BS: Noted without comment (2)

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 07:25 PM

But Martin...it's a verbatim quote...!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 07:05 PM

well, Martin, there are dozens of pages of closely documented quotes of GW making similar remarks....if it were a Democrat talking like that, I have no doubt you'd be willing to note how ridiculous they are..

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:53 PM

hearsay

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM

dick Greenhaus, here's an explanation for you.

You were not there to actually witness this discussion, nor have you given any credit to where it came from and personally I trust that you interpret very little nor want to that this and many other things that do not fit into your sorry ass radical lifestyle. Must be a sad life you have just sitting around and starting threads like this.

Threads that are basically just heresay and nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Col K
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:36 PM

To have an autopsy on his brain implies that he has one !!!!
Some people doubt that

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:16 PM

Just goes to show--some children should be left behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 08:39 AM

what do you think?
he can't be really stupid, he's the President.
he's obviously not very good at explaining things - but you'd think that would be a requisite of the job.
did he talk like this before he got the job, perhaps its all got too much for him.

either way, an awful lot of blame must devolve upon the democrats for choosing a candidate who couldn't be more impressive than this bloke.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: bobad
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 08:23 AM

I think it's already been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Deda
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:41 PM

As usual, he's as clear as mud. Can't wait for the autopsy on his brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:09 PM

Aw shoot. I was hoping that Doug or Martin would pop in and wxplain this thing to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM

See also here

And

here

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM

Bobert, put more of 'em out. Odds are . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:10 PM

Gotta hide them pretzels better...

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:02 PM

If he'd tried to say that, Bill, it woulda come out as "m'am, I don't give a shit about that clue".

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:25 PM

well, it's obvious that facilitating the economic transmogrifiers in a multi-platform endeavor can't reduce the monetary redundancies that confuse his more easily befuddled questioners, but why couldn't he just SAY "m'am, I don't have a clue about that shit"?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:15 PM

if that growth is affected, it will help on the red

Sounds like a communist plot to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:11 PM

Either that or he is an agent working for a foreign power (the White House I'd guess) and it is code for something. I'll have to give this more consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:09 PM

GOT IT.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?'

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers [he has Dinky toys before him]. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table [some benefits are also before him on the table]. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases [wage increases and price increases are the SAME THING]. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered [he has a Dinky toy race car, Indie-type car before him]. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be [pass the joint over here, Dick]-- or closer delivered to that has been promised [someone ordered a pizza]. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the [TAPE UNCLEAR HERE--it may have been "Pass the fu#kin' joint for the second time, SDick" or "Man. this is really good grass".]-- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation [imagine if you will a hot air balloon], supposed to wage increases [he missed sentence construction the day they taught it in school]. There is a reform that would help solve the red [likely a reference to Russia, they being known as reds to his Dad's generation] if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red [detente is important to world peace, so we are going to help Russia].'

OK, I understand it now. The rest of you lot, just eat yer hearts out.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:00 PM

I have read that statement by Bush before. This has to be the tenth or so time I have read it. Folks, I didn't do enough of ANYthing in the 1960s to really understand what he meant. Can anyone help?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:47 PM

For maximum contrast, see the writings of Robert B. Reich. Everything I've read by him is of exemplary clarity and logic. I suppose it comes from years of teaching economics. Oh, yes, he's very liberal. And very short.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Desdemona
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:14 PM

"What a terrible thing it is to lose one's mind..."

Seriously, listening to that man makes me feel as if I've been taking crazy pills.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:12 PM

That explains a lot!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: gnu
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:17 PM

= "I'm rich. Fuck the poor... even if I don't understand how I am doing it." What an asshole... arrogant at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Arne
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:52 PM

"I am the Preznit! I don't answer to you; you answer to me...."

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:38 PM

Noted without comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:27 PM

Impressive. Food for thought. Ummm.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:24 PM

Needless to say:

HUH??!!

Subject: BS: Noted without comment (2)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is the new plan going to fix the problem?'

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'