18 Mar

Bret Baier’s Outstanding Interview Of The Narcissist In Chief

                                       

If you haven’t seen the Bret Baier interview of President Obama then what are you waiting for? It was one of the best interviews of this narcissistic man by the media in ages. Finally a reporter who isn’t starry eyed nor weak willed. Baier noticed quite early that Obama was attempting to filibuster the interview and wouldn’t have it, while still appearing polite and non-threatening.

Seth Leibsohn:

It was a model of how not to be cowed by a strong and charismatic leader and a model of a truly independent anchor/reporter. President Obama knew he didn’t have Bret at the very end when his last effort at victimhood was to sarcastically hang his head to the side in response to Bret’s saying he didn’t mean to interrupt, as if Bret were being insincere — which he wasn’t. Anyone who watches the interview can see who was stalling, who was running the clock, who was refusing to answer the questions, and why polite interruption was exactly what was needed. It was a model. If any of the MSM can watch it and conclude anything it is that FNC deserves a) its ratings and b) kudos for being truly independent from the herd of faux independent minds, the likes of which Howell Raines seems to esteem. Bret showed the rest of the press how to do it from now on.

Watch as Obama gets frustrated because the reporter has the audacity to throw him some hard pitches:

Full transcript here.

And in the end Obama came out of the gate with his idealized fantasy land baloney. The classic part is when he tried to explain all the kickbacks he and his cohorts were throwing to those who vote his way.

Even better part? When he gave the most rambling and evasive answer possible to the question of how in the world he could claim that the cuts to Medicare can simultaneously be used to strengthen Medicare and expand cover to tens of millions of new people. (couple minutes into the below video)

Ace:

First, he claims that “nobody’s claiming” that this fixes the 38 trillion unfunded liability gap. But that’s not true at all — he’s claiming that, for one. He continuously says that Medicare is going bankrupt without his supposed reform, but with his reform, it apparently won’t.

Under pointed questioning, he walks his grand claims back to the is that his reform “doesn’t weaken Medicare.” Well! That’s a lot different than claims the reform “strengthens the finances of Medicare,” isn’t it?

He also changes the terms of argument by stating that some of his “Medicare savings” will be used to pay off current seniors by closing the donut hole in drug coverage. But that deliberately misses the point, as that too constitutes new spending, and if we’re plowing these alleged savings into new spending and new entitlements, it also can’t be used to firm up future finances of current obligations. He is claiming that if he spends some of his “savings” on current seniors — but new spending for current seniors — this somehow “counts” as fixing Medicare long-term.

Of course it doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t. But he continues lying about this, claiming his that his “reform” addresses the long-term problem. It doesn’t. It takes a big chunk of money and reassigns it to other spending — most of it is taken from seniors to be spent on other groups — and spends not a dollar to actually fix the financing for Medicare.

Here is a ten minute interview of Bret about the interview:

Bret Baier: What I wasn’t comfortable with Brian was that he went to, you know, talking points about the health care reform bill right away on the first question. And suddenly I looked at the clock I looked at…listening to him say what he had said on the stump just two days earlier in Cleveland and I said I gotta do something otherwise I’m gonna get rolled.

No wonder Obama and his friends are so scared of Fox News!

UPDATE

The New Editor:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews just criticized Fox News’ Bret Baier for interrupting President Obama multiple times in his Wednesday night interview.

Chris Matthews. Criticizing someone else for interrupting an interview subject. Really.

Matthews then had Salon’s Joan Walsh and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on to discuss the interview, both of whom criticized Fox for being a propaganda outlet. Walsh and Tucker criticizing someone else for spewing propaganda. Really.

Matthews, Walsh, and Tucker, giving a well-rounded view of the political world.

Do these people realize how ignorant and loony they appear?

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Health Care, Media, Obamanomics, Socialism, Socialized Health Care. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
| 1,270 views

50 Responses to Bret Baier’s Outstanding Interview Of The Narcissist In Chief

  1. Pingback: Steve Perry Of Journey Dead | America Most Wanted

  2. Sid says: 1

    Obama looked like he didn’t study for the test, and thought he could wing it as usual.

    ReplyReply
  3. Obama thought he was going to make another of his 15 minute speeches in response to whatever question Bret asked. I’m glad Bret was tough with him yet it’s unfortunate that he had to do it.

    Bush rarely had to be interrupted in interviews because he used the occasion to answer questions, not make speeches.

    Doesn’t Obama know by now that we are sick and tired of his speechifying?

    WHAT AN ASS!

    ReplyReply
  4. Patvann says: 3

    I had to cut it off after 5 minutes. I have found that his obfuscation and outright lies makes me have a violent reaction. Again.

    The heavy-bag brings me back, but I just don’t want to have to put up with him.

    I have the transcript, but I’ll wait till I’m alone tomorrow to read it. My family deserves my time with them to be positive.

    ReplyReply
  5. @Patvann: I couldn’t watch it either. My parent’s are visiting and my father was watching it. He actually enjoyed watching Bret put Obama in his place. But it was too frustrating for me.

    ReplyReply
  6. SoCal Chris says: 5

    Obama: “blah, blah, blah. blah”, that’s all I heard!! Can the man not answer any question?

    And, what about his bobblehead distraction tactic? Drove me nuts:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7SE1v2wD0A&feature=related

    ReplyReply
  7. Inspectorudy says: 6

    You know the most interesting thing about the interview to me was that Brett did his job without a huge ego getting in the way. He is a nice polite unassuming man whom I watch daily on FNC Monday thru Friday. He is a journalist and not an ego maniac like O’Reilly, Kouric, Williams et al. Obama would have had him arrested if he had known ahead of time how badly he was going to do in the interview. Go Brett!

    ReplyReply
  8. Prairie says: 7

    I don’t understand why Bret didn’t just keep asking the same question over and over until he got a straight answer? It was so obvious that the WON was pontificating as a means of not answering more questions. Frustrating.

    ReplyReply
  9. The beautiful thing about a narcissist is their never ending love affair with themselves. Really, now! Enough about me; what do you think of me?

    Truly unbelievable. If there is a silver lining here, it is that Fox has been slowly, but surely, stripping away the emperor’s new proverbial clothes, as opposed to the bulk of the sycophantic media. Any day now, I keep expecting one of the lefty talking heads to offer up a panegyric to his almighty greatness.

    Good grief!

    Tim O

    ReplyReply
  10. BackwardsBoy says: 9

    This was the interview we’d all been waiting for. Baier politely but deftly exposed Obama for the shallow, unqualified actor that he is. Too bad this didn’t occur during the campaign, the result might have been different.

    Bret deserves a journalism award.

    ReplyReply
  11. drjohn says: 10

    Kudos to Baier. There is at least one newsman who doesn’t get tingles up his leg when faced with this self-imported jerk.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wemo says: 11

    After listening to nearly twenty minutes of absolute drivel, I can’t imagine how any rational person could support this man Obama, or his any of his policies.

    ReplyReply
  13. @Tim O’Flaherty: The “panegyric” has already been written and the talking heads at ABCNBCPBSCBS et. al. are just waiting for health care to pass before proclaiming that it was made possible because of the greatness and vision of the Socialist in Chief.

    ReplyReply
  14. Davey says: 13

    I can’t remember a single President in the past that even comes close to the bald faced arrogance this chump displays. Sure we’ve had arrogant one’s before, but at least they tried to keep it under wraps. This guy parades it up and down the street like it’s one more reason to be proud of himself and get all puffed up.

    ReplyReply
  15. BRob says: 14

    A question:

    If an interviewer from CNN talked over George W. Bush throughout an interview, constantly interrupted him, and incessantly asked the same inand question over and over again, would you cons be cheering, or would you call his conduct disrespectful? That is the difference between conservatives and normal people: normal people don’t tolerate rudeness no matter who is dishing it out. The next time you cons start whining “Obama won’t come on Fox!” — we can just run the tape and show why: because Fox is really not a news station, but a wingnut propaganda organ.

    You cons know you have lost this. Which is why you are all getting so rude and so defensive. You are all in full intellectual retreat mode, such that being nasty and screaming over people is the last reaction you have . . . not unlike a spoiled three year old.

