OFFLINE

Did you see it?

Your thoughts?

OFFLINE

Like last time, both of them were keyed-up.

Unlike last time, O'Reilly didn't throw as many softballs.

Like last time, B.O. lied and is F.O.S.

Unlike last time, his narcissism wasn't as overwhelming.

Like last time, I listened but don't trust a damn thing he said because his actions are contradictory to what he says and his actions are crystal clear.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:


Like last time, I listened but don't trust a damn thing he said because his actions are contradictory to what he says and his actions are crystal clear.

Sadly, I have to agree.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:
Like last time, both of them were keyed-up.

Unlike last time, O'Reilly didn't throw as many softballs.

Like last time, B.O. lied and is F.O.S.

Unlike last time, his narcissism wasn't as overwhelming.

Like last time, I listened but don't trust a damn thing he said because his actions are contradictory to what he says and his actions are crystal clear.

I used to like O'Reilly, but this video is an excellent example of Narcissistic Rage:


Anywho, I've never seen any interviews between O'Reilly and Barack Obama. I gotta go hunt this down.

OFFLINE

I think this is it, but I'm guessing it won't stick around long.

OFFLINE

My thoughts after watching the interview:

I think any discussions on Narcissism are more or less obvious and redundant. Every president or person running for president typically demonstrates traits of NPD. In a sense, I suspect it’s the standard with a Machiavellian twist unique to each politician. And I really doubt that anyone who demonstrated absolutely no indication of character disorder would ever become elected to begin with. So to me, this is a mute point.

As expected, I felt that President Obama demonstrated a lot of political evasion in response to O’Reilly. But again, this is the standard; every president or person running for president does it, so it’s a mute point with me. And when the Republicans take the office back in 2012, I suspect whomever that person is will employ similar tactics when being addressed by Liberal interviewers. (Admission: Yes, I do feel that Obama will be a 1-term president and I think it’s probably a necessary step in efforts of reducing political dysfunction and various aspects of separatism.)

I do like some of the things the President says; such as his stand point on not ever going back to a system where a person can be denied medical coverage due to something being a preexisting condition. But can ever be accomplished while making everyone happy? I really doubt it.

O’Reilly asks: “Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?” The President’s response to a question like this is common with probably all prior Presidents; the smug and annoying grin/laugh which I guess is designed to show that it’s being brushed off and bears no emotional effect. This annoys me, but again, it seems to be the stardard. But as far as questions go, in my opinion, this question merely wastes valuable time.

But one thing the President points to is that most people who might feel they hate him – don’t even really KNOW him. So in a sense, that shows a fair degree of bias and ignorance in ‘haters.’ This is a common social dysfunction; we attach our hate to the person whom we often don’t really know very deeply, rather than to the person’s actions.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

I do like some of the things the President says; such as his stand point on not ever going back to a system where a person can be denied medical coverage due to something being a preexisting condition. But can ever be accomplished while making everyone happy? I really doubt it.

I like the sound of it too.  But that's a great example of his "What B.O. says" vs. "How it really is with Obamacare" B.S.

To illustrate, about 20 years ago, I never thought it would be possible for a citizen to go to outer space.  But, thanks to some actions by the Russian government, now anybody can go to outer space.  All they have to do is buy a ticket.

Similarly, about 20 years ago, I had a medical condition that came and went.  But it put me into a "preexisting condition" category and I became uninsurable.

But hey ... I should be sooooo happy!  I should be jumping up and down and shouting "Hooray!  Thank you Barry!" because that's no longer true!  Thanks to our President, I can't be denied medical insurance!  Yippee!  Glory Hallelujah!

Right?

Only problem is ... based on the cost of that "I can't be denied medical insurance anymore" policy, I might as well be trying to buy a ticket to outer space.

And that's not even touching the issue of how Obamacare itself has is guaranteed to deliver a "preexisting condition" to taxpayers and the economy.  

Except that, unlike my own, this condition is going to be a fatal one if it isn't treated very soon.

To-date, only 3M people have signed up for a program that is going to cost TRILLIONS.  Hospitals are already shutting down.  Insurance companies are already raising rates because of how Obamacare's raising their costs.  Over 700 companies and unions (many of the unions who supported it) have asked and have been granted waivers from participation.  And that number has grown from 200 in January.  

I could go on.

What Obama says sounds good for sure.  But it's crap.  But the writing's on the wall, we need to see it, and we need to see it for what it is.  Obamacare needs to be shut down and done right or not done at all.

OFFLINE

P.S.  Also, regarding that insurance people like me couldn't get before and can't afford now ... now we get to pay a new tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care"!

(Did I say, "Thanks Barry!" ?)

OFFLINE

People cannot be denied treatment. Insurance companies can (and do) deny payment. Big difference.

OFFLINE

Check it out ... (scroll down)


http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

OFFLINE

Personally, I could care less whether Obama watched the game or if he's worried about what people think of him..... why wasn't the national debt a topic?

OFFLINE

i know oreilly wanted to get a lot of questions in, but i don't thinlk he pushed the president enough on a few issues.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

I used to like O'Reilly, but this video is an excellent example of Narcissistic Rage:

you used to like oreilly from 1973?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Jann Morrison Kostka:
Personally, I could care less whether Obama watched the game or if he's worried about what people think of him..... why wasn't the national debt a topic?

I agree. I really wonder why O'Reilly felt a superficial popularity question outweighed so many more substantial and meaningful questions that 'could' have been addressed instead. I can only expect that Obama's smug response was the objective, but since that's a presidential given/standard, this question seems like dysfunctional politics as usual.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

P.S.  Also, regarding that insurance people like me couldn't get before and can't afford now ... now we get to pay a new tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care"!

(Did I say, "Thanks Barry!" ?)

If I'm not mistaken, you're self employed, right? I ask because a former coworker was being forced to pay for medical benefits for himself because, as he said, he's a 'dad'. But the prices he was forced to pay were similar to mine which seemed generally reasonable to me. So in that regard, I suspect Obamacare hurts the self-employed guy much more so than the guy working for a large company?