I mean, I don't think the president's the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm sure he's watched Stewart/Colbert before.
I wouldn't bet on it--the dude seems extraordinarily divorced from the types of media that most Americans consume.
I'm not even confident he's ever logged onto the internet.
Yeah, I don't know if he'd even "get" either of those shows, but I'm sure they're checking it out now
About 7-8 mins into the first clip it seems the audience realizes they're not supposed to find him amusing and clams up, then it shows the president making a stern face.
Think what you want of the man, the office Throne demands respect.
Are you guys serious? The presidencyMonarchy is an institution that demands respect. To hold otherwise is plainly silly, if not outright absurdgrounds for execution. Just because you don't like the presidentKing doesn't mean you're entitled to dimiss [sic] the presidencyMonarchy as a joke. I'm discouraged that you can't see the distinction.
If you take issue with this, I suggest you reconsider living in AmericaSaudi Arabia [other monarchies or autocratic dictatorships accepted] and look for some sovereign anarchosyndicalist communeDemocracy where you can live free from yourelect your government because you are, in effect, deyning its legitimacy by dismissing the respect owed to its highest office.hard to interpret your last bumbling sentence. maybe something about the the will of God?
Funny, but nothing to far off from what he puts on TV every night.
I can't believe people are offended by this...
Cosign, not really offensive at all. I thought it was funny, but not ground breaking.
this was "offensive" to republicans in the same way the nuremberg trials were offensive to nazis. nothing was groundbreaking about colbert's comments, but that's not the point. he just told the emperor that he was wearing no clothes. the press took the worst beating and it was a dinner for the press.
One last thing...In the words of one of our most hallowed Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt:
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President." - President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
Remember- it is TREASON not to speak out against the president- a Republican told me so.
I love your music posts. I'm really down with the b-ball talk. On politics, I'll take a pass. You tend to repeat the same points over and over, and I've never seen you bring up any facts to support any in depth argument. You also have a very jacked-up opinion of Muslims. I still usually read what you post on any topic however.
No doubt I don't take the time nor the effort to have the lengthy bibliography you have with your research. What I post here is my opinions based on my experiences and what I see in my everyday life. Same as my music and hoops posts.
As far as just making the same point over and over....if that point was "Bush Sucks" no one would have a problem with it as that happens here 10-20 times daily, so it's not just the repetition that's the problem.
There is no question that as a whole SS has a left leaning political atmosphere which carries the "If your not with us you're against us" attitude. This is not merely my opinion but the consensus of those folks who I've discussed this with off board. And I find it ironic and amusing.
The few people who are not intimidated by the overwhelming opposition to anything right of center, like Vitamin, get little respect even though their research and arguments are at least as compelling as anyone elses here.(I find Motown and Vitamin to be the two most informed and articulate posters here when it comes to politics) Therefore I realize there is little hope that my less informed opinion will be respected.
If my opinions and observations are so hated here as to say "no one likes me" I guess I should decide how important making friends here is and take it from there. I can come here and only post about music and sports and hope to make friends, but if you met me in a bar, and the topic turned to politics, my opinions would be the same there that they are here. And I would have no problem sharing them.
Personally I think it's more entertaining when a thread has two opposing sides vs. one that just becomes a cheerleading seesion for one ideal. Those types of posts are gonna be awfully boring if only like minded people participate..... maybe that's what most folks want??
I have to wonder if the reason folks dislike me is that A) they think I am stupid and my posts make little sense...B) My opinions are viewed as that of "the enemy"... or....C) If it's the fact that I do like to argue a point when most people just want to be safe with their opinions in their own little "mind garden" and make believe everyone has the same opinion as them??
If the answer is "A" it's a wonder I get as many heated responses as I do...why argue with an idiot?
It's one thing to debate divergent political views.
We've moved beyond the typical (conservative vs. liberal) debate about, say, the role of the the Federal Government.
No doubt I don't take the time nor the effort to have the lengthy bibliography you have with your research. What I post here is my opinions based on my experiences and what I see in my everyday life.
Your opinions based on everyday life are yours. Like your feelings they can't be right or wrong.
The fact that your opinions are based on your limited everyday life experiences, and not facts in the larger world, makes them impossible to argue. I remember writing a long response to one of your opinions. Your response was "that maybe true, but it is not what I hear from my friends".
