brd - i normally try to give some sense of how
speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
the following is one of those very speculative
occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
to something really sinister... but its one of those
things where each specific example doesnt point to
anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
other stuff that i comment on...

this reuters article
(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
distributed everywhere and is
titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
(ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html)
he
doesnt even mention the word 'cure'

if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?

sir rantalot

_______________________________________________
the king is alive. short live the king.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com