Barack Obama

President Obama Holding Friday Afternoon Press Conference



At any minute, President Obama is supposed to start a press conference (scheduled to have started at 2pm) at the White House, capping off what the Washington Post called "the most troubling year of his presidency." Watch live, below the jump, or follow along as we livetweet for Reason 24/7.

NEXT: Obama Formally Nominates Baucus as Ambassador to China

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s going to resign.

    1. And leave Biden in charge!? Then he’s even more incompetent than I thought!

      1. I can’t imagine how Bidne or really anyone else could be any worse.

        1. I could see Biden accidentally starting a war.

          With one of our allies. Say, Canada.

        2. There’s hardly anything that can’t be made worse.

      2. Oh please, I’d take Biden in a second over Obama. All the incompetence with none of the fake veneer of actually being capable. Unlike Obama, TEAM BLUE would have a really difficult time convincing themselves that their incompetent president wasn’t a blundering moron. It would demoralize them, with, meanwhile, everyone else getting a good laugh out of Uncle Joe’s endless gaffes.

        1. They would easily lay the blame for Biden’s incompetence on his being a straight white male… paving the way for the next POTUS to be a wimminz/ghey/black/injun/tranny/etc.

      3. And leave Biden in charge!? Then he’s even more incompetent than I thought!

        Don’t be so hasty there, MS. Biden has been looking better and better. 😉

    2. Hey, I only caught a portion of it.

      Did any of the reporters ask him about the Duck Dynasty remarks? I had a bet on it.

      1. Well, if you ask the serious media, that is the biggest issue in America today.

  2. Maybe the Constitutional Scholar in Chief can explain how exactly the “tax” known as the insurance mandate can be waived for people who lost their health insurance but no for anyone else. To lesser minds that would appear to create a bit of an equal protection issue.

    1. While we’re putting together our lawsuit, let’s take a look at the racial breakdown of who just got excused from paying the penaltax because they used to have insurance, and who is stuck because they never had insurance.

      I’m guessing this waiver has a disproportionate impact on minorities, because (based on my totally unscientific observations), minorities are more likely to be uninsured.

      1. That is a very good point. If don’t see how anyone who is paying the tax doesn’t have standing for a law suit.

        You tell me what the rational basis for that is. People who didn’t have health insurance can’t get onto the exchanges any easier than those who lost their health insurance.

    2. If it is not a protected classification then the Equal Protection clause only demands rational basis for different treatment John. You should know that as a lawyer.

      1. Yes I do know that. And it doesn’t even meet that standard. A person who didn’t have insurance has no better a chance of getting through on the website than one who had their policy canceled. So there is no rational basis to exempt one group from the tax but not the other.

        And on top of that, there is nothing in the statute that gives the President the power to waive the tax even if there were a rational basis to do it. It is a completely illegal and unconstitutional act.

        1. Well, as you know almost everything meets the rational basis test. Whatever the administration offers as a reason has to be accepted if even theoretically plausible, and even if none are the Court is actually bound to try to think of one that is theoretically plausible and that would mean the test is met.

          1. If I, as a lawyer, could not come up with something to meet the rational basis test I would feel pretty ashamed.

            In this case I would say the mandate is being waived to facilitate the transition from one plan to another for those who did not plan to use the exchanges but now have to and not for the others because they knew all along that not having insurance they were going to have sign up via the exchanges.

            Sure, that sounds less than compelling, but it does not have to be rationally convincing, just something a person could in theory rationally hold.

          2. Well, as you know almost everything meets the rational basis test.

            No, not everything. You can fail the test and statutes have. There is no theoretical justification for this.

            If there were, you would have already given if rather than relying on the “some smart judge will think of one”.

            No, this is completely irrational and at odds with the reason given for having the mandate in the first place.

            1. “this is completely irrational ”

              I suggest this indicates you do not understand the rational basis test.

              1. I can only give you so many lessons on the subject Bo. The distinction has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

                What is the government interest here? Ensuring everyone buys health insurance? Maybe but exempting people doesn’t further that.

                Perhaps it is alleviating the harm of the government fucking up the website? That doesn’t work either since those who didn’t have insurance in the first place are just as harmed by the failed website as those who lost their insurance. That it doesn’t rationally relate to that interest either.

