Barack Hussein Obama owned by Bret Baier [VIDEOS] - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Eh, I'd give it more leftist propaganda than CNN.

I think that Ed Shulz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews (to a lesser degree than the former) and a few more of their regular contributors DO move into propaganda mode on a regular basis. I think that Rachel Maddow is very fair and truthful 99% of the time. I like Sheppard Smith on Fox for the same reason and I watch the Fox Report almost daily. Even though it seems like alot of fox news guppies seem to bash CNN... it's funny to me because I can't watch CNN without getting pissed off because they legitimize right wing talking points constantly... and now that they have hire Erick Erickson I refuse to watch it because that dude is a complete douche... not to mention that they hire lobbyists from both the right and the left and allow their network to be used for propaganda 80% of the time... way worse than MSNBC... not quite as bad as Fox though.... because Fox hires straight up GOP operatives.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 12:17 PM

Those are some good points. I mainly stay with Dennis Prager, who judges things more or less, objectively.

Vendzilla · 03-19-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

That is the only answer you could possibly give that would be correct... I would prefer that it were done correctly... but that just isn't possible in the current political environment... The Republicans have chosen to take the position of opposing EVERYTHING... including nominations that they vote unanimously to confirm after forcing a cloture vote to overcome a filibuster... so they even filibuster nominations and bills that they support. WTF?

look out the window
all the polls don't like this
The GOP sees this as a feeding frenzy, the sharks are circling
Why would they back the healthcare bill? it makes no sence for them to piss off the voters, the people they are working for. They already fucked that up, they learned.

And the Speaker has even said support the bill, don't worry about your job
Here in California, we have Barbera Boxer, been in office for EVER. Her polls are in the single digit range

And all this, doesn't mean what they are doing in right

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 12:32 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aghrqNBEBtIc

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aghrqNBEBtIc

Noone said it will solve health care... it's a start though, in my opinion. Personally, I think they should allow everyone to buy into Medicare... it seems to me that this would help fix it's solvency.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:03 PM

I wish they would have just stopped with the stupid bill and slowly started working on the individual parts that everyone would for the most part, agree on. This is a stupid move and there's zero guarantee that it will pass Sunday.

Tom_PM · 03-19-2010, 01:05 PM

HR 4789 is a bill that would allow every american citizen the ability to buy into medicare, at cost.

Pay for what it costs with no cash incentivized peon insurance asshole trying to deny you in order to get a bonus. What a concept.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

I wish they would have just stopped with the stupid bill and slowly started working on the individual parts that everyone would for the most part, agree on. This is a stupid move and there's zero guarantee that it will pass Sunday.

You and I both probably agree that we don't like the individual mandate.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:07 PM

What do you mean?

Tom_PM · 03-19-2010, 01:12 PM

It basically is a done deal though honestly. Stupak is the only goof who's pretending he has secret friends who will vote no with him. But the fact is, he hasn't actually said point blank that he's not going to vote yes, lol. He just says that he THINKS there's provisions in the bill where the government would be using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. Something that nobody else but him is seeing. Without him and like 10 more people, it's a yes.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

What do you mean?

I am not happy with the fact that they are creating a law that says that everyone has to buy insurance... and in the end I think that part will be struck down as unconstitutional (and why I also think they have the 4 year waiting time for it to begin)... but I also can understand the reasoning behind it... they can't just prevent exclusion for pre-existing conditions without filling the pool to cover the increased cost of that.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:14 PM

Yes they can nation, it's called raising premiums, which is what the insurance companies are going to do. And depending on your pre-existing condition, your premiums are going to skyrocket.

Also, just read this, not sure how accurate it is because as you say, it's fox news..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...x-investments/

QuaWee · 03-19-2010, 01:17 PM

So, Obama tried to answer question and was cut off. That equals "ownage"? LOL. You tards still calling the president Barack "Hussein" Obama is even more hilarious. You are trying to hard

Tom_PM · 03-19-2010, 01:19 PM

Except that there is provision where any premium increases have to be justified by an independant agent, and that 80%+ of your premium HAS to be spent on YOUR care. So raise away if you can is the message to insurance companies.
Doesnt it bug you that they're making *record profits* during these times? "let them eat cake" comes to mind..

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Yes they can nation, it's called raising premiums, which is what the insurance companies are going to do. And depending on your pre-existing condition, your premiums are going to skyrocket.

Also, just read this, not sure how accurate it is because as you say, it's fox news..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...x-investments/

The bill prohibits insurers from raising premiums without showing just cause to do so. The basic idea behind THAT is kind of like how states regulate energy companies from raising rates. As far as the taxes... poor rich people... omg they are going to have to pay taxes on money they earned from money they have... they only pay 15% on capital gains right now... which is far less than I pay on my EARNED income... sorry if you won't find a pity party here. <<-- that statement would make 12clicks have a cow.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:21 PM

No, what bugs me is that we're switching a somewhat corrupt group(private insurance), to a more corrupt group(government). I'm 100% for limited government and for private sector. If these corrupt insurance companies want to screw us, so be it, but when they fail, they need to stay that way. The bailouts were a slap to the face of this country's traditional values.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

No, what bugs me is that we're switching a somewhat corrupt group(private insurance), to a more corrupt group(government). I'm 100% for limited government and for private sector. If these corrupt insurance companies want to screw us, so be it, but when they fail, they need to stay that way. The bailouts were a slap to the face of this country's traditional values.

I am not sure what you are saying... nothing is being switched to the government except better oversight of the insurance companies.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

I am not sure what you are saying... nothing is being switched to the government except better oversight of the insurance companies.

No, I was generally saying what I would rather have. And the problem with oversight is that it leads to more oversight. The second problem is, I don't want the government having oversight of anything involving the private sector.

Tom_PM · 03-19-2010, 01:33 PM

You jumped the shark with that one.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

No, I was generally saying what I would rather have. And the problem with oversight is that it leads to more oversight. The second problem is, I don't want the government having oversight of anything involving the private sector.

Yeah... that is a basic ideological difference between liberals and conservatives... so in that sense we can't agree. The banking debacle is a perfect example of why regulation is needed. If you really take a long hard look at the factors involved in it you quickly see that the banking deregulation that started under Reagan and continued under Bush was the direct cause of the problem. There were other contributing factors... but without that deregulation this mess would have never happened.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 01:55 PM

Actually, there were many causes for the problem and none of them had to do with Bush's and Reagan's deregulation.
1. Going off the Gold Standard in 1971
2. The American consumers starting to spend more than they could afford.
3. Credit expansion(ok, some bank fuckups lol)
4. Trade Surplus turning into a trade deficit
5. Budget deficit increasing
6. National Debt increasing
7. Debasing of the US Dollar
8. Clinton's removal of bank loan caps.

The only issue would be the credit crisis which while big, is nothing compared to the subprime mortgage and the monetary and fiscal mismanagement I've outlined. If we had a true free market based on the Austrian School of economics, I believe we would have never had these issues.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Actually, there were many causes for the problem and none of them had to do with Bush's and Reagan's deregulation.
1. Going off the Gold Standard in 1971
2. The American consumers starting to spend more than they could afford.
3. Credit expansion(ok, some bank fuckups lol)
4. Trade Surplus turning into a trade deficit
5. Budget deficit increasing
6. National Debt increasing
7. Debasing of the US Dollar
8. Clinton's removal of bank loan caps.

The only issue would be the credit crisis which while big, is nothing compared to the subprime mortgage and the monetary and fiscal mismanagement I've outlined. If we had a true free market based on the Austrian School of economics, I believe we would have never had these issues.

So repealing Glass-Steagall and enabling the derivatives market and Credit Default Swaps along with raising the leverage limit from 10X to 40X had nothing to do with it? Whatever... lol. What I just said is actually the consensus among almost every economist in the country and elsewhere. Goldman Sachs alone sold a bill of goods to AIG to the tune of $22 Billion (Credit Default Swaps)...

btw... the logic behind switching from the gold standard was that a commodity like gold can be devalued in the world while labor (production) could not and that is why the currency is based on output now rather than gold.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

So repealing Glass-Steagall and enabling the derivatives market and Credit Default Swaps along with raising the leverage limit from 10X to 40X had nothing to do with it? Whatever... lol. What I just said is actually the consensus among almost every economist in the country and elsewhere. Goldman Sachs alone sold a bill of goods to AIG to the tune of $22 Billion (Credit Default Swaps)...

You'd have to go ahead and prove that it's the consensus among the economists, and then I'll cite you for an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the majority of the mainstream economists are run by Obama, and believe we're in a recovery, so their word means nothing. Furthermore, who bailed out AIG and Goldman Sachs? Under the free market system, a principle this country WAS founded upon, they would have failed..

If you want the biggest reason for America's economic fuckups, look no further than the inception of the Federal Reserve.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 02:06 PM

Public and private sector aside, people mismanage their funds and then want the government to give them a handout.

BFT3K · 03-19-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Venz, I partly agree with you and partly believe Baier should have given him time. It wasn't an objective interview.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

While I agree with all of this, it still doesn't give Baier a right to grill him. If he gave him more time and Obama didn't offer anything legitimate, then we could really complain.

Holy shit! Two fucking demon postings that actually made some sense!

I'm going to log off and buy a lottery ticket right now, before the world actually comes to an end!

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Holy shit! Two fucking demon postings that actually made some sense!

I'm going to log off and buy a lottery ticket right now, before the world actually comes to an end!

It's called being objective, not a dumbass.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 02:21 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/...ama_s_promises

CosmicTang · 03-19-2010, 02:27 PM

What a colossal waste of an opportunity by Fox. They get the president on the hot seat in prime time where they can fire off tough questions from a serious journalist and call him to task if he doesn't tell the truth and what do they do?

Send in a partisan clown who not only avoids asking questions the people want the answers to in favor of procedural questions that only other party hacks and policy wonks really care about but he's disrespectful to the president of the US in his own house.

They won't be ashamed of their behavior because they have no shame, and it would serve them right if Obama shut Fox out of any future interviews, especially with that rude little imbecile.

FTR- I thought Obama did dodge a few questions and pulled out the politician speak on a few answers, which is what I would expect an elected official to do. Had he been given more time to answer without being cut off by that troll he perhaps could have provided more. At the least a journalist would have him set up for tougher questions and called him out on evading, if not in the interview then in the countless dissections afterward.

Semi-Retired-Dave · 03-19-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Barack Hussein Obama owned by Bret Baier [VIDEOS]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HFWHlry2pNA

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1MUc2TAe9Og

That will be his first and last interview with the President.

directfiesta · 03-19-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aghrqNBEBtIc

breaking gfy rules: sig too big!

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/...ama_s_promises

She is wrong... section 2718. AP has a pretty high percentage of bad reports on average... I don't think they should even be sending out opinion pieces... but they do.

Quote:

‘SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘(a) Clear Accounting for Costs- A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, submit to the Secretary a report concerning the percentage of total premium revenue that such coverage expends--

‘(1) on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under such coverage;

‘(2) for activities that improve health care quality; and

‘(3) on all other non-claims costs, including an explanation of the nature of such costs, and excluding State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees.

The Secretary shall make reports received under this section available to the public on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services.

‘(b) Ensuring That Consumers Receive Value for Their Premium Payments-

‘(1) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS- A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, in an amount that is equal to the amount by which premium revenue expended by the issuer on activities described in subsection (a)(3) exceeds--

‘(A) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the group market, 20 percent, or such lower percentage as a State may by regulation determine; or

‘(B) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the individual market, 25 percent, or such lower percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that such percentage shall be adjusted to the extent the Secretary determines that the application of such percentage with a State may destabilize the existing individual market in such State.

‘(2) CONSIDERATION IN SETTING PERCENTAGES- In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

http://breakingnews.newscred.com/aut...e/erica-werner

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 02:54 PM

Here is more

Quote:

Continuing Premium Review Process-

?(1) INFORMING SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASE PATTERNS- As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (c)(1), a State, through its Commissioner of Insurance, shall--

?(A) provide the Secretary with information about trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State; and

?(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 03:03 PM

I feel bad for the Democrats who are voting no. They must be getting political pressure and threats from Obama and Pelosi on the level of a Mafia racket, rofl.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

I feel bad for the Democrats who are voting no. They must be getting political pressure and threats from Obama and Pelosi on the level of a Mafia racket, rofl.

Way to float another Republican smear...

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Way to float another Republican smear...

Seeing as how some of the Dems have ADMITTED to what I just said, I suggest you keep your liberal propaganda to yourself. I wouldn't expect anything else if it was the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

nation-x · 03-19-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Seeing as how some of the Dems have ADMITTED to what I just said, I suggest you keep your liberal propaganda to yourself. I wouldn't expect anything else if it was the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

There is way more pressure coming from outside groups than from either Pelosi or Obama... just ask Bart Stupak.

dav3 · 03-19-2010, 03:51 PM

Owned? lol... More like he tried to interrupt and kept getting shut down. The interviewer's voice sounded like he had his tail between his legs.

weekly · 03-19-2010, 07:00 PM

Brett was shaking through the whole interview. Not good.

weekly · 03-19-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dav3

Owned? lol... More like he tried to interrupt and kept getting shut down. The interviewer's voice sounded like he had his tail between his legs.

He did......

CybermedAndy · 03-19-2010, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderCash_Dominik

Fox idiots at its best.

This

8

dougeetx · 03-20-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The interviewer was trying to push his agenda...by constantly interrupting...and the President would not allow that and answered his way by pushing his agenda. If there was any ownage it was done by the President.

Exactly!

03-19-2010, 12:17 PM	#52
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	Those are some good points. I mainly stay with Dennis Prager, who judges things more or less, objectively. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 12:32 PM	#54
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aghrqNBEBtIc __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 01:03 PM	#56
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	I wish they would have just stopped with the stupid bill and slowly started working on the individual parts that everyone would for the most part, agree on. This is a stupid move and there's zero guarantee that it will pass Sunday. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 01:05 PM	#57
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	HR 4789 is a bill that would allow every american citizen the ability to buy into medicare, at cost. Pay for what it costs with no cash incentivized peon insurance asshole trying to deny you in order to get a bonus. What a concept. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

03-19-2010, 01:07 PM	#59
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	What do you mean? __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 01:12 PM	#60
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	It basically is a done deal though honestly. Stupak is the only goof who's pretending he has secret friends who will vote no with him. But the fact is, he hasn't actually said point blank that he's not going to vote yes, lol. He just says that he THINKS there's provisions in the bill where the government would be using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. Something that nobody else but him is seeing. Without him and like 10 more people, it's a yes. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

03-19-2010, 01:14 PM	#62
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	Yes they can nation, it's called raising premiums, which is what the insurance companies are going to do. And depending on your pre-existing condition, your premiums are going to skyrocket. Also, just read this, not sure how accurate it is because as you say, it's fox news.. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...x-investments/ __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 01:17 PM	#63
QuaWee Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: boogers Posts: 5,791	So, Obama tried to answer question and was cut off. That equals "ownage"? LOL. You tards still calling the president Barack "Hussein" Obama is even more hilarious. You are trying to hard __________________ i luv mainstream

03-19-2010, 01:19 PM	#64
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Except that there is provision where any premium increases have to be justified by an independant agent, and that 80%+ of your premium HAS to be spent on YOUR care. So raise away if you can is the message to insurance companies. Doesnt it bug you that they're making record profits during these times? "let them eat cake" comes to mind.. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

03-19-2010, 01:21 PM	#66
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	No, what bugs me is that we're switching a somewhat corrupt group(private insurance), to a more corrupt group(government). I'm 100% for limited government and for private sector. If these corrupt insurance companies want to screw us, so be it, but when they fail, they need to stay that way. The bailouts were a slap to the face of this country's traditional values. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 01:33 PM	#69
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	You jumped the shark with that one. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

03-19-2010, 01:55 PM	#71
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	Actually, there were many causes for the problem and none of them had to do with Bush's and Reagan's deregulation. 1. Going off the Gold Standard in 1971 2. The American consumers starting to spend more than they could afford. 3. Credit expansion(ok, some bank fuckups lol) 4. Trade Surplus turning into a trade deficit 5. Budget deficit increasing 6. National Debt increasing 7. Debasing of the US Dollar 8. Clinton's removal of bank loan caps. The only issue would be the credit crisis which while big, is nothing compared to the subprime mortgage and the monetary and fiscal mismanagement I've outlined. If we had a true free market based on the Austrian School of economics, I believe we would have never had these issues. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 02:06 PM	#74
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	Public and private sector aside, people mismanage their funds and then want the government to give them a handout. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 02:21 PM	#77
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/...ama_s_promises __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 02:27 PM	#78
CosmicTang Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,478	What a colossal waste of an opportunity by Fox. They get the president on the hot seat in prime time where they can fire off tough questions from a serious journalist and call him to task if he doesn't tell the truth and what do they do? Send in a partisan clown who not only avoids asking questions the people want the answers to in favor of procedural questions that only other party hacks and policy wonks really care about but he's disrespectful to the president of the US in his own house. They won't be ashamed of their behavior because they have no shame, and it would serve them right if Obama shut Fox out of any future interviews, especially with that rude little imbecile. FTR- I thought Obama did dodge a few questions and pulled out the politician speak on a few answers, which is what I would expect an elected official to do. Had he been given more time to answer without being cut off by that troll he perhaps could have provided more. At the least a journalist would have him set up for tougher questions and called him out on evading, if not in the interview then in the countless dissections afterward. __________________ ICQ: 456.689.835 julian (at) orgasm (dot) com

03-19-2010, 03:03 PM	#83
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	I feel bad for the Democrats who are voting no. They must be getting political pressure and threats from Obama and Pelosi on the level of a Mafia racket, rofl. __________________ Greed is Good

03-19-2010, 03:51 PM	#87
dav3 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,348	Owned? lol... More like he tried to interrupt and kept getting shut down. The interviewer's voice sounded like he had his tail between his legs. __________________ Webmasters :: Juicy Ads :: ACWM :: Crak Revenue :: Money Tree

03-19-2010, 07:00 PM	#88
weekly So Fucking Banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,785	Brett was shaking through the whole interview. Not good.