    You cons . . . you really don’t see how you are presenting yourselves, do you? You look like a lot of crazed dogs: frothing at the mouth, nonsensical, not open to reason or rational argument, only responsive to a swift kick. I sensed this con unravelling with the Palin rallies, saw it again with the teabagger rallies. I thought it hit the worst patch with the teabaggers mocking the Parkinson’s suffer last week*, and Boehner calling Hill staffers “punks” because they are working on regulations to lower the risk of another banking meltdown like in 2008. But your cheering of this no-name reporter dissing the President of your country . . . YOUR OWN COUNTRY . . . yep, y’all have reached a new low. But I should not be surprised . . . not an ounce of higher education or class in the lot of ya, so we should probably expect you all to act as if life is just one big monster truck show. I swear, every day, you people remind me more and more of the Fox News watchers in the movie “Idiocracy.” “Brawndo’s got electrolytes.”

    * what is it with cons and Parkinsons that brings out the nutty vitrioil? First Rush and Michael J. Fox, now the teabaggers! Sheesh . . . get a grip!

    ReplyReply
  16. Wordsmith says: 15

    BRob,

    When you speak about “you cons” frothing at the mouth…do you ever pause for a moment to proof-read and edit your comments before publishing? Because in so many of ‘em, I can feel the spittle coming out of the monitor when I take the time to read what you have to say. Sounds like you’re projecting onto us, your own unhinged, anger management issues.

    Were we watching the same interview, btw? Nothing at all wrong with the interviewer asking the tough questions and challenging the interviewee. I’d say he was actually doing his job, rather than coddling and being a sycophant reporter to the president. Didn’t the president say he welcomes “robust debate”?

    ReplyReply
  17. Patvann says: 16

    2 answers:

    Short version. Eff off. This president IS a facist punk.

    Long version:

    Our ideological adversaries are not living in reality. Indeed, that is what makes them our adversaries. People who don’t live in reality necessarily become bitter, frustrated, resentful, and aggressive, especially toward those who do live in reality. They think that by attacking reality and those who live in it, they can somehow transform their unreality into reality, but of course it never works. Reality always has the last word.

    Since I once worked in a mental hospital, I saw up close how this process plays out in deranged individuals. But the most helpful things I learned during my internship at Camarillo State Mental Hospital were that, 1) Charlie Parker once slept here, and 2) the most disturbed people are not qualitatively different from the Normals, only quantitatively different.

    In other words, in the decompensated psychotic person, one is able to “see” unconscious processes that are more hidden in the non-psychotic. In fact, “decompensation” refers to the breakdown of psychological defense mechanisms that keep primitive unconscious material and processes at bay; analogously, think of what would happen if your skin began to break down. Defense mechanisms are very much like a semipermeable membrane between the ego and lower vertical, just as your skin keeps your insides in and the outside out. (And you might also say that religious metaphysics keeps the upside up and the downside down.)

    Changing or possibly grinding gears for the moment, Walter Russell Mead writes that everyone in the Anglo-American world, whether secular or religious, is within the Abrahamic tradition, which is one of the things that sets us apart from unsuccessful cultures. Abrahamic religion “holds that history has a shape and a purpose: a beginning, a middle, and an end.”

    In the Abrahamic tradition, history is “the name for a period in the human story in which certain problems need to be solved. History in this sense is not synonomous with the full term of human existence. History is a period and a process through which humanity solves (or is given a solution to) certain sets of problems before moving on to the next and higher stage in its existence.”

    Abrahamic ideologies “largely see the human story as consisting of three stages: prehistory, history, and posthistory.” Seen in this context, history “is not just the passage of time” — indeed, Abrahamic peoples are intrinsically “historical” and never really see time in this meaningless, ahistorical way. Rather, history involves “the accomplishment of a task. Something is wrong with the world; the world has been wounded. History is the process by which what is wrong is set right, what is broken mended. History may look chaotic and meaningless, but everything that happens is ultimately part of the healing process…”

    Now, the main difference between Abrahamic religion and Abrahamic atheism or materialism is that the latter regards the former as just a stage on the way to the atheist’s superior “post human” knowledge and insight, while the religionist would regard the atheist as existing at a sort of right angle to the stream of historical development, paddling around in a shallow and irrelevant little self-created eddy. He is like a drop critiquing the ocean of which he is a part, and imagining himself superior to it. But in any case, the atheist cannot help thinking that existence and history have a purpose, thus the fervent attempts to evangelize their posthuman (in reality infrahuman) faith to the faithless faithful.

