Hmm...I only watch FOX "news" for the babes. It makes the propaganda that much more palatable.

Took as much time beating around the bush, then answering the question again. If it was answered again, show some Balls, Hold some Ground stick to your guns and your answer!

I have always admired in a sick way the ability of any spokesman speaking on behalf of the White House!

yep the guy that got us into this mess and cost of the lives of over 4000 soldiers and no wmds to be had. Yep he should be thanked. lol

Absolutely right on!! How DARE someone from the media ask an administration representative of this great country any tough questions, or nail him down when he dances around the answer!!! That kind of stuff should NEVER happen! We live here in this great country so that the government can tell us what they want to tell us, whenever they want to tell us, and any good person should know that we should simply accept it at face value!


Go America!!!




.:winkwink:

Yeah, to bad she didn't ask a new question that hasn't already been asked by fox before, rather trying to ask questions that stir up bullshit.

Your right, that kind of bullshit shouldn't be allowed to happen.

every time someone asks obama about the economy he says over and over "its bush's fault" they don't seem to have a problem saying that over and over

haha, what an idiot.. did your sister leave you? smart girl, that could explain why you're a complete idiot though.


Is the rest of that crap some type of lame fox news twist attempt? Of course millions of Americans are suffering, any idiot knows if we have 45 million or so people without insurance that millions are suffering economical or medically because of a lack of insurance and that doesn't count the people that won't go get help now, that do have a problem, because of no insurance.

I didn't vote for Obama? Ouch, that really toss off your half baked theory. Idiot.

Yep, I've heard him relate many various economic issues of today to what he was handed and had to start with. That is understandable... because it's true.

What you're ignoring is he answers the question. However, it's not like 'you' make it a habit to listen to him, you get your information from 3rd party sources. Which is rather evident in your arguments.

really?
well please then, idiot, since you know, provide a link backing it up.
I'll wait right here for the link that shows data (not leftist opinion) of """millions are suffering economical or medically because of a lack of insurance"""
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

dear idiot, it goes something like this:
"I inherited a 1 trillion dollar deficit so I'm going to spend 20 trillion to fix it."

he totally got owned... she might be bitchy but you have to be to get a straight answer out of politicians...

And shes a freaking total babe...

I'd have thanked Bush for the surge, for the failure leading up to it, for the war of choice his daddies cronies forced onto him and for his midget brain that helped him rise to the rank of cheerleader.


Come on Gibbs, wtf. It was so simple.

since gibbs is about as accomplished as you are, he couldn't really do it without looking like a fool

Great find, that is funny and sad at the same time.

And 12clicks, lets not forget to thank Bush for supporting the lies that linked al qeada to Iraq, lies about WMD from the entire administration, lies that we were there to liberate the people, lies saying we were there to support a democratic government (that doesnt exist still).

Dont forget to also thank Bush for allowing his idiots to resort to treason by outting Valerie Plame because they didnt like Joe Wilson telling the truth that there was no link between Iraq and yellow cake uranium from africa. And thank Bush for the lie that if anyone in his administration was found to be involved, he would fire them.

The fucking thing was just a lie and we should thank Bush for being a lying mother fucking liar.

Thanks Bush! Eat a dick!

what a dumb cunt-whore

Fuck fox news.

you'll go far in life with that knowledge base.

Oh my god... did this spewing puke come out of your mouth?

I'll entertain this for just one moment. Look at the number of lost jobs and people without jobs, at that those without jobs for 18+ months. Ouch, several million people... that is of course on top of the millions without insurance due to part time jobs or, hell... let's not forget the estimated 5 million (even if it's 2m) without insurance or rather, can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

But hell... proving millions of people are suffering economically or medically because of a lack of insurance, yeah that's about as hard as using Google.

My god, for your own sake for the countries sake, educate yourself, do some actual research for once in your pathetic life.

Again.. educate yourself, please... please start reading up and learning what actually happened and is happening. Trying to debate topics that you understand at a high school level has become, stupid.

He didn't spend 20 trillion to fix it, he hasn't spent 1 trillion to try and fix it, he and his bills have spent 300-400 million. The inherited problem was more than debt, it was cooked books, lack of budgeting, lack of war spending being setup correctly to hide it... all of which Obama corrected. All of which you're now seeing the reality of, and if you project those costs forward at the same rate they really would have grown us at... You get - growth! Shocking I know.

The projections you see, are based on the idea that nothing ever changes, wars, etc and spending kept going. Something Obama has changed in some areas already and plans on changing greatly more in the future, some plans which have already been started.

Again... please stop posting and go read up and not on fox news or really any news source.

um yeah, idiot, I didn't think you could back that up with any facts or links to facts. just your typical idiot rhetoric.
one can only hope that you do not procreate.:thumbsup

clueless

That's the point... it's a joke that you wouldn't just know it, let alone a joke that you asked for links. This is a great example of what is wrong with our Country, a lack of education has made it so you're not able to perform your own research and if you did you're ability to comprehend the information to draw a reasonable conclusion is greatly limited.

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-...-US-adults.pdf
Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year. Hell, that's just deaths related to a lack of insurance. BTW, all the sources are in this study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsur..._United_States
"The number of people who lack insurance at some time during a multi-year period is greater than the number currently uninsured. A study published by Families USA in 2009 estimated that approximately 86.7 million people were uninsured at some point during the two-year period 2007-2008. This represented about 29% of the total US population or about one-in-three under 65 years of age."

That's another 86.7 million possible people, mostly older population without insurance at some point. Yeah, I'm sure that had no impact on them.

"According to the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were 8.1 million uninsured children in the US. Nearly 8 million young adults (those aged 18–24), were uninsured, representing 28.1% of their population."

Ohhh... I'm sure having no insurance with children doesn't put any strain on parents, oh none at all, hahahaha.

"........They concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDS."

That's a lack of care, ie: they have insurance but the insurance company wouldn't cover it. Yeah, probably no strain put on these people either, they just died early because it's the cool thing to do.



I could keep going for endless hours... easily 1-3 months of information that support this from a 1000 different angles that could be posted.

I'm tired of making you look like an uneducated sheep now.

That's exactly the answer I expected... odd how others here have debated and discussed the information related to that, yet totally expected that you couldn't.

was she? she said she only asked the question the once, and then all of a sudden she remembered asking it a few more times

why would we have to thank bush for iraq? what exactly was the point of invading that country again?

I'd butt fuck her.

Without any lube.

Now... that would be really.... hrmm... cute :)





.

I'm sorry, halfwit, could you point out where any of this nonsense backs up your claim that:

and please, no half wit tap dancing. simply make bold where it says millions are suffering.

do they speak a different language in canada that makes it impossible for you to understand what was in the clip?

why would I waste time explaining something you couldn't understand no matter how much I dumbed it down?

your inability to understand economics is evident in all aspects of your life. :thumbsup

The post made is a clear sign of the "millions are suffering economical or medically because of a lack of insurance"

If you're unable to comprehend and relate the information at even the most basic level then I truly don't expect you to have the abilities to research any new information to expand your own knowledge.

A true product of american education, bravo!

Oh wow, you understand economics?

Please let's here your economic theory on how Obama grew the deficit a trillion dollars without spending a dime and exactly what he did to do that. At that, using your vast knowledge of economics to explain the difference between what the projected deficit would have been without the economic polices Obama put into place and exactly what those policies are that did make it grow.

Don't explain it to me, how about you explain it to the people on GFY wondering this as well. Let's help all of the GOP, right wing, tea baggers, and everyone else truly understand what Obama did from a highly educated brilliant individual as yourself.

However... I expect more excuses like above.

Ah, the beauty of teflonic two liners !!!

Here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 (with sources)

No Obama love story here, they say some of his spending adds to the deficit, but with reason... It also lays out a huge amount of actual facts.

"By the time CBO issued its new projections on January 7, 2009 — two weeks before Inauguration Day — it had already put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion."

Yeah, probably was Obama that did it..... probably in some lala land of stupidity.


"The key question is: where do we go from here? President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to reduce anticipated deficits over the next ten years, chiefly by letting the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers expire on schedule, closing certain tax loopholes and reforming the international tax system, keeping estate taxes at their 2009 parameters, enacting health care reform, and freezing (in aggregate) most appropriations for non-security domestic programs for the next three years. The President also supports another round of temporary recovery measures that would boost the deficit in 2010 through 2012, a proposal that is appropriate in size and well targeted.[8] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analyses have found that in aggregate, the President’s proposals would reduce deficits over the 2011-2020 period by an estimated $1.3 trillion.

Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and Congress will need to take considerably larger steps. The President himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on a sustainable footing and has established a bipartisan fiscal commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions........"

But hey... Obama's polices are going to increase it by 20 trillion and Obama wants to grow the gov and spend us to death. Clearly it's true, fox news reported it and you believed it.

are you talking about the heavily complex editing for propaganda purposes?

we don't have a lot of that up here

sweet! lol

No offense meant at all Richard, but if you think that your, or anyones, news sources are not biased, slanted, and heavily edited in terms of what stories are presented, which are left out, and how they are presented; then you are being very naive.