                Exempting those who lost their insurance but still taxing those who didn’t have it in the first place doesn’t further any legitimate government interest, unless you think “limiting the political damage to my sorry ass” counts. But you would be a minority of one in that view.

                1. I already gave it to you, and that was off the top of my head.

                  People who were relying on the President’s public pronouncements that they could keep their extant insurance policies got a letter somewhat recently, close to the deadline, that they could not and would have to go through the exchanges. People that had no insurance all along knew all along they were going to have to go through the exchanges. So there is a difference in the two groups, and it is at least rational to treat the former differently than the latter based on that difference.

                  Again, in law school you learn to argue either side if necessary, even if you (as in this case I do) despise a side. A lawyer could not ask for an easier side to argue than the government relying on the equal protection clause rational basis test. I may not like the result, but this is ‘easy-peasey.’ I am hoping you just do not see that out of partisanship and not lack of familiarity with how the equal protection clause rational basis test works.

                  1. People that had no insurance all along knew all along they were going to have to go through the exchanges. So there is a difference in the two groups, and it is at least rational to treat the former differently than the latter based on that difference.

                    That is not a difference you half wit. The people didn’t have insurance were told from day one that they would be able to buy insurance through the exchanges. Now they can’t. They are in exactly the same situation and relied upon the same promise those who lost their insurance.

                    Further, you haven’t articulated a legitimate government interest that distinction furthers. It is a two part test. And you haven’t even met the first one.

                    It is not about despising one side or another. It is about this being a completely arbitrary distinction that furthers no legitimate governmental interest.

                    1. “They are in exactly the same situation ”

                      Of course they are not. You only think that because you are, for some reason, wed to the idea that the problem is the website not working. But that does not have to be the trigger for the different treatment. The trigger can be that one group learned they will have to go on the exchanges later than another. They are most certainly different on that basis, right? And that is all the government needs.

                    2. Of course they are not.

                      They both are in the same situation. Both groups do not have insurance and because of the exchange failures cannot buy insurance. That the same situation.

                      You are trying to tell me that the fact that one group lost its insurance and the other group never had the insurance makes it different. And that may be relevant, provided that making distinction furthers a legitimate government interest. And you haven’t been able to do that. All you have been able to tell me is that “you want to further the interest of helping these people”. And that is not even a good try.

                  2. And by the way, the government interest would not be the one in the legislation, but the interest in waiving this particular provision for this particular group. And the government claiming they have an interest in easing the transition for those who thought they were keeping their insurance but who found out later they were not, that is going to sound pretty legitimate to most any judge.

                    1. And the government claiming they have an interest in easing the transition for those who thought they were keeping their insurance but who found out later they were not, that is going to sound pretty legitimate to most any judge.

                      You are just begging the question. Sure, you like the people who lost their insurance and want to make life easier for them. That is the whole point. We get it, you are making that distinction and discriminating against people who didn’t have insurance in favor of those who lost their insurance.

                      Now tell me what interest that furthers? All you told me in this post is “well it furthers the interest of helping those people out”. Well no shit. Every distinction furthers someone’s interest. That is the whole issue. You haven’t explained why furthering this group over the other furthers a legitimate government interest. You have just begged the question and told me you liked them and this furthers the interest of helping them.


                    2. John, you do not see pretty much any judge seeing giving extra time to a group who relied on public pronouncements and then got a later notification they will have to do X as a legitimate government interest? Remember, the rational basis test does not say the government must meet some specific interest, but ANY legitimate interest.

                      Heck, they could just claim an interest in facilitating the smooth implementation in the program period. But ensuring people are not harmed in the implementation because of unanticipated cancellations near the deadline? Any judge is going to take that.

                    3. John, you do not see pretty much any judge seeing giving extra time to a group who relied on public pronouncements and then got a later notification they will have to do X as a legitimate government interest?

                      No because the other group relied on the same public pronouncements. Whether I had insurance on 1 October or didn’t have insurance on 1 October I was told both that I had to buy it and that there was going to be website that would allow me to do it. So you haven’t made any showing that the distinction is meaningful or in anyway furthers a governmental interest.

                      Sure they have an interest in running a smooth program. And arbitrarily exempting one group of people from paying a tax doesn’t make the program run any smoother. The program would work just as smooth if you taxed these people. It is not like exempting them is going to make the exchanges run better. In fact, it will make the program run worse as you take away the motivation for these people to sign up for the exchanges. Some people are getting through, but thanks to this rule, there is no point in trying now or at lest less of a point since you don’t have to pay the tax. Fewer people signing up makes the program run worse not better.

                      Your rewrite gets a FAIL.

                    4. “No because the other group relied on the same public pronouncements. Whether I had insurance on 1 October or didn’t have insurance on 1 October I was told both that I had to buy it and that there was going to be website that would allow me to do it.”

                      Oh come on John! It is so easy to distinguish the two once you get unstuck on the website, which as I said before the government does not have to rely on at all. What makes the no insurance group than the cancelled group is the latter found out much later, and closer to the deadline, than the former that they would have to go through the exchanges.

                      “Sure they have an interest in running a smooth program. ”

                      You just acknowledge you lost here. Because despite this you say

                      “exempting one group of people from paying a tax doesn’t make the program run any smoother”

                      all that is necessary is that someone could rationally believe it would make the program run smoother. You think it would not, but who cares? In rational basis analysis the court will only ask ‘is it possible for someone to think waiving for the former group could make it go smoother and still be rational?’ And the answer to that is clearly going to be yes.

                      So now you have conceded a legitimate interest, and I showed how it could, at least at some rational level, be tied to it. That is case closed (though of course you are free to write fail in all caps again if you think it makes your case better than actual argument).

                    5. all that is necessary is that someone could rationally believe it would make the program run smoother. You think it would not, but who cares

                      If all you have left is “well someone might be dumb enough to believe it”, you have lost the argument. Thanks for playing.,

                    6. In other words, lessening the harm on people in enrolling in a new program under circumstances largely created by the government itself is a pretty well accepted legitimate interest of government.

                    7. Bo –

                      You are wrong… check what you wrote carefully as it’s laughable:

                      all that is necessary is that someone could rationally believe it would make the program run smoother.

                      What about the rule of law that states the executive branch isn’t allowed to unilaterally change the terms of a bill which duly passed both houses and was signed into law by a President?

                      As under your “logic” – so long as one judge can come up with a rational basis that sentencing black people to longer prison terms for murder than white people – they can just put that into place right now.

                      No matter if it breaks current laws – no matter that they didn’t even try to change current law to match this supposed “need”…

                      Nope – in your world, all that’s necessary to completely subvert any law every passed is to have one President committing open illegal acts and an idiotic judge who can rationalize those illegal acts.

                      Then it’s all cool, right?

                      Seriously Bo – reread what you wrote and ask yourself why you are actively arguing on the side of a system run by men and not a system run by laws?

                      & if you really think about it – go one step further and ask yourself what freedom exists for anyone in a system run by men and not by laws?

                      Though given your reluctance to read and correctly interpret what John wrote I have little hope you’ll actually rethink this – but I’m a naive optimist 🙂

          3. It’s been a while, but I thought the rational basis test applied to legislation, not to the whims of the executive.

            1. It applies to regulations and executive orders as well.

              Since he has no authority to do this, that does create a problem in the sense of how do you even get to the question of equal protection when the act is blatantly illegal to begin with.

              1. Who has standing to sue him?

                1. In theory a person who had no insurance and was therefore mandated to sign up could say ‘hey, this fellow who got the cancellation notice did not have to, but I am being made to’ as his ground for suing. But I bet a court would deny standing because they would say he is not being injured, after all the mandate is supposed to be ‘helping’ him!

                  1. Every person who has to pay the tax would have standing to sue. They would claim that they are being denied equal protection because some people in the exact same position are being exempt from the tax and they are being forced to pay the tax and there is no rational relationship between that distinction and a legitimate governmental purpose.

                    Standing would not be an issue in this case. Jesus Christ Bo, this is Civ Pro. Easy shit.

                    1. You learned standing in Civ Pro? We learned it in Con Law.

                      You have a good point about the tax for standing purposes, but again, since the Mandate has been SCOTUS approved the courts can not approach it critically but have to accept that it is trying to do the good things it says it is. The tax replaces what for other people are the insurance payments of a plan, and the second people will still be paying that, so I can see a court denying standing on the ground that the person paying the tax is not being punished in any way or any more than those avoided it by staying in a plan.

