Bush: Can't even lie straight off a Script!

Q: "How is the new plan going to fix Social Security?"

"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 what 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, as opposed 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."



Dubya Speak

The thing is, this was a "softball" question that should have beeen easily answered.....Lord knows the response was on the script!!

Ah, good ol' fashion Bush Bashing. Is there anything more pointless?

BT, I like you, and have enjoyed your swatting a few pesky conservative (so I didn't have to), but this is pretty lame.

I'm so conflicted...

I like Colonel too, and we know what he used to post...

so...

hmm.

OK, so I really don't have a point.






SCREW YOU FOR JUDGING ME!

BT, you see him giving daddy and another real president(Clinton) an award for the work in the tsunami area and had to read off a cheat sheet to know what he was doing. HE DIDN"T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE AWARD WAS FOR!!!! "I am happy to give my dad and Mr. Clinton an award for, uh,(looks at award) their help in uh,(looks at it again) the sunani(how he pronounced it) region in uh,(looks at award again, squints a little) cambodia?(he said it in the form of a question, not a statement)

It was great, surprised he knew it was his daddy.

Jethro: Thanks, I like most of where you come from on topics. But I think you knee jerk into "rise above the fray" all too often for your own sensibilites. Bush warrants relentless, non-stop bashing because, at the worst - he is illegitimate and there installed by criminal means. At the best, he's the scion of a morally corrupt faction within American politics that will nominate Satan himself if they thought he'd win. Either way, he & his administration deserve our non-stop ire until they're impeached or their term is done.
Again, rising above the fray or the fact that he's president does not change the conditions. I may be hunting Democrats as well since they threw the 2004 election, but those devils lack a single face like the Republicans do. I wish we could find the Democrat architects who aided the 2004 election theft.....starting in 2000.

James: he's lead an insulated life...he's never had to hone any highbrow mastery of commanding speech.....in the bubble, it's been syncophants or backers. Pretty obvious that he's never interviewed, huh?
Plus, he's just bumf***king stupid!

BT, perhaps I do. Perhaps I do. But if I sound like a broken record, I'm sure you'll agree that it's because of the need, rather than me not thinking as to the frequency of my speaches.

I understand that Bush stinks. He is mildly better than Kerry, but that is only based in issues (which are very murky on both fronts).

But I do believe that the merit of his policy and actions are all that really matter, because that is what affects the country.

But, I'm sure you know that the Rep congress is a bigger threat than Bush, mainly due to the fact that Bush only talks the party line. Congress does the same, but they can introduce insane legislation.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
But I do believe that the merit of his policy and actions are all that really matter, because that is what affects the country.

He could have the statesmanship of Churchill, and I'd still be as opposed to him. That he's such an idiot amplifys the fact of that faction I mentioned earlier. In other words, his stupidity is the icing on the cake that galvanizes opposition.
Has anyone ever endured a public official with such a limited grasp on the subject matter of issues?

It bothers me as well when people attack Bush for being a dolt; if that's their only reason, they're off base......to me, they've let the details of policy slip by unaware.

If Bush really wanted to fix it, he would eliminate it and prosecute those responsible for the giant ponzi scheme that it is. It was sold to the public as compassion for the elderly when in real life was only a resource for deficit spending for those who legislate by buying votes (Dems and Repubs). Please continue to trash Bush. Maybe he will actually have the guts to really do something that needs done.

As far as gumption goes, that Texan has more than any Texas President.

LBJ was the SOB that started Medicare.

I am a Texan who prefers Presidents from Illinois! Go Illini!

BT, I understand. Sometimes I laugh at how dumb he looks. But my point is the same. Bashing the man is of no intellectual value, and can change no minds.

If you really hate Bush, which I don't, but I can't stand him or the Republican Party line, then steal his people.

Come with a bright and shiny point. No one really cares about Bush, it's just media and stature. Congress is the problem, because you have a majority of smarter men running the same quotes and phrases because he said them. You almost have to admire the Republican party's solid face of late. It's obviously fake, but it is a serious problem.

It is not about "bashing Bush".

It is about reminding people as often as possible with real life examples, that the official appointed by the US Supreme Court to the position that many people believe holds the responsibility of "the leadership of the free world" is a pathological liar and an incoherent idiot.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Q: "How is the new plan going to fix Social Security?"

"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 what 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, as opposed 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."

It's his pet project. His traveling road show. He has ONE THING to sell and defend. And that's it above.

:shk: We're just supposed to know what he means and let him retool Social Security because he's so misunderestimated?

Well, this is why no one is getting anywhere. The focus is off of the parties (who let's face it, run their boys).

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Well, this is why no one is getting anywhere. The focus is off of the parties (who let's face it, run their boys).

I strongly disagree....in my opinion, it's caused a bright light to be shown on the Democrat party for their willfull stand down since 2000. It's brought into laser focus ( for anyone whose head is not up their azz) that the Republican party is dangerously out of control.
I think you lose sight of the fact that people are aiming at the Corpus Mal as a whole by targeting the empty head embodied by Bush.
With all the ills of what the GOP policies have brought on, you have their figurhead whoring for Wall Street in the guise of Chicken Little over Social Security.....that is going to be called out.
Moving forward, when Bush is in my sight you can be assured that I'm targeting the whole "GOP".....and I think most are in that boat as well.

Hmmm...

Wow, an overwhelming strategy in 2004 was to bash Bush in one way or another -- either against his speech, or his policies. Oddly enough, the attempts failed. The public leader of the Republican party (Bush) got re-elected as well as have his party take control of both houses of congress by even a larger margin than before.

Fool you once, shame on the Republicans.
Fool you twice, shame on you.

The strategy didn't win. What will the next gambit be?

I believe the GOP is out of control, but Dean isn't the best choice for the Dems, and their past track record only shows that they need to step up their PR campaign (which is all that is needed in politics these days).

Social Security should not be manditory at all. This is the Republican platform, yet they make such small steps in the wrong direction.

I agree, but let's not dismiss the like problems in the Democratic policy and relations.

The Democrats need Dean, since 75% of their party is corrupt. The Republicans are 90% corrupt, yet lack anyone presently or on the horizon to have the ballz & break ranks.
Even Dean, as party chair, holds no true strong hand to play.

The Democrats problem in 2004? They did not attack Bush and show unwavering dedication to that script. The "bash" talking point was all fed by the GOP to give a perception. The truth is that the Dems"mouthed" him, but never bit.
But, if their intent was to throw the fight, they played it beutifully.