    For example, our obsessive-compulsive troll — like the Camarillo psychotic — reflects this tendency writ large, in that he cannot stop himself from trying to convert us to his mode of darkness in order to convince himself that darkness is light. Such a fruitless enterprise is doomed from the start, being that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not, but that doesn’t stop darkness from trying. Indeed, darkness is an inevitable byproduct of the Light, so where there is self-giving Light there is envious darkness. The process is entirely reactionary, a consequence of the cosmic nescience at the vertical periphery of creation.

    In the words of Schuon, such a person regards his own “extrinsic explanations as essential factors of truth,” objectifying what is only subjective and dragging truth “down into the depths into which it has itself fallen.” The whole enterprise is absurd, since “one cannot enclose the universe within ‘human subjectivity’ while at the same time allowing for a point of view beyond this subjectivity…” Man is either a fragment of the Absolute or he is nothing. A part apart from the whole isn’t even a part, just a nothing.

    We can all agree that something is wrong with the world. In the absence of time, we could never set it right, so history is indeed an opportunity to mend what is broken and participate in what Jews call tikkun olam, the “repair” or “perfecting” of the world. In Raccoon parlance we refer to this ultimate Adventure of Consciousness as “Cosmotheosis,” or the divinization or sanctification of the lower world (i.e., Thy will be done, down here as it is up there), which can only be accompliced through human co-creators, since only we have vertical freedom of movement toward Light and Truth.

    In other words, we are the “lens” through which the white light of the Absolute deigns to undergo the adventure of color, each of which is a beautiful fragment, so to speak, of the pure Light. If we could not suffer pain, falsehood, and color, we could not suffer joy, Truth, and Light. This is why human existence is such a guilty pleasure. O, felix culpa!

    Mead writes that secular modernism “is the youngest member of the family of Abraham.” With the exception of a personal God, it “faithfully reproduces the most important pieces of the Abrahamic paradigm,” and believes that its version of the faith will prevail in the end. Secularists still “adopt the core structure of the Abrahamic idea of history to tell their own stories of the world.” (Mead goes into considerably more detail in defense of this thesis, but to a Raccoon it is soph-evident. Once a Raccoon “gets it” he moves on.)

    The other “master narrative” of our time is the sudden flowering of human potential of the last several centuries. As Mead writes, “nothing in humanity’s past prepared it for change this dramatic in so many fields over such an extended period of time.” Because we are a relatively young species and exist within the heart of this ongoing explosion, it is difficult for us to see it.

    But don’t worry — Petey sees it just fine. He would disagree with Mead as to when the noospheric explosion (i.e., psychogenesis) commenced, situating it instead about 35-40,000 years ago, when merely genetic proto-humans suddenly and inexplicably began exhibiting distinct signs of humanness, such as the fully realized artistic images on the underground cave walls of Europe. While the explosion continued afterwards, we couldn’t see it because it was happening so slowly, just as we can’t see the Big Bang happening, even though we’re right here in the center of this rapidly expanding cosmos.

    What happened with modernity is that we became aware of the exploding noosphere, since time suddenly “sped up,” but mainly in the Anglo-American world. With the arrival of science, democracy, the rule of law, and free market capitalism, for the first time “history became a real presence in human lives” (Mead).

    For example, the Muslim world is still stagnating back in that earlier time, so that to them, we are aliens from the future bearing weird and often threatening gifts such as computers, airplanes, antibiotics, and Victoria’s Secret catalogues. While they eagerly accept most of these gifts — i.e., bin Laden is never far from his computer or frilly underthings — they would like to pull the future back into the past, when none of these gifts existed, but still keep most of the gifts. Thus, they are not just premodern, but pre-ironic.

    As for the left, they simply want to force us all into a weird, anti-human future which cannot exist except in the form of a projection of fantasy. They are post-ironic.

