• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Adios Lou Dobbs

Regnad Kcin said:
He accidentally fell into a giant vat of Just For Men?
Click to expand...

I remember seeing LD after some time and thinking, "What the hell did he do to his hair?" I always think it's so ridiculous to see those politicians, usually (R)s, with their "Oh I'm still so young" hair color.

There's something to be said with a bit of distinguished gray, or even lack thereof.
 
alfaniner said:
I remember seeing LD after some time and thinking, "What the hell did he do to his hair?" I always think it's so ridiculous to see those politicians, usually (R)s, with their "Oh I'm still so young" hair color.

There's something to be said with a bit of distinguished gray, or even lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. Next you'll be telling us that Trump isn't still naturally blond and that tan isn't from playing golf. Although I do wonder why my hard earned tans were never that orangey color.
 
alfaniner said:
I remember seeing LD after some time and thinking, "What the hell did he do to his hair?" I always think it's so ridiculous to see those politicians, usually (R)s, with their "Oh I'm still so young" hair color.

There's something to be said with a bit of distinguished gray, or even lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Dodgy political hair? Check out Michael Fabricant MP...
Michael_Fabricant

"Fellow MPs have frequently suggested that Fabricant's blond hair is a wig. Fabricant has stated he has undergone some "enhancement of the follicular area", but has denied sporting a wig."

Mind you, he does at least have an excuse.
 
SteveAitch said:
Dodgy political hair? Check out Michael Fabricant MP...
[qimg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fabricant#/media/File:Michael_Fabricant.jpg[/qimg]
"Fellow MPs have frequently suggested that Fabricant's blond hair is a wig. Fabricant has stated he has undergone some "enhancement of the follicular area", but has denied sporting a wig."

Mind you, he does at least have an excuse.
Click to expand...

He looks like he is trying to ape BoJo....like some fan boy trying to look like his idol. I don't think that is his real hair colour.
 
alfaniner said:
I remember seeing LD after some time and thinking, "What the hell did he do to his hair?" I always think it's so ridiculous to see those politicians, usually (R)s, with their "Oh I'm still so young" hair color.

There's something to be said with a bit of distinguished gray, or even lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Susheel said:
He looks like he is trying to ape BoJo....like some fan boy trying to look like his idol. I don't think that is his real hair colour.
Click to expand...

No, Mike has been like that for years! :eek:
 
SezMe said:
I never liked Dobbs but he did appear to be a hard but sane conservative. I didn't watch him very much but I could understand why some would.

Then he completely went off the rails for Trump. Why? What influenced him and what pushed him from very conservative to just plain nutball? Did anyone try to intervene? Did Fox tell him to go all in on Trumpism? How did his family handle his conversion?

And so on.... I suspect there might be a fascinating story behind all this, one that delved in depth into the process of a meme taking over a brain and consuming it.
Click to expand...

I think he was "incredibly" off the rails for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Dominion really became the nut mainstream media couldn't crack. I'm a fan of Ken Popehat White, and he was talking about why Rudy can get away with defaming groups like The Lincoln Project....they can't prove damages because no one listening to Rudy was going to donate to the project anyway.

But with Dominion, state legislators do listen to that garbage and then make decisions about the law. The mainstream media went one step too far this time.
 
new press release:

The Fox Corporation wishes to deny rumors that it is going into liquidation. Mrs. Kelly, who owns the flat where they live, has said that they can stay on till the end of the month.
Click to expand...
 
SteveAitch said:
Dodgy political hair? Check out Michael Fabricant MP...
[qimg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fabricant#/media/File:Michael_Fabricant.jpg[/qimg]
"Fellow MPs have frequently suggested that Fabricant's blond hair is a wig. Fabricant has stated he has undergone some "enhancement of the follicular area", but has denied sporting a wig."

Mind you, he does at least have an excuse.
Click to expand...

That is a wig.
 
SteveAitch said:
Dodgy political hair? Check out Michael Fabricant MP...
[qimg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fabricant#/media/File:Michael_Fabricant.jpg[/qimg]
"Fellow MPs have frequently suggested that Fabricant's blond hair is a wig. Fabricant has stated he has undergone some "enhancement of the follicular area", but has denied sporting a wig."

Mind you, he does at least have an excuse.
Click to expand...

Reminds me a bit of Jim Traficant ... even the names are similar.

I've heard people claim that Traficant's hair used to sneak out at night and knock over trash cans.
 
SteveAitch said:
Dodgy political hair? Check out Michael Fabricant MP...
[qimg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fabricant#/media/File:Michael_Fabricant.jpg[/qimg]
"Fellow MPs have frequently suggested that Fabricant's blond hair is a wig. Fabricant has stated he has undergone some "enhancement of the follicular area", but has denied sporting a wig."

Mind you, he does at least have an excuse.
Click to expand...

It looks like he decided to go as an older Robert Redford for Halloween but only had $1 for a costume.
 
angrysoba said:
I remember watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and always thought he was an unhinged nationalist.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it started as an act then became real. He was quoted as saying something very moderate about immigration which was at odds with his on-screen persona - something like a path to citizenship/legality for illegal immigrants would be OK to him. I doubt if I can find the reference anywhere because this was 15 years ago when I first started following (the lack of) immigration reform in Congress.

He did shut down Sidney Powell pretty damn quickly when she said illegal immigrants were bringing in a paralytic children's disease. "Now, that could have come from anywhere," he chided her. Someone linked to that clip in a recent thread. I always wonder when, say, nationalists break ranks. Accusing immigrants of bringing diseases was too far for him to endorse at that point, it seems,
 
dudalb said:
Fox will not change until their profits start to really drop.
Click to expand...
And on that note, on NPR this morning they said sponsors were not Fox's main source of revenue. Apparently the fees they get from the cable companies to carry their broadcast is the main source of revenue. So the more viewers want Fox the more the company makes.

Oddly, I wonder how Dobbs was singled out given he wasn't the only Fox anchor named in the lawsuit. Maybe Dobbs refused to backtrack on air or something.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oddly, I wonder how Dobbs was singled out given he wasn't the only Fox anchor named in the lawsuit. Maybe Dobbs refused to backtrack on air or something.
Click to expand...

That is a bit odd.

It may be that Fox thinks they can defend Bartiromo and Pirro because they are only accused of allowing Powell and Giuliani to spread lies on their program, but Dobbs actually said things about Smartmatic himself.

Or it could be communications. Fox may know that there is documentation that they gave approval for Bartiromo and Pirro but not for Dobbs. That would mean Fox is stuck with defending Bartiromo and Pirro but can send Dobbs out on his own.

Or it could be the terms of the contracts. Maybe Dobbs's contract gives him exclusive control over the content of his program, in which case Fox would say that whatever he said was on him and not Fox. They could argue that Fox could not control his content so they took him off the air when they became aware of the defamation.

Or it could be Dobbs wants to use a different legal strategy, so Fox is divorcing themselves from him. Or they got into a finger pointing match and plan to throw each other under the bus. Or just some internal friction where somebody called somebody names and they decided they are done with him.

Hard to say at this point.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
That is a bit odd.

It may be that Fox thinks they can defend Bartiromo and Pirro because they are only accused of allowing Powell and Giuliani to spread lies on their program, but Dobbs actually said things about Smartmatic himself.

Or it could be communications. Fox may know that there is documentation that they gave approval for Bartiromo and Pirro but not for Dobbs. That would mean Fox is stuck with defending Bartiromo and Pirro but can send Dobbs out on his own.

Or it could be the terms of the contracts. Maybe Dobbs's contract gives him exclusive control over the content of his program, in which case Fox would say that whatever he said was on him and not Fox. They could argue that Fox could not control his content so they took him off the air when they became aware of the defamation.

Or it could be Dobbs wants to use a different legal strategy, so Fox is divorcing themselves from him. Or they got into a finger pointing match and plan to throw each other under the bus. Or just some internal friction where somebody called somebody names and they decided they are done with him.

Hard to say at this point.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that Dobbs' program is on a (legally?) separate piece of Fox (Fox Business Network?). Not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom