I say this as a fan of Colbert, but that performance was flat. He flubbed jokes, most of the material was fairly predictable and when the president has a 32 percent approval rating, cracking jokes about his incompetance or stupidity is not particularly courageous it's banal--especially considering his audience. I've been to the White House correspondence dinners before and they are really a feel good circle jerk for the washington media. A ballsy presentation would have been to ask how many times Joe Wilson is going to change his story and how many times the gathered elite press are going to believe him; perhaps he could also have taken a shot at the hypocrisy of a press corps so eager for a grand jury to pry open the notebooks of Judith Miller and so hysterical when the same law and precedent are being applied to other reporters. And to make a martyr out of Helen Thomas, whose criticism of this white house is about as nuanced as the shrieking rants on daily kos, is just silly. She is a grandstander, who I suppose should be congratulated for pronouncing words correctly, but she has not broken a story since the Kennedy administration. There are plenty of very real problems with this president, the situation in Iraq, the energy crisis etc... But repackaging conventional wisdom as satire is boring.
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from freinds and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyrany at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from freinds and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyrany at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
the problem is that the line between the presidency and the office of president is blurred. What you may view as attacking the office may to others, be attacking the person occupying the office.
I fully support most dissention, because it's what makes this country great. I am not sure where anyone in this thread has said that the office it self is a joke. what I read is posters are just supporting Colbert for having the guts to make a statement in the face of the most powerful CEO, I mean president in the world.
And as far as Colbert's presentation, I don't even think it was that radical. It was good, but nothing out of line. if the President and the office of the president can't take dissention in the form of comedy, then we have a bigger problem than anything Colbert said.
All I'm saying is that the respect owed to the presidency means that sometimes propiety dictates that it's inapropriate to insult the president. To this end I questioned whether Colbert's routine was appropriate. I can't answer that without a better understanding of the context. I did not say that you can't dissent from the presidential line; that would be ludicrous.
I also didn't suggest Colbert's performance was radical. To the contrary, I don't think there was anything radical about it. I just questioned its appropriateness in the context.
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from freinds and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyrany at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
bullshit...get over yourself dude. this is a president that has secret service personally screen every person that attends any public function where the president will be speaking just to make sure there are no dissenting voices...he has created his own bubble and he is never happy when it gets penetrated by opposing views. i honestly was surprised that colbert got away with it.
and as to the rest of your rant...more bullshit. colbert needed to get these people (the press corp and politicians) to hear these points, no matter how established you may think they are...these people live in a bubble too and they need it burst so they can do their jobs.
If Danno can't take dissention in the form of comedy, then we have a bigger problem than anything Colbert said.
You're missing my point. I actively encourage lawful dissention in any form with the qualification that there some dissent may be inappopriate in certain contexts for reasons of civility.
the problem is that the line between the presidency and the office of president is blurred. What you may view as attacking the office may to others, be attacking the person occupying the office.
I fully support most dissention, because it's what makes this country great. I am not sure where anyone in this thread has said that the office it self is a joke. what I read is posters are just supporting Colbert for having the guts to make a statement in the face of the most powerful CEO, I mean president in the world.
And as far as Colbert's presentation, I don't even think it was that radical. It was good, but nothing out of line. if the President and the office of the president can't take dissention in the form of comedy, then we have a bigger problem than anything Colbert said.
All I'm saying is that the respect owed to the presidency means that sometimes propiety dictates that it's inapropriate to insult the president. To this end I questioned whether Colbert's routine was appropriate. I can't answer that without a better understanding of the context. I did not say that you can't dissent from the presidential line; that would be ludicrous.
I also didn't suggest Colbert's performance was radical. To the contrary, I don't think there was anything radical about it. I just questioned its appropriateness in the context.
Well what contexts or situations would would it be appropriate to insult the president in, since you're wording seems to leave that door open. I just want to know in case I'm ever lucky enough to have the opportunity.
bullshit...get over yourself dude. this is a president that has secret service personally screen every person that attends any public function where the president will be speaking just to make sure there are no dissenting voices...he has created his own bubble and he is never happy when it gets penetrated by opposing views. i honestly was surprised that colbert got away with it.
