SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (39347)4/14/2004 8:58:25 AM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793832
 
Too late.

`before i am influenced by talking heads
.
.
.

He looked like a puppet, pulling talking points out of the air with his puppetmasters Rove, Card and Rice sitting in the first row sending him psychic signals.


You buy Big Media's story line hook, line, and sinker.



To: michael97123 who wrote (39347)4/14/2004 9:56:32 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793832
 
There was no need to skip the thread this morning. The thread was pretty quiet about the press conference.

I didn't watch the whole thing, just popped in a couple of times. I saw a bit of the speech, towards the middle, and I saw the first question. Re the speech, it looked to me like he was reading something he saw for the first time ten minutes before air time. Re the first question, I thought he did a good job staying even in the face of a baiting question. At neither time did I see any smirk, which I appreciated.

I just finished reading the transcript. The transcript was odd in that the speech part, which he was reading, had a number of obvious grammatical errors. I could understand finding them in the Q and A but in the speech?

I thought the speech was OK but not significant enough to warrant pre-emption of AI. <g>



To: michael97123 who wrote (39347)4/14/2004 10:07:06 AM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 793832
 
So in my mind, we have two presidents--the poised scripted speech giver and the discordant, confused question answerer.

Interesting comments, mike. I was not as impressed with the speech as you were but was not bothered by it. I thought it pretty standard fare for this president. But what followed in the q&a period was a very bad performance, and bad for this president. At best, he was badly prepared by his staff. It might not be their fault; he may have declined preparation.



To: michael97123 who wrote (39347)4/14/2004 12:41:03 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793832
 
again the WOT is the most important issue and there is no reason to automatically believe that a liberal cant run a war as well as these guys.

Sure there is. The liberals give no sign they understand there is a war, much less one we desperately need to win.



To: michael97123 who wrote (39347)4/14/2004 5:25:24 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793832
 
Re: President Bush's answers to the 15 questions fielded by the media. Seven of them....directly and indirectly....asked him to apologize for 9/11. (Does anyone else think that was pathetic?)

Why dems expect him to apologize is clear, and everyone knows it wasn't his fault. Rather, the blame should rightfully go to OBL and terrorists....as President Bush pointed out.

But wouldn't it make a wonderful commercial........the President groveling to the Nation and the world. Kerry would have himself one hell of an ad.

Re: Sistani..I don't believe you've seen much talk on this thread about Sistani because none of us really knows anything about this man. Why don't you find some information and post it here so we can learn?

Re: Post# 39472..

Message 20023707

Surrounding the Sunni Triangle with democracy would have been an interesting proposition. I don't think we heard anyone in government make that suggestion because none of them really took the threat of terrorism very seriously. Well, maybe Richard Clarke?

And I'm being proven right about that every time I watch another victim go before the so called 9/11 commission.

M