    Mead writes that “Marx is to progressivism what Thomas Aquinas is to Catholicism,” in that he explicated “the fullest and most systematic expression” of the secular leftist myth that still animates them today, even (or perhaps especially) if only unconsciously. The less sophisticated the leftist, e.g., our obsessive-compulsive troll, the more he is an unconscious disciple of Marx.

    Again, Marxism shares elements of the deep structure of Abrahamic religion, including a romantic “garden of innocence” (i.e., the classless society of early humans), the fall into oppression, exploitation, and class warfare, Marx’s revelation of the true laws of history, and the culmination of “the establishment of a higher, final way of life that fully meets human goals and needs,” i.e., the triumph of the working class. Thus, Marx didn’t so much turn Hegel as Abraham on his head.

    But having turned Abraham on his head, leftists also turned Brahman, or reality, upside down. For under the reign of the left, the roots of the cosmic tree are situated below, begaialed and mayared in the muddle of matter. Having literally transplanted the tree of life into sterile soil, they accomplished a feat of clay, deluminating the light in one fallen swoop, subverting That which makes man Man, and embracing the fantasy that they could build a new and improved reality “from the bottom up,” absurdly beginning with matter. They could force their vision on a recalcitrant mankind in the same way one can mold matter or Nancy Pelosi can whip her craven band of chestless men into submission.

    In short, in order to do this most effectively, a large and coercive state is required to do the molding and speed history along toward its appointed utopia. Needless to say, there is a big difference between forcing time and being pulled or lured by the eschaton.

    Mead writes we are faced with the eternal choice of the Glorious Revolution and its descendent, the American Revolution and its vertical empire of liberty; or the French Revolution and all its deformed, envious, dysfunctional, unproductive, vindictive, and tenured descendants. Our cosmic duty, as it were, is to preserve the radical spiritual revolution of America’s founding seers, as we heal the wounds and wound the heels that time and history have made and made possible.

    http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/03/healing-wounds-and-wounding-heels-of.html

    ReplyReply
  18. anticsrocks says: 17

    @BRob…You said:

    You cons . . . you really don’t see how you are presenting yourselves, do you?

    Then you refer to everyday Americans standing up and joining the Tea Party rallies as “teabaggers.”

    How eloquent of you.

    How would I react to a CNN reporter interrupting Bush? Well there is a huge difference between what Bret Baier did and what RTE journalist, Carole Coleman did to George W. Bush in ’04.

    THE White House has strongly criticised the RTE interview with President Bush, claiming that journalist Carole Coleman constantly interrupted him, preventing him from getting his point of view across.

    In fact, the Irish Government stated that it was improper:

    An Irish Government spokesman said that “within Government there was an acknowledgement that the interview lacked respect.”

    If Bush had been resorting to talking points and filibustering to keep from answering hard questions, then I would have no problem with a reporter treating him respectfully like Baier treated Obama. But El Presidente just couldn’t help himself and he fell back to just spouting his leftist rhetoric. Talk about dumb, he would have been better off having Biden do the interview.

    BRob…you need to wake up and try looking at Obama a little more objectively. Or are you saying that you have NO problem with ANYTHING he has done? If that is the case, then you are just a drone and beyond help.

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks says: 18

    @Patvann…I vote for the short answer!

    ReplyReply
  20. Patvann says: 19

    OH Brob!

    I forgot to ask you somthing…(Cuz yer so smart, like our president).

    The last company I worked with put out close to $500/employee in health care coverage, and we had around 70 employees.

    If we are to belief Obama and his far superior intellect, how much “of a raise” (per Obama’s holy word) will management be able to give each of the employees based on the 3000% savings he’s promised?

    Will all 58 states be eligible?

    Will it cover breathalyzers for asthmatics?

    What’s a “corpse-man”?

    Does he really speak “Austrian”? Do you?

    Will there be “fallen heroes” at his next public appearance?

    Is there difference between 10000 and 12?

    Is Israel still a “strong friend of Israel”?

    What were Obama’s grades at Occidental?

    That’s all I have for now, because my little “con” mind can only handle so much new info.

    So when you and your superior mind answer all those, I have another couple of dozen for you to help me with. After all, my 2 Masters, 2 Minors, a General-contractors license, 4 patents and a twice-yearly talk with 800 highschooler’s teaching how semiconductors are made, couldn’t POSSIBLY be a match for Obama.

    ReplyReply
  21. BRob says: 20

    wordsmith —

    You are quite mistaken. No anger here. In fact, I get a kick out of exposing how nonsensical your positions are. Like the Magic Tax Cut Fairie, the pro-torture, anti-constitutional arguments from the wingnuttery, and the shear insanity of the teabaggers. I just ran across this one, which cracked me up:

    http://www.frumforum.com/the-tea-partys-distorted-world-view

    This one is funny, too:

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

    Hannity? Dishonest? Nooooooooo!

    You cons are actually quite fun to watch . . . not unlike the monkey cage at the zoo! The smoke coming out of year ears as Obama gets closer and closer to “forcing” 31 million folks to enjoy health insurance . . . the way you folks get pissed and still wallow in pessimism each time the GDP remains positive . . . and the nastiness, the ugliness of the nutty right captured time and again on Youtube. I am having lots of fun, man!

    anticrocks —

    What in the world is RTE? That’s the best you could come up with out of eight years of Bush in office? One foreign chick from a foreign service? I think YOU proved my point, dude! NO AMERICAN JOURNALISTIC OUTLET . . . not Mother Jones, not CNN, no one . . . ever dissed President Bush . . . YOUR PRESIDENT the way that Bret Baier dissed Obama. And you cons cheer it on,and you have the b*lls to claim he was “treating him respectfully”? How do you think that looks to normal, non-conservative America, some no-name reporter talking over OUR PRESIDENT as if he is some schoolboy? Because when all is said and done, Obama is pretty well liked as a person. Fox man showed his a$$ and you people cheer. AND YOU WONDER WHY CONS ARE ON THE OUTS RIGHT NOW . . . . Disgusting . . . .

    ReplyReply
  22. Madalyn says: 21

    RBob – If BHO would have answered the questions he was asked, Bret would not have had to interrupt to request he just answer the question. All BHO did was blab on about this and that and never did answer a simple question. The part that scares me the most is when BHO made the statment he did not know what was in the health care bill. ‘SPLAIN THAT IF YOU CAN RBOB!!
    Madalyn
    PS RBOB -next time you publicly call me a liar the least you could do is spell my name right (see previous posts).

    ReplyReply
  23. Aleric says: 22

    Guys, dont be so hard on BRob, he can help it when he calls everyone, “You Cons”. After all if you were in prison and used to calling your cell mate a Con while biting the pillow it would alter your speach patterns as well.

    ReplyReply
  24. BRob says: 23

    Madalyn —

    Let me get this straight . . . the president of the most powerful nation in the world gets talked over by some two bit reporter . . . and you have no problem with that because . . . the President did not answer the questions to the reporter’s personal satisfaction?

    That makes sense to you?

    C’mon . . . admit the obvious . . . this is an embarassment for Fox, almost as embarassing as the b.s. explanation that Roger Aisles gave for cutting away from the Baltimore meeting where Obama was eating the House GOPers collective lunch! Why not admit that he f-ed up? Because he did!

    By the way . . . I am going to look for a transcript of the interview to see if Obama really said he did not know what was in the bill. I doubt he said what you claimed, but we shall see.

    ReplyReply
  25. BRob says: 24

    Madalyn —

    Here is the transcript. Please tell me what the hell you are talking about.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html

    ReplyReply
  26. Madalyn says: 25

    Aleric – You’re too funny. I don’t think I’m being hard on RBob – He called me a liar in an earlier post, and I want him to at least spell my name right. Takes a sissy to call names and run.
    Madalyn

    ReplyReply
  27. @Aleric: I don’t know if Buttrub is used to hearing his cellmate call him a “con” or a “com.”

    Either way it fits his criminal disregard for the truth.

    ReplyReply
  28. MataHarley says: 27

    @BRob: Your long winded, TOTUS dependent, babbling POTUS continually uses a “run out the clock” debate tactic. It is the reporter’s task to reign in any guest interviewee when they are sucking up valuable time by repeating the same ol’ same ol’ merely to avoid the next tough question.

