|
Those excerpts from his book were insane. Just the least sexy sexy talk ever.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
muscles like this! posted:Those excerpts from his book were insane. Just the least sexy sexy talk ever. "I am satisfied with my sexing. I had all the climaxes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:Those excerpts from his book were insane. Just the least sexy sexy talk ever. But he was kneading her flesh with his tongue! Hehehehehehe, yeah that was pretty loving bad. And hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
I can't believe Bill O'Reilly actually wrote and published a romance novel. And that pales in comparison to my disbelief that he goddamn narrated the audio book for it, in what sounded like a more robotic version of his newscasting voice. Jesus gently caress, how did this not make Reddit or something before now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Because his sexytime book is old news. Jon Stewart plumbed all the comedy out of it years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
It's just, I assume someone like that has an agent or something. I can't believe that no one surrounding him ever said "Hey, you're a rich, conservative Republican who's on TV every day, and you are so nonsexual that it seems like your suit and tie are just natural extensions of your body. You are the very last person who should be publishing a novel about pleasuring women."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Well he's clearly delusional in other ways too, have you seen his opinions? Trump thinks he's a sexual tyrannosaurus too. Rich old white conservative flesh golum-looking assholes always do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:It's just, I assume someone like that has an agent or something. I can't believe that no one surrounding him ever said "Hey, you're a rich, conservative Republican who's on TV every day, and you are so nonsexual that it seems like your suit and tie are just natural extensions of your body. You are the very last person who should be publishing a novel about pleasuring women." Republicans are nothing if not tone deaf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
IRQ posted:This is why literally no one wants to do anything about NK. It would make the ISIL and Syrian civil war refugee crisis look like a day at the beach. Anyway this whole business about gerrymandering wasn't exactly new but it is still a bizarre practice; I know it isn't only a thing in the US but as an outsider it always seemed hilariously biased; that weird shaped district was a cool example of how it can be sometimes be good though. Zedd fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Trump thinks he's a sexual tyrannosaurus too. Rich old white conservative flesh golum-looking assholes always do. This started with Cosby, it's men of a certain age. I cringe at the precedent that settlement = guilty that's happening in the O'Reilly case in this chapter of "Our Woke Times." But that's because I defended Michael Jackson for paying out over having to live a repeat of his first protracted legal battle, this time with a family that blatantly 180'd from supporting him to accusing him when their son appeared on the Martin Bashir special and made them look especially naive. It's why I consider Bashir a terrible journalist and hated him getting a gig in the heady lefty days of MSNBC. On the other hand, I'm weirdly accepting all this because it's Bill O'Reilly, who is so hatable that it's either to abandon your own principles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:It's just, I assume someone like that has an agent or something. I can't believe that no one surrounding him ever said "Hey, you're a rich, conservative Republican who's on TV every day, and you are so nonsexual that it seems like your suit and tie are just natural extensions of your body. You are the very last person who should be publishing a novel about pleasuring women." If you want to hear what people actually say when talking to rich conservative republicans, you can always just listen to the Trump/Billy Bush tape again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Zedd posted:Anyway this whole business about gerrymandering wasn't exactly new but it is still a bizarre practice; I know it isn't only a thing in the US but as an outsider it always seemed hilariously biased; that weird shaped district was a cool example of how it can be sometimes be good though. It's one of those things that's a symptom of the way the system works but is hard to come up with a better solution while also preserving the core idea behind the system. For example, Gerrymandering would be a complete non-issue if representatives were elected by some kind of state-wide proportional system (I.e if the Republicans get 55% of the popular vote, they get 55% of the state's congressional seats), but this would mean that you'd no longer have a specific local representative who would be your point of contact, and would also mean that who actually ends up in congress would be based entirely on internal party politics rather than who the public actually likes (instead of how it works now which is where it's only mostly based on internal party politics). Some might argue these are worthwhile trade offs to get a government that's more representative of overall public opinion, but there are also good reasons to have representatives for specific subsets of constituents, especially when it comes to things like representing minorities who might end up just being ignored under a purely proportional system. That said, you do get a lot of bullshit from representatives who benefit from the current system like the old standby "an independent committee to decide congressional districts isn't a perfect solution, so let's not do it even though it is objectively better than how it works now." It's pretty easy for them to just dig in their heels and just reject any attempt at change when they've gerrymandered themselves into a safe district.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's one of those things that's a symptom of the way the system works but is hard to come up with a better solution while also preserving the core idea behind the system. The core idea behind your system is pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's one of those things that's a symptom of the way the system works but is hard to come up with a better solution while also preserving the core idea behind the system. For example, Gerrymandering would be a complete non-issue if representatives were elected by some kind of state-wide proportional system (I.e if the Republicans get 55% of the popular vote, they get 55% of the state's congressional seats), but this would mean that you'd no longer have a specific local representative who would be your point of contact, and would also mean that who actually ends up in congress would be based entirely on internal party politics rather than who the public actually likes (instead of how it works now which is where it's only mostly based on internal party politics). Some might argue these are worthwhile trade offs to get a government that's more representative of overall public opinion, but there are also good reasons to have representatives for specific subsets of constituents, especially when it comes to things like representing minorities who might end up just being ignored under a purely proportional system. Australia's senate voting system works around this problem fairly easily. Parties are listed horizontally on the ballot paper, with each of their candidates listed vertically below. The party order is assigned randomly, while the candidate order is specified by each party. Voters have the option of either numbering the parties in order (in which case the candidate order determines the votes), or numbering the candidates in order. So yeah, internal party politics determines whether candidate A or B appears first, but if you prefer candidate B who's second in the list you can always indicate them as your first preference. It leads to enormous ballot papers, but it's a fairly simple and easy system all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Australia's senate voting system works around this problem fairly easily. Parties are listed horizontally on the ballot paper, with each of their candidates listed vertically below. The party order is assigned randomly, while the candidate order is specified by each party. Yeah I was trying to keep my post relatively short but I know there are hybrid systems. One that gets mentioned in this video is a sort of 50/50 system, where you elect local representatives but also vote for a party, and then the house is composed of both the directly elected representatives and an equal number of proportionally distributed seats based on the party results. This is still vulnerable to gerrymandering, but less so because only half the house comes from district-based elections. Australia is kind of an interesting case because they do a lot of things with their electoral systems that should be done in more countries yet that politicians are incredibly resistant to implement. How did they manage to get it done there? Did they just set it up that way initially?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:I can't believe Bill O'Reilly actually wrote and published a romance novel. And that pales in comparison to my disbelief that he goddamn narrated the audio book for it, in what sounded like a more robotic version of his newscasting voice. Jesus gently caress, how did this not make Reddit or something before now? To be fair, it wasn't a romance novel, and that was just an excerpt. Stephen King and those type of writers have sex scenes in the majority of their books as well. That doesn't make it any less creepy to read or hear, but it isn't that ridiculous of a concept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Also, he probably didn't write it. He probably just threw his name on a book to make it sell more and so he could call himself a novelist. But there's excuse or sensible reasoning for him narrating the audio book knowing there's a sex scene. That's on him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Also, he probably didn't write it. He probably just threw his name on a book to make it sell more and so he could call himself a novelist. See, that's what I thought at first, but... I mean, c'mon, man. Tell me with a straight face that Bill O'Reilly talking about a real-life sexual conquest wouldn't sound exactly like that horrible narration in the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Well I didn't say he picked a good book to throw his name on. Or one that didn't speak to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah I was trying to keep my post relatively short but I know there are hybrid systems. One that gets mentioned in this video is a sort of 50/50 system, where you elect local representatives but also vote for a party, and then the house is composed of both the directly elected representatives and an equal number of proportionally distributed seats based on the party results. This is still vulnerable to gerrymandering, but less so because only half the house comes from district-based elections. Sort of, yeah. Remember Australia was only federalised in 1901 so there was plenty of time to learn from other countries' mistakes. And most of the big changes (compulsory voting, proportional representation) were changes within the first 25 years, when the architects of the system were still in it and could see things that weren't functioning as intended. There are still things that don't work well, eg the lower house is still elected by plurality voting, and although the green party got about 9% of the votes nationally, they ended up with 1 seat out of 150 in the lower house. The redneck racist party got about the same number of votes and didn't get a single lower house seat. And in the upper house, the incredibly complex and arcane way votes get counted meant that a senator got elected with literally 17,000 first preference votes out of 3.7 million votes cast. In general these days, a change will get made if it benefits the big parties at the expense of the smaller ones. The situation I mentioned above with the senator basically can't happen again, because the two major parties made sure to change the rules - it's an extra chance at senators for them, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's one of those things that's a symptom of the way the system works but is hard to come up with a better solution while also preserving the core idea behind the system. For example, Gerrymandering would be a complete non-issue if representatives were elected by some kind of state-wide proportional system (I.e if the Republicans get 55% of the popular vote, they get 55% of the state's congressional seats), but this would mean that you'd no longer have a specific local representative who would be your point of contact, and would also mean that who actually ends up in congress would be based entirely on internal party politics rather than who the public actually likes (instead of how it works now which is where it's only mostly based on internal party politics). Some might argue these are worthwhile trade offs to get a government that's more representative of overall public opinion, but there are also good reasons to have representatives for specific subsets of constituents, especially when it comes to things like representing minorities who might end up just being ignored under a purely proportional system. The way the system exists now permits the disenfranchisement of as much as 49% of a particular district. The whole system was designed for a country of 4 million when political parties only existed in a loose sense. The idea of local representation is a bad joke. Trump fuckboy Scott Tipton wasn't voting for the best interests of anyone in my district when he voted to allow mining companies to pollute surface and groundwater at will, or when he voted to destroy the FCC's ability to regulate ISPs going forward. Baronash fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
There are rumors floating around that O'Reilly is now permanently off the air. He announced a sudden vacation and supposedly Fox CEO James Murdoch (who was responsibly for ousting Roger Ailes last year) wants him gone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:There are rumors floating around that O'Reilly is now permanently off the air. He announced a sudden vacation and supposedly Fox CEO James Murdoch (who was responsibly for ousting Roger Ailes last year) wants him gone. He has a bright future on RT alongside Larry King.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
how likely is it that bretbart will suddenly have a new personality
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
O'Reilly is selling it as a planned vacation, but if you're not ready for your eyes to roll back into your skull, out of your mouth, and onto the floor at any given time, then you're not ready for The O'Reilly Factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah I was trying to keep my post relatively short but I know there are hybrid systems. One that gets mentioned in this video is a sort of 50/50 system, where you elect local representatives but also vote for a party, and then the house is composed of both the directly elected representatives and an equal number of proportionally distributed seats based on the party results. This is still vulnerable to gerrymandering, but less so because only half the house comes from district-based elections. Germany's got another take on that kind of system. In each election, you got two votes: One for a local representative, the other for a party. The one for the party tends to be the more important one, it's a simple public vote that all goes in one pot and each party gets a number of seats proportional to the amount of votes they received. Then, each representative who managed to win a district takes up one of those seats afforded to their party. If a party has more representatives voted in than it gets seats, the total number of seats in the house is scaled up so that everybody gets a seat while still retaining the original proportions. If a party has fewer representatives directly voted in than it has seats, then the remaining seats are simply filled up by people picked from a publicly accessible list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:He has a bright future on RT alongside Larry King. RT is state-sponsored media, which comes with a host of problems, but as a source isn't inherently terrible like Info Wars. I mean, Thom Hartmann runs his show on their American network, and he's no Kremlin agent. Why is everyone piling on RT instead of asking why media critical of the Democratic party seems to end up there? I think there's more to this story than has been discussed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Actually never mind, this post added nothing useful
