३१ ऑगस्ट, २०१२
Michael Moore thinks people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.'"
Interesting, not really intended so much a prediction as a cynical remark about campaign finance. But that's not why somebody emailed me that link. Somebody emailed me that link because of the thing that made me scream at 0:21.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
Like two bratwursts emerging from the stuffing horn...
Oh! The humanity!
Moores beer glass is curved.. or his legs.. they explain a lot.. Moore is some sort of deep sea mutation.. a new found specie maybe.
'I got to be careful here'... as Rush would say.
Can you imagine Rush in shorts?
I've seen several videos with Moore in shorts. There should be a warning.
That is a man comfortable in his own skin. He won't be cowed into wearing long pants.
Man, even I haven't gotten that fat!
Hope! and pocket change....
Cowed.. lol
I think he should have his interviews in boxers.
Oh, the huge manatee!
I was like, "what could Michael Moore possibly say that would make Althouse scream?"
oh the horror
Ruth Anne
That made me giggle.
Do I have to talk about his shorts? I want to talk about this business of a constitutional amendment to deal with the Citizens United decision--which President Obama recently endorsed.
There are a couple of versions kicking around that I know of, and perhaps more.
If the major media were honest and competent, they would be making a huge stink about this. At least one of them "solves" the "problem" by declaring that constitutional rights don't apply to "corporate entities." Another gives Congress the power to limit how much money anyone can spend supporting or opposing any candidate.
RE: Dante:
No! He should do them like this!
Btw.. that "get used to saying President Romney"?
Bidens version has more bite to it.
"Hes going to put you all back in chains".
Money. The new narrative I've noticed coming from my Dem relatives the past three months. First words out of their mouth is Citizen's United and how Walker, Romney, Ryan and all the evil conservatives are steam rolling the good people if America with their unending stream of money. So it makes sense that Moore is also on board with the meme in the interview link.
Of course they seem to forget that Obama in 2008 did forgo his public funding and instead took in all his millions from private donors to outspend McCain. Ditto the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections when I believe the Dems were raking in the cash.
I'm not sure money matters as much anymore. People don't watch TV nearly as much, they don't read print newspapers and the under 30 crowd seems to tune it all out anyways. With the net, email, Facebook, etc I think people are more informed then ever and less susceptible to advertising.
And the one who should practice hardest is shiloh.
Flab monster who adores Cuba. Democrat mascot.
Maybe he and Sandra Fluke can take the stage and win our hearts.
If Sandra had shown the congress an exhibit like this video... maybe...
Who knows?
Well, with democrate in the White House Michael is practically jobless. So I would not be surprised for him to vote for Romney. A do not expect him to admit it, of course.
Truly a douchebag for all seasons.
wyo sis,
I'm just riffing off of you. Giggles back atcha.
Michael Moore? Thought it was Garage...
There are a couple of versions kicking around that I know of, and perhaps more.
Does it include the Packers beating the Lyons?
The Professor calls it redirection..
I didn't see that Ruth Ann.
Nice play.
I want to talk about this business of a constitutional amendment to deal with the Citizens United decision--which President Obama recently endorsed.
None of them are going to go anywhere.
It is not possible to ban political speech by corporations without banning political speech by CNN, MSNBC, et al. Ergo any given amendment will either be toothless (as all the amendments to date have been) or subject to immediate universal opposition by all new and legacy media.
What did you say about Governor Christie err... I mean Michael Moore? Oh, he's really overweight. Yes, yes, very humorous.
Any scheme that does not include court packing... cannot be serious ;)
Palladian is twice his size and making fun of him being fat, hilarious.
And no, I don't even like Michael Moore but it is quite funny when morbidly obese people go off on other fatties.
Those retrovir side effects are really becoming a bitch, eh Steve?
The shorts are the problem, not the body. Too much man leg for TV.
Steve, you also might want to consider a testosterone regimen, because lately you've sounded positively menopausal.
Revenant:
I absolutely agree they aren't going anywhere. Enacting a constitutional amendment is extremely hard, thank God.
It's a disgrace our free press gives these folks a pass. I don't want them to lose their free speech, but they richly deserve it.
I think fat people like me are especially qualified to offer fashion criticisms to other fatties. Shorts are a TERRIBLE choice for most fat people, especially middle-aged pasty white men like Michael Moore.
The problem with Moore is that his outfit is a costume: the stupid mesh hat, the slovenly shirts, the shorts... the guy is a multimillionaire; he dresses as he does because he's playing the part of the "outsider" proletarian filmmaker. At this point in his career it's just pathetic.
Althouse linking to HP lol. Arianna is smilin'!
Hey, Althouse has the hots for Limbaugh, so why not equal time. :-P
>
And no Father Fox, you don't have to talk about his shorts. Given the recent church scandal involving gay/pedophile priests, discretion would be your best avenue.
I thought the shorts ban applied only to grownups.
Ba-doom.
That was funny!
If we are seeing Michael Moore, it means that the Republicans are about to win an election.
He is totally invisible the rest of the time.
Althouse, there's no way you're getting me to watch anything by that fat fascist fuck.
Even a tub of goo gets it right once in a while.
shiloh
You are remarkably similar to the posterior exit of the alimentary canal.
Somebody emailed me that link because of the thing that made me scream at 0:21.
Okay, I take back all prior disagreements on that subject. I will go put on s pair of dress slacks now, damn the heat and humidity.
It is not possible to ban political speech by corporations without banning political speech by CNN, MSNBC, et al.
Sure it is. McCain-Feingold did just that, after all - exempted mainstream media from its political-speech restrictions. Granted the SC held in Citizens United that doing that was unconstitutional, but an actual amendment works around that problem.
(Michael Moore is complaining about the CU decision? Michael Moore, maker of political documentaries, is complaining about the decision that said you can't threaten political documentary makers with imprisonment for showing a movie about a politician running for office? Michael Moore, who wouldn't have been legally able to show Fahrenheit 9/11 before the 2004 election if McCain-Feingold had been in effect then? That Michael Moore?)
but an actual amendment works around that problem.
No, it doesn't. There is no difference between CNN paying to air political opinions and Koch Industries paying to air political opinions. In both cases it is a corporation engaged in political speech, covered by the freedom of the press and freedom of speech rights.
The amendments to date have tried wording the amendment to limit speech by corporations with clauses like "nothing in this shall be construed as limiting freedom of the press".
This is because ignorant people believe that "freedom of the press" refers to a special right possessed by professional journalists and media corporations. That is utterly wrong both as a matter of history and as a matter of law -- "freedom of the press" is the right to publish, broadcast, et al, no matter who you are or what you do for a living. Everyone has it -- you, me, Wolf Blitzer, you name it.
So if an amendment needs to either strip freedom of the press from corporations -- in which case "bye bye CNN" -- or leave corporations free to engage in political speech.
Flab monster who adores Cuba. Democrat mascot.
Capitalism hasn't caused him to miss many meals.
I remember one of his "letters", right after 9/11, wondering why bin Laden hit cities that went for Gore (NYC, DC) instead of Bush (Dallas, Phoenix). What a fat f*ck.
President Romney, has a good ring to it!
That is a man comfortable in his own skin.
Then he has a lot to be comfortable about.
There is no difference between CNN paying to air political opinions and Koch Industries paying to air political opinions.
Leftists don't get this because they think CNN is unbiased. I don't know how they can think that, but there it is.
I have to be opposed to any type of public financing of campaigns under any sort of rules. Same with limits on spending- you got the cash- you spend it on whatever the heck you want.
But I don't understand why the money makes such a difference. Are there really that many people who base their vote on seeing a 30 second commercial? Is that really how the swing/undecided/moderate voter makes up his/her mind?
What kind of people choose their leaders like that? Amazing!
Steve,
"I'm not sure money matters as much anymore."
I'm not sure this is new. We have lots of examples of the lower-funded (or lower-spending) side winning, don't we?
Maybe just a block of free airtime to use up on what are after all the public airways. Give each candidate 1 hour of time to use up- all at once or as 30 second bits over the three months prior to election day.
I know the TV stations would say they are losing revenue since they could have sold Mt Dew ads for that time- but I think they would get it back as a source of content for the infinite number of talking head shows.
I don't think the debates really do what we think they do--not much actual ideas presented and debated- just a joint press conference with who can score the best zinger without making gaffes.
I'm not sure this is new. We have lots of examples of the lower-funded (or lower-spending) side winning, don't we?
There's one currently governing the state of California. And another representing the state of California as a Senator.
That is a man comfortable in his own skin.
Is he?
Way back when he was starting out, in the Roger&Me/TV Nation days, he seemed smarmy but happy.
But look at the guy in that video. Unhealthy-looking. Dead, angry eyes. Bitterness in his voice.
I think I'm probably a lot happier than he is, and I'm just a normal middle-class white-collar worker in California.
And no Father Fox, you don't have to talk about his shorts. Given the recent church scandal involving gay/pedophile priests, discretion would be your best avenue.
Suuure he's Catholic, like he's Navy.
And the scandal is hardly recent.
Penn State, maybe; the Church, no.
" Jim in St Louis said...
But I don't understand why the money makes such a difference. Are there really that many people who base their vote on seeing a 30 second commercial? Is that really how the swing/undecided/moderate voter makes up his/her mind?"
Of course money in a campaign is a good thing. You need to get your message out. And it's more than just commercials. Look at Walker, he used the money to open Victory Centers all over the state. Each has a copier, phone system, furniture. Plus the rent and some level of paid staff. $$$$ This stuff and commercials are not just meant to sway voters to your side, but also to get out the vote.
That said of course money is no guarantee, and at some point you have enough. Obama will have enough especially being the President and a lib, which brings a lot of "free" press opportunities that challengers lack.
This is not Morre trying to make a prediction. This Moore trying to get Dems to cough up more money and get enthused. Good luck.
Oh, and maybe also to make garage look "good".
" Jim in St Louis said...
But I don't understand why the money makes such a difference. Are there really that many people who base their vote on seeing a 30 second commercial? Is that really how the swing/undecided/moderate voter makes up his/her mind?"
Of course money in a campaign is a good thing. You need to get your message out. And it's more than just commercials. Look at Walker, he used the money to open Victory Centers all over the state. Each has a copier, phone system, furniture. Plus the rent and some level of paid staff. $$$$ This stuff and commercials are not just meant to sway voters to your side, but also to get out the vote.
That said of course money is no guarantee, and at some point you have enough. Obama will have enough especially being the President and a lib, which brings a lot of "free" press opportunities that challengers lack.
This is not Morre trying to make a prediction. This Moore trying to get Dems to cough up more money and get enthused. Good luck.
Oh, and maybe also to make garage look "good".
The money may not be all that important as such, but it is another straw in the wind indicating wjich way "the smart money" thinks the election will go this fall.
I did see some news broadcasts where they were asking republican donors about the Koch brothers and outside money influences. I don't seem to recall much of a hullaballoo about guys like George Soros.
Titus said...
Palladian is twice his size and making fun of him being fat, hilarious.
And no, I don't even like Michael Moore but it is quite funny when morbidly obese people go off on other fatties.
ya gotta admit the guy looks like he could find a cheeseburger in Biafra. I'm pushin the envelope, but he has ta hire people to wipe his butt.
Dante said...
I think he should have his interviews in boxers.
I think we should interview his boxers.
ALH said...
That is a man comfortable in his own skin.
And all the other people that are living in it.
Dante said...
I think he should have his interviews in boxers.
I think we should interview his boxers.
ALH said...
That is a man comfortable in his own skin.
And all the other people that are living in it.
A comment I heard from the Freakonomics guys awhile back, I believe on NPR, is that this is backwards. Money doesn't buy victory but flows towards who is popular; that is it is an effect not a cause, an indicator per se.
"MB said...
A comment I heard from the Freakonomics guys awhile back, I believe on NPR, is that this is backwards. Money doesn't buy victory but flows towards who is popular; that is it is an effect not a cause, an indicator per se."
There's some truth too this but to say it's the only factor is horseshit. Also true is that people stop giving money to their candidate if they aren't polling well...why waste money on a lost cause? So it's a lack of money on one side that widens the gap.
But money also flows to "critical" races that national importance. And groups give money because of party alone, even to lost causes. Because politicians and their parties have long memories.
I don't think Obama falling behind the money games is due to the $$$ going to ROmney. It's because his a aprt of his base isn't in to him anymore.
Unhealthy-looking. Dead, angry eyes. Bitterness in his voice.
You'd be dead-eyed, bitter and angry, too if your inner thighs were rubbing together from crotch to knee 24x7x365.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा