Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Fox news cuts O'Reilly


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Which controls the presidency, both houses of congress, and like 70% of state legislatures and governor mansions.  

 

 

 

Unfortunately. Although I think they are pretty much on the verge of losing a substantial portion of it. And if that does happen, they will have really little to show for controlling so much power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Unfortunately. Although I think they are pretty much on the verge of losing a substantial portion of it. And if that does happen, they will have really little to show for controlling so much power.

I've heard a lot of people say this, but how?  Sure, some folks are angry at Trump and the GOP.  But what's going to actually change? In order for the senate to flip, the Dems have to essentially sweep the 2018 elections.  Of the senate races, only 9 GOP incumbents are up for re-election.  Honesty, the more likely scneario, since so many Dem seats are up for grabs, is that the Dems lose a seat or two.

 

And can the House really flip with the gerrymandering of the districts?  I guess it's possible, but honestly pretty unlikely.  

 

And when you get to the state level, it's going to be near impossible to unseat GOP control from the vast majority.  

 

If it does flip, it MIGHT flip in 2020.  I don't see it in 2018.  

 

And that's predicated on the Dems being something other than the opposition party for 4 years.  They have to come up with SOMETHING remotely positive to say about any topic, rather than "THE GOP ARE ALL A-HOLES!"  Because that strategy isn't going to win.  I personally don't think the Dems are even remotely competent as a group to come up with a message they can sell widely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

It is just plain wrong to make sexual innuendos regarding Ivanka Trump...unless the joke is about incest - then we're totally ok with it.

 

It's really not funny, and I am not okay with it. It's what her own father says that is truly horrific.

The Democratic platform was full of positive stuff for people, and stupid people fell for a con, except for those  1%ers and corporate supporters.

 

Remember, Clinton won the popular vote. The gerrymandered states voted against humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

It is just plain wrong to make sexual innuendos regarding Ivanka Trump...unless the joke is about incest - then we're totally ok with it.

I think usually the jokes involving incest are directed at Trump and how creepy it is.  If they start targeting Ivanka durectly then I think that's inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

It is just plain wrong to make sexual innuendos regarding Ivanka Trump...unless the joke is about incest - then we're totally ok with it.

 

FYI the incest jokes are usually aimed at her father (the one who says shes hot, nice legs and would totally bang 10/10 if he weren't her father) and not at her. Shes just collateral damage (again, because her and her father apparently really enjoy the common ground they have sexually, but not necessarily together....but probably). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

FYI the incest jokes are usually aimed at her father (the one who says shes hot, nice legs and would totally bang 10/10 if he weren't her father) and not at her. Shes just collateral damage (again, because her and her father apparently really enjoy the common ground they have sexually, but not necessarily together....but probably). 

 

Pretty sure he talked about her boobs at one point. Yes he talked about his daughters ****ing boobs. With another man. On national radio. 

 

But yes, the left is so mean and disrespectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably give Watters the benefit of the doubt and believe that he didn't intend for it to be a sexual joke, but it was a line that didn't even need to be spoken (at the end of him giving a reasonable opinion on Ivanka) and was left open to interpretation. A mistake that a seasoned TV presence wouldn't make and an immature twerp like Watters would.

 

The cable news channels are borderline unwatchable at night anymore. I wish Dana Perino would've been given one of the hours left by the O'Reilly axing, but she may have personal/family reasons for not wanting to do the prime-time grind regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hail2skins

 

Agree with you on Watters. There's enough ambiguity there (say making **** jokes was a crime, would he be convicted by a jury based on that video?) and there is enough clear cut horrible things going on that I'm not spending time, effort and emotion on this. I'm obviously anti-Fox/Trump/GOP/stupid and to me drumming up bull**** scandals just puts me on the same level as them. No. Just no.

 

I'm so ****ing determined not to let outrage culture and conspiratard thinking pollute and pervert my mindset and I'm 100% motivated to doing whatever I can to keep it from happening on my side. I wanna keep it the "War Against Stupid", not the "War Between Stupid". 

 

PS Don't get it twisted, it's still **** Jesse Watters, aka BillO's ****boi, though. Shoulda fried his ass for his bull**** Chinatown bit a few months back. Look it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

@hail2skins

 

Agree with you on Watters. There's enough ambiguity there (say making **** jokes was a crime, would he be convicted by a jury based on that video?) . 

Convicted?  Maybe not.

 

But reasonable suspicion?  Definitely.

 

Probable cause?  Probably.

 

The main thing isn't necessarily that he definitively objectified Ivanka, it's that he said something that could easily be interpreted that way, and did so despite the present situation at Fox with O'Reilly.  He's gotta know better.  Sure maybe it won't get him fired, but it sure as heck doesn't help Fox's image, and likely hurts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold the **** on. 

 

If this is true:

 

 

:rofl89:

 

Fox News is "moving too far left"

 

:rofl89:

 

This actually might be true because Sean Hannity has been ****ing more than usual on twitter the past week about things at FNC and how there needs to be a "true conservative network".

 

God help this country if things get more "true and conservative" than FNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox needs more channels ESPN style. Fox2 can be 24 hour coverage of the anti-free speech opinions of 18 year old college students. Sometimes I flip to Tucker Carlson to get a laugh and I swear this is the only segment that guy does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

Hold the **** on. 

 

If this is true:

 

 

:rofl89:

 

Fox News is "moving too far left"

 

:rofl89:

 

This actually might be true because Sean Hannity has been ****ing more than usual on twitter the past week about things at FNC and how there needs to be a "true conservative network".

 

God help this country if things get more "true and conservative" than FNC.

 

I thought it had already happened ...when Breitbart and Alex Jones became part of the Whitehouse press corps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I'm going to start my own website / blog / youtube channel. Call it Right Power. Design it to be a satirical parody of the right but I bet they'll actually love it. I know for a fact that I could have retired off of "Grab 'em by the ****" T-shirt sales from just that one 3-day weekend.

 

Im available to do a sports segment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...