                    2. You learned standing in Civ Pro? We learned it in Con Law.

                      Standing, ripeness and mootness are not constitutional issues only in the sense that Article III courts are empowered to hear actual cases or controversies. But in practical terms they are they are procedural issues like subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Actually I really learned it in Federal Jurisdiction, which was a fabulous class.

                    3. So essentially, if I were one of the unfortunate 2013 uninsured, I could sue to be relieved of the burden of paying the Penaltax?


                    4. Here is one way of knowing without any legal training that is a long shot tarran: do you hear about any such lawsuits brewing? I mean, there are dozens of conservative legal organizations who would love to sue about this legislation if they thought they even had a slim chance of winning. But I frankly have seen no talk of such suits (though I am happy to be corrected). I am betting this is because my analysis is closer to being correct than John’s given the motivation for such suits is certainly there.

                    5. It’s a bit early to talk about lawsuits when the policy was just announced.

                      My brother is a litigator who argues cases in the Federal Courts. I am going to be having a nice conversation with him about this next week when we get together. It will be interesting to see his insights.

                    6. Are you kidding? The contraceptive lawsuits came pretty quick on the heels of that announcement, some already having arrived on the SCOTUS docket for next term!).

                      If John were correct there would be lawsuits brewing. But hey, check back in a few months and then if there are lawsuits I will stand corrected. But I bet there will not be.

                    7. Do a google search Bo. You find lots of people making the same equal protection argument I am.

                      This is not hard. And it is blatantly in violation of both the APA and the equal protection clause.

                    8. So essentially, if I were one of the unfortunate 2013 uninsured, I could sue to be relieved of the burden of paying the Penaltax?


                      I think you can. And I think you will have a good case.

                      Imagine if Obama came out tomorrow and said “everyone who lost their job in 2013 doesn’t have to pay income taxes on the money they made but those who never had a job still have to pay taxes on their unemployment.”

                      do you think that would stand up? He just did exactly that with the insurance tax.

              2. They would have a much better chance going through the APA if the President is doing this via regulatory fiat. If it is some kind of discretionary non-enforcement kind of claim it is a harder matter legally.

                1. For lawyers… wow – I thought it was well known why tax payer lawsuits generally fail – which is that the “pain” inflicted on any one individual has been, by court precedent, determined to be so small per individuals, that no individual has standing.

                  Of course that doesn’t speak to whether this idea by Barack is against equal protection – as I agree that it is.

                  & again – worse is the President again believing he can rewrite law simply by fiat and no one is trying to stop him….

                  But the fact tax payer lawsuits almost always fail and therefore no one is suing today – does not mean the lawsuit against Barack here should necessarily fail on its merits, even if the case is likely doomed due to reasons noted above.

                  For more info – see tax payer standing on wiki

  3. I won’t, uh, sugarcoat it: this year has seen it’s, uh, difficulties. But I will tell you what I tell my cabinet, uh, every morning: we must… move… on.

    1. …and now I must be moving on to my flight to Hawaii. See you next year!

      1. And I expect everyone of my Navigators to be working hard right through the holidays. I’ll be watching you closely …. from Hawaii.

  4. If you like your incompetent, lawless President, or even if you don’t, you can keep him.

    1. The Rule of Law was just something white men thought up to keep Obama from succeeding.

  5. Watching the douchebags standing around waiting for His Excellency is weirdly amusing. It’s tough trying to look important while you’re waiting for the important guy to show up.

    1. He granted them an audience. They are just trying to be sufficiently grateful. \

      It is almost Christmas, he might let one or two of them kiss his ring. I am sure you can cut the excitement in that room with a knife.

      “Oh my God he is really going to be here. He is so dreamy”

      “His pants are perfect”

      1. I am sure you can cut the excitement in that room with a knife.

        Hmm, why did I first read that as excrement rather than excitement?

    2. Keep us apprised. The streamer doesn’t load on my work PC.

    3. I have to wonder if Obama is simply delaying as a dick-sizing move.

      1. I am sure he is. The is the funniest thing about the White House Press Corps; no one has less respect for them than Obama himself. I bet him and his aids entertain themselves by thinking of ways to get the more devoted of them to degrade and humiliate themselves.

  6. You’d think if there’s one thing the Press Release President would be on time for, it would be a press conference.

    His foursome must have run long.

    1. He likes to keep his groupies on edge. Arriving late allows the White House Press Corps to get into a full lather before he arrives. The only draw back is that all of the pants wetting and fainting makes a hell of a mess for the staff to clean up.

    2. His foursome…

      It took me a bit before I realized you were talking about golf.

  7. You do not have permission to access the administrative interface

    Not yet…

  8. He’s going to announce that he accidentally tried to save the country 15% on health insurance by switching to GEICO?

  9. WTF, no audio?

  10. CNN headline is that he’s holding a “rare” news conference. Rare? Has any human being in history liked to hear his own voice more than Obama?

    1. Rare in the sense of not cooked much.

      Barack “Rare Pork” Obama.

  11. What do you want to bet he shoots his mouth off over the Duck Dynasty guy? The KULTURE WAR is really his only remaining move right now.

  12. Well, if you’re going to have the embedded video automatically start on every post/refresh, fuck you. I can’t stand listening to that piece of shit.

    1. As much as I hate him, I hate the media in that room more. No matter how bad someone is, it is always worse to be the sycophant.

  13. “I know you’re all eager to leave town, but you’re going to have to wait until my plane leaves.”

  14. He’s on! Let the lying commence!

    1. I appreciate his deftness in defending his law by calling 15% of Americans getting the shaft in the immediate implementation of this law as “small” or those who didn’t as “the vast majority.”

      …He then immediately uses the absolute medical rarity of someone going past their lifetime coverage limit and owing $100,000 as a reason to support his law.

      The goal posts have hit warp speed!

  15. Holy shit, He’s praising the economy?

    1. He’s just repeating Shreek’s talking points.

      1. Do you think Shreek blows his cookies early while watching these things or can he hold back until at least the first answer or two?

        And imagine being the guy with the cubical next to Matthew Yglesias when one of these things is going on. That guy has to have the worst job in America. Ew!!

        1. Hopefully the guy in the next cube has a splash shield.

          1. At least Chris Matthews probably has his own office.

        2. I hope that guy has a little button that plays the “sad trombone” sound every time Matty gets up or comes back from the bathroom.


          1. Some poor bastard in the West Wing has the job of feeding Sad Beard his daily talking points. Talk about someone who hates their life. I bet anything it is a woman and she has had to invent her “fiance” back in Chicago to keep him from showing up at her door every night with origami flowers.

            1. I like to think that the person feeding him the talking points has a sense of humor, and that this explains the frequent articles about how much he likes the new Walgreens or how Silicon Valley should relocate to Cleveland.

              1. I am sure. How could you have that job and not play the game of “I wonder if he is dumb enough to say this?”?

  16. And what do you mean by “enrolled”, Mr. President?

  17. “There’s a lot more that we have to do to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for every American”

    That fills me with a dark sense of foreboding.

    1. “Too many Americans are still employed. We must do everything we can to spread the misery around, so that every American shares in the poverty I have perpetuated.”

    2. There is nothing so terrifying about a statist talking in platitudes about distorting the economy. Okay, maybe a statist talking about saving the children from pedophile terrorists selling drugs on the internet would be scarier, but other than that, there isn’t much.

      1. as terrifying! (God, this is my third double post correction! I should be more careful…)

  18. Why can’t Obama just override Congress and restore those lifelines to people?

    It’s traditional for Kings to show generosity and patronage around the holidays, is it not?

    1. He only does that when it’s not something he can blame the Republicans for.

  19. “Mr. President, your Presidency seems to have all the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?” – The tone of the question just asked.

  20. So Mr. President, has being so awesome made the job of being President frustrating as you have had to deal with those awful Republicans?

  21. Is it just me, or does it look like he doesn’t give a shit anymore? He’s essentially got the power to rule by fiat with his healthcare law and he knows gun control is DOA. So why should he give a shit about anything?

    1. Pretty much. And I think he lives in such a bubble that he doesn’t really think the Dems can lose the Senate or if they did it would mean anything.

      At this point he is not just telling the country to go fuck themselves, he is telling the Democrats in Congress to go fuck themselves, he doesn’t care if they lose their office.

  22. So glad my company party is today and I’ve already started drinking.

  23. “If I was interested in polling, I wouldn’t run for President”


  24. “I’m not interested in my polling numbers. But I know what they all were going back several years.”

  25. I couldn’t get past his self-backslapping. More US oil! More jobs! Even after I put in place policies to prevent both!