With respect, the mere fact that Colbert said what he did where he did undermines your argument. He was not towing the party line and surely dissented in opinion from Bush and his cronies. Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that the Bush regime shouldn't be criticised for stifling meaningful debate.
the fact that he wasn't pulled from the stage did indeed give me hope for the future of our democracy...doesn't change the fact that i was cringing the whole time just waiting for him to be interrupted. that speaks volumes to how scarred i've become because of Bush.
Well what contexts or situations would would it be appropriate to insult the president in, since you're wording seems to leave that door open. I just want to know in case I'm ever lucky enough to have the opportunity.
Generally speaking, I don't think it's ever appropriate or constructive to insult a person, including the president.
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from freinds and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyrany at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
bullshit...get over yourself dude. this is a president that has secret service personally screen every person that attends any public function where the president will be speaking just to make sure there are no dissenting voices...he has created his own bubble and he is never happy when it gets penetrated by opposing views. i honestly was surprised that colbert got away with it.
and as to the rest of your rant...more bullshit. colbert needed to get these people (the press corp and politicians) to hear these points, no matter how established you may think they are...these people live in a bubble too and they need it burst so they can do their jobs.
This is just silly. In november this obscure radical newsletter called NEWSWEEK ran a cover story on how the president lived inside a bubble. Stephen Colbert, I realize has been silenced, he only makes these exact same jokes on TELEVISION every night. How will the people ever know the truth? Dissent is being censored. And every president has rallies pre-screened for politics and for security. The president gets to hear how stupid and incompetent he is everyday from the press. In countries that are really undemocratic, the publishers of the new york times get arrested for printing a story about the nsa tapping overseas phone calls of suspected terrorists; here their staff is feted with pulitzers. I happen to think they deserve pulitzers for those stories. But I know the difference between imaginary dictatorships and real ones. Apparently you don't.
Well what contexts or situations would would it be appropriate to insult the president in, since you're wording seems to leave that door open. I just want to know in case I'm ever lucky enough to have the opportunity.
Generally speaking, I don't think it's ever appropriate or constructive to insult a person, including the president.
This is just silly. In november this obscure radical newsletter called NEWSWEEK ran a cover story on how the president lived inside a bubble. Stephen Colbert, I realize has been silenced, he only makes these exact same jokes on TELEVISION every night. How will the people ever know the truth? Dissent is being censored. And every president has rallies pre-screened for politics and for security. The president gets to hear how stupid and incompetent he is everyday from the press. In countries that are really undemocratic, the publishers of the new york times get arrested for printing a story about the nsa tapping overseas phone calls of suspected terrorists; here their staff is feted with pulitzers. I happen to think they deserve pulitzers for those stories. But I know the difference between imaginary dictatorships and real ones. Apparently you don't.
i'm glad to hear you take all the administrations most egregious offenses so lightly! remember, it was bush who said "living in a dictatorship would be a lot easier...just as long as i'm the dictator".
And every president has rallies pre-screened for politics and for security.
A good point, but really NOT true. When Bush and Kerry were running 2004, here in Oregon, the Bush rallies were so controlled that protests were not allowed outside the rallies on public streets, and inside the rallies people were arrested for the statements of their t-shirts!
At the Kerry rally all were allowed in, the only screening was a very quick look into bags, about the same as for any other large event at Portland's waterfront.
Of course Kerry has never been president. When I saw Clinton speak, while he was a sitting president, there was no political screening for the event. If there was a security screening it was at the site and had nothing to do with who was coming in; only what you were carrying.
Bush's tightly controlled events have been so legendary that the fact that he took some questions that were not pre-cleared last month was a news story in itself.
That's a great exception to my general rule. So if the dinner is traditionally a roast where it's expected that the president will be personally insulted, then I think colbert did a great job of it and was right to do so.