    Best interview I’ve seen of the temporary occupant of the Oval Office. Clearly a “loss”, IMHO. The desperate move did not pay off, and obviously irritated “da won”. heh

    ReplyReply
  29. Patvann says: 28

    All this esoteric verbosity out of our pat idiot, and he wont answer or counter anything I’ve said..

    Puss.

    You have your alpha and beta men, but now we’ve met an omega.

    ReplyReply
  30. PATVANN that was good i wonder if you can do it again without looking at this one ,well it will take me a week to read it all,bye

    ReplyReply
  31. Madalyn says: 30

    RBob – Did you miss this little gem? This is what the hell I am talking about. Taken from the link YOU provided me. He states he will not know what’s in the bill until the vote. Now, please apologize and quit being such a bugger.

    OBAMA: No, we will — by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what’s in it, you’ll know what’s in it because it’s going to be posted and everybody’s going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits.

    Madalyn

    ReplyReply
  32. Madalyn says: 31

    RBob is so bespelled by BHO he cannot see the thuggery that is going on. I personally think RBob has sucked on the government teat all his life, and is afraid it will be taken away from him if we stop this pretender in thief from damaging our country any more.
    I just get a little tired of these weasels crawling out from under their rocks to throw insults, call people liars, then scuttle away with a childish laugh. Grow up and get a life RBob. The least you could do is try to contribute something worthwhile instead of trying to tear down innocent law-abiding citizens who are doing their best to keep this country from being sold out by a criminal administration. I say criminal because look at the type of characters BHO has surrounded himself with: Charles Rangel, Van Jones, Rahm Emanuel, etc.
    Little advice from an old lady; grow up and quit being so hateful.
    Madalyn

    ReplyReply
  33. MADALYN i think B ROB like you he is so nice with you,i notice that bye

    ReplyReply
  34. BRob.

    Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

    ReplyReply
  35. Patvann says: 34

    Honest Tim. We ask that question a lot around here.

    (Resident troll, and all.)

    We’ve chaulked it up to masochism.

    ReplyReply
  36. Hard Right says: 35

    I almost think that Brob is really a devout Conservative who posts purely to make libs look even worse than they usually do. He serves up such easily refuted claims it is staggering.
    All I know is that he is quite the assest to the Conservative cause.

    ReplyReply
  37. Curt says: 36

    BRob.

    Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

    Gotta agree with Pat here….we ask that all the time. The guy is the picture perfect version of a ObamaBot.

    Btw Tim, welcome to FA. I read your earlier comments on other threads and found them fascinating. I love Roman history, have a stack of books on that period that I have yet to read…and a small pile that I’ve already read….lol.

    Would love to see a Reader Post by you on the parallels going on.

    ReplyReply
  38. anticsrocks says: 37

    @BRob…I can’t help it if you don’t know what RTE is. You asked for an example and how I would react, I provided it. Just go to google.com and type something in the little search box and voila! you get little things called “hyperlinks.” Honestly, its not that hard. The only difficult thing in my search was finding a link to a story that wasn’t some left wing blogger crying about how unfair Bret Baier was to El Presidente.

    BRob, in the words of a VH1 reality show that my teenage daughter watches:

    “I’m sorry, you’re just a tool.”

    ReplyReply
  39. Missy says: 38

    When you are a John Edwards wannabee you don’t have to be brilliant, just stay on message, spin like a whirling dervish and collapse in a heap.

    ReplyReply
  40. Madalyn says: 39

    Anyone notice how RBob has decided I proved him wrong and he is back under his rock. As of right now, I will not waste my time responding to anything he posts. He will have to prove I am wrong. By the way, let’s see him prove I am wrong when I say “I have heard”. How the heck does he know what I’ve heard? Small minded people don’t interest me. Let’s all continue trying to block this horrible piece of crap before we are ordered to use only USPS and NOT UPS or Fed Ex. Also I don’t want to be told what brand of toothpaste to use, how long I can let my hair grow, etc. That is the kind of restrictions this Liar in Chief is trying to impose on us.
    Madalyn

    ReplyReply
  41. Skookum says: 40

    Trying to get the Marxist to answer a question is like trying to kill a rat on the barn floor with a shovel. They are fast and tricky, but eventually you smash the ugly little B@st@rd.

