President Obama Bill O'Reilly Super Bowl Interview

bill O'Reilly interviews Obama on Obamacare, Benghazi Attack, IRS Targeting

Rating:
  • Currently 1/5 stars.

Views: 776

Favorite of 1 person

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Darrell Madison on February 3, 2014 at 2:12pm

Jive-Turkey, you're cracking me up (thanks for the laugh).   As for your comment about lying, I don't want to get into the religious aspects because I think that would spark a huge debate.  Plus, when we consider messaging outside the sphere of this web site, these sort of comments perhaps can do more harm than good.   And besides, I think the sentiment goes way beyond religion anyway.   I talk about this very thing in the chapter on Honesty.  Those that support the president think "spin" (or even deliberate  distortion) is a good thing, because it allows the guy they support to "win".  So it is really the premise that the "ends justify the means" which we really should be concerned about.   If we ever tolerate lying to justify some outcome, we're in really big trouble.   And yes, I realize that those with a less than ethical agenda will sink to any level, but we have to be better than that.   It is a huge temptation to sink to that level, but we must resist.  And more importantly, we must spread a more enlightened message and hope that it rubs off on others.   It is no accident that the title of my book is "Raising the Bar, ....".  If we don't do this, we all lose, and it won't really matter that we had more righteous objectives.

Comment by Lawrence C. Betzler on February 3, 2014 at 12:38pm

O'Reilly got "Sand-Bagged".

Islam permits lying, if it is in the interest of the effort being pursued.

When I was a young man...we would have called a guy like Obama "A JIVE-TURKEY'.

Comment by Darrell Madison on February 3, 2014 at 11:52am

The interesting thing about the O'Reilly / Obama interview is that most of the comments on this site are correct - even those that seem to contradict each other.  Yes, Mr Obama was going to look "good" no matter what O'Reilly did, because when distorting the truth is what you are an expert at, and when 40-50% of your audience is inclined to believe you no matter what you say or do, how could Mr Obama look bad?  To that end, O'Reilly had no means to effectively expose the fact that the emperor has no clothes.  We need a major dose of reality in this country, and until we collectively get out from the fog of delusion, I have little hope that anything will ever change.   So yes, I think O'Reilly wasn't "touch enough", but no one can really know whether some other strategy would have worked any better.   And yes, I believe the media, even Fox news, has grown soft and is complicit in many of our problems.   So although Fox news seems to be sympathetic to main stream America, I'm not sure they are truly a disinterested and autonomous organization.  In fact, I'm not sure such a thing exists anymore.  I dedicated a chapter to a book I wrote on how we must have a strong and independent news media, and that the diversity of news sources actually weakens the ability of any one news outlet from being truly "hard hitting". And I'm not even sure what the appropriate answer is, because although I think migrating to a "pay per view" model would be more fair, I'm not sure that would increase the power of the news media. Now certainly, pay per view would probably weed out the news outlets that merely pander to the poor and non productive (this is why Fox news can charge a higher wholesale rate than CNN and others for their content).   But still, I think in general the American people need to re-embrace honesty before truth in the media will be accepted again.   So I applaud the efforts of groups like the Tea Party for trying to get the message out, but I think it needs to be exposed to more than just Tea Party loyalists.

To that end, I offer my book (on Amazon) for free tomorrow and Wednesday (plus, other days) - the details are published on this Tea Party blog:
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/raising-the-bar-restorin...

So far, no one on this web site has offered any feedback (which is a shame).   Perhaps after the next few days (since the book is free), that will change.  I'm definitely willing to consider feedback (but please be kind/respectful - I won't respond to those that aren't). 

Comment by Pipeman on February 3, 2014 at 11:12am

Weeny Bill ask tough questions and never got one answered, so Bill, like Clint, might as well talked to an empty chair. Snow was falling everywhere I think they call that a white out or a snow job. That interview could have been done by a grade school kid, maybe by the same kid that was pushed forward when the healthcare bill was signed. I actually stopped watching Bill giving cover to obama a while ago and haven't missed him a bit. I believe this was a softball interview because obama wasn't made to answer.   

Comment by Linda Meyer on February 3, 2014 at 10:25am

 The folks....the folks..... this said nothing & he won't. I don't think his heart is in any "good place".. I wonder if he & she will go into show business when he's done ruining everything?

Comment by Rev. Christine Richardson on February 3, 2014 at 10:17am

Bill should have done more to nail the Dictator's ass to the wall.

Comment by Jim Delaney on February 3, 2014 at 9:29am

Despite Obama's signature parsing, double-talk and filibustering, I thought O'Reilly was remarkably dogged.

Obama's embarrassing mendacity and insincerity was on full display for all honest and objective folks to see. Body language spoke volumes. The interview underscored yet again that Obama is, manifestly, a shameless, prevaricating hack, and nothing more.

When O'Reilly asked Obama about his stated desire to "fundamentally transform the USA" and why Obama felt that way, Obama dodged & weaved, implying by his circuitous reply that he didn't use those words. My stomach turned.

This guy is a self-serving, amoral pathological liar and narcissist of the first order, and he will, in fact, go down as the most morally corrupt, dishonest, unscrupulous and least respected chief executive in our nation's history--that is, assuming we have a history as a nation for much longer.

What is crystal clear is that this poor excuse for a President needs to resign or be impeached & removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. Absolutely no question about i--at all. Perhaps OAS can pull that off this summer. For the country's sake, I sincerely hope so. GO OAS!

So, to my way of  thinking, O'Reilly did a creditable job. Can't imagine how he could have done better without jabbing his finger in Barry's face to evoke an unguarded response. And even with that, Barry's much too slippery to have permitted such openness and honesty. For me, Obama once again exposed the charlatan and scoundrel he genuinely is.

Comment by Paul Z. on February 3, 2014 at 9:25am

O'Reilly just gave Obama a national forum to dance around with a smile all of his scandals.  Why even do this, it just allows Obama to look like a reasonable guy, when we already know he lied and lied and lied.   I believe O'Reilly has been on top too long and is just worried about his ratings.  Very softball, BS!!!

Comment by Jan Cubbage on February 3, 2014 at 9:10am
Will not watch O'Reilly any longer. I know that Obama demanded to know what the questions were going to be so O'Reilly should have declined to do the interview! Very disappointing. More of the same!!!
Comment by Rafael Garcia, USA ABN,1SG (Ret) on February 3, 2014 at 9:09am

I wonder what would have happened if Bush had said...We are not going to attack anyone for 911, we just want to fix the internal problems that did not see this tragic attack coming.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Judicial Watch->  Emails Show Dossier-Connected Obama State Dept Officials Set ‘Face-To-Face’ Meeting On ‘Russian Matter’ Shortly Before 2016 Election

Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday released 84 pages of documents showing Obama’s State Department was central to pushing the ‘Trump-Russia’ hoax shortly before the 2016 election.

The email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer, a very close associate to Christopher Steele, show them discussing a ‘face-to-face’ meeting in New York on a ‘Russian matter’ in September of 2016.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch and The Daily Caller News Foundation today released 84 pages of documents, including a September 2016 email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer, a close associate of dossier author Christopher Steele, discussing a “face-to-face” meeting on a “Russian matter.”

(In June 2016 Nuland permitted a meeting between Steele and the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome. Nuland told CBS News that the State Department knew about the Steele dossier by July 2016.)

According to an op-ed Winer wrote for The Washington Post in 2018, also in September 2016, “Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the “dossier… I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.”

A September 17, 2016, email exchange between Nuland and Winer – that was classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy – discusses the political situation in Libya, but also brings up a “Russian matter:”

From: Winer, Jonathan
Sent: September 17, 2016 at 12:40:00 PM EDT
To: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Libya Update

Would like to discuss this and a Russian matter.

From: Nuland, Victoria J
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Winer, Jonathan
Subject: Re. Libya Update

In ny face to face?

From: Winer, Jonathan
Sent: September 17, 2016 at 1:56:05 PM EDT
To: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Libya Update

Yes that was [sic] be good.

From: Nuland, Victoria J
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Winer, Jonathan
Subject: Re. Libya Update

Good. I’ll reach out when im there Sunday. [Redacted]

If Victoria Nuland’s name sounds familiar it’s because she has been on Judicial Watch’s radar for a long time and in many of TGP’s previous reports.

In December 2018, Judicial Watch released documents revealing that Victoria Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s urgent gathering of classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Donald Trump taking office.

In a related lawsuit, Judicial Watch is suing the State Department communications between Ambassador Nuland and employees of Fusion GPS, as well as top ranking Department of Justice, FBI, and State Department officials.

“The Obama State Department was central to the effort to target President Trump with the Russia smear,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new emails further show that senior Obama State Department advanced the Russiagate hoax just before the 2016 presidential election.”

Tom Fitton   @TomFitton
 

BREAKING: Obama State Department was central to the effort to target President @RealDonaldTrump with the Russia smear. New emails show how senior Obama State Department advanced the Russiagate hoax just before the 2016 presidential election.

Embedded video

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service