As you point out there was nothing radical here. I thought Colbert was funny, it was a roast, everyone knew it was going to Colbert and knew the kind of things he would say.
I am surprised that you, V, still stand up for the president. The president and his team have mad a mockery of neocon ideals. Just this week he stated that genocide is happening in Darfur, and that there should be more UN Peacekeepers. Is that really your idea of America spreading democracy and all is goodness? To stand by and pacifily watch genocide while preparing to go to war with a democratic country like Ira?
I've been to the White House correspondence dinners before and they are really a feel good circle jerk for the Washington media.
I think this is the real reason his presentation fell flat. He was attacking the Washington Media as much as he was the president. Like Stewart at the Oscars.
A ballsy presentation would have been to ask how many times Joe Wilson is going to change his story and how many times the gathered elite press are going to believe him
His story is pretty accurate, the president had the best intelligence, but decided to go with the worse. You and the president keep saying that intelligence that was wrong (ie attempts to by uranium from Niger) was better than intelligence that was right (ie Iraq did not attempt to by uranium). In the real world, where neocons dare not tread, accurate intelligence is considered good, wrong intelligence is considered bad. Wilson should be treated like a national hero for getting accurate intelligence. Instead he and his wife are personally attacked by people like you who are afraid to address the fact that we went to war with the worse intelligence and not the best.
perhaps he could also have taken a shot at the hypocrisy of a press corps so eager for a grand jury to pry open the notebooks of Judith Miller and so hysterical when the same law and precedent are being applied to other reporters.
Not sure what you are talking about. Seems like the press corps has lined up behind Miller to me. As you know Judith Miller did not hear a confession of a crime, she was at the scene of crime.
And to make a martyr out of Helen Thomas, whose criticism of this white house is about as nuanced as the shrieking rants on daily kos, is just silly. She is a grand-stander, who I suppose should be congratulated for pronouncing words correctly, but she has not broken a story since the Kennedy administration.
Your attack on Helen Thomas is like some neo-funk poptart dissing James Brown. Again personal attacks take the place of answering the question; what was the real reason we went to war in Iraq?
There are plenty of very real problems with this president, the situation in Iraq, the energy crisis etc... But repackaging conventional wisdom as satire is boring.
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from friends and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyranny at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarrass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
I disagree with you that liberals should support going into an obvious boondoggle like Iraq while standing by and watching real genocide in Darfur. But I really don't care what liberals do, they are a bunch of weenies. I do care that we have a president who has enshrined preemptive war, torture, renditions, and warrantless wire taps into our government. Do you?
This shit was fantastic. There is a reason no one was laughing, including the president, and that reason wasn't because the shit wasn't funny. Everything Colbert said was right-on, from Bush's remaining 32% being "backwash", to the Hidenberg remark. Anyhow, the fact that people werent laughing only showed how well the material hit the mark.
Think what you want of the man, the office demands respect.
I agree with you. A friend of mine was invited to a ceremony at the White House back in the Reagan days. (For winning a garden show award.) Some friends thought he shouldn't go, or should do or say something. I said then and now you honor the office not the man.
Some folks are in such a Bush hating frenzy that they don't realize the joke is on them.....
Not only was what Colbert did not that funny, chances are it was scripted and no one, including the President, was shocked or surprised by what Colbert said.
And that pretty much renders it from being any kind of historic TV.
You can't even view it as an attack on the President or his policies if it was "part of the show".
The same night GW also hired the guy below, Steve Bridges, to be part of a "comedy duo" that had Bush playing the straight man to Bridges, who pummeled the Prez with derogatory jokes.
If you want some historic TV lets see some guy ask these type of questions to the President of any number of countries like North Korea or Iraq and see if he gets his head chopped off on the spot, on live TV!!
Think what you want of the man, the office demands respect.
I agree with you. A friend of mine was invited to a ceremony at the White House back in the Reagan days. (For winning a garden show award.) Some friends thought he shouldn't go, or should do or say something. I said then and now you honor the office not the man.
Dan
Fuck that noise man, that's like saying respect the Fuhrer, not the man.
Before I get jumped on, I am not comparing the President to any infamous Germans, I'm just giving an example of respecting an office in disregard to who is holding the office.
... Actually, I do agree in giving respect to the office. But that respect is subject to being revoked when the one holding it proves his disregard for the position himself.
Fuck that noise man, that's like saying respect the Fuhrer, not the man.
No it's more like......
"Hate the player, not the game"
(I would have bet you big money just yesterday that I would go through my entire life without ever saying or typing the phrase "Hate the player, not the game". It's not part of my vocabulary....but somehow it seemed to be the perfect answer to this situation)
If Danno can't take dissention in the form of comedy, then we have a bigger problem than anything Colbert said.
You're missing my point. I actively encourage lawful dissention in any form with the qualification that there some dissent may be inappopriate in certain contexts for reasons of civility.
Some folks are in such a Bush hating frenzy that they don't realize the joke is on them.....
If you want some historic TV lets see some guy ask these type of questions to the President of any number of countries like North Korea or Iraq and see if he gets his head chopped off on the spot, on live TV!!
This is such a straw man argument. Wow, we don't live in North Korea. What a revelation. We actually have freedoms here, I didn't know.
And by the way, you might have meant Iran, not Iraq, because according to Bush Iraq is a growing bastion of democracy in the Muslim world.
This was a roast for the president and the press corps. Everyone expected people to make fun of Bush, and OF COURSE, Colbert's speech was scripted. He's a fuckin TV comedic act. In such an important situation do you expect him to ad lib it??? I can't see the video, but I've heard reports and some of it sounded pretty funny. Mission accomplished I say for a funny guy. Nothing more, nothing less to me.
I think as many have pointed, this event is traditionally a roast. Therefore, Colbert's jokes were in line with the general - and expected - tenor of the event. Not to say Bush would have enjoyed it - roasts are not meant to be fun for the person under said roast. But in general, I don't think that many people - here or otherwise - are disrespecting the office. They do, however, disrespect the man. I'm not clear, based on what you've written above, if you can do the latter without insulting the former. From my view, insulting Bush is not the same thing as insulting his office. Doing the latter is basically critiquing a form of governance but I don't think anyone here is saying, "fuck Bush, let's turn America into a representative democracy with no central government! Woo hoooooo!!!!"
Rockadelic,
The simple fact is: people don't like you and therefore, you are not treated with much genorsity. You are, however, treated with the basic fairness of inclusion (i.e. no one, that I know of, has called for you to be banned, not seriously any how. Personally, I would not support such a petition since while I may not agree with your views...and I think you act like a dick at times...I don't think you're toxic to this forum).
Whether it's fair or not that your views tend to get rejected out of hand is harder to say. This is a social community largely judged and based around personality and opinions and if people find that personality and/or opinion to be noxious, there's no ethical standard that proscribes anyone here to extend a courtesy to you by taking everything you have to say as serious as anyone else. Regardless, you're obviously free to voice your displeasure over what you see as a double standard but as you've probably already noted, it's unlikely that such complaints will create a sea-change in people's attitudes towards you. Nor should it. There are far greater double standards in our society than whatever is sparking your indignation.
Besides, you actually seem to like being the contrarian so I'm rarely convinced of your true outrage at the rest of us. You'd probably find Strut kind of boring if we agreed with you all the time.
For the record, I wouldn't support torturing the president with pliers and a blow torch. I think it would be poetic justice to put him on the frontline against the insurgency in inferior body armor however. Just to be fair. However, let's be honest - Bush will almost certainly die peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by friends and family. The same cannot be said of the men and women he's sent to fight his wars.
(P.S. I don't like child molesters.)
Vitamin (and also Rockadelic),
I think you're missing the point. Whether or not what Colbert did will be considered "historic" television is far too early to say but I do think many people in America find any public criticism of the President - let alone what Colbert did - to be rather breathtaking ESPECIALLY in light of the general tippy-toing that went on post-9/11. Four years later and I think there's still this general feeling among many that the President gets a free pass on everything since despite low approval ratings, his policies still largely seem to be operating out in the world. Obviously Iraq is the most glaring example.
To me, so long as it SEEMS (note that I'm highlighting perception rather than reality) Bush still gets his way on things, I think many others will find any public criticism of him to be the exception and not the rule.
Now, when Fox starts going after him, then THAT will be historic.
In any case, in today's age of media exploitation and saturation, even small stories can take on huge national import. Look at the Duke scandal or the Holloway disappearance. Therefore, how Colbert's hosting plays out really depends on how long the media decides to make an issue of this. It might blow over tomorrow. It might have legs for days, especially if someone like O'Reilly decides to run with it. Whether Colbert actually did anything all that remarkable is besides the point.
That said, if I liked him before, I LUH him even more now.
Comments
And one more thing. For those on this board who thought Colbert would be dragged off by the secret service--get over yourselves. There are plenty of countries where that sort of thing happens everyday, and this president has at least articulated a policy whereby the civilized world would no longer tolerate it--from freinds and allies. Yet when the daily oppressions of Iran, Saddam's Iraq or other places are bought up, suddenly those so concerned about phantom tyrany at home would like to get the consent of the tyrants to do something about it abroad. As I've said before, this view is a mockery of core liberalism and ought to embarass those so credulous as to spout it so earnestly.
THE DOUBLE TRUTH!!
All I'm saying is that the respect owed to the presidency means that sometimes propiety dictates that it's inapropriate to insult the president. To this end I questioned whether Colbert's routine was appropriate. I can't answer that without a better understanding of the context. I did not say that you can't dissent from the presidential line; that would be ludicrous.
I also didn't suggest Colbert's performance was radical. To the contrary, I don't think there was anything radical about it. I just questioned its appropriateness in the context.
bullshit...get over yourself dude. this is a president that has secret service personally screen every person that attends any public function where the president will be speaking just to make sure there are no dissenting voices...he has created his own bubble and he is never happy when it gets penetrated by opposing views. i honestly was surprised that colbert got away with it.
and as to the rest of your rant...more bullshit. colbert needed to get these people (the press corp and politicians) to hear these points, no matter how established you may think they are...these people live in a bubble too and they need it burst so they can do their jobs.
You're missing my point. I actively encourage lawful dissention in any form with the qualification that there some dissent may be inappopriate in certain contexts for reasons of civility.
Well what contexts or situations would would it be appropriate to insult the president in, since you're wording seems to leave that door open. I just want to know in case I'm ever lucky enough to have the opportunity.
With respect, the mere fact that Colbert said what he did where he did undermines your argument. He was not towing the party line and surely dissented in opinion from Bush and his cronies. Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that the Bush regime shouldn't be criticised for stifling meaningful debate.
Generally speaking, I don't think it's ever appropriate or constructive to insult a person, including the president.
This is just silly. In november this obscure radical newsletter called NEWSWEEK ran a cover story on how the president lived inside a bubble. Stephen Colbert, I realize has been silenced, he only makes these exact same jokes on TELEVISION every night. How will the people ever know the truth? Dissent is being censored. And every president has rallies pre-screened for politics and for security. The president gets to hear how stupid and incompetent he is everyday from the press. In countries that are really undemocratic, the publishers of the new york times get arrested for printing a story about the nsa tapping overseas phone calls of suspected terrorists; here their staff is feted with pulitzers. I happen to think they deserve pulitzers for those stories. But I know the difference between imaginary dictatorships and real ones. Apparently you don't.
even at a roast?
i'm glad to hear you take all the administrations most egregious offenses so lightly! remember, it was bush who said "living in a dictatorship would be a lot easier...just as long as i'm the dictator".
A good point, but really NOT true. When Bush and Kerry were running 2004, here in Oregon, the Bush rallies were so controlled that protests were not allowed outside the rallies on public streets, and inside the rallies people were arrested for the statements of their t-shirts!
