Him or Christie, if he manages to lose a couple of hundred pounds.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Him or Christie, if he manages to lose a couple of hundred pounds.
Not a name, an alternative.
A movement, with platform and deep pockets to sustain the movement.
Reckon it will take at least $1Bn
Me neither, it's the same when they've faced off before, Stewart goes for the laughs over the kill too often, and yeah there is a definitely a level of respect there for Bill, who can't be anywhere near as retarded as he acts on FOX.
There's too much back-slapping between Stewart and O'Reilly. JS should just grow a full pair and destroy him....but he won't. I actually think BOR is one of the fairer guys on that channel. He's nowhere near as rabid as Hannity.
Decent article.
JS has said this many times and has followed it up by saying that its like being the thinest kid at fat camp.
JS doesn't go for the jugular because I think he's too fearful of losing his status as a comedian and being regarded as a political player. He'll often make a great point and follow it up with a joke which sometimes gets a bit annoying.
I can't help but like O'Reilly. I've got the feeling that he's a lot more decent and intelligent than he sometimes comes across as on Fox. He's even funny at times, and a good sport too, which is more than one can say about for example Hannity. He might be wrong more often than he's right, but at least he's not as dishonest and disingenuous as certain other people.
Absolutely, and he's been scaling it down a fair bit recently. Hannity is just a vicious cnut, who looks it too. I would love Stewart to face off against him, there would be no respect given and he could destroy him, because Hannity is an ignorant twat who can't argue a point at all.
I can't agree with this at all. That is, I think you're probably right on the more decent and intelligent part (though maybe not the "a lot" prefix), but he's as dishonest as they come. His shameful treatment of his guests is second to none.
A lot of people say that O'Reilly is not near the idiot he portrays for FOX, I think there was a thread on it in the CE or General where loads of commentators have come out and talked about him outside of his 'role'. I have no problem believing he puts on a lot of that to draw in the views, and you can see it when he's faced off with Stewart in the past, he goes for a different tact because he's up against someone who can't be quietened just by shouting over them.
I don't really take his show that seriously, it is what it is. He's no stranger to dishonest tactics and argumentation, but when he's interviewing (or being interviewed by) people like Maher, Stewart and Letterman, he comes across as a much nicer and more thoughtful guy than his shitty Fox show would have you think. It's sad that he constantly panders to the right wing on his show instead of just being honest, but that's what his viewership (and, I suspect, Roger Ailes) expects, so perhaps he feels he has to.
I don't understand this, surely he would be more likeable as an idiot who doesn't know better. If you believe him to be more intelligent and less narrow minded in real life than he acts on Fox News then he's as manipulative as they come.
With Hannity, he might as well be Glenn Beck. It's like he genuinely believed Colmes made his show balanced.
That's because he either doesn't control the interview, or he's finally debating people who won't get run over by him with those thugish tactics. He's made the mistake of trying it on people before, and he always looks like a right cnut.
BOR is a typical older, white guy who's unable to process why his childhood country is no more. He doesn't understand that it was all mostly an illusion anyway. Many of the problems that exist today were just papered over back in the day.
Indeed. And for people who say that's only an act he does on his show, that doesn't really explain the follow-up "blog" video where he made an even bigger fool out of himself. Hell, even if it is an act, that only makes him more despicable. He's actively harmful to society. The only question is if he does it because he's stupid or if he does it to make money.
Completely disagree. The guy is a clown and an obnoxious bully who has no intelligent credentials whatsoever. All his pathetic little talk show entails is him inviting some atheist/liberal/anti-war activist etc and shouting over them, ridiculing them in humiliating ways and seldom giving them a chance to retaliate, thinking that dignifies him.
This video sums up how much of an utter, despicable cnut of a man he is:
I hope him and Hannity get tag-teamed by rapist bulls during mating season.
O'Reilly's alright. You're all just jealous.
Hannity got the Stewart treatment again last night. There was some radio host on SH's show though that was just an utter cnut. These feckers just keep coming and coming...like there's an Utter cnut factory somewhere in Idaho that's churning them out.
You vote Frp, don't you?
I have no party affiliation, and no ideological one. I've never voted Frp in my life, but that doesn't mean that I think they're wrong on every issue. I think it's important to have a party like them, if nothing else to work as a counterbalance to the left-wing radicalism of Rødt and SV (both of whom I despise more than Frp)
Romney's campaign so far...
saw this elsewhere...
"Drip, drip, drip, gusher, drip, drip, drip, Tsunami ?
saw this elsewhere...
"Drip, drip, drip, gusher, drip, drip, drip, Tsunami ?
Are there any sites to watch the Daily Show outside of the US? I keep being told I'm not in the right country. I am in the right country dammit!! YOUR IN THE WRONG feckING COUNTRY!!
Rasmussen is doing their best to keep the race competitive...
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01...and-the-colbert-report-if-you-live-in-the-uk/
http://www.hotspotshield.com/
I've used both of these in the past. They now stream the full episodes (with the 'throw to the web' bits left in) on the Daily Show site which is pretty cool.
Rasmussen is doing their best to keep the race competitive...
Not really, Both Gallup and Rasmussen have showing the same trend these last few day: Obama's lead decreasing since the conference.
I expect this to reverse again after the supposed (non)gaffe.
Yeah, totally not a gaffe to describe half of the country you're running to represent as mooching victims.
And to say that it won't be your job to give a feck about them.
Theres a scouser joke in there somewhere.
I bet some of those waiters served the special relish to Romney that night.
Like I said, the concept of government seems to include more and more things nowadays. Eventually we will expect our government to find us jobs, and let us know where to turn-up. We will expect governments to pay for all our education and work training needs throughout life and career, expect our government to have enough money for our pensions and care homes and to pay our utility bills. The gradual creep of government intervention has been increasing for a long time now. The fact is that most things, like pensions, winter fuel allowance are only an issue because people believe they are entitled to help, and then never adequately planned and saved. A culture of entitlement is a problem.
This isn't a gaffe.
This is the gaffe. This is something a pragmatic polling advisor would say in a closed-door closed meeting with Romney.
A president, however, cannot and should not say this.
And that the "47%" actually comprises quite a lot of Republicans whose support you need. And that this will fire up the democratic base.
It's amazing, it's at least 4 gaffes in one.
What he said about the Palestinians probably isn't very helpful either.
Yeah, "Kick the ball down the field and hope something ultimately happens" is some pretty weak American Exceptionalism, there
Look, he claimed that 47% of the population were 'takers' because they didn't pay income tax, and that these were the same people who voted for Obama.
In fact, most of the 47% who don't pay income tax pay the payroll tax, most of those that don't are OAPs and students, and nearly 100% of Americans pay taxes during their working lives.
And here are the states where most of the non-income-tax-payers live. You know, the ones who will inevitably vote for Obama because they won't take responsibility for their lives. Hint - they're the red ones:
Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from moocher states. Obama will probably get 5.
Like I said, the concept of government seems to include more and more things nowadays. Eventually we will expect our government to find us jobs, and let us know where to turn-up. We will expect governments to pay for all our education and work training needs throughout life and career, expect our government to have enough money for our pensions and care homes and to pay our utility bills. The gradual creep of government intervention has been increasing for a long time now. The fact is that most things, like pensions, winter fuel allowance are only an issue because people believe they are entitled to help, and then never adequately planned and saved. A culture of entitlement is a problem.
There is undoubtedly a problem with a culture of entitlement.
In my view it's exemplified by a man claiming he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and earned everything he made, when he was given 400K in stocks before going to college; a man with $250 million striving to cut taxes on those like himself, refusing to release his own taxes but admitting he paid 13%, all while disparaging people who on average pay 15% as 'takers'; and a man who clearly feels entitled to be President but feels no obligation to serve the interests of those who didn't vote for him.
- Status