Okay. But what sort of geekoid would wear a bulletproof vest under a t-shirt? (cf. foto at link in OP).
IF he is sick, what difference does it make? The man’s not 90 years old; he’ll almost certainly make it to the end of his term. I hope we aren’t all expected to quit our jobs the moment we have a little heart trouble. Half the male population will be retired before they’re 50.
Does it clash with the truck? Should he be bare-chested, other than the vest? Should he wear it over the shirt? 
Well, we could always hope…
I don’t believe the article–Afib can and is well controlled with meds. This is a guy who runs ALOT. He is in good shape, physically. People live for years with Afib (depending on the underlying cause). And it is relativley easy to treat.
So, as much as I would like it (although we would end up with Cheyey–talk about out of the frying pan!)–I doubt it.
No cites,but I am a critical care nurse–I see AFib every day.
Yes, of course. My theory is in line with Paul Slansky’s hilarious book The Clothes Have No Emperor, in which Reagan is exactly what he seemed to be, an actor playing the President. Following this line of reasoning, the REAL President, the puppet-master pulling the strings from behind the scenes, would now be seen as some person “appointed by” Reagan who died before January 1989. William Casey, perhaps? Or if you want to add a radical-left spin to it, a corporate head who died during that period?
“Revealed” is putting it rather strongly: according to your cite, an anonymous member of the secret service said this to a reporter for a tiny (if influential) publication. It’s not like the presidential press secretary said it, or like anyone with any accountability said it.
That said, the bulletproof vest theory is the one I went with even right after the debate, during the time that Brutus and others were mocking me for daring to suggest that there was any there there. Booyah, Brutus!
Daniel
From your thread:
I see your booyah, and raise you a nyah-nyah.
Make me go search for it, will you?
And this was just the start of your mocking me for asking an innocent question, whose answer has now (according to The Hill, anyone) been answered the way I predicted.
Of course, now, like then, when confronted with the silliness of your mockery, you’ll probably descend into incoherent namecalling:
I await with bated breath your continued ill behavior.
Daniel
Builds character!
Curious that you clip out the first part of my post, which clearly frames that response in regards to the tin-foils bullshit floating around about ‘transmitters’.
And in your OP, you said:
So you go from claiming that vests were implausible, to now saying you championed the idea? Sure. Get over youself.
Not at all: the first part wasn’t mocking, and the second part was. Why would I quote the non-mocking part to show that you were mockeriffic?
As soon as someone pointed out that body armor could fasten in the back, I immediately said that that was probably what it was. Your snide little posts began after I’d agreed with that assessment.
Daniel
Don’t you think that’s the largest fastener in the world? That bulge in the back is far too large to be explained by being the fastener for a bulletproof vest. The medical device theory fits the photographic evidence far better than the bulletproof vest theory.
Not a fastener, but a panel. Gotta stop bullets from that direction as well, you know,
Perhaps. I’d be more confident in your theory if I had a catalog of such vests showing such panel. But: why does that particular patch of Bush’s back warrant that extra protection? And why such a small panel? Given the bulge in the back, I can imagine a bullet from the rear missing that panel and striking vital organs. If protecting the back was indeed the goal, it seems it should have been much larger.
But it won’t take much more than a MS Paint picture at some hack website to get you going on the out-there conspiracy theory? Hmmm.
Anyhooo, here is a typical vest. Of course, we don’t know what make or model of vest the POTUS gets, but note the bulge outline in the inset photo there, and compare to the bulge in the photo of Dubya in his truck.
Again, going off the truck picture, it doesn’t look all that small. It’s just meant to stop a hit in the vitals, not be some all-encompassing perfect armor (which doesn’t really exist, sort off)
Occam’s Razor, my tin-foil coifed friends. Occam’s Razor.
Sorry, but I’ll keep wearing the tinfoil (with the propeller option). The link you provided (by the way, thank you for finding it), shows the bulge in the vest should have been larger in area but somewhat thinner than the Bush photos would indicate. Obviously there are different models and there could be a model that looks exactly like Bush’s bulge. But that still doesn’t explain the cable. How do you explain the cable? I think we have one of those situations where those that talk don’t know and those that know don’t talk.
:rolleyes:
Right. Well, I did my part. You may now return to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theories.
An incorrect term: a doctor and a patient who do not divulge information about the patient’s health are not engaging in a conspiracy by any but the most ludicrous definition of the term. While I’m skeptical about the medical device explanation, nothing in it involves a conspiracy.
Daniel
For that ridiculous conspiracy theory, bear in mind that more people than just the President and his doctor would be involved. Ergo, conspiracy. A really stupid one, mind you, but there you have it.
What illegal, wrongful, or subversive act does this conspiracy involve? T’ain’t a conspiracy without one of those.
Daniel
Would that be so different than FDR’s keeping his polio somewhat hidden? Or JFK and his back pain? I think it’s plausible that Bush could be wearing a heart device and only telling Laura, Dick, and Condi the full story.