Press conference question, why is Hawaii doing emergency contingency for an attack from North Korea

Answer: The military is always doing contingency plans.

Question......has there been a change in our policy toward North Korea

Answer: The time of patience has passed. We will take nothing off the table. The President will take no options off the table. We will do what we have to do to maintain our national security.

Question: Is there a risk of loose words being bantered around could cause a conflict.

Answer: No

2seaoat wrote:Answer:  The military is always doing contingency plans.

Question......has there been a change in our policy toward North Korea

Answer:  The time of patience has passed.  We will take nothing off the table.  The President will take no options off the table.  We will do what we have to do to maintain our national security.

Question:  Is there a risk of loose words being bantered around could cause a conflict.

Answer:  No

Please cite your source.

When you check whitehouse.gov for the press briefing you refer to, here's what you find:

Q   Political leaders in Hawaii are reviewing plans -- emergency plans in case they are attacked.  Does the President believe that the level of tension between the United States and North Korea is at the point where we should start reviewing emergency attack plans?

MR. SPICER:  So just to be clear -- and again, I’m not going to get into -- I would just tell you that there are military contingency plans for almost every scenario, in numerous aspects around the world, here at home -- everything from humanitarian relief to refugee crises, to attacks.  That is standard military procedure to have those kinds of things.  So to make that in any way, shape or form sound new would be a mistake.  It is a standard operating procedure of the military to plan for contingencies in a number of operations, in a number of hotspots throughout the world on a regular basis.

And with respect to Korea, in particular, that's been going on for decades.

Q    Sean, how high does the President view the threat level from North Korea?

MR. SPICER:  Again, I think the President has made clear we're aware of the activities that they’ve engaged in, and we're monitoring them.  And the national security team continues to keep him up to date.

Q   Just one more on that topic.  One of the reasons why successive administrations have chosen to negotiate with the leaders of North Korea is because it's believed that there are no good military options to deal with it.  Does this President believe that there are viable military options for dealing with North Korea?

MR. SPICER:  Again --

Q    Without telegraphing what --

MR. SPICER:  I understand.  But I think taking anything on or off the table is in itself limiting your options to some degree.  And so I'm not going to even discuss that.

Posting bullshit damages credibility.

Just to provide the context that seems to be so inscrutable to certain other posters on this board--who shall remain nameless but whose name rhymes with Joker Cum--here's the immediately previous question:

Q    You got a fly on your head.

I stand by my synopsis which I posted live as the press conference was happening. Everything I posted is correct. Nothing you posted is inconsistent with my post, or corrects what I posted. Nice Try.

2seaoat wrote:I stand by my synopsis which I posted live as the press conference was happening.   Everything I posted is correct.  Nothing you posted is inconsistent with my post, or corrects what I posted.  Nice Try.

You didn't indicate in any way that it was a synopsis. You presented it in Q & A format as if it was verbatim. Perhaps you didn't intend to deceive but the effect was the same. If you had enough education to do post-grad work, you should understand how important it is to be clear and precise in written communication.

One of your questions was absolutely false, there is nothing in the entire press conference that even vaguely resembles your "Question: Is there a risk of loose words being bantered around could cause a conflict." That's not a synopsis, it's a blatant falsehood. I say again: Posting bullshit damages credibility.

Since it was a New Topic, you had plenty of time to put together either a synopsis in narrative format or copy and paste actual quotes so your excuse that you were in a hurry to post in real time won't fly. Once again, in case you didn't get it the first time: Posting bullshit damages credibility.

Wrong again.

2seaoat wrote:Wrong again.

Again:

One of your questions was absolutely false, there is nothing in the entire press conference that even vaguely resembles your "Question: Is there a risk of loose words being bantered around could cause a conflict." That's not a synopsis, it's a blatant falsehood. I say again: Posting bullshit damages credibility.

Wrong again.

Sea, you'd be wise to realize that del.caps is king of the world and all that is correct therein - no room for any imperfection whatsoever. Speaking of time to bend over....you may as well. He's BOSS.

PPFFFFFTTTT!!!!!!

Q How concerned are you that the uptick in the language, the bellicosity, tweets, could potentially provoke unintentionally military action? I mean, is there a concern that a lot of the words that are being thrown around could have an unforeseen impact? Just explain to me what the President is thinking, how concerned he is of the risk of an unintentional conflict.

Here is the entire transcript for anybody else who is challenged.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/17/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-4172017-38

syn·op·sis
səˈnäpsəs/
noun
noun: synopsis; plural noun: synopses

a brief summary or general survey of something.

For the challenged this means taking shorthand at a live press conference, or not posting until a person can read a transcript, both of which might be logical to a person who is challenged, however to show the low level of conceptualization once again proves Lincoln's admonishment......

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Some of the most interesting posters have damaged credibility. Having a POTUS with damaged credibility sucks. Just saying.

The foundations of most discussion forums are created with pure bullshit.

2seaoat wrote:syn·op·sis
səˈnäpsəs/
noun
noun: synopsis; plural noun: synopses

   a brief summary or general survey of something.

For the challenged this means taking shorthand at a live press conference, or not posting until a person can read a transcript, both of which might be logical to a person who is challenged, however to show the low level of conceptualization once again proves Lincoln's admonishment......

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

You didn't indicate in any way that it was a synopsis. You presented it in Q & A format as if it was verbatim. Perhaps you didn't intend to deceive but the effect was the same. If you had enough education to do post-grad work, you should understand how important it is to be clear and precise in written communication.

See if you can get your money back from whatever alleged institution of learning you did your thesis at. Probably one of those for-profit diploma mills like Argosy University.

Please explain how you get "taking shorthand at a live press conference" from the above definition of synopsis. More bullshit.

As far as that Lincoln quotation is concerned, there is no substantive evidence that he used it. It's not in anything he wrote or any contemporaneous records. More bullshit. It's also been wrongfully attributed to Mark Twain. It's actually a reworking of Proverbs 17:28. More bullshit.

Lincoln didn't say this either but it seems appropriate:

"You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Telstar wrote:Some of the most interesting posters have damaged credibility. Having a POTUS with damaged credibility sucks. Just saying.

Hey! He got elected, didn't he? He did what was an almost impossible thing for a Republican to do--easily won the Electoral College. According to him, anyway.

del.capslock wrote:

Telstar wrote:Some of the most interesting posters have damaged credibility. Having a POTUS with damaged credibility sucks. Just saying.

Hey! He got elected, didn't he? He did what was an almost impossible thing for a Republican to do--easily won the Electoral College. According to him, anyway.

Unfortunately, most of America isn't on what he is on.

You didn't indicate in any way that it was a synopsis.

That takes a threshold of intelligence to discern, but the fun part is that you are simply wrong, and repeatedly proven dullard.

2seaoat wrote:You didn't indicate in any way that it was a synopsis.

That takes a threshold of intelligence to discern, but the fun part is that you are simply wrong, and repeatedly proven dullard.

ul·tra·crep·i·dar·i·an

ˌəltrəkrepəˈderēən/

adjective

1.
expressing opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise.
"“Dad, how do we know the universe is expanding?” inquires your six-year-old. Try answering that without resorting to an ultracrepidarian trick here or there"

noun

1.
a person who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise.
"most patients are ultracrepidarians when it comes to medicine"