|
I didn't like the last two episodes too much but that one from a few months ago with Kevin Nealon was a masterful performance. I've probably seen him in a dozen films/100s of SNL sketches and that may have been the pinnacle of his career right there.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
P. J. O'Rourke is a more interesting writer than TV personality.Moose Bigelow posted:Michael Moore as much as I love him made a bunch of strawmen arguments because the other two panelists had nothing of substance to say. What strawmen?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I just can't see why someone would knock on that and instead go further with our mess of our health care system. Because they think they themselves are getting better care by they're leaving X million number of people out in the cold. readingatwork posted:Just a loose mix of religious cultists and con men trying to strip the copper out of the walls before the nation's demographics change and they are run out of town by an angry mob.  pkd88 posted:There is also a bit of liberal guilt. Liberals must be kind and respectful. Liberals can not play the game the way the Republicans do. That is against their nature and belief system. Conservatives have guilt too. Just a different flavor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I've think I've watched O'Reilly's show maybe twice but they both seem pretty similar to me. I agree with that. They both also like to single out people as the "bad guys." O'Reilly has his "pinheads" segment and Olbermann has his "worst person's in the world." That's why I always thought it was funny when Olbermann began calling Glenn Beck "Lonesome Rhodes" as if he wasn't doing the same thing himself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why isn't O'Reily on real time? The only guy I've seen that enjoys being on both is Andrew Breitbart (and he badmouthed both hosts on the others show). He was crying around about Sarah Silverman calling him "slime" and his chair "slimy." He called Maher's show an "evil liberal den" or something to O'Reilly and then was yucking it up on Real Time a few weeks later having a grand old time. Classic turncoat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:It's just something weak liberals do because they think they appear more reasonable when they do it. Or perhaps people who can see through higher levels of deception than baldfaced lies. ApexAftermath posted:Also you have to get over this idea that BILL and KEITH audiences are the same. They are not at all. People who live and breath on BILLOs word have no concept of fact. Name me one time Keith reported blatant lies? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Olbermann has been caught in many half-truths before. Plenty of videos on youtube. ApexAftermath posted:And for the most part the pinheads are not really pinheads, and the worst persons are actually loving cunts. So? I'm not saying Olbermann is exaggerating. I always found the "Worst Person in the World" segments humorous and true but it's theatrical. He even has organ music playing throughout while shoving unflattering pictures of the "bad guys" for his loyal followers to ridicule for the next 24 hours until the next spectacle of course. And it's frequently a giant ugly, bloated head of O'Reilly. Just more stupid tit for tat fights over minutiae that we see occur daily with Beck, Stewart, Colbert, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Uygur et al. in the echo chamber. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-fLC1dJi78
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Peace Frog posted:Fund: OBAMA DID A BAD!!!!! I just watched the Hartmann/John Fund show. I was laughing non-stop near the end. Disastrous episode. Some stuff Fund was saying was factual but it came across as if the panel was discussing Bush polluting and dismantling the EPA and Fund responding with "Obama pollutes by smoking cigarettes  "And Jillette ended it by mocking the entire panel, "We're taller than the Chinese." ApexAftermath posted:By that standard isn't everything minutiae on some level then? Also why are you loping Stewart and Colbert in with the rest of them? It's very strange. Stewart's whole thing is poking fun at the media and their coverage, and Colbert is a parody of a conservative. Are you sure you really know what you are talking about? Yes, a great deal of things are minutiae. I'm putting Stewart and Colbert in the list as well because they also cite and frequently reference the other aforementioned people so often that they've become part of their own acts. I'm not saying these guys are carbon copies of each other in personality, ideology, political affiliation or most importantly mental capacity. Beck is a self-admitted paranoid alcoholic. O'Reilly and many others are lifelong philanderers. Geraldo is another chronic womanizer who brags about it in his biography as if he's the greatest sexual dynamo that's ever lived. A lot of his followers would vomit if they read his book. They all play a part in the modern cable news echo chamber. And while Olbermann and Stewart are better than O'Reilly and Beck they actually drag down the intellectual discourse by regularly focusing their ridicule on them on a nightly basis with sarcasm and caricature. Yes, it's about ratings. Zogo fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Wait. What? My point is that there's deception (by omission or diversion typically) in the media that isn't always easy to spot by just searching for outright obvious lies spewed by Beck or O'Reilly. readingatwork posted:None immediately come to mind. Care to post of few of these? And I'm talking actual deception or the passing along of bad facts, not just you disagreeing with him. Start with this petty one. Is this legitimate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpPesCjgGzM readingatwork posted:HAHAHAHAHA! And now you're throwing Beck and Colbert into the same boat!? Wow... That video was just an example of Olbermann's theatrical style.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:So you wish Olbermann and the others would just simply report the news Cronkite style with no opinion just to be clear right? Honestly, not something that bland. You can do an opinion show without constantly ridiculing the lowest common denominator(s) you can find on TV. ApexAftermath posted:I know ratings factor in, but are you really saying people like Olbermann are doing their whole thing for ratings and not because he is actually really passionate about it? I can't get into the TV pundit heads as I don't know their motives and I've never met them. It does strike me as odd that Olbermann still to this very day (I watched his program earlier on Current TV) mimics Beck (with a retarded voice) and ridicules him incessantly. I don't want to watch a show where a guy stands outside a mental institution scoffing at the patients. ApexAftermath posted:I would say the claim about "it's all about ratings" is a correct claim more for the Fox news side because no matter how you look at it that whole organization is totally scummy, but I just don't see any way you can level the same claims of corruption and scummyness at MSNBC that you can at Fox News. That's another issue. O'Reilly's constantly trying to sell his products on his show as if it's an infomercial. "Bold and Fresh" hats, tote bags, shirts etc. I'm not trying to make all news networks equal in the culpability of misinformation and disinformation. Fox News on the whole is pretty boring to me but I don't mind some of the stock-related news on Fox Business. They're all in it for the money right? Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC aren't publicly funded channels like PBS. Recently MSNBC and Cenk Uygur parted ways. Uygur talked about how the head of the network (MSNBC president Phil Griffin) sat him down and gave him a "talking to" about how the "people in Washington" didn't like his tone. That's not laudable. Lately I've been watching more Current TV and RT (it seems to the place for TV personalities to be excommunicated lately) as they're newer in my area and something different. Zogo fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:What does he lie about? To what end? Fox News lies because it's run by Republican wingnut con-men who worship money and those who worship it in turn. What's MSNBC's angle exactly? I'm not calling an Olbermann a liar. I just said that he's been caught in some half-truths before. I wouldn't put it past any TV pundit to embellish or sex up a story or headline once in a while. It could've been an honest mistake. MSNBC markets itself as a place for progressives to go for news. That's what their president has said in the past. readingatwork posted:This is an out of context (and confusingly edited) clip of Oberman being wrong about... something. I'm honestly not sure what. Apparently he wrongly claimed that Fox News didn't report on the fact that two people weren't going to work for Hillary and that's... bad? How exactly is this indicative of persistent bias and deception to a political end and not just him getting his facts wrong this one time? That clip alone really isn't indicative of a persistent bias. Although we know that Olbermann and most liberals are vehemently against what Fox News stands for and its very existence. readingatwork posted:I guess I'm just not getting something here. It just doesn't come across as in any way morally equivalent to the "gently caress the poor, the rich need another yacht" horseshit Fox has been playing lately. Again, I'm not attempting to morally equate any news network. A better way of putting it would be to say that there's a symbiotic relationship going on with all the cable news networks (they report on each other and ridicule each other regularly). Fox News is so bad that it's dragged the entire discourse down a few notches. And I'm not happy that other networks even regurgitate their stuff. Because after a while it's not very intellectually profitable to ridicule Beck and O'Reilly on a daily basis when they're talking about their absurd "diversion" topics. Lambasting and succinctly disproving Raëlism is easy and humorous but it doesn't really accomplish much after you've done it 260 days a year for 10 years straight. Also, SpaceMost summarized some more of what I was trying to get across.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Sexy Larry King Would've preferred her over Ron Christie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
I thought long and hard about who that Christie guy reminded me of and I then shuddered and remembered Horace Cooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h2EYPvQDqE Yes, if you want to see the Christie ghost of Christmas past just observe. Anyone can see he's full of it on the show. George Carlin was there to clean up that mess. I believe Horace is in prison now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_bYnvR_fRg
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Maher has been calling College degrees a "bubble" for a while now. They are getting more and more expensive (even when adjusted for inflation) as the unemployment and underemployment rates continue to climb. When you read articles like this: http://news.yahoo.com/us-wealth-gap-between-young-old-widest-ever-050259922.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-poverty-at-new-high-16-apf-2840636182.html?x= 0 Age warfare. richardfun posted:Jesus loving christ, Matthews. He was reacting to any criticism of JFK like someone just spat his girlfriend in the face. "JFK: The perfect man! PS buy my book." Wasn't JFK involved with funding the French in Vietnam? I don't like when people are on Maher's show trying to sell their books (that's almost every show now). Also, I rarely like any of the mainstream politicians on the show.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Wooty posted:People having homes paid for while others don't is not age warfare. Perhaps you hope it would be but that is part of the housing problem. There's a lot more than just homes though right? The popular economic talking point and dynamic lately has been the 99% vs. the 1%. But there seems to be an old vs. young aspect to this as well. "The elderly have a comprehensive safety net that most adults, especially young adults, lack," Danziger said.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
Wooty posted:Being old did not give anyone an advantage. Being older meant they got settled before the corruption hit the fan. Being older and owning your home makes you nowhere near the 1%. Being older means that you have your savings and should be more secure then the young. I think the old in general are at an advantage now. That article did say that the wealth gap between young and old is continually expanding (although not at the rate of the 1 vs 99). Of course there are many old in bad situations now as well. Wooty posted:Almost all of the other vets in the meetings I run are older, Vietnam vets. Many of them are retired and get a VA disability. They are all in the same situation as all of us really, at least they are very like me. It sounds like you're in the limbo period until you reach social security age. Wooty posted:BTW, to follow up on my big personal thing, the VA is going to send to to school for free but now I don't know what to take (or how to even go to school) Here's another example of the old having a benefit. A lot here in the thread are saying college/university should be free. Well, in my area many (or maybe all) junior colleges allow senior citizens to attend and take classes for free. The young do have to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Wooty posted:You keep saying it like being old is VICTORY! They are not defeating anyone or the youth. They are not competing in the war you have imagined. I think a lot of it comes down to the older generations voting more than the younger generations. They've been around longer and know the game. AARP is powerful compared to anything the younglings could put up. I'm not saying that the old are actively trying to rape and pillage the younger generation. But that it's merely a byproduct of a system of benefits, pensions and retirement plans. Many senior citizens have secondary and tertiary supplemental health insurance as the younger have none. People getting social security checks while simultaneously raking in cash on a monthly basis from multiple lucrative pensions. Pensions that are now unheard of for any younger person. Ageism does exist. Sometimes benefiting the young and sometimes vice-versa. Wooty posted:I am not in limbo. I want to do something. I want to have a career and have my own retirement on top of the SSI. Social security retirement is over 20 years away. Isn't that kind of the definition of "limbo?" Being in a place where you don't want to be..a state of uncertainty? Yea, I know about social security but you didn't say your age..not that I need to know your exact age. For you the age will be raised I believe. By the time I'm old enough for it I'm envisioning social security being initiated at age 90 and being the equivalent of one McDonald's meal per day. Wooty posted:I suspect this is just a way to help older people stay active. Keeping seniors active probably saves in the long run. How many older citizens do you think go to college and take advantage of this? Seniors also eat at Denny's cheaper. Not a ton of seniors were taking advantage of the program when I was at the college. There were a handful in some of my classes. When I think back one guy was a Vietnam vet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Wooty posted:I think all I am trying to say is that there is a definite separations based on age but it is not a fault of either of the two groups. It just the way things are. I don't know who to blame exactly but wouldn't the older generations be more culpable than the younger? You do have to admit that the growing wealth gap between young and old isn't good right? Wooty posted:Don't look to the future with such grim thoughts. Now is the time for you to fight for yours. The goal should be to be able to retire at 60, to lower the age, not raise it. Fight for it by being active and sticking up for all. Hard not to be grim these days if you read the news. I could join an occupy movement but I don't feel like getting beat down by Chicago cops.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Also, why the hell would he appear on that show. I'd assume that's about as far away from his target audience as he could possibly get... Probably to sell his book. That was pretty funny. I wish Hasselbeck would go on his show. There's some people on TV with an act/persona that seems fake. I can't tell if they've cultivated it or if they genuinely have neurological problems. Zogo fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Nov 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
Am I hallucinating or did I see that Mark Foley is going to be on next week?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Godinster posted:That Republican wearing the stupid loving Hawaiian shirt with the stupid loving necklace reminded me of my old "I'M NOT RACIST IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS" racist uncle. I think he was trying to look hip and in style. Even though I have to endure these episodes with annoying panel members I know I can come on here and laugh at the incredulity and disgust of dozens of people afterward. ApexAftermath posted:Yes. Holy christ I just got home and I am right in the middle of this. Rudest person I have ever seen on the show. She needs to shut her loving mouth when other people are trying to talk. This is the worst I've seen. I don't want to hear anything else she has to say now. Who is this loser? She was on MTV a lot in the 90s. TV/radio personality.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Well, lookey-loo. Someone from Reason magazine is an insufferable rear end in a top hat? Well I never. I like a lot of the articles in Reason magazine but I can't think of many Libertarians on TV that don't come across as the most intellectually arrogant people you could ever meet (and do so with pride). Zarkov Cortez posted:I enjoyed the part where the congressman suggested that the failings of the American school system were due to 25% of the classes being illegal immigrant children who couldn't speak English. Anytime someone brings up the Spanish/English talking point I let them know that the DOE should push for all kids to be bilingual.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:These are the same people that wish the DOE didn't exist because it gives money to disabled students and its BIG GOVERNMENT keeping creationism out of the classroom. There's a lot of that sentiment but is your typical Republican really calling for its dissolution? Do people believe that knowing one language is better than knowing two?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:All schools really do now is the required 2-4 years which isn't really enough to be fluent. It's not even done at the optimal time which is when the kids are younger. Our education compared to the rest of the world is abysmal and those 4 years could prob be better spent learning something else. I've heard that some other countries will start kids on two languages early. I forget which ones however. It seemed like the most sensible thing to do. Wooty posted:A standard Republican position is the fact that the US is God's chosen country and in this country, Jesus told us to speak English. I propose a constitutional amendment to return to Aramaic. Or did Jesus really speak something else? Wooty posted:This is not what they are suggesting. They are saying they want to make English the only language available - that goes against what this country is about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPh_KlTyII
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:What languages would you offer here? Most schools offer at most 4 different languages but how do you pick which one will be the most useful to you 10-20 years from now? Do you push Spanish in certain areas? Cultural geography would dictate Spanish as being the primary focus for the near future. It's the second most common language spoken in the US by a wide margin. zVxTeflon posted:What do you do to the kid who wants to learn portuguese because his family speaks it but the school doesn't offer it? Public school systems obviously can't come close to offering all languages adequately. If his/her family speaks it that's a step in the right direction but may only end up being fulfilled in a private setting. "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." -Theodore Roosevelt 1907 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Bill's new rules this week were a response to Kennedy calling "atheism a religion" last week.Godinster posted:I never thought I'd like Suzie Orman. She wasn't bad last night. I don't like the format of her show really. And most of her advice (along with the other "financial self-help" gurus on TV) seems self-evident. e.g. Caller: "Hey Suze I have $10,000 credit card debt and $50,000 student loan debt, can I take a 30 day tour of Europe?" Suze: "No, you idiot."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:...his manner of speaking - extremely quicky, emphasizing every second word with jutting head movements... He does talk quickly as if he's doing dictation. Anyway I was bored with last Friday's show. Hasn't the contraception debate been long over even in ultra religious circles?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:e: Hmm, I know you asked about contraception, but abortion is just a couple of steps away, right? Yes, it's another birth control issue but I know hardcore militant anti-abortion people who have no qualms with basically any form of contraception (they're separate issues). Contraception being brought up in the media and by the politicians feels like a red herring on multiple levels to me. Devoting 15 minutes of conjecture on it on Real Time felt like Maher was humoring the Amish. Zogo fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Wooty posted:The catholic church is not a country, they can't say anything about 'basic rights' but they do project themselves all over the world. Catholics are not supposed to use birth control and not supposed to have sex without the purpose of having a baby. Have you heard that 98% of Catholic women use some form of birth control? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html I really think it's a red herring. Maher himself has made jokes alluding to this on some of his HBO specials (how the Catholics and other christian sects disregard what their leaders say). Wooty posted:Contraception is and will always be an issue. I don't think anyone can know that for certain. I do think that religion and technology will butt heads for for the long foreseeable future but religion may just move onto even juicier more "hot button" issues. Over the centuries religion has dropped many, many issues once they became more and more embarrassing to hold onto. Zogo fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Wooty posted:You don't think it is an issue in the overcrowded slums? All of these issues could be resolved in the indeterminate future. Wooty posted:The largest religion in the world does not want you to have an orgasm outside of making a baby. The Catholic church changes its mind on things (slowly). In 1992 they did admit making a mistake in condemning and putting Galileo under house arrest in the 1600s for espousing a belief in heliocentrism. Yes, 400 years later but it did happen. Religion will continue to mold itself into contemporary societies and shed the beliefs that no one follows. Clergy and religious leaders used to keep track of how many witches they'd exterminated on the calendar year. That practice was dropped. I believe I read that Martin Luther (protestant demigod) was a proponent of witch hunting and burning as well. Try and sell that to 2012 Christians in America. Wooty posted:Zogo did not help it by lumping it in as "birth control" It's still a subset of birth control. I only did that to link it with Dudebro talking about abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Wooty posted:It will always and forever be an issue. There is no other possible way to see it. None. I think we're coming at this with different focuses (yours broad and mine narrow). Yes, I do believe birth control/contraceptives (the many types and flavors and future ones invented will bring new political/social issues) and most of the accoutrements you mentioned above (health care, insurance, finances, taxes, religion, abortion, women vs men, govt rights etc.) will be an issue even in the distant future. What I am objecting to is Rick Santorum's statements (this falls under the religion area) and that his view (or any religious group) has even the slightest remote chance of gaining any traction even if he won the presidency. From the stats I've read 99% of women in the 15-44 age range have used some form of contraception. And Santorum is saying things like "[contraception is] a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." That's an extremely fringe position to take. Wooty posted:Labeling things is a dishonest way to eliminate thought. Isn't everything in this world labeled? If you think I'm eliminating a thought I'd like to know what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
Wooty posted:1) we agree - however, if you think that the loony bin on the right can't make things difficult for people who want freedom, you are wrong. Many states you can not get an abortion because they have made it a terrible way to make a living. If you perform an abortion, you may get murdered and there are people out there who think it is perfectly fine. That's true but I'd still make a very sharp distinction between conservative views on abortion and conservative views on contraception when dealing with contemporary US beliefs. As an aside, fundamentalists have been known to get abortions too. They just do it discreetly. Wooty posted:2) (you are using the term wrong, a red herring is a "hey look over here" thing) by labeling it as "red herring" you are dismissing it which allows the Santorums to bring it up and you will be distracted and let him have his way. But that's what I meant. Santorum bringing it up (and Maher devoting time to it) changes the political discussion a little and focuses away from more important issues to something like "Condoms: Should they be legal?" Wooty posted:According to you, if Santorum became president, the push to his views would never occur because... you say it won't and it just won't happen because... it won't. I have no idea why you think it won't but just saying it won't is giving an opportunity to take it away from you. Well it depends on what we think he's going to implement. I don't believe he'd do anything too drastic because he'd be going against the vast majority of the voting population. Wooty posted:War on Christmas? Where is this war taking place? Is it hidden behind all the Christmas trees that are everywhere? (stupid spell checker makes me capitalize Christmas) I love discussing and debating Christmas with people. Particularly those that get furious over "Kwanzaa (and others) being a made up holiday!" As if the Bible itself delineated and outlined the instructions and rituals to be performed every December 25th. Is Santa Claus in the Bible? No. Are Christmas trees in the Bible? No. It's a fraudulent holiday with pagan roots. Wooty posted:Don't you see the religious impact on gay rights? The entire California prop 8 thing was funded by Mormons and other churches. Of course religion plays a huge role in our society and it currently has much more influence and power over that area of sexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Wooty posted:I don't think it is fruitful since you just pick parts you want to reply to and ignore the others. Anything I didn't comment on I agreed with. Just didn't have anything else to add.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
SERIOUS posted:The man is garbage and I have no idea why he's constantly on this show. It's not like he's there to be humiliated because he never really has been on this show. Do these guests get paid cash for their appearances? If so, I'd be curious as to how much. NoEyedSquareGuy posted:...when I spend the occasional five minutes seeing what Hannity is saying on his own show. Is Hannity still throwing a football right before every commercial break? I haven't seen the show in a few months but I always thought it was the most peculiar thing. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsxlE20Kzc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
RudeBoy posted:Sad to see Bill on the "What has NASA ever given us besides Tang" bandwagon. It sucks that most public discussion on NASA or Space exploration ends in "lol nerds" or isn't taken seriously. Yea, I just read that Obama's budget is nixing a planned 2016 and 2018 mission. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/27/researcher-obama-budget-end-of-the-mars-program/ It's disheartening when we're spending billions in Afghanistan on a weekly basis. Good NASA link BTW.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Stare-Out posted:He's about to. I watched it. There was a ton of budget arguing before Dr. Tyson makes his appearance at ~100 minute mark. nickmeister posted:But the most recent video seemed geared to do just that. It didn't even seem like she spent half the time working on it. Probably because she claimed that the area she filmed was across the street from her house. Maybe she was feeling lazy? Maybe she said it in the past two episodes she's been on (I forget if she did) but what was the point of the videos besides "Hey look here's some dumb poor Republicans with no teeth. Tune in next week for some dumb poor Democrats eating Pringles?" Maybe it's her ode to Titicut Follies. nickmeister posted:Why not talk to the people inside? Why not talk to the people who work in the offices? Why not go to other places instead of ONE FREAKING SPOT? I have a feeling they wouldn't let her and cameras inside a gov't/unemployment office. ExiledTinkerer posted:Overtime was pretty worthless given they only asked like 2-3 questions then claimed to be out---really guys, I mean come on! It appeared that he got flustered after the guest made a joke about him knowing the gay neighborhoods in every metropolitan area and he started reading off the old cards again and then launched the ejection seat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Maher mentioned that they won't discuss the ruling on ACA until June was it? Is that typical to wait so long?ApexAftermath posted:They should have Matthew Weiner on the show every week. I cringe anytime I see a book on TV shows these days. I did think Weiner was pretty good. readingatwork posted:Get 2 minimum wage jobs that don't provide benefits, take up 9/10ths of your day, treat you like absolute poo poo, and pay just enough for you to barely live (alone) in a God-forsaken rat-hole in the wrong part of a lovely neighborhood. This of course assumes they are hiring in the first place. This is the truth for many people. I've witnessed people who work like a slave from morning to night in multiple jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
The former Reagan budget director is pretty good at explaining and breaking down taxes quickly without lying. He's done it a few times on this show without much subterfuge (which is atypical when talking about taxes on TV).Former Human posted:The best was when he said the Paul Ryan budget was a great plan but then admitted Ryan has submitted the same plan since 1998 and no one has taken it seriously for those 14 years. Yeah sounds like a great plan! His whole argument basically boiled down to "Yea, these plans are all disingenuous and can't work but look at our election results." ExiledTinkerer posted:Besides, PJ lost his mantle to that rear end Gillespie in his smug jacket back in last season. I remember Gillespie wearing his patented Libertarian leather jacket openly mocking that mayor (I believe) about how his city/town sucks. That big mayor was ready to attack him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
fart blood posted:Buchholz was a complete rear end and ruined this episode. Between him, and Maher's rather bad monologue, this whole episode was a chore to watch. Yea, it was a colossal dud. Soft-spoken and starstruck 1 on 1 interview that was unenlightening: "Obama kissed me!" and "Manure trucks blocked me." Then to a panel featuring people spouting off madeup stats "Millionaires in the US make 10% of the income in this country."  did I hear that right? The guy who said it seemed to be feigning incredulity too. It's so off I thought it was some form of absurd humor. The highlight of the panel was Chrystia Freeland making strange faces.Then to the comic/guest entrance who looks like the incarnation of Pigman (from the novel series). This is the part where Bill asks religious guest XYZ if we should've killed OBL. Oh and BTW all the guests have another new book out!  End that with a rehashed monologue with really bad jokes and a rehashed new rules segment. (Writers take a week off)? Zogo fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Apr 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
I was reading about S. E. Cupp and found it strange that she's an atheist who penned a book titled "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity." Dissociative identity disorder?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
az posted:The liberal media is to conservatives as a dingo is to australian mothers. I understand that dynamic but in this instance it seems as if Cupp is one of the dingos in the equation itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 22:16
|
|