Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Political Issues
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson & Co
Worldwide Actuarial

Recruitment

Entry Level Jobs
Casualty, Health,

Life, Pension,
Investment --
Insurance / Consulting

Asian Jobs
Hong Kong, China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Singapore,

Malaysia, and more

Registration Form
Be Notified of

New Actuarial Jobs


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-13-2005, 03:35 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 76,170
Default Political Humor Thread

Daily Press Briefings.
What a hoot!


Quote:
Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President didn't -- did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't give a -- express confidence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.

Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.

Q Well, why doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.

Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.

Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.

Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.

MR. McCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about it once the investigation is complete, as the President does, as well. And you heard from the President earlier today.

Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences? Was it --

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question.

Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.

Go ahead, David.

Q Scott, when the President asked that question at Sea -- was asked that question at Sea Island, and, in fact, when you made your statement that Karl had had nothing to do with this, was there an ongoing investigation at that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been through this for two days now, and I've already responded to those questions.

Go ahead, April.

Q I'm going to give you another --

Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday, so could you refresh my memory? Was there an ongoing investigation --

MR. McCLELLAN: The briefings are available online.

Q -- at the time that you answered previous questions on this issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I responded to those questions the past couple of days. Go ahead.

Q The answer is, yes.

Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --

Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.

MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.

Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.

Go ahead, Goyal.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050713-7.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-13-2005, 04:10 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 20,741
Default

"Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday, so could you refresh my memory? Was there an ongoing investigation --

MR. McCLELLAN: The briefings are available online."


__________________
That's the Law of the land. It has nothing to do with the Government. ---jas66kent
Amerika is a country of prudish religous nutz who consume prn on a massive scale ---Guerilla Poster
Plus the person with 3 years in pension will already have their soul completely crushed, so you know that person is damaged goods. ---figure 8

"Best of... Westley" thread: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...ad.php?t=52501
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 20,741
Default

I will say that, while I think this makes for great television, I would really rather they talked about something useful. Ask the question, he refuses to answer, ask something else. These journalists are just piling on for kicks, they are not getting any news from this, their job is to report on what's going on, not "15 people asked about the question, and McClellan refused to answer".
__________________
That's the Law of the land. It has nothing to do with the Government. ---jas66kent
Amerika is a country of prudish religous nutz who consume prn on a massive scale ---Guerilla Poster
Plus the person with 3 years in pension will already have their soul completely crushed, so you know that person is damaged goods. ---figure 8

"Best of... Westley" thread: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...ad.php?t=52501
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-13-2005, 04:24 PM
krank's Avatar
krank krank is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stalking the Wiggles
Posts: 5,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley
I will say that, while I think this makes for great television, I would really rather they talked about something useful. Ask the question, he refuses to answer, ask something else. These journalists are just piling on for kicks, they are not getting any news from this, their job is to report on what's going on, not "15 people asked about the question, and McClellan refused to answer".
Do you think they usually talk about anything useful at these press briefings?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-13-2005, 04:37 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 76,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley
I will say that, while I think this makes for great television, I would really rather they talked about something useful. Ask the question, he refuses to answer, ask something else. These journalists are just piling on for kicks, they are not getting any news from this, their job is to report on what's going on, not "15 people asked about the question, and McClellan refused to answer".

Yes.
We need more excellent answers like this:


Quote:
Q Scott, the President has said that invading Iraq has made the world safer. But the government's own terrorism statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of international terrorist attacks since the invasion. And the London bombings have demonstrated that the flypaper theory was just a theory. Can you explain the disconnect between the administration's rhetoric on this issue and the reality on the ground?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, the terrorism incidents that you bring up -- last week there was a report released by the National Counterterrorism Center, and they explained how they have developed a new methodology to better track terrorist attacks across the world. So your characterization leaves the wrong impression for people who might be watching this briefing, and I would dispute that pretty strongly.

Now, in terms of Iraq, terrorists have chosen to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. And the President made a decision after September 11th that we were going to take the fight to the enemy; that we were going to wage a comprehensive war on terrorism that included not only taking the fight to the enemy, but also working to spread freedom and democracy, because that's the way you defeat the ideology that terrorists espouse.

Terrorists have been carrying out attacks for years -- for a couple of decades at least. I mean, if you go back and look at the attack on the Marine barracks on Beirut; you can go back and look at the first attack on the World Trade Center; certainly the attacks on September 11th. Terrorists don't need an excuse, and there certainly is no justification for the taking and murder of innocent human life. They have no regard for human life. This is a battle of -- hang on -- this is a battle of ideologies. This is a struggle of ideologies. The President recognizes that this is not a limited war on terror, this is not just related to Afghanistan and the Taliban; this is about an ideological struggle, and that's the kind of battle that we are waging. But there's a lot history of attacks by terrorists that pre-date anything that occurred in Iraq. So that's just a misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy that we face in this war on terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-13-2005, 05:43 PM
Super Fly's Avatar
Super Fly Super Fly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley
I will say that, while I think this makes for great television, I would really rather they talked about something useful. Ask the question, he refuses to answer, ask something else. These journalists are just piling on for kicks, they are not getting any news from this, their job is to report on what's going on, not "15 people asked about the question, and McClellan refused to answer".
You think if there was no such thing as liberal media, there'd be much fewer complete idiots in the press corps. What they need is a swift kick in the ST*U.
__________________
Blowin' up da froggie!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-13-2005, 06:00 PM
Mulan Mulan is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
CAS CCA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Fly
You think if there was no such thing as liberal media, there'd be much fewer complete idiots in the press corps. What they need is a swift kick in the ST*U.
Why do you say that? The media is right - some of the questions have no bearing on the investigation and McCellan just looks dumb not answering them because of the "ongoing investigation". In addition, someone in the administration is talking to the conservative press because they all have stuff to write about today (via the talking points).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-13-2005, 06:14 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 76,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Fly
You think if there was no such thing as liberal media, there'd be much fewer complete idiots in the press corps. What they need is a swift kick in the ST*U.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2005, 08:06 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 76,170
Default

Quote:
Q Will Karl come back and talk to us at the event?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't expect that today.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just don't -- there's no plans for him to do that.

Q How long is he going to stay on the staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I expressed the President's views yesterday, when it comes to Karl.

Q Remind me, how long is he going to stay on the staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a nice try to keep bringing up questions relating to media reports about an ongoing investigation. As the President indicated yesterday, we are not going to prejudge an ongoing investigation based on media reports. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been working to do. And we will be more than happy to talk about the investigation after it is completed.

But the President -- I again made clear yesterday that when it comes to the President's confidence in Karl and his support for him, I made clear our views.

Q Does the President believe it's appropriate for the RNC to continue to weigh in on this matter? They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. If indeed it's an ongoing investigation and it's improper for the White House to discuss it, does he think it's proper for the Republican Party to weigh in on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, Geoff, I appreciate the question, and as you heard me say yesterday, we are not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation based on media reports. And I'm not going to get into --

Q What about the RNC, though, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said, I'm not going to get into discussing matters relating to an ongoing investigation. We'll let the investigation come to a conclusion, and then I'll be more than happy to talk about it, as will the President.

Q Does the President -- did he yesterday get his --

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you is that those are all questions relating to an ongoing investigation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050714-5.html
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:48 PM
E. Blackadder's Avatar
E. Blackadder E. Blackadder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Not far from US 1.
Favorite beer: Beer?! Blech. But Dad likes Dortmunder Union.
Posts: 20,902
Blog Entries: 1
Smile Closing Down Guantanamo -- the hard way!

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. My administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.

You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Ahmed's meal requirements are simple, but we strongly suggest serving meals that do not require utensils, particularly knives and forks. Also, these should be "one-handed" foods; Ahmed will not eat with his left hand since he uses it to wipe himself after purging his bowels (which he will do in your yard) - but look on the bright side.. no increase in the toilet paper bill. He generally bathes quarterly with the change of seasons, assuming that it rains, and he washes his clothes simultaneously. This should help with your water bill. Also, your new friend has a really bad case of body lice that hasn't been completely remedied.

Please heed the large orange notice attached to your detainee's cage: "Does not play well with others." Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance, but his rabies test came back negative so not to worry.

We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. However, he will be eager to assist with the education of your sons; have available for their use several copies of the Koran. Oh - and rest assured he absolutely loves animals, especially cats and dogs. He prefers them roasted, but raw is fine, too, if they aren't more than 2 or 3 days dead.

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. We think this watching over each other's shoulder is such a good way for people to interact that we will be sending a team of federal officials with expertise in your line of work to your place of business soon, just to help you do your job better. Don't be concerned that they have the power to close your business, seize your property, and arrest you for any violation of the 4,850,206 laws, codes, regulations and rules that apply to your profession. They're really there just to make sure you're doing everything the proper way. That is what you wanted, right?

Well, thank you for this opportunity to interact with such a valued member of the citizenry. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching.

Cordially, your buddy,

George Dubya
__________________
But they gotta get a routine together in time for the big dance off. I mean, when was the last time you went a week without hearing about a big dance off in your neighbourhood? Plus, think of all the adversity the characters had to overcome, and how they're multiethnic, and some are rich and some are poor but they're all equal on the dance floor. And the one Hispanic character who drops out to take care of his dying mother, and she tells him "You have to go to the dance off. Your friends are depending on you." And he shows up just in time.

You're the PBS version of Nickleback!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.84457 seconds with 8 queries