Press Conference

if you call, uh duh uh mu mm uh duh and taking 10 minuets to answer one question and still say nothing being articulate.
I didn't like Obama before he got elected, and I like him even less since he's taken office, he is not a leader, he is a follower of whoever is pulling his strings.

He made Republicans look very stupid last night. You can't address the substance of his comments, so you still focus on the "uhs", which are so overplayed by the right that it's silly.

It's all you've got, really. You realize that most Americans understand & appreciate what it's like to have a President who can actually think & level with them after 8 years of Bush.
 
hahahahahahaHAHAH.

Here in lies the problem, you cant understand an answer that is anything other than "I'm the Decider, I do the decidin'", "You are either with us or against us".

If you do not percieve Obama to have answers that are intelligent and meeting the ends of the questioner then you are merely a slow witted partisan hack.

I Have a new nick name for you merely meme.
 
He made Republicans look very stupid last night. You can't address the substance of his comments, so you still focus on the "use", which are so overplayed by the right that it's silly.

It's all you've got, really. You realize that most Americans understand & appreciate what it's like to have a President who can actually think & level with them after 8 years of Bush.

there is no substance to him, that's why no one can talk about it. he just repeats the same old doom and gloom, the sky is falling, we can't live our lives until he rides in and save us from ourselves..
 
Obama is the tiger woods of politics.
Only if Tiger Woods gets to pick his opponents and stage his contests. Not one raised hand, he seeks a list, then picks the next name that is ready with another Huffpo style softball. Shoot, Huffpo even got a shout out.

He stands there and says, "No pork" and nobody asks about Frisbee parks or other pork and earmarks?
 
hahahahahahaHAHAH.

Here in lies the problem, you cant understand an answer that is anything other than "I'm the Decider, I do the decidin'", "You are either with us or against us".

If you do not percieve Obama to have answers that are intelligent and meeting the ends of the questioner then you are merely a slow witted partisan hack.

I Have a new nick name for you merely meme.

Oh duh! (snort)
 
How many press conferences did bush have in his first year in office?
At least Obama is communicating to the people.
 
Only if Tiger Woods gets to pick his opponents and stage his contests. Not one raised hand, he seeks a list, then picks the next name that is ready with another Huffpo style softball. Shoot, Huffpo even got a shout out.

He stands there and says, "No pork" and nobody asks about Frisbee parks or other pork and earmarks?

Whatever guy. There are no earmarks in the bill. Now, if you want to redefine earmarks to fit what is in the bill that is all well and good, but that doesn't make it so.

And he asked questions from the major media outlets: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOXNews (Major Garrett is a disgrace by the way), NY Times, Washington Post (a bigger disgrace, A-Roid? Seriously?), AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, NPR, Helen Thomas and, yes, the Huffington Post.

And this is after he did a town hall event in one of the redder parts of Indiana with no loyalty oaths to get into the event and no pre-screened questions.
 

Unemployment is simply one statistic. You have to look at the overall scope of the situation. The early 80's recession was one of insanely high interest rates and equally high inflation. Today we are seeing interest rates lower than at any time in our history and we are on the edge of deflation. Not to mention the immense problems within the financial sector.

Two completely different environments. If given the choice of problems....

1) Inflation is preferable to deflation
2) High interest rates are preferrable to historic low rates
3) Financial sector fairly stable is preferable to the insanity we see today.

While unemployment has not yet reached the early 80's levels, we are in far worse shape right now than we ever were in the early 80's.
 
It started under Nixon. A corrupt man who could not find a way to tell the truth or act in a decent manner. Carter got no credit for anything good that was done to solve the unbefore seen stagflation and these two things set the STAGE for a phony cowboy constructed of purely myth to Lie through his fucking teeth and say "well" while he spet the fuck out of the budget. Then the others came. It was this Myth of Reagan that set the stage for Bush 41 and Clintons bartering with the Rs and the idiot phoney cowboy Bush 43.

The adults are fully in charge now, thank the powers that be.

Do you even know what Superfreak is referencing here?
 
It started under Nixon. A corrupt man who could not find a way to tell the truth or act in a decent manner. Carter got no credit for anything good that was done to solve the unbefore seen stagflation and these two things set the STAGE for a phony cowboy constructed of purely myth to Lie through his fucking teeth and say "well" while he spet the fuck out of the budget. Then the others came. It was this Myth of Reagan that set the stage for Bush 41 and Clintons bartering with the Rs and the idiot phoney cowboy Bush 43.

The adults are fully in charge now, thank the powers that be.

blah blah blah I think Republicans are evil blah blah blah... gotcha desh, we understand.... you hate Republicans. Thanks for the update.
 
Unemployment is simply one statistic. You have to look at the overall scope of the situation. The early 80's recession was one of insanely high interest rates and equally high inflation. Today we are seeing interest rates lower than at any time in our history and we are on the edge of deflation. Not to mention the immense problems within the financial sector.

