>> ^Drax:

God bless you Duckman!!

I was confused for a second: "wait!, Was the narrator Jason Alexander?"

Mouth rape Alexandermcqueenoutlet. The world's greatest place to buy shoes when getting mouth raped. http://alexandermcqueenoutlet.com/

Alexander McQueen Outlet is the place you go to experience little boys being anally raped by monkeys.

You can win elections by promising to balance budgets, but as soon as you start cutting programs you get replaced by the next guy promising big buzz words with as few specifics as possible.

No argument. The problem is the GOP doesn't want to do that because they are just like Democrats in the sense that they want to keep eating and promising free lunches. America for 20+ years has been living in a government sponsored 'benefits bubble'. Everyone thinks they can get free this & cheap that and politicians have spent the farm for their votes. This is not a GOP/Democrat issue. This is a "political class" issue. There are a few glittering jewels in the mine like Christie in NJ and Chaffitz from Utah - but they are far too rare.

This is a problme that is not going to be solved unless (A) the government completely collapses or (B) voters collectively wise up and vote in a couple generations of true fiscal conservatives. This election cycle gives some very distant gleams of hope that (B) might happen - but I'm pessimistic. I think America has already reached the Alexander Tytler point of no return...

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is followed by a dictatorship."

We see this happening right before our eyes. More wisdom - same guy...

“From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

In my cold assessment of the American condition, the U.S. POLITICAL CLASS is firmly decided on "dependance" and is starting to push into "bondage". The American PEOPLE however, are factionalized into about 30% "liberty", 20% "complacency", 20% "apathy", and 30% "dependance". By and large most of the public falls towards the "Liberty" side but you flash enough baubles to get 21% of the complacency/apathy vote and BOOM the U.S. is running over a cliff to tyranny.

That's what happened with Obama. Only what can be described as the collective insanity of emotion based stupidity elected that doofus. If he was in ANY other country, he would already be swaggering around in a uniform with epaulettes and making everyone call him "Commandant". He's a disaster, and polls are showing that even the apathetic and complacent realize they made a horrible mistake electing that specimen.

But too little - too late I fear. I think the government is too addicted to spending, and the public too addicted to the lie of 'free/cheap' government stuff. Loose fiscal policy will collapse this great nation, and there will be a period of subseqent balkanization. At this point, I fear it is inevitable.

Found him....his name is Bill Alexander. It is mentioned in Bob Ross's Wikipedia page that he studied with Alexander. His show was called The Magic of Oil Painting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTcBlM3ZVGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulELto3MUHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSRIX81-DYE

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Actually, my favourite character was Richmond the Goth - I thought Noel Fielding played this well. "The Dinner Party" episode was hilarious. "I only drink Absinthe".

Roy and Moss are characters I care about- but I agree that they could invest more in the actual character development- and story some story arc please! If Roy broke up with his GF in the first episode- why is it never mentioned again? I also agree that Katherine's character is a real weak link.

>> ^Deano:

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.
I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).
But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.
In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.
It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.
I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.

>> ^kymbos:
Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.
If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.

I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).

But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.

In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.

It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.

I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.


>> ^kymbos:

Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.
If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.

I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).

But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.

In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.

It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.

I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.

If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'couples, meeting, kissing' to 'couples, kissing, will arnett, amy poehler, peter serafinowicz, sarah alexander' - edited by therealblankman

@blankfist, Barber cites the tea tax - an excise tax - as an injustice comparable to the income tax, and just as worthy of rebellion, yet the Whiskey Rebellion was also about an excise tax. So if he wants to trot out the tea tax, then he might as well know that the very same Founding Ghost Father at the table who said, "Gather your armies" had no problem with excise taxes, nor squashing any tax rebellions. Whether he is or isn't your favorite Founding Father is besides the point. These assholes are elevating all the Founding Fathers to demigod status, so let the truth about these giants from a long-forgotten golden age be told.

And personally I'd prefer wiener rubs with Alexander Hamilton. He was such a bad boy!

*backup=[...snipped...]

