The Bieber hair bowl is a shameful but necessary cut for many young males. i myself desperately want one – and my hair is ALMOST at the appropriate length to make it possible! These are urges i fight every day.
“they want his mane but they wont say his name… im talking of course about Justin Bieber the 16 going on delicious pop star”… and people doubt that this is the best show on cable news?
Call it the Flip and Switch, the Flow, or the Twitch: the Bieber hairstyle — with sideswept bangs that end about an inch past where the Beatles snipped theirs off — is everywhere. Tim Urban wore it on “American Idol” before he was voted off in late April, and Miles Heizer wears it on the NBC show “Parenthood” to play a brooding teenager. The idea is that the front-combed bangs are so long that they must be flicked aside constantly with a whole lot of attitude.
The majority of boys in the sixth-grade class of Ms. Friedman’s son have the Bieber. “You can’t see any eyes,” she said, describing the scene at a school dance she chaperoned recently. “There are no eyes, and there’s a lot of flipping.”
Just last week, a boy who came to Cozy’s Cuts surreptitiously showed his stylist a picture of Justin Bieber on his camera and asked her to replicate the look. “He said, ‘That’s what I want — don’t tell my mom,’ ” said Ms. Friedman, whose three salons charge $29.95 for the cut.
and that’s not a paraphrase. the dude (liberal pundit Bob Beckel) said “shit” on Fox News without batting an eye – which is, i’d say – amusing enough to post it. It’s cable news so it’s not illegal or anything, but… its cable news. people don’t normally say “shit” on it and it’s generally frowned upon. It’s funnier though that everyone except conservative columnist Cal Thomas doesn’t react at all to the naughty word that was uttered and just keep rolling along.
Sean Hannity just played a clip from Obama’s speech where he talked about Bush and came back with the awesome come back of “will the Bush bashing ever stop!?”. ooooo! zing! LOL Sean! Good one! that is such an annihilating smackdown that it in no way illustrates what an untalented hack you are! who cares if Obama’s list of Bush foibles was accurate – YOU SURE TOLD HIM! lulz. Hannitee 4 Prezident LOL lulz roflma fml.
This part of the speech is what Hannity was referring to:
The worst part is that he could have actually made a point there if he weren’t such a knee-jerk Republican shill that thought non-hilarious one-liners like that were acceptable retorts to the opposition in power.
He could have, for instance, maybe brought up the fact that Obama is going to triple the national deficit this year and even the Whitehouse’s own estimates show they plan to put Bush’s spending to shame.
And it doesn’t stop there, Woody. This Buzz Lightyear is going to Infinity and Beyond:
Karl Rove gave an ACTUAL response to the Bush stuff (is it too late to give him Hannitys job?):
transcript from Karl Rove’s segment with Greta Van Susteren:
“I can find no administration in which there is such a frequent recourse to blame the previous administration…
They want to blame the Bush Administration for the debt. I happened to be last week in a debate with David Plouffe in which he blamed the Bush Administration for the deficit this year. And I said, “Wait a minute, what about your spending bill? It was your bill, President Obama’s $787 billion Stimulus Bill. What about the $33 billion SCHIP bill that he signed? What about the $410 billion Omnibus Bill?” In reflection didn’t Senator Obama support the rescue package the recovery package last fall, the $750 billion to help rescue the banks? $350 billion dollars of that was spent by the time he got into office. If he didn’t like that spending he could have said, “You know were not going to spend another dime of that $350 billion,” and yet he did…
I think this is wearing thin. This is causing the American people to say, “Wait a minute. This is all your spending. Why do you keep blaming the guy who came before you?”
Dick Cheney on “Hannity” promo says “its a hard hitting Hannity exclusive”. a little misleading, considering “hard hitting” in context of an interview usually applies to the interviewer, not the guest. The promo should have just come out and said “Sean Hannity gives the former Vic President an unchallenged platform to bash the shit out of the opposition”.
Just heard this:
“Tonight, Tiger is not…out of the Woods”
….
Shame on you Greta Van Sustren… I’m making a citizens arrest and taking you to Pun-jail immediately.
For all the whining that goes on about Fox News: they’re still the only cable network who routinely has on-air discussion and debate about their own mistakes, poor handling of a given issue and general accusations of bias.
Tonight Bernard Goldberg smacked around, without naming any names, Fox News opinion/commentary hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for being even more biased than they should be as opinion/commentary hosts.
I’m less so sure about Beck, but Hannity is unquestionable in the hacktivism department – though its interesting that Bernie appears to have a good relationship with both personalities and went on both Beck and Hannitys shows promoting his book A Slobbering Love Affair about media bias towards Barack Obama when it came out. hmm. Did their relationship sour? Is Goldberg just talkin smack behind their back? or none of the above and he’s fine with both and just giving good natured criticism on a legitimate beef?
The only thing wrong with Bernie’s analysis is the “cross section of Americans” thing since he’s inserting his own meaning into it, causing a strawman fallacy. Political protests are…political. as in, against a policy. So why would Bernie assume that the “cross section” was a reference to opposite political policy endorsers? That makes no sense. If that was the claim made by a host, then THAT makes no sense, but Bernie didn’t give a quote or claim any clarity there. In fact the pictures and video of the protests do show a cross section of Americans: upper class to lower class and in between. There were people in suits and people wearing Wal-Mart wardrobes. The claim was accurate.