A case in point is your opinion that most/many/some soulstrutters support extreme Islamic fundamentalist practices that include stonings and gang rapes. If you took the time to research this practice, that we all find repugnant, you would see that liberal human rights groups are in the forefront of trying to eradicate these practices. But you don't because knowing what you are talking about might change your closely held opinions. So how did you come to the conclusion that Strutters support these abuses? I am going to guess that since we don't support all out war with the Muslim world we must support these practices.
NEW YORK Probably to no one's surprise, Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," hailed the performance of his stablemate Stephen Colbert at Saturday night's White House Correspondents dinner. Colbert's lampooning of the president and the press has generated a good deal of praise and criticism.
"It was balls-alicious," Stewart said. "Apparently he was under the impression that they'd hired him to do what he does every night on television" -- that is, make fun of conservatives, public officials, and the press in the guise of an O'Reillyesque talk show host.
"We've never been prouder of him, but HOLY ----," Stewart added.
He also described the annual dinner as "where the President and the press corps consummate their loveless marriage." [/b]
Colbert then followed Stewart, on his own show, "The Colbert Report," describing the "honor of appearing" at the big dinner. He said the room was full of "power players," so he "fit right in."
"Best of all, I got to meet my main man, President Bush," he said, and even had a chance to shake his hand. "He has very soft hands," Colbert revealed, "which was surprising. He must wear gloves when he is clearing brush."
Colbert made fun of his mixed reception at the dinner, re-running the tape of one of his jokes with the audience barely reacting. He described this as "very respectful silence," and said that actually the crowd loved him.
"They practically carried me out on their shoulders," he said, "even though I wasn't ready to go."
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
I don't know about you but if I were going to be personally insulting, say, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES while he was sitting 15 FEET AWAY, I'd be just a little nervous.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
I don't know about you but if I were going to be personally insulting, say, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES while he was sitting 15 FEET AWAY, I'd be just a little nervous.
Call me crazy.
Not to mention that when he wasn't zinging Bush, he was going at the press--you know, the people in the audience.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
wrong!!!! i have already said this, but there is NO precedent for the way Colbert shoved bush's lies up his ass. this wasn't a cutesy performance. almost every line was a direct attack at bush or his obedient press corps. if you don't get it, than you are ignorant, which is no suprise, considering your comments on this board. this wasn't filmed on the set of Colbert's show, it was at a dinner for the sycophantic press who cover the president. bush was stuck on that stage and forced to sit there like a complete ass, while colbert ripped him a new one.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
wrong!!!! i have already said this, but there is NO precedent for the way Colbert shoved bush's lies up his ass. this wasn't a cutesy performance. almost every line was a direct attack at bush or his obedient press corps. if you don't get it, than you are ignorant, which is no suprise, considering your comments on this board. this wasn't filmed on the set of Colbert's show, it was at a dinner for the sycophantic press who cover the president. bush was stuck on that stage and forced to sit there like a complete ass, while colbert ripped him a new one.
take your comments to the rush limbaugh board.
Damn - this one calls for a "U MAD?" regardless if I agree with the sentiments expressed or not.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
wrong!!!! i have already said this, but there is NO precedent for the way Colbert shoved bush's lies up his ass. this wasn't a cutesy performance. almost every line was a direct attack at bush or his obedient press corps. if you don't get it, than you are ignorant, which is no suprise, considering your comments on this board. this wasn't filmed on the set of Colbert's show, it was at a dinner for the sycophantic press who cover the president. bush was stuck on that stage and forced to sit there like a complete ass, while colbert ripped him a new one.
take your comments to the rush limbaugh board.
Damn - this one calls for a "U MAD?" regardless if I agree with the sentiments expressed or not.
What about this administration doesn't make you mad??
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'? there is no possible negative consequence from doing what he did. Considering the political makeup of colberts audience it wouldve have been ballsier to do a set with a pro-bush subtext to the material.
I don't know about you but if I were going to be personally insulting, say, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES while he was sitting 15 FEET AWAY, I'd be just a little nervous.
Call me crazy.
Motion seconded. It was certainly ballsy and got me feeling good.
Why does their seem to be a consensus forming that colberts showing was 'ballsy'?
