What do you think of Dr. Phil?

모든 토론 > Steam 포럼 > Off Topic > 제목 정보

Andrew R 2024년 5월 21일 오전 11시 03분

Is he even a real doctor? Gotta give him props for creating his own TV Network...

< >

44개 댓글 중 31-44개 표시

↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect 2024년 5월 22일 오전 12시 36분

I think he is a quack.

#31

Bamford 2024년 5월 22일 오전 1시 01분

Any pet of Oprah is going to be perpetrator of dysfunctional ideology.

A doctorate in psychology is worth less than a burger wrapper, its the ultimate pseudo science of manufacturing prextext for liberal ideology, like economists but worse, as all their foundational studies fail to replicate.

#32

Bamford 2024년 5월 22일 오전 1시 03분

jakeʸvil님이 먼저 게시:
craigsters님이 먼저 게시:
He's only in the lime light thanks to Oprah Winfrey

Personally I thinks he's a fraud and a cuck
Just because he's not a right wing lunatic like you wish doesn't mean any of what you say is true.

Its good to know even you agree functional health is right wing.

She chose him because he validated her bad decisions, girl bossing her way into sterility, never married, just a pet Stedmond. Money without meaning, all so she could hang out with bad people like Obama and Harvey Weinstein.

#33

⛧jakey⛧ 2024년 5월 22일 오전 1시 21분

Bamford님이 먼저 게시:
jakeʸvil님이 먼저 게시:
Just because he's not a right wing lunatic like you wish doesn't mean any of what you say is true.

Its good to know even you agree functional health is right wing.

She chose him because he validated her bad decisions, girl bossing her way into sterility, never married, just a pet Stedmond. Money without meaning, all so she could hang out with bad people like Obama and Harvey Weinstein.

Do not put words in my mouth, I speak for myself... Pathetic sexist comment.
That's the most you got for the most successful woman in the world?
Seethe.

#34

Rio 2024년 5월 22일 오전 1시 51분

He's bought and sold, like most politicians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiIjqYyHDB8

#35

AerSilver ♞ 2024년 5월 22일 오전 2시 13분

⛧님이 먼저 게시:
He's bought and sold, like most politicians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiIjqYyHDB8

That YouTuber is insufferable and speaks nonsense just to chase clout and views.

#36

Bamford 2024년 5월 22일 오전 2시 21분

jakeʸvil님이 먼저 게시:
Bamford님이 먼저 게시:

Its good to know even you agree functional health is right wing.

She chose him because he validated her bad decisions, girl bossing her way into sterility, never married, just a pet Stedmond. Money without meaning, all so she could hang out with bad people like Obama and Harvey Weinstein.
Do not put words in my mouth, I speak for myself... Pathetic sexist comment.
That's the most you got for the most successful woman in the world?
Seethe.

Its a logical assessment. She like many women demand from weak men that they do not fix their problems but instead validate their bad decisions.

She has money and nothing else, that is your metric for success, says everything really.

#37

Bamford 2024년 5월 22일 오전 3시 19분

jakeʸvil님이 먼저 게시:
Bamford님이 먼저 게시:

Its a logical assessment. She like many women demand from weak men that they do not fix their problems but instead validate their bad decisions.

She has money and nothing else, that is your metric for success, says everything really.
So you religiously watch Andrew Tate, got it.
You sound like a bitter incel hating on Oprah strictly because she is a woman. Who are you to claim she is not successful? Oprah is a self made billionaire, she did not achieve that status for nothing.
You claiming "nothing else" is due to your hatred for the fact she has never had children or lived her life to be controlled by a man. You hate women having any independence & freedom.
News flash, there's actually people out there who do not want children & live fulfilling lives, getting way more time to enjoy themselves. It's a personal decision & doesn't make someone a "failure".
Oprah is far more successful than you or Andrew Tate will ever be.

Its got nothing to do with Tate, all you have is projection.

There are rules to life and no one cares if a woman has money, let alone one that does nothing with it. She's no Elon building rockets and advancing science while building products that benefit us all, she brought us a bald man who makes women nod.

She is an out of touch billionaire who thought she was unfit to raise children, yet she is some how fit to push her social agenda on the rest of the population.

This has nothing to do with Tate, he's not even famous for mentioning Oprah, I'm not sure he has ever done so.

If you had guessed Jordan Peterson you'd be closer to the mark but still I wouldn't rely on him.

Its common sense, and frankly science, by Darwin's judgement she has failed in a way no amount of money can make up for, and the toxicity is that she models a failed lifestyle for the countless women that follow her.

She like the Bezos ex don't use their wealth well, not even for charity, they waste it on grift social causes. Just look at the scandal when she and the Rock begged their fans to donate to Hawaii. https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/oprah-and-the-rock-face-backlash-for-asking-fans-to-donate-money-toward-maui-fires/ She doesn't generate wealth, she asks for donations from the poor.

Scientific metric, Andrew Tate as much as I don't actually like him will be more successful than Oprah, he has children, she is a dead end.

#38

Nebgama 2024년 5월 22일 오전 3시 44분

I mean come on if yo uthink this is a real dr then you have autism, He can have a certification as a Dr but he is a still a fraud he is on heavily scripted TV.

Listen to how dumb she sounds as a little kid as well its like stfu kid basically.

Also airing out dirty laundry on live TV a real practitioner is supposed to be confidential to its patient not blasting them to many countries world wide.

Not only in the following example he is basically undermining her in a roasting way and making fun of her also something a real Dr will not do. its all fake for the TV.
He probably actually does have some certs or qualifications but the actual show is a fake story for TV. He only has the certs so that he can say he is a Dr if anyone questions that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkmOnEFCyI0

its also the same as this DR phill is about as real as this man is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcMyBzjN8eI&t=53s

Aint no way that you think he actuallly authentc with cats all they need to do agitate the cats and bam they got a show where they can harrass some cats and then come up with dumb situations to resolve those cats behavior, Anyone who knows cats know its easy af to make them mad like this and you can then use that to make a show about fixing problem cats.

I mean yeah the cat will be mad if you spent 10 minutes off camera with a few ppl harassing it, You then just turn that energy around and make out like the cat has social issues for the camera. Also look in the cat man instance when you see structred angled shots like when the kids open the door for example then that means they are trying to tell you a story usually a fake one.

look when he goes up to the cat and its all angry and then the camera pans right onto the couple and the lady is like "off yeah she mad" yeah its all a fkn make believe story and you just harrassad the cat of camera that is why yeah its mad.

Also look when Jackson gets in the cats face look at Jacksons Face like his eyes and that he has a angry deminor on his face like a death stare cats hate when you stare at them like that unless they have bonded with you. Past that when the cat is already angry and you stare at it like that then it means challenging energy.

Both examples are cases of heavuily scripted TV Lights, camera , Action and.....Cut I said cut everyone stfu now i said cut already.

Nebgama 님이 마지막으로 수정; 2024년 5월 22일 오전 4시 33분

#39