Listening to the reporters at the Presidents press conference I was apalled at the questions of no substance:
"Mr. President do you feel responsible for 9/11"
"Mr. President will you apologise to the american people for 9/11"
What inept reporters. Where did they get their reporters credentials...from a cracker jack box?
How about:
"Mr President, what are you going to do about foreign fighters coming in to Iraq from Syria and Iran. Will you hold these countries liable?"
"A Pakistani scientist stated that N.Korea has 3 nuclear devices. What are your plans on dealing with that."
So how about you. What question would you have asked if you were at the press conference?
A Question not asked
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Mr. President, what do you think the odds are for a secular democracy growing in Iraq if you lose the election vs. if you win?
Actually I'd ask him if he wants a do-over...a mulligan....call in a life line... because he missed a great opportunity to answer two questions with one point.
He was asked what his biggest mistake was and he was asked about his lack of communication skills.
If I was he, I would have said 'My biggest mistake was not learning to speak more eloquently and using those skills to put to rest all the stupid, inane questions I've been asked.'
He should have called in a pinch hitter...'and the manager sends Tony Blair to the plate'
Actually I'd ask him if he wants a do-over...a mulligan....call in a life line... because he missed a great opportunity to answer two questions with one point.
He was asked what his biggest mistake was and he was asked about his lack of communication skills.
If I was he, I would have said 'My biggest mistake was not learning to speak more eloquently and using those skills to put to rest all the stupid, inane questions I've been asked.'
He should have called in a pinch hitter...'and the manager sends Tony Blair to the plate'
-
TheCops
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: minneapolis, mn
- Contact:
hey will,
he also referred to the secratary of defense as the secretary of state. but rippin' on GW's orating skillz is old hat. i can look through that and read him the best i can, for what he is trying to convey without being a knit-picking prick.
he seemed really worn-out and tired... and considering he had mubarak at his ranch going over some heavy shizz it's to be expected.
these guys are trying to point out the savage evil media beast crap... it seemed like a press conference to me.
he also referred to the secratary of defense as the secretary of state. but rippin' on GW's orating skillz is old hat. i can look through that and read him the best i can, for what he is trying to convey without being a knit-picking prick.
he seemed really worn-out and tired... and considering he had mubarak at his ranch going over some heavy shizz it's to be expected.
these guys are trying to point out the savage evil media beast crap... it seemed like a press conference to me.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
Woodchip, they're not allowed to ask those questions.
I would have asked him why the IRS still thinks that income tax is somehow legal.
Why he endorsed a commercial that was a blatant and transparent lie. (His commercial said that Kerry wanted to raise gas taxes to over 50 cents or something along those lines. The way it was worded was a complete misdirection. The gas taxes are already over 50 cents a gallon, and Kerry only wanted to add a penny or two for some reason). Then again, how many Americans know that they pay 50 cents a gallon in tax? The pumps here used to have a sticker on them stating the tax rate, which was 48 cents 5 years ago. Those stickers have miraculously disappeared.
Why had the representatives of the people took it upon themselves to drain Social Security into bankruptcy, taking all the money for themselves, and then deciding not only to bill the taxpayer for it, but then to raise their own salaries?
Why are insurance companies guaranteed billions of income with the mandatory insurance law? Is there any coincidence in that law getting passed, and the insurance lobbyists paying off some Congressman/Senators? Gee..
Same thread, why are coporate lobbyists allowed to line the coffers of elected represetatives? I believe thata law should be passed making Senators and Congressman have patches on their backs of the corporate criminals that paid thier way into office. Wouldn't it be more realistic to see a Marlboro cigarette patch on the back of Senator **** along with his Exxon and WorldCom patches?
I have plenty of uncomfortable questions to ask, but I'd probably be imprisoned for asking them to anyone of importance.
I would have asked him why the IRS still thinks that income tax is somehow legal.
Why he endorsed a commercial that was a blatant and transparent lie. (His commercial said that Kerry wanted to raise gas taxes to over 50 cents or something along those lines. The way it was worded was a complete misdirection. The gas taxes are already over 50 cents a gallon, and Kerry only wanted to add a penny or two for some reason). Then again, how many Americans know that they pay 50 cents a gallon in tax? The pumps here used to have a sticker on them stating the tax rate, which was 48 cents 5 years ago. Those stickers have miraculously disappeared.
Why had the representatives of the people took it upon themselves to drain Social Security into bankruptcy, taking all the money for themselves, and then deciding not only to bill the taxpayer for it, but then to raise their own salaries?
Why are insurance companies guaranteed billions of income with the mandatory insurance law? Is there any coincidence in that law getting passed, and the insurance lobbyists paying off some Congressman/Senators? Gee..
Same thread, why are coporate lobbyists allowed to line the coffers of elected represetatives? I believe thata law should be passed making Senators and Congressman have patches on their backs of the corporate criminals that paid thier way into office. Wouldn't it be more realistic to see a Marlboro cigarette patch on the back of Senator **** along with his Exxon and WorldCom patches?
I have plenty of uncomfortable questions to ask, but I'd probably be imprisoned for asking them to anyone of importance.
I think you're missing the point, roid. The press was trying to define the discussion to their liking and that agenda was blatantly anti-Bush. The purpose of a press conference is for the press to be proxies for the American people and ask the questions the American people want answers to. In this regard, the press failed miserably. Why do I say they failed? Because there wasn't a single question about the economy. Why wouldn't they ask about what opinion polls have revealed to be probably the single biggest concern for Americans? Because the news of late has been optimistic in this area and the press is loathe to give the President a platform for spreading good news. They are in the Doom & Gloom business and optimism throws them off their message. Tough questions? Bring 'em on, but for the love of God and country, make the questions pertinent to the majority of Americans, not just the Chicken Littles and Bushophobes.
I liked the question paraphrased like this one.
Bush: "And, oh. This one isn't on my list. Don?"
Don: "Yes, Mr. President."
Bush: "Go ahead, Don."
Don: "Well, I'm wondering, Mr. President. Y'know it's been about a couple years since 9/11 and I'm wondering, since then, what do you believe has been the biggest mistake you've ever made in office?"
Bush: o_0
Sometimes, I can feel Bush's frustration up there on the podium. And like woodchip, I was wondering where in the world some of these journalists got their degrees from. Making it sound as if Bush intentionally hurled those planes into the towers on purpose in a secret CIA plot and pinned the blame on Bin Ladin. Oh, and isn't it obvious that the President must apologize for not having the foresight to lead a massive offensive into Afghanistan to kill a man on relatively weak evidence that he will "hijack planes" in the future?
Morons.
I'd prefer to know the answers to halfway intelligent questions, like those woodchip and others here have proposed. I think that when Bush is really confronted with the few intelligent questions, you can tell. He has thoughtful responses and tries to be persuasive. I'll disagree with him on Iraq, but I don't contest that Bush has laid out his reasonings and motivations for going there. In his somewhat evangelical trip today, he outlined that freedom is a right given to men from a higher power and being the most powerful nation in the world, the US must bring freedom to the world.
I think it's an idealistic hope for the world. The problem, as I see it, is that the Arab world in particular does not seem to appreciate the ramifications of it. My question to Bush would be as follows. There's no question in my mind that the Iraqis of Fallujah are barbaric people. If not for participating in anti-Coalition violence, then for not doing anything to curtail it. Do you honestly think that just because Iraq elects a cabinet, a ruler, and a constitution that - somehow - this rogue element will abide by it? Will the New Iraq encircle the Old Iraq like a torus? Will the new Iraqi police force be able to step in, even though they haven't thus far and seem to be routinely compromised by insurgent entry? Fallujah is a war of ideals and mindsets. We've shown impressive technical prowess when it comes to combat. But, we seem to have trouble with the emotional end. What can we do about Fallujah and the rest of Hussein's core cities?
roid > Bush is known for not facing Q&A that often. For all we know, it has to do with his weakness in public speaking. Or maybe how it burned previous Presidents. Either way, he chooses not to give them that often. He usually sends his underlings, Rice, Cheney, Powell, and others to do the PR work for him.
Testi > Kerry will raise taxes, though. If not the gas tax, then for the myriad of other increases he has proposed. Kerry claims to be going after the 1% of the tax bracket. Well, here's a surprise. Who pays the most taxes? Rest assured, if Kerry's agenda passes, we'll get that "death tax" back. Oh, and you can bet taxes on dividend payouts (you know, for the wise 1% of people who chose to invest their money as people should have done instead of mooching off social security and robbing my generation) would also probably increase. The democratic notion of the "evil 1% of the tax bracket" is hogwash. We want to promote a culture of people who desire success, who want to live this so-called American dream, and then we turn around and punish them for being too successful?
Social security is a problem that extends beyond government abuse of it. Baby boomers are retiring and the system is under more pressure now than it has ever been. Worse, our economy is still on the weak side, with many jobs being shipped overseas or people settling for lower-paying jobs here. That means fewer new employees are paying into the money pot to finance social security.
To your other point, I said it before, and I'll say it. We must pass laws to prohibit any and all special interest groups from being able to make donations of any sort to politicians. They are the scourge of our supposedly free democracy and contribute to the fact that corporations and big money are in control of this country, not the people the government alledgedly stands for.
Bush: "And, oh. This one isn't on my list. Don?"
Don: "Yes, Mr. President."
Bush: "Go ahead, Don."
Don: "Well, I'm wondering, Mr. President. Y'know it's been about a couple years since 9/11 and I'm wondering, since then, what do you believe has been the biggest mistake you've ever made in office?"
Bush: o_0
Sometimes, I can feel Bush's frustration up there on the podium. And like woodchip, I was wondering where in the world some of these journalists got their degrees from. Making it sound as if Bush intentionally hurled those planes into the towers on purpose in a secret CIA plot and pinned the blame on Bin Ladin. Oh, and isn't it obvious that the President must apologize for not having the foresight to lead a massive offensive into Afghanistan to kill a man on relatively weak evidence that he will "hijack planes" in the future?
Morons.
I'd prefer to know the answers to halfway intelligent questions, like those woodchip and others here have proposed. I think that when Bush is really confronted with the few intelligent questions, you can tell. He has thoughtful responses and tries to be persuasive. I'll disagree with him on Iraq, but I don't contest that Bush has laid out his reasonings and motivations for going there. In his somewhat evangelical trip today, he outlined that freedom is a right given to men from a higher power and being the most powerful nation in the world, the US must bring freedom to the world.
I think it's an idealistic hope for the world. The problem, as I see it, is that the Arab world in particular does not seem to appreciate the ramifications of it. My question to Bush would be as follows. There's no question in my mind that the Iraqis of Fallujah are barbaric people. If not for participating in anti-Coalition violence, then for not doing anything to curtail it. Do you honestly think that just because Iraq elects a cabinet, a ruler, and a constitution that - somehow - this rogue element will abide by it? Will the New Iraq encircle the Old Iraq like a torus? Will the new Iraqi police force be able to step in, even though they haven't thus far and seem to be routinely compromised by insurgent entry? Fallujah is a war of ideals and mindsets. We've shown impressive technical prowess when it comes to combat. But, we seem to have trouble with the emotional end. What can we do about Fallujah and the rest of Hussein's core cities?
roid > Bush is known for not facing Q&A that often. For all we know, it has to do with his weakness in public speaking. Or maybe how it burned previous Presidents. Either way, he chooses not to give them that often. He usually sends his underlings, Rice, Cheney, Powell, and others to do the PR work for him.
Testi > Kerry will raise taxes, though. If not the gas tax, then for the myriad of other increases he has proposed. Kerry claims to be going after the 1% of the tax bracket. Well, here's a surprise. Who pays the most taxes? Rest assured, if Kerry's agenda passes, we'll get that "death tax" back. Oh, and you can bet taxes on dividend payouts (you know, for the wise 1% of people who chose to invest their money as people should have done instead of mooching off social security and robbing my generation) would also probably increase. The democratic notion of the "evil 1% of the tax bracket" is hogwash. We want to promote a culture of people who desire success, who want to live this so-called American dream, and then we turn around and punish them for being too successful?
Social security is a problem that extends beyond government abuse of it. Baby boomers are retiring and the system is under more pressure now than it has ever been. Worse, our economy is still on the weak side, with many jobs being shipped overseas or people settling for lower-paying jobs here. That means fewer new employees are paying into the money pot to finance social security.
To your other point, I said it before, and I'll say it. We must pass laws to prohibit any and all special interest groups from being able to make donations of any sort to politicians. They are the scourge of our supposedly free democracy and contribute to the fact that corporations and big money are in control of this country, not the people the government alledgedly stands for.
As of March 26 - 28 of 2004, Gallup reports 54 % of Amercicans said "No" when asked, "Did the Bush administration do all it could to prevent 911?".
If "The purpose of a press conference is for the press to be proxies for the American people" then...
news flash: half the country thinks more couldv'e been done. It is reasonable to think they want answers. that's why the journalists are simply doing their jobs. even if it were merely yellow journalism, which it isn't, more than half the population still considers it newsworthy to ask, and that sells newspapers.
view the poll at www.gallup.com if you like. I believe this refutes the notion that it was out of line for the press to question Bush about what more he could have done, and also to question him about how responsible he feels for the fact that half the country feels he didn't do enough.
I would have asked a different question altogether. Something like, Are you going to answer a single question that actually addresses the actual point of the question instead of merely anwering the question you wish were asked? With few exceptions, he skirted questions asked and answered with statements about policy and practice that are well prepared. not to say he reverted to a script, but to a basic rosetta stone of adminstration policy that is easily regurgitated, not just by him but all of the administration.
i must admit that i had an amusing thought as the address coverage ended. it occurred to me that busy partisan finger were well oiled to come in here and post a thread extolling bush and villifying the press. the so-called liberal left wing wouldn't have dreamed of doing the same for Clinton or any other former President or candidate.
there is only one reason there is contigent here even elligible to be falsely tagged as liberal. That is because some of us call BS to that position that would say the adminstration is without fault. it is because some of us believe that all administrations make mistakes and this one is no exception. it is that the conservative contigency on this board are just like Bush in that they cannot ever admit of a mistake. In my view, THAT philosophy is as dangerous as the mistakes themselves, or the propensity to make them.
I would not be here making posts questioning the adminstration if others weren't inciting me to do so by declaring the administration infallible. i would not make "anti adminstration" posts for their own sake. i am merely taking exception, and only in the the form of a reaction, to what i see as transparent trend to deny reality.
i would change the tenor of this thread to ask those here, how would you answer a difficult question asked of you? would you be able to admit you were wrong? would you be able to acknowledge a mistake? Would you be able to grow and avoid future mistakes?
ALL Presidents there have been in my lifetime haved lied when asked a question they felt would make them look bad. I would like to see a President that tells the ugly truth.
And just so you don't trip over yourselves calling me a hypocritical Partisan...Clinton is just as high on my list of Presidents who missed opportunities to tell the truth when the tough question was posed.
For example, Clinton was asked if he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. The first thing he should have said is, "NONE of your f'ing business". And if he stuck to that it woulda been fine. But once he made an official denial, he missed the boat with me.
If I had been President in that situation I would have been honest. If the issue was forced, instead of lying I'd have said, "Yeah i had sexual relations with her. And then I jizzed all over her dress. Understand that what i do with the first c*ck is NONE of your f'ing business."
That's what i would have said.
But Clinton had to lie and make a total tool out of himself. I can admit that Clinton was a lying tool in front of the media and the nation.
Yet, it's staggering to me how many people on this board who are SO behind our current military action, and don't even question the most sensible aspect of it, claimed that Clinton was 'wagging the dog' when he sent cruise missles to Afghanistan.
I'm not buying the righteous indignation of the consituency here. I see it as obfuscation of the issues. I see it as naked apology. I see it as an attempt to drown out those voices of reason here willing to be more circumspect.
I'll say now, I will not participate in any personal character assasination, not even to respond to such attacks in kind.
However, i will not be afraid to dissent from the majority of expressed opinion here.
/rant
If "The purpose of a press conference is for the press to be proxies for the American people" then...
news flash: half the country thinks more couldv'e been done. It is reasonable to think they want answers. that's why the journalists are simply doing their jobs. even if it were merely yellow journalism, which it isn't, more than half the population still considers it newsworthy to ask, and that sells newspapers.
view the poll at www.gallup.com if you like. I believe this refutes the notion that it was out of line for the press to question Bush about what more he could have done, and also to question him about how responsible he feels for the fact that half the country feels he didn't do enough.
I would have asked a different question altogether. Something like, Are you going to answer a single question that actually addresses the actual point of the question instead of merely anwering the question you wish were asked? With few exceptions, he skirted questions asked and answered with statements about policy and practice that are well prepared. not to say he reverted to a script, but to a basic rosetta stone of adminstration policy that is easily regurgitated, not just by him but all of the administration.
i must admit that i had an amusing thought as the address coverage ended. it occurred to me that busy partisan finger were well oiled to come in here and post a thread extolling bush and villifying the press. the so-called liberal left wing wouldn't have dreamed of doing the same for Clinton or any other former President or candidate.
there is only one reason there is contigent here even elligible to be falsely tagged as liberal. That is because some of us call BS to that position that would say the adminstration is without fault. it is because some of us believe that all administrations make mistakes and this one is no exception. it is that the conservative contigency on this board are just like Bush in that they cannot ever admit of a mistake. In my view, THAT philosophy is as dangerous as the mistakes themselves, or the propensity to make them.
I would not be here making posts questioning the adminstration if others weren't inciting me to do so by declaring the administration infallible. i would not make "anti adminstration" posts for their own sake. i am merely taking exception, and only in the the form of a reaction, to what i see as transparent trend to deny reality.
i would change the tenor of this thread to ask those here, how would you answer a difficult question asked of you? would you be able to admit you were wrong? would you be able to acknowledge a mistake? Would you be able to grow and avoid future mistakes?
ALL Presidents there have been in my lifetime haved lied when asked a question they felt would make them look bad. I would like to see a President that tells the ugly truth.
And just so you don't trip over yourselves calling me a hypocritical Partisan...Clinton is just as high on my list of Presidents who missed opportunities to tell the truth when the tough question was posed.
For example, Clinton was asked if he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. The first thing he should have said is, "NONE of your f'ing business". And if he stuck to that it woulda been fine. But once he made an official denial, he missed the boat with me.
If I had been President in that situation I would have been honest. If the issue was forced, instead of lying I'd have said, "Yeah i had sexual relations with her. And then I jizzed all over her dress. Understand that what i do with the first c*ck is NONE of your f'ing business."
That's what i would have said.
But Clinton had to lie and make a total tool out of himself. I can admit that Clinton was a lying tool in front of the media and the nation.
Yet, it's staggering to me how many people on this board who are SO behind our current military action, and don't even question the most sensible aspect of it, claimed that Clinton was 'wagging the dog' when he sent cruise missles to Afghanistan.
I'm not buying the righteous indignation of the consituency here. I see it as obfuscation of the issues. I see it as naked apology. I see it as an attempt to drown out those voices of reason here willing to be more circumspect.
I'll say now, I will not participate in any personal character assasination, not even to respond to such attacks in kind.
However, i will not be afraid to dissent from the majority of expressed opinion here.
/rant
Paly = tool 
1. You seem to keep forgetting that nobody here is denying mistakes were made and Bush did some things wrong. The simple fact is we don't care because the overall picture is more important and most of us feel he is doing a "decent" job. [broken record]The Government is NOT perfect[/broken record]
2. Imagine you're the President and on the stand under oath. You say "None of your ★■◆●ing business" when asked if you had sexual relations with Mrs. Lewinsky. If you didn't finally give an answer, either yes, or no from their constant badgering and then they found out otherwise, you'd still be guilty of perjury and as such eligible for impeachment.
You can't tell me you wouldn't lie or tell them basically to "fvck off" because you haven't been in that situation to begin with. President of the United States dancing around secretly behind everyones backs bordering on adultry. The leader of the free world and you get caught doing that.... Yeah, I'm sure it would have been real easy for YOU in that same situation
1. You seem to keep forgetting that nobody here is denying mistakes were made and Bush did some things wrong. The simple fact is we don't care because the overall picture is more important and most of us feel he is doing a "decent" job. [broken record]The Government is NOT perfect[/broken record]
2. Imagine you're the President and on the stand under oath. You say "None of your ★■◆●ing business" when asked if you had sexual relations with Mrs. Lewinsky. If you didn't finally give an answer, either yes, or no from their constant badgering and then they found out otherwise, you'd still be guilty of perjury and as such eligible for impeachment.
You can't tell me you wouldn't lie or tell them basically to "fvck off" because you haven't been in that situation to begin with. President of the United States dancing around secretly behind everyones backs bordering on adultry. The leader of the free world and you get caught doing that.... Yeah, I'm sure it would have been real easy for YOU in that same situation
Perhaps the biggest question that should be posed to both Kerry and Bush is:
If we pull out of Iraq now and the extremist's win control (of Iraq), what will we be facing in 20 years.
In short how many western countries will be held in thrall to fundamentalist muslims who have smuggled in dirty bombs and/or chemical wmds to said countries. How many people will have died because a few demonstrations had to be made to prove the resolve of the Mad Mullahs in Desertland. Make no mistake, we are at war and so far the only ones capable of defeating us is ourself.
If we pull out of Iraq now and the extremist's win control (of Iraq), what will we be facing in 20 years.
In short how many western countries will be held in thrall to fundamentalist muslims who have smuggled in dirty bombs and/or chemical wmds to said countries. How many people will have died because a few demonstrations had to be made to prove the resolve of the Mad Mullahs in Desertland. Make no mistake, we are at war and so far the only ones capable of defeating us is ourself.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I think Bush wanted to answer the 'what mistakes have you made' question but he's really not very quick on his feet as he pointed out.
Fortunately for him he's not completely stupid however, and he knows that his political opposition has been searching desperately for anything they can use to turn his one strength into a weakness so they can exploit in the election campain so he had to avoid the question. I think he realized it was a worthy, albeit fluffy question, if not for the current political climate.
His one strength in my opinion is his handling of the war on terror and if he were to open the door to the suggestion that he failed in some way, no matter how slight, the democrats would drive a truckload of BS right through it.
I think his biggest mistake last night was not mentioning other concerns outside of Iraq, he practically said his re-election should be based on Iraq alone...talk about buying into and feeding the Vietnam comparison, he just joined Pres. Johnson in the foot-in-mouth club with that move!
I swear, if a candidate with similar views on the war but better communication skills were to pop up we would be looking at a new president because Kerry is a loser and Bush has only one thing going for him.
The pickin's are ripe but the cost to get to the field is priced right out of reach to anyone who doesn't belong to the republicrat club...such a waste of opportunity.
Fortunately for him he's not completely stupid however, and he knows that his political opposition has been searching desperately for anything they can use to turn his one strength into a weakness so they can exploit in the election campain so he had to avoid the question. I think he realized it was a worthy, albeit fluffy question, if not for the current political climate.
His one strength in my opinion is his handling of the war on terror and if he were to open the door to the suggestion that he failed in some way, no matter how slight, the democrats would drive a truckload of BS right through it.
I think his biggest mistake last night was not mentioning other concerns outside of Iraq, he practically said his re-election should be based on Iraq alone...talk about buying into and feeding the Vietnam comparison, he just joined Pres. Johnson in the foot-in-mouth club with that move!
I swear, if a candidate with similar views on the war but better communication skills were to pop up we would be looking at a new president because Kerry is a loser and Bush has only one thing going for him.
The pickin's are ripe but the cost to get to the field is priced right out of reach to anyone who doesn't belong to the republicrat club...such a waste of opportunity.
Another question I would ask Bush is precisely what our exit plan for this whole conflict is.
I was under the impression that, come the June deadline, we would start shipping many of the soldiers back home and that this was essentially the exit plan. But now he claims he is willing to commit however many more forces are needed to finish the job at whatever cost. And, furthermore, he seemed to admit last night that we would still maintain a substantial presence in Iraq after the deadline to help the police force there.
I don't know about you, but I don't care about Iraq enough to, say, reopen a draft. Oh, and that's another question. "What say you, Mr. Bush, to your diverting of over $20 million in funds to military drafting programs and the call for a special skills draft in 2005? In order to fight this war on terror, will you reopen the draft?" Try convincing the American people of that one in an election year, heh. A shame most people are unaware of these gears that are churning beneath the surface. Another dismal failure of our press.
I was under the impression that, come the June deadline, we would start shipping many of the soldiers back home and that this was essentially the exit plan. But now he claims he is willing to commit however many more forces are needed to finish the job at whatever cost. And, furthermore, he seemed to admit last night that we would still maintain a substantial presence in Iraq after the deadline to help the police force there.
I don't know about you, but I don't care about Iraq enough to, say, reopen a draft. Oh, and that's another question. "What say you, Mr. Bush, to your diverting of over $20 million in funds to military drafting programs and the call for a special skills draft in 2005? In order to fight this war on terror, will you reopen the draft?" Try convincing the American people of that one in an election year, heh. A shame most people are unaware of these gears that are churning beneath the surface. Another dismal failure of our press.
Here's some telling results from a survey on how Americans and the press see the current state of journalism:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/index.aspChanges in the numbers between 1985 and 2002:
* The number of Americans who think news organizations are highly professional declined from 72 to 49 percent.
* Those who think news organizations are moral declined from 54 to 39 percent, and those who think they are immoral rose from 13 to 36 percent.
* Those who feel news organizations try to cover up their mistakes rose from 13 to 67 percent.
* The number of Americans who think news organizations generally get the facts straight declined from 55 to 35 percent.
* Those who feel news organizations care about the people they report on declined from 41 to 30 percent.
* Those who think news organizations are politically biased rose from 45 to 59 percent.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
Doesn't matter who gets elected, taxes will be raised anyway. That's a given. I was more focusing on the typical lie/misdirection.Kyouryuu wrote:Testi > Kerry will raise taxes, though. If not the gas tax, then for the myriad of other increases he...
Those baby boomers have been paying into it since they reached working age. If the gov didn't steal the money out of it (over 1 trillion dollars) each and every person retiring from the baby boomer age group should be practically millionaires. To add insult to injury, the gov lied and pretended that the Soc Sec payments were going into an account earmarked (in some way) for the recipient. Hogwash. One of the biggest scams ever pulled over the civilians, aside from income tax. Then you have the new 401k scam. And people believe that's worthwhile! Hahaha, it's just another way to bilk the people, this time, more from corporate than gov. Do you really think that money will be there when you retire? Fat chance. If you want to retire with dog food for dinner, go ahead and put into 401k. I'll invest in real investments, like land, metals and short-term stock games. Not diamonds, however, DeBeers is gonna collapse, and diamonds aren't going to be worth crap in a few years with the new technology that can create better-than-natural, colored diamonds for 1/1000th the price.Kyouryuu wrote:Social security is a problem that extends beyond government abuse of it. Baby boomers are retiring and the...
A sampling of last night's questions. You tell me if the prominent theme isn't despair and defeatism, designed solely to elicit some sort of admition of guilt and enforce an aura of failure...
And people wonder why there aren't more press conferences.Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.
...
Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?
...
Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
...
Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
...
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether itâ??s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
...
Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?
...
Sir, youâ??ve made it very clear tonight that youâ??re committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
...
After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
...
...with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have â?? quite significantly over the past couple of months â?? I guess Iâ??d like to know if you feel in any way that youâ??ve failed as a communicator on this topic?
...
I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You donâ??t have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?
Well fine, do that.Testiculese wrote:I'll invest in real investments, like land, metals and short-term stock games.
Everyone knows that the key to good investments is to maintain a wide and varied portfolio of investments, from stocks to mutual funds to precious metals to land and bonds.
A 401K or defined contribution plan makes sense from a company standpoint. The government is a stalwort of the old system of defined benefit plans. Under this plan, retirees get a certain percentage of their wage (in some extraordinary cases, above and beyond their wage) for the rest of their lives from the company. This cash is dead weight that should be going to finance company operations instead of being spent on retirees who no longer benefit the company. In any case, it is an enormous liability.Testiculese wrote:Then you have the new 401k scam. And people believe that's worthwhile! Hahaha, it's just another way to bilk the people, this time, more from corporate than gov.
That is what led the push for 401K and IRA plans. I'm sure you can see why, especially for a small business with little capital floating around.
You are also quite misinformed about the way such plans function. In such a plan, you agree to invest a certain amount of money into the "pot" and your employer will match a certain percentage of it. It is then up to you to manage that money and invest it wisely. No one makes any promises you'll wind up with millions; you are responsible for your own future.
One thing to remember about social security. It is a ponze (sp?) scheme. It I were to set up an investment company that operates the same way social security does it would be illegal and I would be shut down. And rightly so. You can't continue to pay those who got in on the ground floor with the investment money of the newer people. These types of schemes ALWAYS fail. It is a self limiting process. It always surprises me how people don't see this.
While not an exact match, Social Security does fit this model.
"pyramid scheme"
An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised impossibly high returns on their investments. These are scams in which money from later investors is used to pay earlier investors. The creators of the scheme get most of the profits while those who come later are left with nothing because there are eventually an insufficient number of new investors to pay the existing ones. These scams inevitably collapse because they require exponential growth in the number of participants at each step, which is impossible. Letters or emails that encourage the recipient to send money and then pass the message along to a certain number of new targets are a type of pyramid scheme.
While not an exact match, Social Security does fit this model.
"pyramid scheme"
An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised impossibly high returns on their investments. These are scams in which money from later investors is used to pay earlier investors. The creators of the scheme get most of the profits while those who come later are left with nothing because there are eventually an insufficient number of new investors to pay the existing ones. These scams inevitably collapse because they require exponential growth in the number of participants at each step, which is impossible. Letters or emails that encourage the recipient to send money and then pass the message along to a certain number of new targets are a type of pyramid scheme.
How about something on the economy or any number of the above questions posted by others that seem every bit as pressing as trying to wrestle the man down repeatedly and get him to apologize for something he wasn't responsible for?
btw, Z, are you aware of the Democratic Underground Message Board (DUMB)? You would fit right in there.
btw, Z, are you aware of the Democratic Underground Message Board (DUMB)? You would fit right in there.
Ok, he called the news conference and his entire opening statement was on Iraq and the war on terror. It is also noted that he has made the war on terror his principle campaign basis, and with that said, what other questions should have been asked? I'll join that board if you'll join the "GOP DONT ASK ANY QUESTIONS AND BELIEVE MY ADMINISTRATION IS UNFALLABLE" board 