At the Kerry rally all were allowed in, the only screening was a very quick look into bags, about the same as for any other large event at Portland's waterfront.
Of course Kerry has never been president. When I saw Clinton speak, while he was a sitting president, there was no political screening for the event. If there was a security screening it was at the site and had nothing to do with who was coming in; only what you were carrying.
Bush's tightly controlled events have been so legendary that the fact that he took some questions that were not pre-cleared last month was a news story in itself.
Dan
WOW.
That's a great exception to my general rule. So if the dinner is traditionally a roast where it's expected that the president will be personally insulted, then I think colbert did a great job of it and was right to do so.
watch video 1!!!!!
gotdamn
http://video.freevideoblog.com/video/B00B095C-1801-430B-8B75-D46EF2501822.htm
So many fucking great zingers in that speech, it's hard to keep track.
I am surprised that you, V, still stand up for the president. The president and his team have mad a mockery of neocon ideals. Just this week he stated that genocide is happening in Darfur, and that there should be more UN Peacekeepers. Is that really your idea of America spreading democracy and all is goodness? To stand by and pacifily watch genocide while preparing to go to war with a democratic country like Ira?
I think this is the real reason his presentation fell flat. He was attacking the Washington Media as much as he was the president. Like Stewart at the Oscars.
His story is pretty accurate, the president had the best intelligence, but decided to go with the worse. You and the president keep saying that intelligence that was wrong (ie attempts to by uranium from Niger) was better than intelligence that was right (ie Iraq did not attempt to by uranium). In the real world, where neocons dare not tread, accurate intelligence is considered good, wrong intelligence is considered bad. Wilson should be treated like a national hero for getting accurate intelligence. Instead he and his wife are personally attacked by people like you who are afraid to address the fact that we went to war with the worse intelligence and not the best.
Not sure what you are talking about. Seems like the press corps has lined up behind Miller to me. As you know Judith Miller did not hear a confession of a crime, she was at the scene of crime.
Your attack on Helen Thomas is like some neo-funk poptart dissing James Brown. Again personal attacks take the place of answering the question; what was the real reason we went to war in Iraq?
There are plenty of very real problems with this president, the situation in Iraq, the energy crisis etc... But repackaging conventional wisdom as satire is boring.
I disagree with you that liberals should support going into an obvious boondoggle like Iraq while standing by and watching real genocide in Darfur. But I really don't care what liberals do, they are a bunch of weenies. I do care that we have a president who has enshrined preemptive war, torture, renditions, and warrantless wire taps into our government. Do you?
Dan
This shit was fantastic. There is a reason no one was laughing, including the president, and that reason wasn't because the shit wasn't funny. Everything Colbert said was right-on, from Bush's remaining 32% being "backwash", to the Hidenberg remark. Anyhow, the fact that people werent laughing only showed how well the material hit the mark.
This was historic TV right here.
Peace...
FNM
I agree with you. A friend of mine was invited to a ceremony at the White House back in the Reagan days. (For winning a garden show award.) Some friends thought he shouldn't go, or should do or say something. I said then and now you honor the office not the man.
Dan
Not only was what Colbert did not that funny, chances are it was scripted and no one, including the President, was shocked or surprised by what Colbert said.
And that pretty much renders it from being any kind of historic TV.
You can't even view it as an attack on the President or his policies if it was "part of the show".
The same night GW also hired the guy below, Steve Bridges, to be part of a "comedy duo" that had Bush playing the straight man to Bridges, who pummeled the Prez with derogatory jokes.
If you want some historic TV lets see some guy ask these type of questions to the President of any number of countries like North Korea or Iraq and see if he gets his head chopped off on the spot, on live TV!!
Fuck that noise man, that's like saying respect the Fuhrer, not the man.
Before I get jumped on, I am not comparing the President to any infamous Germans, I'm just giving an example of respecting an office in disregard to who is holding the office.
... Actually, I do agree in giving respect to the office. But that respect is subject to being revoked when the one holding it proves his disregard for the position himself.
No it's more like......
"Hate the player, not the game"
(I would have bet you big money just yesterday that I would go through my entire life without ever saying or typing the phrase "Hate the player, not the game". It's not part of my vocabulary....but somehow it seemed to be the perfect answer to this situation)
Wow, so there's rules for a dissenting opinion?
A title does not protect you from critcism.
This is such a straw man argument. Wow, we don't live in North Korea. What a revelation. We actually have freedoms here, I didn't know.
And by the way, you might have meant Iran, not Iraq, because according to Bush Iraq is a growing bastion of democracy in the Muslim world.
This was a roast for the president and the press corps. Everyone expected people to make fun of Bush, and OF COURSE, Colbert's speech was scripted. He's a fuckin TV comedic act. In such an important situation do you expect him to ad lib it??? I can't see the video, but I've heard reports and some of it sounded pretty funny. Mission accomplished I say for a funny guy. Nothing more, nothing less to me.
I think as many have pointed, this event is traditionally a roast. Therefore, Colbert's jokes were in line with the general - and expected - tenor of the event. Not to say Bush would have enjoyed it - roasts are not meant to be fun for the person under said roast. But in general, I don't think that many people - here or otherwise - are disrespecting the office. They do, however, disrespect the man. I'm not clear, based on what you've written above, if you can do the latter without insulting the former. From my view, insulting Bush is not the same thing as insulting his office. Doing the latter is basically critiquing a form of governance but I don't think anyone here is saying, "fuck Bush, let's turn America into a representative democracy with no central government! Woo hoooooo!!!!"
Rockadelic,
The simple fact is: people don't like you and therefore, you are not treated with much genorsity. You are, however, treated with the basic fairness of inclusion (i.e. no one, that I know of, has called for you to be banned, not seriously any how. Personally, I would not support such a petition since while I may not agree with your views...and I think you act like a dick at times...I don't think you're toxic to this forum).
Whether it's fair or not that your views tend to get rejected out of hand is harder to say. This is a social community largely judged and based around personality and opinions and if people find that personality and/or opinion to be noxious, there's no ethical standard that proscribes anyone here to extend a courtesy to you by taking everything you have to say as serious as anyone else. Regardless, you're obviously free to voice your displeasure over what you see as a double standard but as you've probably already noted, it's unlikely that such complaints will create a sea-change in people's attitudes towards you. Nor should it. There are far greater double standards in our society than whatever is sparking your indignation.
Besides, you actually seem to like being the contrarian so I'm rarely convinced of your true outrage at the rest of us. You'd probably find Strut kind of boring if we agreed with you all the time.
For the record, I wouldn't support torturing the president with pliers and a blow torch. I think it would be poetic justice to put him on the frontline against the insurgency in inferior body armor however. Just to be fair. However, let's be honest - Bush will almost certainly die peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by friends and family. The same cannot be said of the men and women he's sent to fight his wars.
(P.S. I don't like child molesters.)
Vitamin (and also Rockadelic),
I think you're missing the point. Whether or not what Colbert did will be considered "historic" television is far too early to say but I do think many people in America find any public criticism of the President - let alone what Colbert did - to be rather breathtaking ESPECIALLY in light of the general tippy-toing that went on post-9/11. Four years later and I think there's still this general feeling among many that the President gets a free pass on everything since despite low approval ratings, his policies still largely seem to be operating out in the world. Obviously Iraq is the most glaring example.
To me, so long as it SEEMS (note that I'm highlighting perception rather than reality) Bush still gets his way on things, I think many others will find any public criticism of him to be the exception and not the rule.
Now, when Fox starts going after him, then THAT will be historic.
In any case, in today's age of media exploitation and saturation, even small stories can take on huge national import. Look at the Duke scandal or the Holloway disappearance. Therefore, how Colbert's hosting plays out really depends on how long the media decides to make an issue of this. It might blow over tomorrow. It might have legs for days, especially if someone like O'Reilly decides to run with it. Whether Colbert actually did anything all that remarkable is besides the point.
That said, if I liked him before, I LUH him even more now.