>> ^westy:
seems like a nice guy , definalty quite effective .
shame he missed though.


Shame he missed... Like when a baseball misses the bat of a major league player? I may not like Bush, but it would be more appropriate to say Bush dodged the shoe than this guy missed with the shoe. I know it adds up to the same thing; however, it more adequately points out what happened.

If Bush had stayed still or been too slow, he would have been hit.

Also, this guy was decent but had too many incorrect assumptions for me. First, he was incorrect that he would have been killed by the secret service. If that had been Saddam, he would have died after being sent to a rape camp where men would have violated him till he bleed to death.

Second, invading countries have been accepted throughout the years by countries they have invaded. Not all have resisted. Look at Alexander the Great. He "conquered" millions of acres of other people's land by being welcomed.

Third, even though we are the ones that caused the vacuum of power in Iraq that killed millions, the people who exploited the vacuum and murdered are more to blame. In other words, those Muslims who went into the city to loot power are mainly at fault. But this coward won’t mention Muslim jihadists or Muslim opportunists because, well, that would be inconvenient...

Do not get me wrong, I do not believe the war was reasonable nor legal. I do not believe it made America safer and, on the contrary, I believe the war only served to hurt America as a whole. However, we must be fair on all sides.

Besides, it was not Bush's war. Without Bush, who could the left blame? Without invasion, who could the right blame? How bored were the American people? They needed an "outlet" and a leader who was "strong." I just hate how the left pretends ignorance...but still manipulates the war to their benefit in elections (Buzzards most of them.)

The right's manipulation is even worse.

I am a poor student, and I got back all of my federal income tax and a $400 de facto welfare check from Obama. From a purely self-interested perspective, that might seem great. But when considered more holistically, it is unjust. Not only am I allowing the wealthy to shoulder my part of the tax burden, but I am accepting nothing short of a wealth transfer from those whose efforts contribute to the GDP and buttress the value of the dollar and the national account from which Obama is drawing. In short, Obama (and Bush, with his tax credits at the end of his second term) is very generous in giving what is not his to give.

"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." - Alexander Tyler

Alexander Haig passed away earlier today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/alexander.haig.dead/index.html?hpt=T1

"I'm in control" moment when Reagan was shot:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/20/sot.haig.im.in.charge.cnn?hpt=T1

David Gergen on Haig:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/20/nr.gergen.on.haig.cnn?hpt=T1

Alexander Haig passed away earlier today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/alexander.haig.dead/index.html?hpt=T1

"I'm in control" moment when Reagan was shot:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/20/sot.haig.im.in.charge.cnn?hpt=T1

David Gergen on Haig:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/20/nr.gergen.on.haig.cnn?hpt=T1

i struggled with this interview due to Woo being so vague and obtuse but in the third part he finally gives some insight to his possible reasons.

those reasons are quite simply an argument that stems to the beginning of this republic.his defense is an ideological one and is very hard to prosecute but easy to defend.the federalist papers were an ongoing argument between alexander hamilton and james madison (if i recollect properly) and the basic premise was,in summary,which is a more beneficial form of government in regards to the federal governments role.
1.a fairly weak federal government whose role is security and little else.leaving the bulk of responsibility on the states.
2.a strong federal government with not only security as a responsibility but also final say on states powers to regulate themselves.
this is the basic argument and we still have representative ideologies today in our political landscape i.e:democrat-republican.

Woo seems to be of the idea that it is the ultimate responsibility of the federal government,and more specifically,the executive branch that should wield greater power.
this is his right though you may disagree.
what i find perplexing is that Woo is a neo-conservative and a republican party member.this is the party of SMALLER government and weaker powers.why would he use a democrat philosophy?
answer=because he is full of shit and nothing of what he did had anything to with his political philosophy.he created the torture memos to absolve his superiors of any wrong-dong by manipulating the law.
it is either that or he is a confused,misguided tool.
considering he is a professor of constitutional law i am going to guess he was working at the behest of those who wielded power at the time.
he is a whore who traded his political ideologies for career asperations.
that or he is a closet democrat.