GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Barack Hussein Obama owned by Bret Baier [VIDEOS] (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=959161)

The Demon 03-19-2010 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x (Post 16960508)
So what you are saying is that I should judge Obama on the answers he might have given if he was asked real questions and allowed to answer them? I agree with you in part... Obama SHOULD be held accountable for his answers on real questions... however, half of the questions were about whether or not Obama supported the use of Deem and Pass with Baier asserting that there wouldn't be a vote (which is false because there has already been a vote on the Senate Bill and it passed and now they will vote on the Reconciliation bill). This Deem and Pass talking point is complete bullshit hypocrisy since the Republicans are the ones that got it legitimized in the courts... AND the fact that it is a mundane process in reality. The vote will be on the Reconciliation bill which adds President Obama's requested changes to the Senate Bill. IF the Reconciliation bill passes the Senate Bill is considered passed as well since they are basically tied together. This isn't a new procedure... both Reconciliation AND Deem and Pass have been used by Republicans MORE than Democrats (Reconciliation 16 out of 21-22 times, Deem and Pass 202 times since 1996)... thus the hypocrisy.

As far as the deals... Obama made it clear which "deals" they had decided to leave in and said very clearly that the rest are gone with the passage of the Reconciliation bill. Furthermore, Obama didn't make those deals in the first place... Reid and Pelosi did that to whip votes... believe me... Republicans do the same thing... why not ask Jim Bunning what deal he got from the Republican leadership for allowing the Unemployment Extensions to pass.

As far as the donut hole... Obama answered that question clearly.


No, I'm saying Obama has been more full of shit than Bush, and hiding behind Baier's stupidity to try and claim that Obama would have given clear, legitimate answers. I'm saying that's a false notion.

nation-x 03-19-2010 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 16960523)
No, I'm saying Obama has been more full of shit than Bush, and hiding behind Baier's stupidity to try and claim that Obama would have given clear, legitimate answers. I'm saying that's a false notion.

read this again: I agree with you in part... Obama SHOULD be held accountable for his answers on real questions...

The Demon 03-19-2010 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x (Post 16960543)
read this again: I agree with you in part... Obama SHOULD be held accountable for his answers on real questions...

Then we have no disagreements about what Baier did.

Vendzilla 03-19-2010 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x (Post 16960508)
So what you are saying is that I should judge Obama on the answers he might have given if he was asked real questions and allowed to answer them? I agree with you in part... Obama SHOULD be held accountable for his answers on real questions... however, half of the questions were about whether or not Obama supported the use of Deem and Pass with Baier asserting that there wouldn't be a vote (which is false because there has already been a vote on the Senate Bill and it passed and now they will vote on the Reconciliation bill). This Deem and Pass talking point is complete bullshit hypocrisy since the Republicans are the ones that got it legitimized in the courts... AND the fact that it is a mundane process in reality. The vote will be on the Reconciliation bill which adds President Obama's requested changes to the Senate Bill. IF the Reconciliation bill passes the Senate Bill is considered passed as well since they are basically tied together. This isn't a new procedure... both Reconciliation AND Deem and Pass have been used by Republicans MORE than Democrats (Reconciliation 16 out of 21-22 times, Deem and Pass 202 times since 1996)... thus the hypocrisy.

As far as the deals... Obama made it clear which "deals" they had decided to leave in and said very clearly that the rest are gone with the passage of the Reconciliation bill. Furthermore, Obama didn't make those deals in the first place... Reid and Pelosi did that to whip votes... believe me... Republicans do the same thing... why not ask Jim Bunning what deal he got from the Republican leadership for allowing the Unemployment Extensions to pass.

As far as the donut hole... Obama answered that question clearly.

Here is the transcript... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html

God I love it when a liberal defends a position saying it's OK to do it because the Republicans did it.
Because one side did it, doesn't make it right

nation-x 03-19-2010 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 16960553)
Then we have no disagreements about what Baier did.

We had already agreed that. :) You have been answering my responses to Vendzilla.

stickyfingerz 03-19-2010 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x (Post 16960386)
dude... you must be blind and deaf... he was trying to answer them but kept getting interrupted. Furthermore, half of the "questions" weren't even questions... they were talking points... some I have already pointed out to you in another thread. Show me a single real question (not a bullshit talking point) that Bret Baier asked that Obama didn't answer or attempt to answer?

Ya he obviously had no time to talk. Just enough time to fill a hot air balloon with enough hot air to take off. lol

nation-x 03-19-2010 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 16960556)
God I love it when a liberal defends a position saying it's OK to do it because the Republicans did it.
Because one side did it, doesn't make it right

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?

nation-x 03-19-2010 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 16960571)
Ya he obviously had no time to talk. Just enough time to fill a hot air balloon with enough hot air to take off. lol

Put your money where your mouth is... show me a real question that he didn't answer or attempt to answer.

spazlabz 03-19-2010 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 16960300)
No, spaz wanted proof that Bush was interviewed by CNN. I'll read it and tell you...

spaz wanted proof of MSNBC getting an interview with GWB, its a technical point but I would view MSNBC to be the progressive's version of Fox, not CNN


spaz

The Demon 03-19-2010 11:43 AM

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

nation-x 03-19-2010 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 16960691)
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 (Post 16960578)
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 (Post 16960870)

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 (Post 16960995)
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 (Post 16961007)
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 (Post 16961031)
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 (Post 16961050)
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 (Post 16961068)
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 (Post 16961083)
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 (Post 16961136)
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 (Post 16961155)
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 (Post 16960246)
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 (Post 16960325)
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 (Post 16961199)
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 (Post 16959165)

That will be his first and last interview with the President. :2 cents:

directfiesta 03-19-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 16960870)

breaking gfy rules: sig too big!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123