Two completely different environments. If given the choice of problems....

1) Inflation is preferable to deflation
2) High interest rates are preferrable to historic low rates
3) Financial sector fairly stable is preferable to the insanity we see today.

While unemployment has not yet reached the early 80's levels, we are in far worse shape right now than we ever were in the early 80's.
Not saying you are incorrect, but can you explain why you make the statements you do?
 
Whatever guy. There are no earmarks in the bill. Now, if you want to redefine earmarks to fit what is in the bill that is all well and good, but that doesn't make it so.

And he asked questions from the major media outlets: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOXNews (Major Garrett is a disgrace by the way), NY Times, Washington Post (a bigger disgrace, A-Roid? Seriously?), AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, NPR, Helen Thomas and, yes, the Huffington Post.

And this is after he did a town hall event in one of the redder parts of Indiana with no loyalty oaths to get into the event and no pre-screened questions.
The "redifine" goes in the other direction. You have to redefine earmark to pretend that some of that isn't. A "bridge to nowhere" would be "infrastructure" and "create jobs" under this "stimulus package".

And again, I have seen open press conferences, people talk over each other to get a question in. This was hand-picked and appeared directed. If this was FEMA under Bush people would already be screaming.
 
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse.

Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?


OK. Karen Boeing (ph) of Reuters?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to shift gears to foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran? And when will you start to implement it? Will your timetable be affected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?


OK. Chip Reid?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, "Well, it's not the number of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will be created."

Is that a sign that you are moving away -- your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?

All right, Chuck Todd. Where's Chuck?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that, if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?



All right, Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini to Sen. [Chuck] Schumer [D-New York], have said that it will cost the government more than $1 trillion to really fix the financial system. During the campaign, you promised the American people that you won't just tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

Won't the government need far more than the $350 billion that's remaining in the financial rescue funds to really solve the credit crisis?



OK. Jake?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna's in -- in content. The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent already, and still the economy continues to freefall.

Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you've warned about, once all the legs of your stool are in place...


Question: ... how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working? Can they -- should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use when and how will they know if it's working or whether or not we need to go to a Plan B?



Ed Henry. Where's Ed? CNN, there he is.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You've promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a timetable to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder, what's your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?

And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Sen. Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, "snuck back into the country under the cover of night."

You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?



All right. Helene Cooper. Where's Helene? There you are.

Question: Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you, on the next bank bailout, are you going to impose a requirement that the financial institutions use this money to loosen up credit and make new lending? And if not, how do you make the case to the American people that this bailout will work when the last one didn't?



All right. Major Garrett, where's Major?

Question: Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two of you had in the Oval Office about a subject he didn't disclose.

"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Since the vice president brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it wasn't the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan and if, in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent failure, 70 percent success?



All right. Helen? This is my inaugural moment here.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm really excited.

Question: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And, also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?





Sam Stein, Huffington Post. Where's Sam? Here. Go ahead.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont] announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.

Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?



Mara Liasson?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. If it's this hard to get more than a handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy -- spending tons of money and cutting people's taxes -- when you look down the road at health care, and entitlement reform, and energy reform, those are really tough choices. You're going to be asking some people to get less and some people to pay more.

What do you think you're going to have to do to get more bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions? What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?



What is soft ball about these questions?
 
Last edited:
Not saying you are incorrect, but can you explain why you make the statements you do?

Inflation is easier to control than deflation. It can be controlled by tightening money supply and raising interest rates. It is easier to get people to slow spending than it is to get them to start spending during a deflationary time.... which is what we are seeing right now.

When rates are too high, you can lower rates as inflation comes under control. With rates where they are today, we are now like Japan... we have no more room to lower rates. You can no longer use rates to influence the market environment.

The third is obvious.
 
why is Obama wanting to hold all these so called press conferences? he has the votes to push this bill through?

why is he so worried if no Republicans support it? It's his and the Democrats bill, he should be proud of it passing, shouldn't he?

he is nothing but a whiner and a fearmonger. he doesn't look Presidential at all.
 
why is Obama wanting to hold all these so called press conferences? he has the votes to push this bill through?

why is he so worried if no Republicans support it? It's his and the Democrats bill, he should be proud of it passing, shouldn't he?

he is nothing but a whiner and a fearmonger. he doesn't look Presidential at all.

and that A-Rod question must of thrown him for a loop...
Truth to tell, had Bush been better at public speaking and held more of these things we'd be in a better position today.
 
In other words we have a huge mess on our hands and we would like you and your friends to help us clean up this mess instead fo fighting the fixes with all your heart and soul.
 
why is Obama wanting to hold all these so called press conferences? he has the votes to push this bill through?

why is he so worried if no Republicans support it? It's his and the Democrats bill, he should be proud of it passing, shouldn't he?

he is nothing but a whiner and a fearmonger. he doesn't look Presidential at all.

And the answer is he is trying to bring this country together.
 
Back
Top