    ReplyReply
  42. BRob says: 41

    anticsrock —

    If you have to google “RTE” to understand what the hell it is, you prove MY POINT! It is a nothing channel. And that is the best comparison you folks have after eight years of Bushie incompetence, the only thing comparable to a reporter from a major US cable operation talking over the President is a clip of some woman from an Irish channel you have to google to identify.

    Did CNN, the NYT or any other journalist treat Bush that way? No. But Obama is dissed by those loser Fox News guy and you all cheer. Its like cheering that your opponent (who has whipped you fair and square time and again in competition) gets sucker punched while walking his dog: it says more about you than it does about him.

    Mark my words: Fox will be apologizing on Sunday on only the way they can: with a smug punka$$ look on their pasty faces.

    ReplyReply
  43. drjohn says: 42

    “Let me get this straight . . . the president of the most powerful nation in the world gets talked over by some two bit reporter . “

    Are you saying that Obama, who had to beg for this interview, sought the interview from a two bit reporter? The President of the most powerful country in the world had to beg for an interview from a two bit reporter?

    That doesn’t say much for Obama, does it?

    That’s before we get to the point that Obama never did answer the questions.

    ReplyReply
  44. ANTICSROCKS would it mean RETE= return to eternity?

    ReplyReply
  45. Inspectorudy says: 44

    Obviously butrub you never watched any of GWB’s last few press conferences. One reporter after the other would ask the same question and make it nastier than the last with sarcasm dripping from every word and infer that the Presidents wasn’t telling the truth. It was a test of courage and civility that GWB stood and responded to them at all. Being President does not mean that when he speaks everyone else must remain silent even if he is lying. As we heard during the state of the union message, Joe Wilson couldn’t take it any more! I thought Bill Clinton was the biggest bare face liar I had ever seen but one of the hardships of getting old is that you see too much. Obama makes Clinton look like Lincoln.

    ReplyReply
  46. BRob says: 45

    drjohn —

    Obama had to “beg” for an interview from Fox? Really . . . you honestly believe that, huh? OK. So when do they come by with the medicine in your ward? You and Dr. Cheswick probably swap meds just for kicks, don’t you?

    The rest of you —

    If you think that was a respectful interview of the President of the United States, then I think you will need to come up with some explanation of the defensiveness we will see on Fox News Sunday. So come up with all your excuses, friends!

    ReplyReply
  47. Old Trooper says: 46

    BRob, insults, attacks and rude commentary are truly your venue. You offer insight into your seedy world and twisted mind but no honest debate or information relative to the actual thread.

    You continue to treat FA like it is a restroom wall upon which to paint your grafiti. That is obviously both your intent and the height of your achievement here. As long as Curt allows it, I reckon that you have an audience that does not have to pay for a front row seat for your nonsense, until Curt decides to charge for admission here.

    I have traveled the world and had a great many experiences with rude, crass and small minded people. You win the lifetime award in that category in my experience. You have made your mark here like the neighbors dog that craps on someones lawn. Way to go.

    Congratulations!

    ReplyReply
  48. OT you can say it so well,we should send him with y’yall,he would say to the tal and ak you contal and you conak they would run…bye

    ReplyReply
  49. @BRob: “Friends?”

    Hardly.

    Aren’t you Coms supposed to address the workers of the world as “comrades?”

    ReplyReply
  50. anticsrocks says: 49

    @BRob…Tell me, how many candles do you light each night in the shrine you have to Obama in your house?

    I never said I needed to google it, I was saying that since you didn’t know who RTE was that you could google it. Maybe I used words that were too big for you.

    Are you capable of replying without throwing juvenile insults?

    Just answer this question –

    Where in the United States Constitution does it give Congress and the President the power to force citizens of the United States to purchase a product with their own money as a condition of citizenship?

    I challenge you to answer that one by using the Constitution and by NOT using insults.

    It is HIGHLY unlikely you can do either.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>