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

D.W. Simpson and Company -- Actuary Salary Surveys
Pension, Life, Health and Investment Actuarial Jobs

Property and Casualty Actuarial Jobs   Registration Form


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:45 AM
Harry Harry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallout
Of course we differe strongly on legal immigrants, which you seem to consider 2nd or 3rd class at best.

Tell me harry, do you think all people from other countries are dumb? or are they just dumber than Americans?
Nah, just the ones that post stupid comments around here. In general I have great respect for immigrants. The ones that think they know more about American history and freedom are the ones that I question.
__________________
Rickson: It's one thing to be wrong but another to be wrong on EVERYTHING and then not realize when you are being made fun of for being so wrong.

Rickson: He is simply taking away from other discussions, a drain on the AO.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:57 AM
st0kastik's Avatar
st0kastik st0kastik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North Jersey and/or NYC
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Nah, just the ones that post stupid comments around here. In general I have great respect for immigrants. The ones that think they know more about American history and freedom are the ones that I question.
I'm not sure how being an actuary would qualify you as a historian.
__________________
A Soviet professor of statistics used to say, "There are seven million people in Moscow. Why should I expect [the Germans] to hit me?" His friends were surprised to see him at the air-raid shelter one day and asked what had happened to change his mind. "Look," he explained, "there are seven million people in Moscow and one elephant. Last night they got the elephant."
-Peter L. Bernstein's "Against the Gods"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-15-2005, 11:58 AM
st0kastik's Avatar
st0kastik st0kastik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North Jersey and/or NYC
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Boo hoo. How many offensive remarks did you make to me in that time?
Not enough.
__________________
A Soviet professor of statistics used to say, "There are seven million people in Moscow. Why should I expect [the Germans] to hit me?" His friends were surprised to see him at the air-raid shelter one day and asked what had happened to change his mind. "Look," he explained, "there are seven million people in Moscow and one elephant. Last night they got the elephant."
-Peter L. Bernstein's "Against the Gods"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:10 PM
Harry Harry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st0kastik
I'm not sure how being an actuary would qualify you as a historian.
Who said it did? What's the matter, your translator have the day off today?
__________________
Rickson: It's one thing to be wrong but another to be wrong on EVERYTHING and then not realize when you are being made fun of for being so wrong.

Rickson: He is simply taking away from other discussions, a drain on the AO.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:16 PM
st0kastik's Avatar
st0kastik st0kastik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North Jersey and/or NYC
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Who said it did? What's the matter, your translator have the day off today?
You did. You pass judgment on my knowledge of freedom and history without being an authority on either of the two.

To set the record straight, I have been educated in the American school system my entire life and am an American citizen.
__________________
A Soviet professor of statistics used to say, "There are seven million people in Moscow. Why should I expect [the Germans] to hit me?" His friends were surprised to see him at the air-raid shelter one day and asked what had happened to change his mind. "Look," he explained, "there are seven million people in Moscow and one elephant. Last night they got the elephant."
-Peter L. Bernstein's "Against the Gods"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:23 PM
Harry Harry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st0kastik
You did. You pass judgment on my knowledge of freedom and history without being an authority on either of the two.

To set the record straight, I have been educated in the American school system my entire life and am an American citizen.
__________________
Rickson: It's one thing to be wrong but another to be wrong on EVERYTHING and then not realize when you are being made fun of for being so wrong.

Rickson: He is simply taking away from other discussions, a drain on the AO.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:29 PM
fallout fallout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Nah, just the ones that post stupid comments around here. In general I have great respect for immigrants. The ones that think they know more about American history and freedom are the ones that I question.

Don't forget Israel, taxes... all the other things only Americans can understand.

By the way, there are some other countries that are free too in case you were unaware.
__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
--Jack Handy Deep Thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-18-2005, 08:10 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 78,350
Default

Quote:
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for -- in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that he would -- if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That's never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.

The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that's the way we've been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President's direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the -- so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we've been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know --

Q But we haven't talked about a crime.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that's something you may be trying to do here.

Q Does the President equate the word "leaking" to a crime, as best you know, in his mind? Just the use of the word "leaking," does he see that as a criminal standard? And is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we all serve at the pleasure of the President in this White House. The President -- you heard what he had to say on the matter. He was asked a specific question, and you heard his response.

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.

Go ahead.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --

Q Why doesn't he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, we don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent's identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don't know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Q But on the specifics -- on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that's exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it's important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.

The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those -- are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Given the new formulation "if somebody committed a crime," would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I'm not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I've been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don't know that there's really much more to add at this point.

Q But the importance is the question of would -- if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That's what we've been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.

Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.

Q No, you didn't.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about -- he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it's only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that's why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050718-2.html
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-18-2005, 08:13 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 78,350
Default

Quote:
Q Scott, I just want to sort of go back over this. Insofar as you're telling us that we shouldn't read anything new into the President's comments today, should we then take that to mean that if there is criminal activity, that person would be fired, but this does not render inoperative those things that the President has said "yes" or responded in the affirmative to in the past when asked, for instance, if you would fire somebody if they were involved in a leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it. You said, "new." I wouldn't read anything into it beyond what he said.

Q So the previous statements remain operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, once the investigation is concluded, then we can talk about it at that point. But those are decisions for the President to make.

Go ahead, Les.

Q Scott, Jack Kelly of The Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act defines a covert agent as someone working undercover overseas. He notes Valerie Plame has manned a desk at the CIA headquarters since 1997, while Mark Stein of the Chicago Sun Times notes that Valerie's husband conceded on CNN that she is not a clandestine officer and hasn't been one for six years, so leaking her CIA connection did not endanger her life or comprise her mission.

And my question -- I have a follow up -- would you or the President or Karl Rove disagree with these two nationally syndicated columnists?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think those are matters for the investigators to look at, and I think I've said about all there is to say about it at this point.

Go ahead.

Q I have one follow up. Nineteen members of Congress from seven states have written a letter to the President saying that they are still waiting for an answer to a May 26th question: Is the President opposed to contraception. And my question is, could they now have an answer to my question? Or do you regard them, too, as not to be dignified with a response?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we've talked about these issues before and these issues when it comes to the federal government and programs aimed at promoting abstinence and how those ought to be funded on at least equal footing with other programs, so I think we've addressed the President's views in that context.

Let me go to David, and then I'll come back to the third row.

Q Scott, with apologies for returning to this definitional issue that we seem to be dancing around. But what I'm having a hard time with is you're telling us that there was nothing new in what the President said today, yet you have said before that the President would terminate somebody or somebody would not work here if they were involved in the issue. The President seemed to set a higher bar today by saying that there was a -- if they were convicted of a criminal act. Those are not the same thing on their face. And I'm trying to see whether or not you can tell us the standard has changed?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would say that I would not read anything into it more than that what the President said, and that's what I would encourage you to do. I think --

Q That is the current standard?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that you should not read anything into it more than that at this point. And in terms of what was said previously, you can go back and look at everything in the context of what things were said at that point.

In terms of as we move forward, it's best at this point that we just let the investigation continue and let them gather all the facts and come to their conclusions, then we can talk about it.

Q But the White House standard is the one the President enunciated today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I've addressed that question and said how you should view it.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, back in October 2003, you did assure us that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams, and they'd all assured you that they weren't involved in any of this. So with regard to Libby and Abrams, do you still stand by that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Last week I think I assured you that I want to do everything I can to help the investigators get to the bottom of this. I will be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete. I've been stating that position for a long time now, and that's where it stands.

Q So with regard to that, how concerned is the President and you that, notwithstanding that you don't want to talk about it, that Ken Mehlman and other senior Republicans are all over the airwaves doing just that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can direct those questions to the Republican National Committee.

Ken, go ahead.

Q Scott, without asking about the content of the conversation, has the President asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he might have had in any leaks?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President directed the White House to cooperate fully. This is a serious matter. As the President indicated, he doesn't know all the facts. And we all want to know what the facts are. He'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete, and we hope that the investigators get to the bottom of it soon. And that's the -- I think that's the response to that.

Q Has the special prosecutor made any request to this White House that prevents the President from speaking to his top aides about any topic?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask the prosecutors those questions, if they want to comment more on it.

Go ahead, Richard.

Q Has anyone here in the White House been assigned with coordinating with the Republican National Committee and other Republican members of Congress speaking out about this issue, the Karl Rove issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed these issues. Some of this came up last week and again today.

Go ahead.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-21-2005, 11:15 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 78,350
Default

Quote:
Q Why does Karl Rove still have security clearance and access to classified documents when he has been revealed as a leaker of a secret agent, according to Time magazine's correspondent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there is an investigation that continues, and I think the President has made it clear that we're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation.

Q You already have the truth.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation through --

Q Does he have access to security documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- through media reports. And these questions came up over the last week --

Q Did he leak the name of a CIA agent?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I was trying to tell you, these questions have been answered.

Q No, they haven't.

Q Let me ask --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David.

Q And they most certainly haven't. I think Helen is right, and the people watching us know that. And related to that, there are now --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct the record. We've said for quite some time that this was an ongoing investigation, and that we weren't going to comment on it, so let me just correct the record.

Q If you want to make the record clear, then you also did make comments when a criminal investigation was underway, you saw fit to provide Karl Rove with a blanket statement of absolution. And that turned out to be no longer accurate --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and there were preferences expressed by those overseeing the investigation that we refrain from commenting on it while they're continuing to look at -- investigate it.

Q White House officials have been very clear through their attorneys or through other leaks to make it known that it was essentially journalists who educated them about who Valerie Plame was, what she did, and her role in sending her husband to Niger. It has now come to light that in fact White House officials were aware, or at least had access to a State Department memo that the President's own Secretary of State at the time had with him when he was traveling on Air Force One to Africa, which indicated both who she was, what she did, and her role in the Niger trip. So did the White House, in fact, know about her through this memo, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I thank you for wanting to proceed ahead with the investigation from this room, but I think that the appropriate place for that to happen is through those who are overseeing the investigation. The President directed us to cooperate fully, and that's exactly what we have been doing and continue to do.

Q But you don't deny that attorneys for Rove and others in the White House are speaking about these matters, creating a lot of these questions, right, that you say you can't speak to?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, we're not getting into talking about an ongoing investigation. That's what the President indicated, as well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050721-3.html
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 05:54 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 0.37566 seconds with 8 queries