It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Happened When She Questioned Obamacare on the Air at CNBC?

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

You completely missed the point and the punchline.




(post by the owlbear removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: sheepslayer247

So now fox is all of a sudden credible with this story? Both news sites do a great job dividing this country along with MSNBC..they are all dividists...yes not a real word but fitting



Can you prove where the story is NOT true?

Whether you like the source or not , doesnt mean the information is false........

The trick to the whole truth thing, is to remain objective through our own biases


You're asking me to disprove a negative? You do know that's a logical fallacy, correct?

I'm not saying her story is false. What I am saying is that we can't trust her anymore than we can anyone else on a MSM channel. Just because she said it doesn't make it true and since when do we trust the MSM? Couple that with her effort to use that story to give more credibility to Fox and it becomes even more suspect.

It seems to me that I am the only one being objective here. I am asking if it's even true at all and taking in to account Fox's predisposition to serve BS to their viewers. If this was MSNBC, I'd do the same thing. But it appears that some of us only question those that do not confirm our own bias'.
edit on 11/15/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/15/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth politics.

Obamacare is an oxymoron because it is evident to me that he does not care.

The math probably does add up - just not in favour of those who are forced to get it.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

But no Republicans voted for PPACA in the House or Senate.

The Democrats *OWN* Obama.Care (the leftover Democrats that is).

The newREDS will pass changes and Obama will veto.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

If you look at my reply, it was clear who i was replying to bud....I even quoted them



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: sheepslayer247

If you look at my reply, it was clear who i was replying to bud....I even quoted them


Indeed.

My bad.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

They are her own words.........

Im not sure how much more proof you need then that



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: the owlbear

But no Republicans voted for PPACA in the House or Senate.

The Democrats *OWN* Obama.Care (the leftover Democrats that is).

The newREDS will pass changes and Obama will veto.



How many abstained?
The House has been in repug control for quite a while now. They can feign resistance, but plenty of their golf buddies are getting paid now. The insurance racket knows no color. Just green.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: sheepslayer247

They are her own words.........

Im not sure how much more proof you need then that


Do you believe everything you are told by a MSM talking head?

So much for objectivity..........



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: the owlbear

But no Republicans voted for PPACA in the House or Senate.

The Democrats *OWN* Obama.Care (the leftover Democrats that is).

The newREDS will pass changes and Obama will veto.



How many abstained?
The House has been in repug control for quite a while now. They can feign resistance, but plenty of their golf buddies are getting paid now. The insurance racket knows no color. Just green.


Democrats had full majority control of Congress in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

No wonder it passed so they could find out what it was.

Pugs took the House back in 2011 (the 2010 election) and never looked back.



Insurance golfers perhaps



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: sheepslayer247

They are her own words.........

Im not sure how much more proof you need then that


Do you believe everything you are told by a MSM talking head?

So much for objectivity..........


Do you Disbelieve just because of the news source?

Why is it so hard to believe that she was threatened while on a liberal news agency, for criticizing a liberal political bill?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FalcoFan

eh; I don't hate them for that..

I just think they're focusing on the wrong thing.

I know Obama is weak, he's a corporate-bought/paid-for politician.

A lot of the same could be said for Bill Clinton, and in many ways George Bush jr.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
" What Happened When She Questioned Obamacare on the Air at CNBC? "

You have to buy a policy so you can find out what's in it.




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Oh yes, Ms. Francis strikes one as completely unbiased about the subject. Completely trustworthy.

So, she was employed by CNBC at the time?

And CNBC gave her instructions on what they wanted in their on-air content?

Imagine that. I bet Fox News NEVER does that, huh?

It's funny, that a member of the media is suddenly completely trustworthy, as long as she's telling us something we want to hear. Oh, wait, she's not a member of the "liberal media" so she's okay. Good as gold.

The cost of health insurance had continued to rise in any time period you choose to consider well before "Obamacare" was ever put in place. To imply that increases were only imposed afterwards is quite obviously dishonest. Perhaps she was chastised at CNBC for dishonesty or a lack of understanding or perhaps oversimplifying a complex situation?

Who can say, we only have her side of the story, which in any other set of circumstances would be setting off your BS detectors.

"We report (one side), you decide."



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Stupid is as stupid does. Left, right, middle it's all crap and I have a very sensitive sniffer so I'll keep walking in the opposite direction of all the crap to save my poor little nose.

Lil

/takes the batteries out of the keyboard... damn I'm in a pissy mood today.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
So, she worked at CNBC from 2003 to December 2011. She covered the stock market mostly.

January 2012 she joined FBN.

And she's saved up this little chestnut for two and a half years? At FOX? Does that make sense to anyone?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, she worked at CNBC from 2003 to December 2011. She covered the stock market mostly.

January 2012 she joined FBN.

And she's saved up this little chestnut for two and a half years? At FOX? Does that make sense to anyone?


When she left CNBC, she must have signed a non-competition "gag" clause that has expired by now.




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, she worked at CNBC from 2003 to December 2011. She covered the stock market mostly.

January 2012 she joined FBN.

And she's saved up this little chestnut for two and a half years? At FOX? Does that make sense to anyone?


When she left CNBC, she must have signed a non-competition "gag" clause that has expired by now.





That's possible. If it were a non-compete clause she wouldn't be working at Fox until about, well, right now, though.

Doesn't explain what we see.

But, do you have any evidence for that? Has she mentioned that she was bound under a "gag" order until now? That seems like that would be something she'd say, right?

How about any corroborating evidence for her story?

Her "beat" at CNBC was the stock market. Did she just start extemporizing on insurance legislation one day to you think?

Just the facts, ma'am.


edit on 20Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:56:41 -060014p0820141166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:58:32 -060014p0920141166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
By the by, her "math" doesn't add up, either.

The restrictions on denial for pre-existing conditions only affect the new policies through the exchanges.

If the existing market was working before, it's working now; those policies were grandfathered in. (healthcare.gov)

The only plans that were cancelled as a result of ACA were junk products that the insurance industry had been ripping customers off with for years. The individual mandate was a Republican idea, included in the ACA to garner support from Republicans.

A considerable portion of the Americans who "don't like the ACA" don't like it because it's not a single-payer plan.

If we're going to look at "the numbers" instead of "the politics" we need to look at these issues, too, right?




top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join