CrashCat fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:RT is state-sponsored media, which comes with a host of problems, but as a source isn't inherently terrible like Info Wars. I mean, Thom Hartmann runs his show on their American network, and he's no Kremlin agent. Also RT America's headquarters/studio is literally blocks away from the White House. Sounds like a really lovely spot to be a Russian agent to me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Why is everyone piling on RT instead of asking why media critical of the Democratic party seems to end up there? I think there's more to this story than has been discussed. Both facts can be true. Cenk created TYT after he got kicked from MSNBC, which likely happened because the Democrats weren't happy with his attacking them from the left. However, that doesn't change that RT engages in Putin apologia. I've seen it myself. The Georgia border scuffle 8 or 9 years ago happened during a time when I was far into analyzing state-run media, and RT had a guy stammering and fist-pounding that Russia never attacks civilians while BBC World had actual video of a Russian jet buzzing over and firing at their crew. He later also got wound up watching the Georgian leader in the streets and, obviously wound up on adrenaline or something, began mocking the guy like a child ("Oh, I'm [name], I'm so corrupt, I claim Russia is bombing people from the sky but here I am in the streets.") I gave up on it after that, I know at some point they started buying a presence on US cable systems and hiring OWS protesters to try their hand at broadcasting and creating a Maddow clone. RT is not the only "news" stream engaging in English-language misinformation for a lovely government on the other side of the world, but it was more transparent than something like CCTV9 which simply avoids talking about anything which would make Beijing look bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
FlyingCheese posted:Also RT America's headquarters/studio is literally blocks away from the White House. Sounds like a really lovely spot to be a Russian agent to me... Why would you not put your agent into a political and financial hub of the country you're spying on? Unless we're talking about the commute, but you don't have to walk it when the Secret Service will just pick you up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
You either read RT and realize the right and particularly the alt-right's foreign policy and conspiracy theory talking points are not original, or you don't and won't. You can't read RT and keep seeing their headlines and language and talking points and rhetoric on the_donald and /pol/ six hours later and close your eyes to it and ignore this fact. Not day after week after month after tear. There's a middle ground where you take it on someone else's word that, yes, RT is a driver of large chunks of right wing news. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
You're pre-supposing that people ever look at the_donald or /pol/. It would be interesting if the right went from "we didn't need the fairness doctrine anyway" to "oh god we need prevent foreign meddling in our information mediums" and started supporting a regulation on media, at least broadcasting, because of this poo poo. But they won't, because it's just easier and constitutionally muddier to let people watch whatever and put them on a list of suspected dangerous persons if they look at the wrong news source because it's tied to people we consider 'bad'. I'm less scared of foreign governments pushing media at our people causing them to re-think their policies or voice an agenda, because god knows we do that to other countries and it's only our own bubble of self-importance and our national disinterest in anything foreign that kept them from gaining a foothold for decades. I'm more scared that some goon clicks a link to AlJazeera or whatever in a post here and consequently gets their bank accounts frozen and their name blacklisted from flying. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Both facts can be true. Cenk created TYT after he got kicked from MSNBC, which likely happened because the Democrats weren't happy with his attacking them from the left. However, that doesn't change that RT engages in Putin apologia. TYT was around for almost 10 years before Cenk was on MSNBC. He ended up on Current TV after MSNBC replaced him with Reverend Al.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Some day I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a shot at 6 PM on MSNBC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
empty baggie posted:TYT was around for almost 10 years before Cenk was on MSNBC. He ended up on Current TV after MSNBC replaced him with Reverend Al. I remember it as a radio show he ran with someone else on Sirius Left back in the 2003ish days. But in my mind I disconnect it from the video platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
A room full of hockey fans thought I was the strangest person in the world tonight when between periods I flipped on Fox News only to see a cowboy catheter commercial about sexual harassment air during the O'Reilly Factor that made me absolutely lose my poo poo. I guess Fox News isn't paying attention to what they air in those suddenly open commercial slots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:A room full of hockey fans thought I was the strangest person in the world tonight when between periods I flipped on Fox News only to see a cowboy catheter commercial about sexual harassment air during the O'Reilly Factor that made me absolutely lose my poo poo. I think they are absolutely paying attention Murdoch really does not like Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:A room full of hockey fans thought I was the strangest person in the world tonight when between periods I flipped on Fox News only to see a cowboy catheter commercial about sexual harassment air during the O'Reilly Factor that made me absolutely lose my poo poo. Last Week Tonight is really talented and I'm sure whoever schedules the ads just takes their money gladly
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
how much money are they sinking into these catheter ads anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 07:11
|
|