Not to beat a dead horse, but how is mocking Bush for twenty minutes to his face not ballsy? Any minute this guys going to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, I can feel it, so far his complete lack of any sign of logical reasoning is inspiring a new found respect in me for the coherent conservatives around here like Vitamin, even if I still think they are apologists for what will be viewed as one of the worst presidents and most destructive foreign policies of all time. Getting at liberals about Darfur, now that takes balls.
And btw, i was in florida for 2 weeks registering voters in august '04, whats your contribution Dolo_yeung????
No doubt I don't take the time nor the effort to have the lengthy bibliography you have with your research. What I post here is my opinions based on my experiences and what I see in my everyday life.
Your opinions based on everyday life are yours. Like your feelings they can't be right or wrong.
The fact that your opinions are based on your limited everyday life experiences, and not facts in the larger world, makes them impossible to argue. I remember writing a long response to one of your opinions. Your response was "that maybe true, but it is not what I hear from my friends".
A case in point is your opinion that most/many/some soulstrutters support extreme Islamic fundamentalist practices that include stonings and gang rapes. If you took the time to research this practice, that we all find repugnant, you would see that liberal human rights groups are in the forefront of trying to eradicate these practices. But you don't because knowing what you are talking about might change your closely held opinions. So how did you come to the conclusion that Strutters support these abuses? I am going to guess that since we don't support all out war with the Muslim world we must support these practices.
Other than that I love you, man.
Thanks for the honest reply....
I've learned a lesson and have spent the last day researching the Muslim/Rape issue.
While I don't think ANYONE supports the radical fundamentalist action of stoning someone to death, I could not find a Muslim Law/Theocracy that DOESN'T use torture(100 lashes) or death(hanging, firing squad, beheading, stoning, etc.) as an option to punish both rapists and Adulterers.
While there appears to be some alternatives(A victim or their family may choose to spare the guilty party and take a monetary settlement), torture seems to be inherent, in one form or another, in every country governed by Muslim law ranging from Iran to Nigeria.
If this is incorrect, someone please enlighten me.
But if it is correct, my statement is simply how can we respect a religion that uses/promotes torture, yet disrespect me for suggesting the same thing??
As far as me saying "that maybe true, but it is not what I hear from my friends". I don't remember that reply, and I have no friends.
And...... I love you too man!!!!
And belated props to ODub for at least having the balls/courtesy of telling me that no one likes me here.....I'm sure there is a PM I Don't Like Rockadelic movement out there....and I'm not offended by it in the least.
Comments
check this :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/ignoring-colbert-part-tw_b_20130.html
also includes a transcript of Colbert's speech
Yup. That was my favorite too.
seems like much ado about nothing.
Funny, but nothing to far off from what he puts on TV every night.
I can't believe people are offended by this...
Cosign, not really offensive at all. I thought it was funny, but not ground breaking.
True, but I tend to think its unlike anything the Prez has ever heard before, hence the significance
I wouldn't bet on it--the dude seems extraordinarily divorced from the types of media that most Americans consume.
I'm not even confident he's ever logged onto the internet.
"meng crush"
Yeah, I don't know if he'd even "get" either of those shows, but I'm sure they're checking it out now
About 7-8 mins into the first clip it seems the audience realizes they're not supposed to find him amusing and clams up, then it shows the president making a stern face.
this was "offensive" to republicans in the same way the nuremberg trials were offensive to nazis. nothing was groundbreaking about colbert's comments, but that's not the point. he just told the emperor that he was wearing no clothes. the press took the worst beating and it was a dinner for the press.
I was once driving behind a huge Dodge Ram dual-ie pickup, with a set of brass balls hanging from the trailer hitch.
The bumper sticker read: "George W. Bush: All Hat/ No Cattle."
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
Remember- it is TREASON not to speak out against the president- a Republican told me so.
It's one thing to debate divergent political views.
We've moved beyond the typical (conservative vs. liberal) debate about, say, the role of the the Federal Government.
This shit is much more serious.
i was trying to sound smart and i failed! maybe i meant plussed?
welcome to soulstrut. you're in good company.
i welcomed myself with stupidity long long ago...
Your opinions based on everyday life are yours. Like your feelings they can't be right or wrong.
The fact that your opinions are based on your limited everyday life experiences, and not facts in the larger world, makes them impossible to argue. I remember writing a long response to one of your opinions. Your response was "that maybe true, but it is not what I hear from my friends".
A case in point is your opinion that most/many/some soulstrutters support extreme Islamic fundamentalist practices that include stonings and gang rapes. If you took the time to research this practice, that we all find repugnant, you would see that liberal human rights groups are in the forefront of trying to eradicate these practices. But you don't because knowing what you are talking about might change your closely held opinions. So how did you come to the conclusion that Strutters support these abuses? I am going to guess that since we don't support all out war with the Muslim world we must support these practices.
Other than that I love you, man.
Jon Stewart Defends Colbert's Dinner Speech
By E&P Staff
Published: May 01, 2006 11:20 PM ET
NEW YORK Probably to no one's surprise, Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," hailed the performance of his stablemate Stephen Colbert at Saturday night's White House Correspondents dinner. Colbert's lampooning of the president and the press has generated a good deal of praise and criticism.
"It was balls-alicious," Stewart said. "Apparently he was under the impression that they'd hired him to do what he does every night on television" -- that is, make fun of conservatives, public officials, and the press in the guise of an O'Reillyesque talk show host.
"We've never been prouder of him, but HOLY ----," Stewart added.
He also described the annual dinner as "where the President and the press corps consummate their loveless marriage." [/b]
Colbert then followed Stewart, on his own show, "The Colbert Report," describing the "honor of appearing" at the big dinner. He said the room was full of "power players," so he "fit right in."
"Best of all, I got to meet my main man, President Bush," he said, and even had a chance to shake his hand. "He has very soft hands," Colbert revealed, "which was surprising. He must wear gloves when he is clearing brush."
Colbert made fun of his mixed reception at the dinner, re-running the tape of one of his jokes with the audience barely reacting. He described this as "very respectful silence," and said that actually the crowd loved him.
"They practically carried me out on their shoulders," he said, "even though I wasn't ready to go."
I don't know about you but if I were going to be personally insulting, say, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES while he was sitting 15 FEET AWAY, I'd be just a little nervous.
Call me crazy.
Not to mention that when he wasn't zinging Bush, he was going at the press--you know, the people in the audience.
wrong!!!! i have already said this, but there is NO precedent for the way Colbert shoved bush's lies up his ass. this wasn't a cutesy performance. almost every line was a direct attack at bush or his obedient press corps. if you don't get it, than you are ignorant, which is no suprise, considering your comments on this board. this wasn't filmed on the set of Colbert's show, it was at a dinner for the sycophantic press who cover the president. bush was stuck on that stage and forced to sit there like a complete ass, while colbert ripped him a new one.
take your comments to the rush limbaugh board.
Damn - this one calls for a "U MAD?" regardless if I agree with the sentiments expressed or not.
What about this administration doesn't make you mad??
Motion seconded. It was certainly ballsy and got me feeling good.
Not to beat a dead horse, but how is mocking Bush for twenty minutes to his face not ballsy? Any minute this guys going to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, I can feel it, so far his complete lack of any sign of logical reasoning is inspiring a new found respect in me for the coherent conservatives around here like Vitamin, even if I still think they are apologists for what will be viewed as one of the worst presidents and most destructive foreign policies of all time. Getting at liberals about Darfur, now that takes balls.
And btw, i was in florida for 2 weeks registering voters in august '04, whats your contribution Dolo_yeung????
Thanks for the honest reply....
I've learned a lesson and have spent the last day researching the Muslim/Rape issue.
While I don't think ANYONE supports the radical fundamentalist action of stoning someone to death, I could not find a Muslim Law/Theocracy that DOESN'T use torture(100 lashes) or death(hanging, firing squad, beheading, stoning, etc.) as an option to punish both rapists and Adulterers.
While there appears to be some alternatives(A victim or their family may choose to spare the guilty party and take a monetary settlement), torture seems to be inherent, in one form or another, in every country governed by Muslim law ranging from Iran to Nigeria.
If this is incorrect, someone please enlighten me.
But if it is correct, my statement is simply how can we respect a religion that uses/promotes torture, yet disrespect me for suggesting the same thing??
As far as me saying "that maybe true, but it is not what I hear from my friends".
I don't remember that reply, and I have no friends.
And...... I love you too man!!!!
And belated props to ODub for at least having the balls/courtesy of telling me that no one likes me here.....I'm sure there is a PM I Don't Like Rockadelic movement out there....and I'm not offended by it in the least.