:2 cents:.

as I said, halfwit. find facts, not leftist opinion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791927/

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, an eye-popping figure that threatens his ambitious goals to overhaul health care and explore new energy sources, congressional auditors said.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures that emerged Friday offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month ? a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.
In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But the dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, would amount to more than four times the deficits of Bush's presidency and raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends.
By the auditors' calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.
Worst of all, the budget office says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
White House budget chief Peter Orszag said that CBO's long-range economic projections are more pessimistic than those of the White House, private economists and the Federal Reserve, and that he remained confident that Obama's budget, if enacted, would produce smaller deficits.
Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.
------------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/deb...4/21/id/356486


America?s fiscal picture is even worse than it looks,? Altman writes. ?The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just projected that over 10 years, cumulative deficits will reach $9.7 trillion and federal debt 90 percent of gross domestic product ? nearly equal to Italy?s.


?Global capital markets are unlikely to accept that credit erosion,? Altman says. ?If they revolt, as in 1979, ugly changes in fiscal and monetary policy will be imposed on Washington. More than Afghanistan or unemployment, this is President Barack Obama?s greatest vulnerability.?

The financial outlook for the United States is frightening. The CBO projects the size of the federal debt to increase by nearly 250 percent over 10 years, from $7.5 trillion to a whopping $20 trillion.

The only remote comparison to such a debt load occurred during World War II, a global conflict that killed 50 million people, Altman and other analysts have written.

But there is no real comparison even in the 1940s and '50s for such a rise in indebtedness ? nothing remotely like it has occurred since record keeping began in 1792, Altman writes.


now I'm sure the CBO is lying:1orglaugh

no, I was talking about your inability to understand english.

of which 'nitch' were you referring?

An msnbc article isn't left? Sweet...

Clearly you're not able to understand what the topic is and how it relates to what you posted.

None of those things you posted state Obama increased the deficit to 20 trillion dollars. We already know the deficit is going to go up. That is why I said I want you to show what Obama, what changes Obama put in, that made it go up to 20 trillion.

As I was saying... this would be incorrect information. He isn't spending 20 trillion to fix anything, it's a projection of what it could cost us if nothing changed and as I quoted above "The President himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on a sustainable footing and has established a bipartisan fiscal commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions........"

My god... get a clue.

no fear, i don't remotely think that at all

in the case of this video, however, i question why you're trying to compare bias in news to this obvious work of blind-stupid propaganda

cliffnotes-

12clicks is still a fucking dweeb

and the paper hat crowd begins to get home from work....

Cambaby's indoctrination is now complete, Fox could activate him at anytime now

I have seen many journalists from all sides of issues and from all types of news organizations from the BBC to CNN to whatever you want to name, over the decades, ask tough questions of a government official, who then spouts an obvious lie, then dances around the question.... and the journalist then proceeds to badger that official to back up what they are saying or to stop dancing around the issue and answer the question. This has always been considered good, hard-hitting journalism.... Why is it not so in this case? He claimed that Obama had said one thing, when he clearly had said the opposite, and she called him on it. If it was Bush you would have been cheering, right?


.

I think you're confused about what was said in the video... he without question answered the question. The part we could hear him speaking was 20 seconds, clearly it was cut off at the start. It's really clear as well, 20k troops would beef up security but as Obama said 20k troops won't accomplish any 'new' progress - and it wouldn't - but it would beef up security which is vastly different than new progress. It's really easy to understand.

Any other question she asked is of no political importance and not anything Americans should care about and stupid that she kept pushing them.

Indeed,

Every newspaper, News program or whatever have an agenda.

While I think she owns him because she asks him a pretty legit question and he just won't answer (clearly because the answer would be embarrassing), I will say this. Had that been Wolf Blitzer interviewing Sarah Palin in that way today she would be on the attack about how the "liberal elite media" can't interview her without filling the interview with "gotcha" questions.

Arguing that because Fox has good ratings means that more people in the country agree with their views is skewed logic.

If you are liberal or prefer your news with a liberal slant (or just don't care about how the news is slanted) you have a lot of different options. You can watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and pretty much all of major networks (NBC, ABC etc.). If you want your news with a conservative slant you only have one source, FOX.

If a city has 5 restaurants in it with 4 of them being pizza places and the 5th being a burger place you would expect the burger place to be busy all the time because the pizza places are going to split the pizza crowd. That doesn't mean that burger place is better than any of the pizza places, nor does it mean that the people of that town prefer burgers to pizza, it just means that this is the only burger joint in town.

Fox and Rush LOVE that Obama is the President!

They get the most haters, um, I mean, viewers, when the opposition is in power.