I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

Ha HAAA!! Charlie Murphy! What'd the five fingers say to tha face?!

You fellas defending the cops need to think again.

You DO NOT SHOOT except to SAVE LIFE. I don't care if its Charlie Manson - if he's unarmed and surrendering in broad daylight YOU DO NOT SHOOT HIM.

Failure to respect this code leads to paranoia, violence, rage, hatred and TOTAL SOCIAL APOCALYPSE.

Ferguson will get back from the brink but only because of people who understand that.

Btw Norway has the most liberal, kindest, most forgiving judicial system in the world (AFAIK) and also the LOWEST REOFFENDNG AND CRIME RATES.

USA reoffending rate 85%. Incarceration rate highest outside of Somalia. So if the moral spiritual ethical stance is too lefty for you try BASIC FUCKING STRATEGY.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'give money, TMZ, Ashton Kutcher' to 'give money, TMZ, Ashton Kutcher, Charlie Sheen, ALS, ice' - edited by Trancecoach

The comparison to Charles was an extreme example I assumed everyone could agree with to illustrate the point that one person doing a wrong does not excuse another person doing a wrong, and not a comparison of any person to Charlie. The analogy was apt, as this person was saying because Obama doesn't follow the constitution, he doesn't have to. Even if you believe the first part of that statement, the second part does not follow.

I saw Charlie got fired from there a few hours later.

Thank you kulpims! Mick was great in this but oh, how I adore Charlie

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetion' to 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetition' - edited by brycewi19

Not that this is even remotely a new idea. I remember reading a science fiction short story several decades ago, where they powers-that-be committed to the idea that the best way to handle terrorists was to make them a laughing stock. They were all to be called "Charlie", and all the news organizations promised to treat them as nothing but incompetent fools.
Sadly, that doesn't appear to be enough info to find the name or author of the story, but it had to date back at least to the 80s, and more likely the 70s or even 60s.

Good call, I love Charlie Brooker and have everything he's done with the Wipe series, all of them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'phd, honorary, its always sunny, nightman, speech' to 'phd, honorary, its always sunny, nightman, speech, Charlie Day, Merrimack' - edited by Sagemind

How do you think we got here, charlie?

How do you think we got here?

Oh wow, the Charlie Rose bit was good.

It's pretty common for men to do that in comedy, for example the following jokes that have been done to death for years:
- why do women always take so long to get ready ffs!?
- why are women are so emotional/illogical
- why do women talk/gossip a lot
- why do women love to shop/spend my money

That list is long. I've seen enough routines based solely around simply talking about how women are "bitches" (for example) that haven't been seen as sexist so i'd find it hard to criticise this person (who btw is unknown to the rest of the world) for even more subtle sexism.

@chingalera it sounds like you just don't find her funny and don't like her, so maybe you find it easier to take offence to any man bashing. I don't find her funny but i can't say i found anything sexist in this video (as you also say). She certainly hasn't made an impact in britain so i don't know what else she's like - i think i saw her on the roast of charlie sheen, she wasn't funny then either. Steve-o and mike tyson were better but to credit tyson he was so good he deserved a better audience.

What they meant by this is to use all power available. They got 100l of fuel to go full 1½h race. The fuel flow is limited to 100l/h. That means they need to use around 67l/h on average, this of course decreases during braking and is almost at max during acceleration. Also energy recovery and the release of that energy has some leeway to be used in different ratios, it is limited to 33s per lap. How that energy is divided, is up to the team.. So they will have the full boost of 160hp from ERS and full 100l/h fuel flow when using "push to pass" button but it's nowhere near the common definition of that function. Traditional push to pass is high boost, on 2014 F1 it means few percentages of power. The correct term would be "overtake mode".

RBR infringed fuel flow rule and no other team had been even warned, FIA has guidelines that teams should calibrate with enough margins to void minor differences between sensors. RBR refused to do this and counted on FIA not counting that marginal change. FIA had stated pre-season that in no case there will be extra fuel flow allowed, it's almost zero tolerance policy.

They've done this before, made a marginal rule infringement and got away with Charlie Whitings slap on the wrist:"change it to the next race".. Their camera mountings is already one of those little things that is technically legal and at the same is not.. It all depends if the TV crews can find a suitable camera. If they say "no", the rules are clear: they need unobstructed view.. That small hole hardly allow high quality picture, the only lens that could even remotely suffice is fisheye lens with a mask: it is not their standard equipment.. RBR most likely will have to change those too (imho, so should merc camera pods and mclaren parachutes too). Compare that to Williams 360 camera pod and it's pretty clear what FIA means by "enough room to fit camera" means.

Last year they had holes on the floor in monaco: ruling was, change them to the next race.. Then there was the TC scandal, RBR used illegal engine mappings.. They used them last year too when there was a ban of feeding fuel to exhaust during zero throttle to feed the blown diffuser: RBR chuckled and used them anyway.. They still have the duct inside the nose, it violates the intention of the rule but is legal technically. Of course the severity of the punishment is a clear sign: FIA just showed that no more of that bullshit, RBR has to start respecting rules.