    1. He is like some kind of God of incompetence. Every policy he tries results in exactly the opposite of intended. He honestly wants to destroy oil production. But since he fucks up everything he tries to the greatest extent possible, oil production is the only thing good about the economy.

      1. And economic incentives are so compelling, it would take all-out socialism to totally destroy job growth.

        But he’s trying.

        1. The American people and economy is astounding. These bumbling assholes have been giving virtually limitless power to destroy it, but it lives on.

        2. Seeing as the employment participation rate has essentially flatlined since he took office, I think you could say that at least in some sense he has totally destroyed job growth.

          1. The absolute number of jobs is growing, slowly – slower than the replacement rate.

    2. Yeah not only did he NOT have anything to do with creating any of it, he actively tried to get in the way of it.

      And then when the privte sector manages to make gains anyway, he tries to take credit for it.

      As Foghorn Leghorn would say, he’s lower than a snake full of buckshot.

      1. The only people who piss me off more than him are the idiots who uncritically eat that shit up.

        Which unfortunately includes nearly everyone in that room.

  26. Listening to him talk makes me so annoyed I can’t understand how anyone calls him a great speaker. Maybe it’s just not being a low information voter so I realize many of the times when he’s directly lying?

    1. I don’t think anyone enjoys his speeches outside of the real kool aid drinkers in the media. What happened was the media decided that since he was black and liberal and so like them, he must be the greatest speaker ever. And once that meme go started, anyone who pointed out the obvious fact that he was a moron and gave mendacious and boring speeches, was branded a racist who just couldn’t handle a black President.

      Seriously, try pointing out what a bad speaker he is and how none of his speeches have ever once moved the poll numbers on an issue to a liberal. They will just give you this blank stare and say “that is ridiculous”. It is group think at its most extreme.

      1. …and how none of his speeches have ever once moved the poll numbers on an issue…

        Actually, his speeches often result in lower polling numbers for whatever policy/issue he spoke about.

        1. Well there is that.

  27. He celebrates the fact that “a couple of million people are going to have “health care” on January first”

    (silent cheer from the invisible prog horde)

    …as though ‘health care’ did not exist prior to his intervention into the insurance markets; or that the people who now have new coverage had no prior options (or lost better coverage); or that the net effect to date has been to put more people out of coverage than it has improved the lot of people who could not afford to do so before.

    He could truthfully claim to have vastly expanded the rolls of Medicaid; however, given that this represents the worst of all options fiscally or for consumers, is obviously nothing to be celebrating.

    He might pat himself on the back for the recent ‘increased transparency’ of the NSA’s domestic spying programs. Which of course was something no one would have known about had his admin had their way.

    All I can imagine him doing is trying to find a pony in a big pile of horse poop. Iran? nope. Any other foreign policy issue? Nope. Trade? you must be joking. Employment?… hhmmn no. He might pull a Shreek and start claiming the stock market is suddenly ‘the economy’ now … in fact, I would be surprised if he doesn’t. He’s got nothing else really.

    1. a couple of million people are going to have “health care” on January first”

      And if that comes at the price of 20 million people losing their “health care”, well then that is just the price of civilization.

      1. but those 20 mil had crappy, substandard plans. Good god, the more he talks, the more he sounds like those commercials with James Earl Jones and Malcolm McDowell faking teenage girl web talk.

    2. I take that to mean that on January 1, a couple of million people will be able to get healthcare, and the other 300 odd million are just shit out of luck.

  28. “How many things can I prattle on about in order to avoid any mention of health care?”

    1. Oh he’ll get around to mentioning it again – after his “war room” comes up with a new litany of ways to blame the disaster on:

      A. The evil insurance companies.

      B. The “free” market.

      C. The evil Republicans.

      D. The evil Tea Party

      E. Anybody and/or anything other than himself or the Democratic party.

  29. I like this reporter. He’s asking the tough questions and putting them on youtube.

    But seriously, I really like the followup: “You’re conflating me and Clapper.” “He’s still on the job.”

  30. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Mr. President.

  31. he’s essentially making the claim now that the NSA program of domestic spying may be ‘technically’ illegal when government does it…

    but hey, wait – solution! – we can then just maybe force the telecom companies to do it for us.

    He seems to think that a court ruling saying something is ‘unconstitutional’ means that simply presents some technical hurdles that government must now find ways to work around.

    1. So if it was “technically illegal” why did he allow it to happen?

      Can you imagine how stupid he would look if he had anything but a completely loathsome and devoted White House Press corps to cover his ass and ask him softball questions?

      1. So if it was “technically illegal” why did he allow it to happen?

        Good intentions.

      2. So if it was “technically illegal” why did he allow it to happen?

        Same reason why mayors turn a blind eye when cops commit murder. They can.

  32. Excellent job by this reporter, but Obama continued to prattle and didn’t actually answer the questions.

  33. Betting he says something about messaging.

    1. He did. I am geniz.

  34. He once again is pretending the only problem with the law is the website.

  35. He just said “Cracking the whip” RACIST!

  36. And part of it has to do with you being a bumbling idiot who made everyone forge ahead despite knowing full well that the website didn’t work.

  37. It’s not even 3 o’clock yet. I’m working for 3 more hours. Why am I listening to this without booze?

    1. Why would you listen to it WITH booze? Christ, what a waste of booze.

      Listening to Roy Buchanan, with booze, now.

  38. Someone please blast him for delaying the mandate now that he brought up the government shutdown.

  39. Instead of solving problems, how about you start with not creating problems.

    1. How can you not give him a break for him a break for killing his parents Fransisco? The guy is an orphan.

  40. Underfunding.


  41. Oh look, he doesn’t know how finances work. Borrowing more money for future expenses ==- paying for “bills you have accrued”.

  42. Someone please start the uncontrollable laughter and/or the meltdown.

    Maybe with “You lie, *again*!”

  43. A rapier wit.

  44. Oh fucking A those cocksuckers asking questions have me wanting to dive out my 15th story window.

    1. They are worse than he is. The whole press corps needs to be shot.

    2. I’m only on the 14th floor, I’ll keep a seat for you down below.

  45. He’s going to use the “ongoing investigation” dodge?

  46. Let me be clear: I’ll comment on the Trayvon Martin case when Zimmerman is under indictment but I can’t say a word about Edward Snowden.

  47. Yes. You can weigh in on this case. You are the President. One of the few things you can constitutionally do is pardon people.

    1. Lets see how he dances around this question.

    2. Indeed. Look at how many other areas he has not minded flexing his executive muscle despite what Congress or agency policies were before. For him to say he can not weigh in or even act in this area which is clearly Constitutionally enumerated as one of his powers is indeed disingenuous at best.

  48. Yes, the United States ideally does care about those things like rule of law and civil liberties. It’s just that YOU, Barack Obama, don’t give a shit.

  49. Please.

    What a shitbag. It would have been swept under the rug without a second thought.

  50. “Abides by the rule of law… cares about the Constitution…”

    Haaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  51. Did the President just pull a tu quoque on the rest of the world?

    1. “This shit is a hard job, my man!”

  52. Not damaging to the US, damaging to your legacy. And hat can not stand! His administration is guilty of everything he blames on foreign countries. The man is a child.

  53. HAHA!!! While answering the NSA revelations and Ed Snowden question, he essentially gave a flagrantly verbose version of the “hey, other countries do it too” defense.

    1. We are no worse than Russia or China. What is your bitch you racist tea bagger?

  54. Has he talked about Phil Robertson yet? Is he going to say orthodox Christian doctrine is verboten in public discourse?

  55. Ha.

    Nick Gillespie ?@nickgillespie 3m
    Mr. President, are all of America’s warts covered under Obamacare?

  56. That Barack Obama is just so caring and generous. A very small group of people were fucked over by this law (and he totally did not see that coming) and he very graciously gave them some help.

  57. Yes, all these things are “free”.

  58. Contentious little fucker, isn’t he?

  59. “Mr. President, if we had a President who respected the rule of law, and yes, I am speaking hypothetically here, what do you think he or she would do if a member of their administration broke the law?”

  60. “You’ve benefited from the law; you just don’t know it!”


    Will somebody please call 911? I think I just gave myself a concussion facepalming.

    1. He believes that. He thinks words are magic. The reality that the entire program is shit doesn’t matter, if we just keep saying the right words. Messaging!!

      1. Strange how they have been messaging out the ying yang about Obamacare for years now and yet somehow they can’t seem to get it right.

        Why it’s almost as if substance matters more than symbolism.

        Perish the thought.

  62. Yep, the only problems with Obamacare are the website and the “messaging.”

  63. Contentious little fucker, isn’t he?

    1. And that message is killing us!

  64. I can’t watch anymore.

    Think it’s time for some Stones.

  65. “Sir, will you don your gay apparel this season?”

  66. I usually tend to avoid these press conferences and catch the Reason recaps. Are they usually this bad?

    1. They are all equally bad for your blood pressure.

    2. Yes. Grid help us.

  67. How it should have gone…

    WASHINGTON?Standing before members of the White House Press Corps Wednesday afternoon as aides lowered a bunch of grapes into his mouth, President Obama encouraged everyone gathered in the West Wing briefing room to abandon their inhibitions and revel in a wild, drunken orgy.

    Sources confirmed Obama, who had initially called the press conference to discuss the progress on an infrastructure development bill, suddenly requested everyone in the room strip off their clothing and strongly urged NBC’s Chuck Todd and CNN’s Jessica Yellin to kick the festivities off by engaging in oral sex in front of the podium.

    “This afternoon I will discuss how the new water resource development bill could affect S. 601, but first, I think we should all give in to the basest of our primal urges and drink thirstily from the cup of lust,” said Obama, as the juice of the grapes he was eating ran down his chin and White House staffers placed a wreath of leaves onto his head. “This is a day of excess! So now, release yourselves from your attire and surrender your body and mind to the pleasures of the vita carnalis, and to the sheer majesty of the human flesh.”

  68. Lie of the year!

  69. What a shitbag.

    I don’t have a problem sending BJK. But at least have the fucking balls to admit why you sent a gay washed up tennis player to Putin.

    1. He won’t admit he did it to fuck with them? That is smarmiest thing I have ever heard.

      Does he even try to take his job seriously? If he objects to the gay laws over there and wants to make a statement about it by sending King, good for him. That sounds like a good idea.

      But to send her and then deny why you are sending her accomplishes nothing. It makes him look like a coward and still gives the Russians a reason to hate us. How can anyone be that fucking incompetent?

      1. Obama’s a fool, dicking with Putin like this.

        1. Yes he is. What is the point? The Russians are already paranoid as hell. Why make them worse?

        2. He’s not dicking with Putin.

          Do you really think Putin gives a shit about this? He’s fucking ex-KGB and likely ordered hundreds of hits. He came to power thanks to a bombing campaign that was killing junior officers in the army that ended right after he secured power.

          I’ll bet he’s laughing his ass off at the ineffectual gesture. Assuming that he’s giving it any thought while he’s banging his latest mistress.

          1. It just further confirms to the Russian people that we are their enemies. That is really bad idea. Thanks to Clinton’s dumb ass war in Kosovo, we have long since pissed away all of the good will we had with them after the cold war. Doing shit like this just makes them hate us more when there is really no reason for them to.

            1. That’s a fair point.

              1. Putin’s laughing, he ate Obama alive on Syria and the best thing Obama’s got for a riposte is Billy Jean King.

      2. And fuck the reporter. The question should have been:

        “Mr President, are you sending a gay tennis player to opening ceremonies in your place to make a statement about Putin’s stance on homosexuality?”

    2. I wish he had the balls to just say: “I sent her to give a huge middle finger to Comrade Putin.” But he doesn’t want to piss off the socon crowd too much.

  70. How did this whore not ask about Duck Dynasty? WORST LAST QUESTION EVER.

  71. “Oh Mr. President, you’re so funny and dreamy! *swoons* Let me toss you a softball so you can go out on a high note.”

  72. This guy is a rotten speaker.

    1. Uh you only uh say that uh because uh uh you’re uh racist.

      His whistling lisp sets my teeth on edge.

  73. John Podesta is a fucking fascist. He came up with a giant list of ways the president can circumvent Congress and essentially make law on everything from energy to defense to gun control by fiat.

    1. A lot of “Mr. President, your cock tastes wonderful in my mouth” type questions from reporters. Except one guy that asked good questions, and a good follow up, that Obama used all kinds of words to dance around without having to answer.

      1. Oops. That should’ve been a reply to Fist.

          1. But you saw it anyways!

  74. What did I miss? Fake scandals? Let me be clears? Every economist agreeing?

    1. Obama said he was gonna get the first on today’s PM Links thread. You better not let that happen.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.