in the Whitehouse] and having heard about us from a friend, decided to pump all kinds of delightful information into our dispersing machine." This is an interesting view of how journalism can be perverted, but beyond that, it's really nothing more than a curiosity.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:08:41 -0800

but I find explanations like this for genuine imbecility rather fascinating. I'm with moonbird. Blaming Bush's idiocy on something else lets him off the hook...after November, It'll be a moot point anyway. : >

By: briank

briank — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:09:10 -0800

I heard he was really an alien. No really! I read it on the Internet so it must be true!

By: kenaman

kenaman — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:16:44 -0800

I know that Bush avoids live and unscripted press conferences ...... will there be live televised debates between him and Kerry? And are they real debates or do they just take turns talking about issues ...... and finally how did Bush perform last time against Gore? Excuse all the questions but I am not America....

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:27:33 -0800

Complete & utter bull. On the other hand, the linked site is great as a source of humor.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:34:09 -0800

Posts like this make it embarassing to tell rational, mature friends about Metafilter. Incidentally, no rationale can otherwise explain our president's daily douchebaggery to non-Americans.

By: ilsa

ilsa — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:41:25 -0800

Well, if it is true, maybe he could discuss the matter with Ronald Reagan. Ok, yeah, that joke was in really bad taste. But so is the whole thread.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:44:30 -0800

Posts like this make it embarassing to tell rational, mature friends about Metafilter dhoyt: sorry you feel that way... I made sure to include a caveat that the source could be questionable, and most of the readers, like me, don't buy it offhand. But it is a creative piece of speculation. I presented it as nothing more than that.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:02:23 -0800

moonbird: I wasn't meaning to bash your post per se, just hoping for more filter in the Metafilter. What's to discuss once we've unanimously assessed it to be a silly conspiracy theory? It'd be more accurate to bash prisonplanet.com, I suppose.

By: weston

weston — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:45:17 -0800

Vice President Cheney is the de facto President of the United States. Assuming this sentence is true, the only part of this arrangement that seems technically wrong would be a continued deception that Bush is running things. If the President becomes unable to serve, the VP is supposed to take over. Which brings me to the obvious question: why do things this way if Bush really did have this problem? I can't see what the administration would have to gain by proping up W as a figurehead, and so this doesn't seem credible.

By: haqspan

haqspan — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:26:53 -0800

bingo Last time I checked, my local library carries Mein Kampf. Does that mean I shouldn't believe what's in their other books? /topic Bush has trouble with intricate questions? News at [redacted].

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:07:25 -0800

I can't see what the administration would have to gain by proping up W as a figurehead, and so this doesn't seem credible. The pity vote?

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:32:14 -0800

bingo Last time I checked, my local library carries Mein Kampf. Does that mean I shouldn't believe what's in their other books? did you check out what other books are available at that site? When I saw Mein Kampf, I thought it was a rushed judgment, because I think that book is an interesting part of history/biography, and should be available somewhere... although I can't imagine I would ever want to actually buy it, which in a way clues you in to the fact that a publisher making money off that title must be catering to a particular sort of crowd. (and I'm very interested in WWII history - own 2 or 3 hitler bios and Shirer's R&F of the 3rd Reich) But anyway, the point was, the other books on the site were all holocaust revisionism type stuff. So you don't have to go on the presence of hitler's book alone. The pity vote? There's definitely a case to be made for bush being a bit of a figurehead without supposing any sort of brain damage, and the purpose of having him at all is that people like him, whereas they don't relate to cheney & can see pretty clearly that he's a rich bastard etc. But bush is yr local neighborly religious down-home "man's man", apparently. Why this is, I can't say. He seems like a rich kid in over his head from where I'm sitting -not in charge, not knowledgable, not skilled, and only nervously friendly & "local". I don't get why people feel secure under him.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:57:33 -0800

yoh gw-b

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:36:36 -0800

will there be live televised debates between him and Kerry? And are they real debates or do they just take turns talking about issues ...... and finally how did Bush perform last time against Gore? They're debates, but topics are usually submitted in advance, as far i know, and most participants just spout a canned reponse unless the other participant or the mediators force them to respond or clarify or answer. Bush did badly in the first one, but the media focused on Gore's aggressiveness, instead of Bush. Expectations were (and still are) so low for Bush that people were happy he didn't trip over his shoelaces on the way to the podium.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:27:52 -0800

haqspan: what mdn said. Not that your analogy really made sense anyway.A library's relationship to any random book it contains is hardly the same as a news website's relationship to a relatively few select books (which revolve around a common theme) that can be purchased directly from the site.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:25:10 -0800

[This is embarassing.] I did like this line though: "At one point during a staff conference, the President stood up and began to speak in an unknown language" He ALWAYS speaks in an unknown language!