Monday, December 28, 2009

What did you guys think of charlie Nicholas rant about boyd on sky tv?

i never heard it and im not a lightweight im lucky if ive had 4 hours sleep in the last couple of days PS have you still got the stereophonics xxWhat did you guys think of charlie Nicholas rant about boyd on sky tv?
Drinking machine?? Hahaha! wan that spouts pi sh and shyte oot the tap end .. Boyd is a wan ker even Burley recognises that and he's a no hoper.


Charlie is oor darlin oor darlin oor darlin.. Charlie is oor darlin the wee fcuking Tim.. Hee haw bear r'seWhat did you guys think of charlie Nicholas rant about boyd on sky tv?
never heard it but Boyd is a fantan so must have been ok,what did you think of wee Watties last week,and more to the point why are you not in your bed,you surely are not JD ing it tonight ?
I think he was spot on.





He should really stop dying his hair grey though.
Is that big time Charlie who left Celtic and made a **** of himself at Arsenal hes just a tosser who has never got a good word to say about anybody but it keeps him in a job
Never heard it
Feck um..
in the words of an angry bear...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr鈥?br>





what did he say, boyd is a clown anyway
  • dermatologist acne
  • Will Rev. Wright (rant) on national TV, when Obama wins ?

    Will more and more whites attend his following, of the Black liberation theology. ?Will Rev. Wright (rant) on national TV, when Obama wins ?
    Don't forget that Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan will be there too, along with Al Sharpton. I wonder if they check the race-baiters schedules to make sure they can attendWill Rev. Wright (rant) on national TV, when Obama wins ?
    Actually, yes.


    Back when Obama did he big ';renouncing'; of Wright (after Wright said Obama would say and do anything for a vote), I commented on this forum that I thought it was all an act to smooth things over for Obama. I mentioned that if I was wrong, then Wright would come out with all guns blazing against Obama because a prideful buffoon like Wright would not let Obama's criticism pass unanswered. But if I was right and it was all an act, then we would hear nothing more from the good Rev. Wright until AFTER the election.


    Have we heard anything? No.


    Will we after the election? Oh, yeah.
    Honestly don't you remember how Gore had it in the bag and it was all voer. You must not have been watching then, that's why no one pays attention to the polls they are rigged by the media. Ha, this year the LA Times had to fess up that it polled three times as many democrats as republicans, thus a 17 point lead, so no one should believe that stuff.





    But sure if Obama did win he will be on tv, if he loses he will be on tv and come right out of retirement either way. I know some of the BLT folks and some are people you can deal with but the vast majority just hate and I don't think they will want the whites in there. I pity the ones that march in with roses and get clocked. As for what he was paid to shut up, it's more like what was he paid to act the idiot. This guy has had it great, he was attached to LBJ and has had a silver spoon in his mouth, he could run rights around Obama and most others around in politics, but he had to act like that. Then people could say, jeez, that guy must have just gone crazy and no wonder Obama is leaving that church. Well he didn't leave it till the new preacher started raising cane. Ha. Take care. Also don't think the ACORN thing has it sewn up, they have known about and been watching them for a long time and the hammer is about to fall. People will think twice in the future. Funny you do that and get in trouble, run a company in the ground, cook the books and make millions and nothing happens.
    It seems like many GOPites have that scardie bone. Try to lose it. It is not healthy to be paranoid. They have been scared into voting for Bush not once but twice. It is difficult to think rationally when you are scared.





    Anyone that voted for Bush twice would be wise to put a bit more thought into who you vote for in the coming election. As they say, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, you must not be very smart to think that the out come will be different. The GOP has its puppet masters, regardless who comes in, the same people will be pulling the strings.





    Which president had/was responsible for...





    1.The highest growth in the gross domestic product? Harry Truman, a democrat





    2.The highest growth in jobs? Bill Clinton, a democrat





    3.The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes? Lyndon Johnson, a democrat





    4.The highest growth in industrial production? John Kennedy, a democrat.





    5.The highest growth in hourly wages? Lyndon Johnson, you guessed it, a democrat





    6.The lowest misery index (inflation plus unemployment)? Harry Truman, a democrat





    7.The lowest inflation? Truman, a democrat





    8.The largest reduction in the deficit? Bill Clinton, a democrat











    鈥?The Clinton administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. When Clinton left office, there was a ten-year projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion.


    鈥?In less than a year and a half, Republican George W. Bush wiped out that projected budget surplus, and within three years, he turned the $236 billion surplus he inherited into a $375 billion deficit.





    Keep in mind that these figures are from George W. Bush's first term. He has soared to new heights of fiscal irresponsibility during his second term and continues to set records in economic incompetence.





    The national debt is now more than $10 trillion.





    ';[A]s much as Republicans would like to tag Barack Obama and Democrats as big spenders, it's Republicans who have been America's biggest spenders. It's not even close.... [S]ince 1945, when Republicans have been in charge of both the White House and Congress, they have never, not once, reduced spending.... Reagan ran up a bigger debt than every president before him combined. The budget deficit exploded under his leadership and the national debt tripled.... [T]he debt has grown from under $1 trillion before Reagan to over $10 trillion after George Bush! And, yet, with all of this spending, we still don't have national health insurance and Social Security is more endangered than ever.';-- Bruce Tenenbaum, HuffingtonPost.com, 10/16/08.





    Do you need a job, or maybe a second job, or a third job?





    鈥?quot;You work three jobs?... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.';-- George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, 2/4/05 .





    If you really want to change America for the better, electing Barack Obama is not enough. We need to give the Democratic Party a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Since the Democrats won a narrow majority in 2006, Republicans in the Senate have used procedural filibusters to block legislation which would have resulted in:





    * withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.


    * repeal of tax subsidies for oil companies that were making record profits.


    * a ';cap-and-trade'; process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, defray the cost of gasoline to consumers, and encourage green-energy alternatives.


    * increased oversight and regulate speculative trading of energy futures that has driven up energy prices.


    * allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices.


    * adequate rest for military personnel between deployments to the war zones.


    * making it easier for workers to form or join unions.


    * relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and state and local governments burdened with foreclosed properties.





    This is just a small sample of the kind of bills filibustered by Republican Senators since 2006. For a more complete listing (with bill numbers and vote totals) visit %26lt;%26gt;.http://assets.OurFuture.org/documents/co鈥?/a>





    Why did Republican Senators filibuster these popular initiatives?





    鈥?';I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation] will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress.';-- Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, 7/24/07.





    To paraphrase a cranky, old presidential candidate, ';The Republicans would rather sabotage Congress than lose an election.';





    (thanks to Mick Youther, the Nightlife, and the cited references above)
    I think it must be the freerepublic hour here on Y!A. just saw a ton of idiot questions posted by you people. I am glad that you support McCain though it shows the type of people he has left to vote for him.






    If Obama WINS we LOOSE everything


    our homes


    our jobs


    our 2nd amendment


    Our COUNTRY





    My neighbor went to take the CCDW class today so he can buy a fire arm before Obama takes our right away, and that is not all the rights he will take away
    DID THOSE RACIST PASTORS RANT ON TV WHEN AT LEAST 40 OF THE 43 PRESIDENTS THAT THEY WAS PASTORING WON THE ELECTION ???? NO THEY CONTINUED TO HIDE UNDER THEIR SHEETS AND HOODS AND KEPT THEIR B S ON THE DOWN LOW !!!!!
    It's a free country, so the possibility is there. You bring your ideas to the table and people choose whether or not to reject or accept.
    When will you realize that fear-mongering will not win an election, on Nov. 5th? This is why I will never vote Republican again.
    Obama must have promised this racist something to get him to keep his mouth shut till after the election. I wonder what he was promised.
    he will be the whitehouse spokesman . . .



    They are only being quiet because they don't want to ruin obama's chances. But as soon as he wins they will be out in the streets in full force.
    We have nothing to fear but Obama's principals themselves!
    Who cares? He isnt relevant.
    I hope so. Identify the useless so that they do not pollute the rest. Weed them out first
    I hope so, he makes a lot more sense than most TV preachers.
    No because BO is already losing.


    Walter, your completely wrong, God Bless You!
    I would like to go to that church and hear him speak, but I think he is retired
    no and no.
    If Obama wants to get anything done, Wright will be a footnote.
    Well if that happens we whites and even the ones who voted for Obama might as well kiss our rights GOODBYE.

    Has Obama paid the mortgage of that black lady that ranted on tv when he won?

    If anyone can find the video I'd love to get it.Has Obama paid the mortgage of that black lady that ranted on tv when he won?
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c鈥?/a>Has Obama paid the mortgage of that black lady that ranted on tv when he won?
    Are you so dense that you don't realize that there are loonies and idiots in equal numbers on both side of the political spectrum.
    No, Instead he bought some new spinners for her ride.
    Obama is the President of Broken Promises and Dreams.

    Heather Mills' Live TV Rant..funniest piece of TV ever?

    This REALLY was funny. I thought it was brilliant! Great bit of PR from Mills. What did you think?Heather Mills' Live TV Rant..funniest piece of TV ever?
    A truly horrible woman. It's all for charidee mate!!! She needs a good slapping (note to self - look directly at camera for extra effect.)Heather Mills' Live TV Rant..funniest piece of TV ever?
    Smart man. most men wouldn't catch that. they see the tears and rally to her side. There crocodile tears. She's realizing now things arn't working out so great for her. Either way she will have the last laugh with all that money she's getting.





    She's playing on sympathy votes now. Smart you saw past that.

    Having a bit of a rant about TV, what do you think?

    Does anyone else get very annoyed when on such programmes as Grand Designs, and Property Ladder (in UK) the presenters return to previous projects to update the viewers but spend 90% of the programme repeating what has already been shown....its just a repeat, why don't they call it that?Having a bit of a rant about TV, what do you think?
    Yeah, that's one that ticks me off, too. A total waste of a program if there's no significant new data. I feel the same about most UFO shows. And they make it even more insulting when they won't give you the tiny tidbit of new information until the very end of the show... But, then again, that's why there are so many channels, isn't it? When I don't like something on one channel, I can switch to something else on another channel... love modern tech!Having a bit of a rant about TV, what do you think?
    i think they are called programme fillers... and yes, what a waste of our time!
    i think you should get a free tv license with every 5 pounds spent at tescos
    agreed
    totally agree with you and it is very annoying
    I agree with you 100%, It is very annoying
    ah yes the joys of low budget tv they get to make a second programme using 90% of the first one.





    YOU ARE NOT ALONE MY FRIEND!
    agreed
    Personally that really pisses me off. Bunch of wankers.
    The same happens on a lot of CH4 programmes. Place in the sun or the off shoots of it gives a preview of the programme as it starts. Repeats part of the first section when the adverts have been shown and repeats again towards the end. It is just padding to make it seem a long programme and fill the half hour slot.


    Have you also noticed that Coronation Street is really only a 20 minutes programme. It starts five minutes after the allotted time, has a 4 minute advert time and the opening sequence takes almost a minute. Perhaps the trade descriptions act should be applied.
    Yes i agree that pisses me off too! There was a prime example of it last night with Grand Designs, they should realise that it puts people off! Show us something new!!

    Where can I find Hugh Lauries Child Vaccination Rant from the TV show House?

    There is great rant from the main character (Hugh Laurie/Dr. House) about the need for child vaccination. The only link that I could find did not work, but I would appreciate an alternative link or the season/episode information so I could find it myself.





    Thanks,


    BWhere can I find Hugh Lauries Child Vaccination Rant from the TV show House?
    You can read all the info about every episode on the official site:


    www.fox.com/house/recaps





    EDIT: AHA!


    Paternity, Season 1 episode 2





    Don't know where you could watch it. I couldn't find that scene on Youtube.com. I bought the DVDs - love that show!

    Saturday, December 26, 2009

    Can the rant watch tv and go on the internet?

    Depends on which phone you have and if that phone is compatible for TV. Most all phones do have Internet capability.
  • dermatologist acne
  • The Christian Bale rant compared to TV?

    Was the Christian Bale rant actually any worse than the regular ranting that you see on Hell's Kitchen? It doesn't seem worse than some of the stuff I heard working for the Navy. In fact I would rather a guy go off for 4 minutes in a public profane tirade, then quietly try and screw you behind your back.The Christian Bale rant compared to TV?
    Hells Kitchen is all an act for tv...the christain bale thing-well people get on my nerves in work sometimes, but if i ever reacted like that id prob be fired, at the very least a serious warning. It would be classed as bullying.


    I think he over-reacted and there was no need for itThe Christian Bale rant compared to TV?
    I heard about it..and heard it...don't think he reacted any different then anyone else would have...if they where caught up in their work....don't see why some people try to put a celebrity on pedestals and think they wouldn't go off like anyone one of us....when some clueless dumb butt interrupts our work....cuz I am with you I have seen worse...

    Do too many Americans get their news & views from rant TV/radio and fake news shows?

    Limbaugh


    Olberman


    Stewart


    Colbert


    Hannity


    etcDo too many Americans get their news %26amp; views from rant TV/radio and fake news shows?
    absolutely..and it scares me that some people take these folks as complete gospel and only get their news from one source like an o'reilly or hannity or Stewart. it's for entertainment but some people can't see the difference.Do too many Americans get their news %26amp; views from rant TV/radio and fake news shows?
    I could not help but notice on that list you listed two shows that a





    fourth-grader could see are obviously not meant to be taken





    seriously (Colbert and Stewart), and, of the five on the list,





    three are liberal (Olberman, Stewart, Colbert), and you did





    not even bother to include the uber-spearhead of the Thought





    Conservation 2.0 Movement, thin-skinned compulsive liar





    and crybaby chronic lover Bill O'Reilly. Just something I





    thought worth pointing out.





    But yes, obviously, too many Americans are jackasses who





    refuse to listen to anything that is in the least intelligent,





    instead opting for flashy, melodramatic crap about cigars or





    ***-stains. What's scary is that in this age of masturbatory





    electro-revolutions, it is not even possible to get any





    homegrown coverage that is not sensationalized,





    underhanded, mud-slinging crap except for NPR. In the past





    ten years, the mainstream media-including Rupert Murdoch,





    Richard Ailes, and Father Charles Coughlin (er, I mean, Lou





    Dobbs)- have taken note of the fact that the magazines with





    the highest circulation in this country are ';womens';'





    magazines and tabloids. Therefore,with collusion from





    advertisers, most media gets dumbed down to the





    level of ';Entertainment Tonight,'; while the Edward R. Murrow





    of this generation, Greg Palast, is consigned to the Suicide





    Girls website.





    Personally, I think one thing that might at least balm but not





    entirely cure the problem would be if the snide limousine





    liberals at the few publications left with any journalistic





    integrity, like Harper's, The New





    Yorker, and The New York Times, would dramatically expand





    the amount (AND QUALITY) of free content available online,





    and charge something less than your first-born to purchase





    physical copies.
    I think too many people get their news and views from late night comedy shows...In that list Stewart and Colbert are comedy, not news. Limbaugh, Olberman and Hannity are pundits paid for their opinions, not necessarily news.





    I don't think talk radio is a bad place to go for information. Talk radio listeners as a whole, and it doesn't matter if the host is left or right in his or her ideology, are far more informed than most other people. As a conservative, common sense kind of guy that I am, I have far more respect for an Obama voter that listens to Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes, and knows who Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank are. At least they are making an informed decision.
    All the shows you mentioned are opinion shows, not news.





    Fox News is different than Oreilly and Hannity.





    Of course, MSNBC News, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News all lean left and Fox News leans right.





    Fox News makes all news ';Fair and balanced; they balance everybody else.';
    Since very few of us are political insiders, our only sources are secondary sources, including the ones you list and the MSM. We have no other choice but to rely on SOMEONE to tell us what is going on.





    There's nothing wrong with getting your views from others as long as you do it with a critical mind. A Daily Show routine doesn't even try to be accurate; the Wall Street Journal at least tries to be.
    Actually, PEW studies suggest that people who watch or listen to these shows (left or right) are actually more politically informed and know more about what's going on than the people who get their information from the traditional national news.





    The most uninformed are the people who get their info from morning news shows.
    You left out the really biased and biggest offenders ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN - Whose coverage seemed to indicate only Barack Obama was running for President.
    Isn't it funny....the commentators you mentioned are ';rant' and ';fake';...unless you happen to agree with them. Then, it's the ones YOU watch that are the ranting fakers.


    Funny how it works that way.
    Rush I comfortably live without but Hannity is good. I love watching him, of course I don't take everything he says as gospel but I do like watching his show.
    I like the Jon/Stephen shows. I don't get my news from there though. It's a satirical news show. The people who get their info from radio are the ones who troll the most.
    No. But too many people accept the watered-down version of the news we get on local channels as being unbiased.
    Unfortunately not just many do, but most. And then they express their ';opinions'; on Yahoo Answers.
    Yes, but you forgot ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC





    Do 'real' news shows even exist anymore?
    Yes
    Every one except for Hannity, he ROCKS...sorry
    I just like watching Stewart and Colbert. I don't get my news from them though.
    Like its any better with MSNBC, CNN, etc.etc.

    What movie or tv show did Family Guy parody, when they did the rant from Quagmire to Brian?

    Now for people who just answer questions without reading them first. I know Quagmire was talking to Brian about Brian. I know Brian is the embodiment of Seth Macfarlane. I also know it was an episode of Family Guy. I just think I have seen something like this before and I wanted to know where.

    Without a political rant, who is your favorite TV anchor for election news?

    I like Olbermann, I know he's biased, I won't pretend he isn't. I also like David Gergen, one of the political analysts on CNN, he always seems to be right on the money.Without a political rant, who is your favorite TV anchor for election news?
    Anderson CooperWithout a political rant, who is your favorite TV anchor for election news?
    I've just recently discovered MSNBC and I like a lot of them guys. But I absolutely detest election returns because they make me so stressed and make me feel so helpless (nothing more I can do but but but...). Usually we go out to a movie and dinner just to escape having to hear anything but you still get drips and drabs (because people just cannot shut up) which spoils the night for me. So this year, we're watching the West Wing series, eating pizza and ice cream.
    I've always had a soft spot for Shepard Smith. He seems like he be cool to hang out with and talk about gossip and stupid crap.





    Oh, election news. Rachel Maddow. Yes, she's biased, but she's actually cool headed and supports her assertions with facts.
    Keith Olbermann by far is my favorite ... followed by Chris Matthews ...
    1.Chris Matthews


    2.Keith Olberman


    3.Wolf
    Brian Williams





    Actually I want Olbermann but he's been told no.
    Oreily


    Chris Matthews


    Roland Martin
    O'Reilly
    O'Reilly and Sean Hannity
    O'Reilly
    O'Reilly
    RACHAEL MADDOW
    I like Katie C. because she stuck it to Palin and she was being nice. Palin was clueless!
    Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, or Shepard Smith!
    If O'Reilly were an anchor, he'd be my choice.

    Is it more effective for a TV evangelist to rant and rave or to feign compassion and sincerity?

    Both.





    They are most effective when the start with the ranting and raving, then perform the big finaly with compassion and sincerity....then the offering plates come out.








    The recipe goes something like this:


    1. You are an evil sinner.


    2. You don't deserve compassion.


    3. You are worthless.


    4. God is going to hold you accountable for your nature.


    5. But his son is a great guy.


    6. He commited suicide so his dad won't torture you


    7. You owe him your eternal life.


    8. We need to tell others the great news.


    9. No personal checks please.


    10. The $3 Million Jet is so I can spread the good news more effectively.Is it more effective for a TV evangelist to rant and rave or to feign compassion and sincerity?
    Depends on your yardstick for measuring efficacy.





    If you're talking dollars donated in cold, hard cash - then it would appear that ranting and raving is the way to go. They seem to be the ones with the gold plated toilets, fleets of Rolls-Royces and the pneumatic ';secretaries';.





    If you measure efficacy in terms of actually helping people and bringing comfort to the world - well, you're probably measuring the wrong thing because I don't think any televangelist provides those things.Is it more effective for a TV evangelist to rant and rave or to feign compassion and sincerity?
    Blessed Cheese Maker, you forgot a couple:








    11. Get caught having sex with a male prostitute and using drugs





    12. Have a big showy production begging for forgiveness from your victims (oops, I mean churchgoers) and from God





    13. Rake in more dough from people who believe you are sincere


    .
    The secret to success is sincerity - once you can fake that you have it made.


    TV evangelists are the modern snake oil salesman; they are more concerned with their personal bank account than anything else; they'll say ANYTHING to further the fatness of their personal bank account.


    ~
    Rant and rave and get paid. Be compassionate and sincere on a tv show and get ignored.





    That's called marketing and the way of the world.





    That's why more people watch Bill O Reilly instead of Charlie Rose.
    Shock value...
    Well the ranting crazies seem to get the most air time.








    Edit: Steffi.... o.O yeah okay *shakes head*
    It would be most effective if they got off the air.


    They give ministers a bad name. They give Christians a bad name. They prey on the poor and the elderly.
    It is a delicate balance, to obtain maximum profit (phone calls maybe monitored)
    Both, just watch the self proclaimed Atheist Evangelists.





    They feign compassion and sincerity.
    They sort of alternate back and forth.
    it doesn't really matter, whatever they do, they do in the name of god.