Quick! Name the Genius who Spoke this Quote.

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
hgc
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, 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.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.
 
Hey, now, remember:

Now, there's some rules, and it's important for you to know the rules. One, you can't take your money that you set aside in the personal account and go to the race track. ...Secondly, you can't pull it all out when it comes time to your -- you can't take it all and then go to the track.
 
It must have been...

someone who has graduated from a major American University, like YALE?
 
Brown said:
I know who said it!
Click to expand...
Sorry Brown. Didn't know. But then this is so much longer than the usual rambling attempt at splain-you-something, I thought it deserved it's own thread. Besides, I'd like to see the apologists tie themselves into pretzels trying to justify it.
 
Re: It must have been...

webfusion said:
someone who has graduated from a major American University, like YALE?
Click to expand...
So Yale is at fault? For granting legacy admissions, I suppose.

Re: the above quotemaker, everybody sing...

This is the dawning of the Age of Incompetence
The Age of Incompetence
Incompetence
In-com-pe-tence
 
hgc said:
Sorry Brown. Didn't know. But then this is so much longer than the usual rambling attempt at splain-you-something, I thought it deserved it's own thread. Besides, I'd like to see the apologists tie themselves into pretzels trying to justify it.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. This incoherent expulsion of gas certainly deserves its own thread.

The remarks are somewhat (but not entirely) in line with the remarks of a "senior administrative official", who was asked the following straight question: "How do the personal accounts guarantee permanent solvency for Social Security?" The "senior administrative official" responded:
Well, we talked about the personal accounts being in the context of an overall plan to create a permanently solvent Social Security system. What I've laid out here are details of the administrative structure of the personal accounts. The larger question of the comprehensive plan to fix Social Security permanently is really subject to the details of discussions between the President and members of Congress.
Click to expand...
The answer of the "senior administrative official" seems to be that there is no relationship between personal accounts and solvency, and no hint that personal accounts would affect "cost drivers."

Personally, I would be deeply ashamed to make a statement like the one that is the subject of this thread. It would be tantamount to wearing a sign around my neck that says "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about."
 
Re: It must have been...

webfusion said:
someone who has graduated from a major American University, like YALE?
Click to expand...
Hey, it just occurred to me. We've had a good string of Yalies in the White House now, what with Bush I, Clinton (Yale Law) and now Bush II. How about we try another one in 2008? I know this sweet little lady who happened to graduate Yale Law with Clinton ... wait! Turns out her name is Clinton too! Be it a coinkindink? Hmmm.
 
hgc said:
Sorry Brown. Didn't know. But then this is so much longer than the usual rambling attempt at splain-you-something, I thought it deserved it's own thread. Besides, I'd like to see the apologists tie themselves into pretzels trying to justify it.
Click to expand...
Justify what? Nice little well-poisoning, there. Seems like if you're going to make a big deal about the fact that the President doesn't speak perfect English (shocking!), you might want to use better English yourself, seeing as how you actually have the chance to proofread.

So, when you hear someone stuttering, do you point and laugh?
 
Art Vandelay said:
Justify what? Nice little well-poisoning, there. Seems like if you're going to make a big deal about the fact that the President doesn't speak perfect English (shocking!), you might want to use better English yourself, seeing as how you actually have the chance to proofread.

So, when you hear someone stuttering, do you point and laugh?
Click to expand...
Wrong comparison, Art. It is the President's job to devise clear, coherent, sound policies and advocate for their passage into law. He can't do that.

As for the articulation part, I'd even give him a pass on that if he recognized the problem and dealt with it appropriately. IOW, he ought to know that the Social Security issue is complex and demands considerable skills to communicate. He ought to find people who are good at it and publically give them blessing and support and let them have a go at it. I wouldn't hold it against him - in fact, I would applaud the honest approach.

But no, he's out there makin' a boob out of himself. So it's not his lack of command of the English language that "justifies" this (yet another) thread, but his utter incompetence. The language is the symptom, not the problem
 
Art Vandelay said:
Seems like if you're going to make a big deal about the fact that the President doesn't speak perfect English (shocking!), you might want to use better English yourself, seeing as how you actually have the chance to proofread.

So, when you hear someone stuttering, do you point and laugh?
Click to expand...
This is not a question of poor use of English, or a speech impediment. It is a matter of the President of the United States, who is trying to sell the people on the notion that personal accounts are needed because the Social Security system will go "flat broke," cannot explain how personal accounts will produce solvency.

If this answer were to be offered by a private citizen, I would have no hesitation in saying, "What bull****." And, I submit, most citizens of the USA, hearing this answer from someone other than the president, would have the same reaction.

And yet, there are clearly some folks who are willing--even eager--to give little Bush a "pass" on this matter. After little Bush made these remarks, the people in attendance laughed and applauded and kissed his presidential butt. No one expressed any dismay that the president had openly tried to bull**** them.
 
He mangles the English language. He is not that bright. He has a moral agenda that he wants to push on all Americans.

Somehow, we have elected Dan Quayle.
 
Random said:
He mangles the English language. He is not that bright. He has a moral agenda that he wants to push on all Americans.

Somehow, we have elected Dan Quayle.
Click to expand...
You left out the National Guard parallel.
 
On the "Tonight" show, Jay Leno showed video of Bush delivering the first part of the quote at the top of this thread.

The presentation of the video was fair. It was not edited or manipulated for comic effect.

The video was presented for exactly what it was. It was not presented as an answer to an entirely different question, for example, or as a deliberately set up spoof.

The "Tonight" show audience howled with laughter.

On a later night, Leno presented the "uniquely American" video. Unedited, fairly presented as what it actually was.

The "Tonight" show audience howled with laughter.

What does this say about Bush? He is trying to be dead serious, but he provokes laughter. He is trying to be responsive, but ends up saying things that are confused or inappropriate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bush needs to do two things: (1) get a speech coach; and (2) speak in front of audiences that aren't packed with butt-smoochers.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Justify what? Nice little well-poisoning, there. Seems like if you're going to make a big deal about the fact that the President doesn't speak perfect English (shocking!), you might want to use better English yourself, seeing as how you actually have the chance to proofread.

So, when you hear someone stuttering, do you point and laugh?
Click to expand...
I'll admit that I did spike the punch with an implicit criticism that supporters of Bush may try to blunt with some kind of defensive response. This is what you have done by claiming that I'm criticising his ability to speak perfect English (strawman alert!). That's what I mean by justify. I am insulted :p that you would equate my choice of words with the Bush's rambling nonsense. More to the point, I'm not criticising Bush for not speaking perfect English. I'm criticising him for not demonstrating that he understands his own policy. It may be worse than that. He may not only not be able to show he understands, he may not even actually understand it. Who can tell?
 
The question is, does Bush speak like that on purpose? Could his bumbling speech be deliberately contrived in order to deflect people from actually following what we're supposed to think he's trying to say?

If you muddle your comments enough, it's difficult for opponents to find any leverage in your words to use against you. People who like you already will assume you mean something good if they can't follow it, and people who don't like you won't get much ammo apart from "What a moron!", which merely feeds into the "my opposition are elitist snobs" (which is always funny coming from an exceedingly wealthy and well-connected blueblood) which just strengthens your support.

It's disheartening that a pretense of idiocy is so effective in politics!
 
TragicMonkey said:
The question is, does Bush speak like that on purpose? Could his bumbling speech be deliberately contrived in order to deflect people from actually following what we're supposed to think he's trying to say?
Click to expand...

I think that question deserves a HHGttG quote:

"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom