[quote]orion wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
orion wrote:
all of this is strange…
Politicians get to hand-pick there audience? They get to pick they questions they are asked?
Any politician that cannot survive in a debate British parliament style simply lacks a major job requirement. Plus, he?s a wimp. Or a wimpette.
Thatcher could pull it off, but she had balls.
Im not a Bush fan but I wasnt aware that this was a debate. Was it supposed to be? or was it simply a photo op/ q&a with some soldiers?
This wasn?t but you have to admit that this is broader issue than staging something like that with a bunch of soldiers. Since when is something like that ok? Every politician doing something like that should be booed off stage. Slammed in the headlines. Made fun of.[/quote]
What did he do exactly? Read the transcript…the only thing the soldiers went over was who is going to answer what, not what their answers should be. They were given some advise and thats it. This type of thing is done for most interviews…it allows those answering the questions to prepare for what they are going to say…it doesnt mean the answers are disingenuous. Without some rehearsing, most people who arent accustomed to public speaking come off pretty inarticulate.
[quote]
By the way with this whole American attitude towards the American military I wonder why there is no public outrage if a president just grabs a few soldiers, puts them in a nice location and lets them tell him what he wants to hear on television? When did the United States Army become the Praetorian Guard? Is this your army, supposedly politically neutral, or his personal beatches he can draw out of the hat whenever his polls drop?[/quote]
Again, what from the video clip leads you to believe they are telling “him what he wants to hear?” The answers may very well be scripted, but nothing in that video clip offers any evidence of that.
[quote]karva wrote:
No, it’s a feminist thing and has to do with the patriarcal society.[/quote]
Actually, it has to do with how black people in the USA never have their history included in the “History” books that are used to teach children in the school systems. Other than slavery and entertainment, the contributions of african-americans to the US society are never recognized.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
karva wrote:
No, it’s a feminist thing and has to do with the patriarcal society.
Actually, it has to do with how black people in the USA never have their history included in the “History” books that are used to teach children in the school systems. Other than slavery and entertainment, the contributions of african-americans to the US society are never recognized.[/quote]
Ok, I believe you. I don’t know the etymology of the word, only where I’ve seen it. I have wide interests, you know. Curse those feminists, who couldn’t find an own word. Today it definitely is a standard word in feminist vocabulary.
[quote]karva wrote:
As a foreigner I have no particular opinion of the president of the United States. Even if I had, that doesn’t count as a vote. I only have an opinion of american foreign policy, which is much in line with the general opinion in Europe. Having said that, I feel obiged to point out, that Matt Lauer is not the president of USA.[/quote]
No, but he is on TV more than Bush.
It was an example how when they try to stage open interviews you really don’t have much control over what the interviewee is going to say.
Matt Lauer has done hundreds if not thousands of interviews. He was trying to make a point that morale is bad in Iraq, however the soldiers would not go along and Lauer ended up looking kind of stupid.
Bush is not a professional interviewer and he too is trying to make a point. His point is that we are achieving success in Iraq. Without handpicking the soldiers and going over what is going to be asked, he would be taking a huge chance that someone will provide conflicting information.