Dr Marc Lamont Hill, a young charismatic Columbia University Professor and Fox News liberal political analyst escapes every facet of the Blac[k]cent, except one: pee-poo. He says “white people” as “why pee-poo”.
Pretending that these claims have any credibility for a moment: It would be awesome for one reason…
Not because she might finally appear on The O’Reilly Factor and face some genuinely tough questions instead of the bullshit “tough” questions like “what do you think about the Bush doctrine, which was never a stated doctrine, isn’t written anywhere, isn’t agreed upon by a plurality, and isn’t a Bush-specific policy at all?” and definitely not because we would be treated to more insufferable “you’re a great American” bullshit “interviewing” by Sean Hannity. No no children.
The one thing that shows potential for awesome with a Palin-Fox News partnership by way of branding is this: Geraldine Ferraro is a Fox News analyst.
Gera-Who-Ferra? Geraldine Ferraro is a liberal political analyst for FNC and also the only other women to be on a national presidential voting ticket when she ran as vice president against then VP George H.W. Bush in 1984 (Reagan/Bush vs Mondale Ferraro).
If Palin actually moved to the lower 48 to appear in-studio on Fox News shows as an analyst, it would be irresistible to pair her with Ferraro and make some really interesting tv.
2 female vice presidential nominees – the ONLY two – one Democrat, one Republican, both chosen by their parties nominee at the time as a gimmick to rally interest and support for an uphill election, both unsuccessful — here, now, giving their opposing takes on the current political climate.
Would you tune in to watch?
And really, the whole rumor isn’t far fetched at all. You can’t effectively do anything from way up in BFE-Alaska so the move makes perfect sense since Rhode Island is pretty Alaskan-like in a lot of ways, and we know the Gov is a big fan of her home state. The other claim that she will never run for politics again is true. I’m confirming it now, so everyone can just STFU about all the speculating. She’s done. deal with it.
UPDATE: Sarah Palin did indeed become a Fox News analyst but the match-up with Geraldine unfortunately never happened to my knowledge.
The Daily Show is pretty honest about what it is, yet thousands of college aged adults are constantly proclaiming what an awesome news source it is. Except it’s not. and Jon Stewart doesn’t even claim it is. It is not news delivered in a funny way. Its fake news. Jokes based on news content. it never claims to be anything else.
Recently a clip from the show went viral allegedly exposing that Fox News has become exactly the type of “whiny liberal” that it used to be against since the network is now praising protesters against the Obama’s health care plan as average Americans rising up to be heard but treated protesters against Bush as whining crazy liberal lunatics.
The truth is that that meme is a big fat lie. I watch Fox News and there was never a running theme of “protesters who protest Bush are crazy, whining liberals” that has switched now to “protesters who protest Obama are patriotic courageous Americans” except for one show and one personality: Sean fkking Hannity. As I’ve pointed out recently on RichWatch, Sean Hannity used to blindly mock Bush’s opponents regardless of context and is now blindly endorsing Obama opponents for purely partisan reasons. It’s mock-worthy and an example of hacktivism, but its one guy at the news channel. Claiming FNC as a whole was anything like that is just a smear to fit a “please, for the love of Christ don’t watch Fox News” narrative.
So is Jon Stewart a liar? He says he’s not, and there’s no reason to doubt him. He’s not a liar, he’s a frigging comedian. It’s only a lie if you present false information in a humorous way with the goal of making a political point. That’s why columnists like Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter can’t rely on the fact that they use humor in their published works as a shield against criticism: because if you’re trying to make an actual point, you can’t just make shit up. You have to be present the facts and THEN make the jokes. But Stewart doesn’t claim this position. Stewart is not a funny news commentator – he is a fkking comedian who uses content from the news to make jokes. Colbert, I think is a different story because I have never heard him go on record saying that he makes things up and his presentation suggests that his show is in fact meant to be humorous political commentary through satire, sarcasm and farce. But The Daily Show, to its credit, has never denied making shit up for the sake of comedy.
So now TDS mocks Fox for a thing most people who hate Fox suspect the channel probably did and that’s enough to make it true. Never mind the stuff about you blindly accepting a comedian as a credible source of news and turn a blind eye to all those times Jon Stewart publicly admits that his show takes things out of contexts to make them funny — what matters is that someone (anyone) bashed Fox News, and since they’re evil over there, then its true.
Bill O’Reilly, featured in the Daily Show montage of alleged Fox flip flops pointed this out tonight, showing in good humor and respectful tone, that those of you who blindly took TDS’s montage as hilarious ownage were in fact victims of an epic FAIL.
This will no doubt be met with the usual hate and smearing that any good natured response to a freaked out ideologue is met with: O’Reilly will be said to be “whining”, he’ll somehow be an asshole for even mentioning this and the entire response will be disregarded anywhere because O’Reilly didn’t refute every syllable Stewart uttered – therefore they continue trusting the news-comedian over the news-commentator. Why in fact, how can you tell which is which? yuk yuk lolz harr harr omgz.
As O’Reilly said – “some young people actually believe he presents an accurate view of the country on his program… and that is frightening” – especially due to the fact that Stewart himself admits it.
No no children.