TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Big Things Said Through Humor - Colbert Rips Bush, In Person
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Uh. Whether or not I do think he is the puppetmaster didn't have anything to do with my argument with what you said. I said given that most of what we think about the government will never really be proven true or false by fact, we should use rationality to logically think about or government without become to delusional by emotion, public image, or values.

and i've logically deduced that Cheney remains the VP, in spirit and duties, nothing more. you want to plead your minority report? start a thread smart guy.

quote:

Then you try to the typically bully tactic to try to spin the subject from its original meaning. Spinning the argument and bullying is not how to argue rationally, BTW.

you don't like the tactic? tuff noogies. look who i was flippin dealing here.
spin is saying that "we won't ever really know" and "most people aren't as delusional as you" accusing some one of having "irrational logic" for having a desenting opinion then turning around "BTW i do think Cheney and Rumsfeld are blah blah blah". but i found out where you stand. finally. which leads me to...

quote:

PS. I do think Cheney and Rumsfeld are the men behind the curtain, Bush is just the guy the knew they could get elected becuase Bush initially already had a large amount of connections in the political world. Do you honestly, and think hard about this, think that Bush would have done the things he has done wityhout help from a family name? Do you think if he was born to an average middle class family, that he could have risen to the status he is at now, gone to Yale, made all the connections he did, and push through to the presidency?

...your so confident are ya smarty pants? thread it. or stfu and stay on topic

these are a few of my favorites.




The "Merciless"

The "Drawer of Blood"

The "Guerilla Fighter Master of the Old-World-Art of Irony" (true irony is his thing )

The "Grandmaster"

Opus will be taking donations for the statue by Paypal.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 No, the skit was a direct attack & bullseye hit on the powers that be. There are plenty in the would right now that would have given anything to be alone in a room with the ears of some of those people. Colbert achieved this, in representation of the 60+% of the country that hasn't been able to turn any of those heads. He is a hero. While not a comprehensive thesis dissertation, it does warrant commentary because it serves as a symbol that these elitists can't just go about their routines as normal and pat themselves on the back. Some how, some where, it is going to come back at them and bite them in the ass. This time that happened in the form of Stephen Colbert. It couldn't have been executed more eloquently as he crashed their high-and-mighty circle jerk, force-feeding everybody their own feet. No one in that room can plead ignorance. They were force fed their own disgusting realities right before us. It IS that big a deal because now they know we know, and we know they know we know. The rules of the game can change when everybody knows everybody knows. This is why the media have tried to downplay the event and it hasn't received widespread coverage. Yes it was all possible because of a comedian from Comedy Central. Don't be jealous. It was a brilliant display of the great country we live in, where anyone, given the right opportunity, can make a difference. We'll see if anyone in the room that night decides to answer the call and follow suit.

Ummm ... ok. Apparently I missed whatever speech it was that you saw. I saw a funny skit, not a paradigm shift in the way this country operates. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that everyone woke up Monday morning business as usual.

I agree. Let's not get carried away here. I love what Colbert did, however you can't possible say anything that he mentioned was a.) new or informative b.) was backed by anything other than Colbert's own opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic �I thought some of it was funny, but I think it got a little rough,� Hoyer said. �He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect.�

Yeah, that's pretty weak. Men are entitled to respect based on their actions, not their title, and I can't think of too much that Bush has done over the past 5 years that he "deserves" to be respected for.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm ... ok. Apparently I missed whatever speech it was that you saw. I saw a funny skit, not a paradigm shift in the way this country operates.

It may not have been a paradigm shift in itself, but I think it's certainly indicative of a major paradigm shift in US political discourse over the past couple of years. I mean seriously, could you have imagined this sort of thing happening even 18 months ago? The Republican Party, under this administration, has been able to assert itself and place itself above criticism by using the very effective twin tactics of smearing and intimidation, so to see people now standing up to them aggressively is really very heartening. The administration has built itself up on a foundation of bullshit and it's people like Colbert and Jon Stewart - not the servile press corp - that have been able to expose and undermine that recently, and this speech is the best possible example of that. The GOP have lost their aura of irreproachable supremecy recently, and now that the Rovian "smear and intimidate" tactics aren't working, they're left looking deservedly exposed and humiliated.

Oh and sorry to hear about McClellan, man. He will be missed.

I remember when Jon Stewart single-handedly got Crossfire canceled. Many talk shows have had many guests but very few of those guests can brag about successfully downing the show on purpose. This was a major talk show on a corporate powerhouse cable television company. These guys have more power than some are willing to admit. Like they don't have the backgrounds of someone worthy to the cause so their efforts are downplayed.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The skit was a venture into comedy and humor ... that's it. It's not a comprehensive thesis dissertation that warrants commentary beyond "it was funny" or "it wasn't funny" and the elements that make it so. Personally I thought it was hiliarious. Especially at how in character Colbert was despite the vip audience and the lukewarm/uncomfortable reactions he received from crowd at some of his jokes. All in all I think it was an overwhelming success ... I mean for ffs how many other white hoouse correspondence dinners generated this much attention and interest?

+1

I've been a JS fan since maybe 2003 or so. Colberts show I've seen since the beginning.

I get my tv news from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Lewis Black is another guy I watch out for.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I remember when Jon Stewart single-handedly got Crossfire canceled. Many talk shows have had many guests but very few of those guests can brag about successfully downing the show on purpose. This was a major talk show on a corporate powerhouse cable television company. These guys have more power than some are willing to admit. Like they don't have the backgrounds of someone worthy to the cause so their efforts are downplayed.

The video

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Colbert sucked. btw i'm a fan of the Colbert Report. and some of his jokes were pretty funny. he didn't suck that bad.

Think about the above closely, then fix your flaws, if your code allows for it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Think about the above closely, then fix your flaws, if your code allows for it.

okay i'll bite.
what flaws?

...and don't tell me what to think because it's my post, so i'm obviously happy with it's content.

you tell me. i'm not a mind reader.

if your just pissed because i didn't like Colbert's skit as much as you did, or didn't right a way swing from his nuts like some people here did then i'm truly sorry.

i laughed...i cried...IT WAS BETTER THAN "Cats"!!!!
is that better?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It may not have been a paradigm shift in itself, but I think it's certainly indicative of a major paradigm shift in US political discourse over the past couple of years. I mean seriously, could you have imagined this sort of thing happening even 18 months ago? The Republican Party, under this administration, has been able to assert itself and place itself above criticism by using the very effective twin tactics of smearing and intimidation, so to see people now standing up to them aggressively is really very heartening. The administration has built itself up on a foundation of bullshit and it's people like Colbert and Jon Stewart - not the servile press corp - that have been able to expose and undermine that recently, and this speech is the best possible example of that. The GOP have lost their aura of irreproachable supremecy recently, and now that the Rovian "smear and intimidate" tactics aren't working, they're left looking deservedly exposed and humiliated.

Could I have imagined such a thing happen 18 months ago? Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, I would contend that the pre-eminent incidents of standing up to this administration DID happen as far back as 18 months ago. Ok yea Colbert made a few funny jokes that attacked the administration. Big fucking whoop. I'm sure it only helped to further his career. People have actually sacrificed their careers and their reputations to stand up against this administration's ineptitude ... and the part that matters the most ... unlike Colbert, their actions have probably contributed to something TANGIBLE towards the cause of affecting change ... not just preaching to the choir. I'm talking about former administration officials, insiders, and former generals ... people who most likely know a hell of a lot more about what they're talking about and thus have commanded more respect and weight behind their words. People like Clarke, Swannack, Zinni, Eaton, etc.

There's a long list of former administration officials who have spoken out over the past 2 years that have probably done a lot more to convince congress, the press, and the american public to demand more from this administration than Colbert's satirical speech. So pardon me if I don't get too excited about the impact of comedy central.

quote:

Oh and sorry to hear about McClellan, man. He will be missed.

A true visionary. Snow better have taken notes.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Could I have imagined such a thing happen 18 months ago? Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, I would contend that the pre-eminent incidents of standing up to this administration DID happen as far back as 18 months ago. Ok yea Colbert made a few funny jokes that attacked the administration. Big fucking whoop. I'm sure it only helped to further his career. People have actually sacrificed their careers and their reputations to stand up against this administration's ineptitude ... and the part that matters the most ... unlike Colbert, their actions have probably contributed to something TANGIBLE towards the cause of affecting change ... not just preaching to the choir. I'm talking about former administration officials, insiders, and former generals ... people who most likely know a hell of a lot more about what they're talking about and thus have commanded more respect and weight behind their words. People like Clarke, Swannack, Zinni, Eaton, etc. There's a long list of former administration officials who have spoken out over the past 2 years that have probably done a lot more to convince congress, the press, and the american public to demand more from this administration than Colbert's satirical speech. So pardon me if I don't get too excited about the impact of comedy central.

Not that I disagree with you, but if you look at this in a wider perspective than just the 15 minutes of Dubya roasting, namely also the full assault on the US press that constituted the last 10 minutes of his routine, how would you then rate this as paradigmatically challenging? Sure, Stewart did the Crossfire thing, but apart from that, has anyone so vocally made it clear that the laurels the US press is sitting on has gone bad? Has anyone forced the press to look at its own role in allowing the Bush administration to fuck you up? I think the answer to those questions are "no", and that at the same time is the reason why the MSM has mostly ignored or put down what I see as a good performance.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Not that I disagree with you, but if you look at this in a wider perspective than just the 15 minutes of Dubya roasting, namely also the full assault on the US press that constituted the last 10 minutes of his routine, how would you then rate this as paradigmatically challenging? Sure, Stewart did the Crossfire thing, but apart from that, has anyone so vocally made it clear that the laurels the US press is sitting on has gone bad? Has anyone forced the press to look at its own role in allowing the Bush administration to fuck you up? I think the answer to those questions are "no", and that at the same time is the reason why the MSM has mostly ignored or put down what I see as a good performance.

Here is my honest opinion: You don't affect change in a western, democratic press by pointing out flaws in the press. Yes the US press could be more hostile but it's not missing out on critical deficiencies that make it irrelevant or demonstrably sub par. Are there scoops that the main european press is getting that the US isn't ? You affect change by drawing more audience and getting better stories with good newscasting and reporting. This is what Murrow did in the 50's. If what Colbert did is the latest trend in journalistic evolution I'm going to be extremely depressed.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here is my honest opinion: You don't affect change in a western, democratic press by pointing out flaws in the press. Yes the US press could be more hostile but it's not missing out on critical deficiencies that make it irrelevant or demonstrably sub par. Are there scoops that the main european press is getting that the US isn't ? You affect change by drawing more audience and getting better stories with good newscasting and reporting. This is what Murrow did in the 50's. If what Colbert did is the latest trend in journalistic evolution I'm going to be extremely depressed.

I don't think we disagree much - I'm just saying that harsh public criticism of the press such as delivered by Colbert, I haven't seen before, and therefore, the appearance *could* be indicative of a new trend (or a paradigm shift if you prefer those terms).

With regards to the side issue about the "big scoops" and the European press, I think that the Downing Street Memo took some time to get to the US press? In any case, the members of the European press have traditionally been openly politically aligned, and do not strive for the appearance of objectivity, which to me seems to be the case in the US. Moreover, the importance of a "scoop" is not of as great importance over here (maybe because people often consult the press to get their view on the matter, c.f. the part about being openly political, rather than the actual piece of news), and consequently, reporters are harder to bully by threatening to talk to other reporters first in the future. I remember a case from december where the Bush administration had been trying to get papers to hold back on some stories, and in the end managed to convince the editors that certain parts should be left out. I have a hard time imagining that sort of thing happening in Denmark. It would be the death of any politician who was caught in interfering with the press (see e.g. the former Swedish foreign minister).

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I don't think we disagree much - I'm just saying that harsh public criticism of the press such as delivered by Colbert, I haven't seen before, and therefore, the appearance *could* be indicative of a new trend (or a paradigm shift if you prefer those terms). With regards to the side issue about the "big scoops" and the European press, I think that the Downing Street Memo took some time to get to the US press? In any case, the members of the European press have traditionally been openly politically aligned, and do not strive for the appearance of objectivity, which to me seems to be the case in the US. Moreover, the importance of a "scoop" is not of as great importance over here (maybe because people often consult the press to get their view on the matter, c.f. the part about being openly political, rather than the actual piece of news), and consequently, reporters are harder to bully by threatening to talk to other reporters first in the future. I remember a case from december where the Bush administration had been trying to get papers to hold back on some stories, and in the end managed to convince the editors that certain parts should be left out. I have a hard time imagining that sort of thing happening in Denmark. It would be the death of any politician who was caught in interfering with the press (see e.g. the former Swedish foreign minister).

Well let me ask you something ... is there a "Colbert" or "Stewart" among the European press? Have there been issues or scandals in America that have been treated differently in coverage than the European press coverage of European scandals? For example, how has the French Clearstream affair been treated differently? I'm genuinely curious. I read the Washington Post, the Economist, and the BBC and to be frank, I can barely differentiate the three except that the economist doesn't take any efforts to hide its less than objective stance on issues (which is refreshing because they're not afraid to say what they think). I agree with respect to the NY times holding back the wiretapping story at Bush's request. That is something I wouldn't expect the European press to do, and I was rather astonished that the NY times agreed to do. Particularly since it was not pertinent to national security in any way whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Particularly since it was not pertinent to national security in any way whatsoever.

well that explains why you place less emphasis on objectivity in your choice of press. funny, because i think you are one of the more objective posters in this forum.

that statement tells me a lot about what you find newsworthy or sources you consider newsworthy, and what you find gratification of whatever self important philosophies you hold.

i know that sounds harsh (i am a little tipsy on cheap wine) but i consider it something we are all guilty of.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well that explains why you place less emphasis on objectivity in your choice of press. funny, because i think you are one of the more objective posters in this forum. that statement tells me a lot about what you find newsworthy or sources you consider newsworthy, and what you find gratification of whatever self important philosophies you hold. i know that sounds harsh (i am a little tipsy on cheap wine) but i consider it something we are all guilty of.

Let's make sure we have perfect clarification here (I've consumed an ungodly amount of smirnoff and I want to make sure edifictation is at the forefront), I regarded the NY times rationale for withholding the NSA story as unfounded because it had very little basis to be withheld from the press from a national security standpoint. Is there any reason why it should have been? Is there any justification whatsoever to believe that terrorists did not believe that the NSA, CIA, and SIGINT were NOT devoted towards ferreting out their operations? Is there any substantive theory that they did not know about loopholes in FISA that they can NOW, currently exploit??? I find it VERY newsworthy that our government is conducting domestic espionage in what I perceive to be in violation of the law. I could care less what leaning this government is on paper. I take issue with what they are actually doing in person.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well let me ask you something ... is there a "Colbert" or "Stewart" among the European press?

Hmm. In Denmark there is a couple of shows - both of them by real reporters - which take the stand-up comedian/talkshow host angle on current politics, but I wouldn't compare that with Stewart and Colbert (whom I see mainly as comedians, with a passionate hate for Washington). Come to think of it, I think that maybe in Denmark, comedians are the ones that have to strive for objectivity - practically all the popular ones have fans on both the left and the right, and they try to cater to both groups. The press, on the other hand, when writing heavily commented pieces, write solely for people who share their perception.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Have there been issues or scandals in America that have been treated differently in coverage than the European press coverage of European scandals? For example, how has the French Clearstream affair been treated differently?

Hmm, I don't follow the French press much (as I don't understand the language) except for those stories that make it onto EuroNews. To be totally honest, though, I don't understand your question: Do you want examples of US-scandals that have been treated differently in European press or of European scandals? I do have examples of the European press being vicious in targetting European politicians and companies. In Denmark it is not uncommon for a minister to be replaced because of irregularities dug up by the press. In these very weeks, we have a mayor and MP who's probably going to spend time in jail because of creative accounting - a case discovered by reporters. We also have court cases running on our current PM and previous PM for violating our constitution (although none of the cases seem to be successful). I think that contrasts with the consequences one see in the US (at least as they appear through the blogs I read and the Daily Show). It appears that no-one is going to face trial because of the wiretappings. The oil-executives are not going to be confronted with illegal collaboration. The Plame-gate affair stops at Libby. And - what I find problematic - there seems to be no outrage in the MSM. We haven't have scandals of quite the same callibre in Denmark, but our media keeps digging in those cases that we do have.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I read the Washington Post, the Economist, and the BBC and to be frank, I can barely differentiate the three except that the economist doesn't take any efforts to hide its less than objective stance on issues

I think the BBC's opinion is pretty clear when you contrast its stories with how they're reported elsewhere. Omissions tend to be made, whenever the story in full supports a right wing policy.

You know, despite how well or not well Stephen did at the speech. The truely classic moment is when just as Stephen Colbert was being intruduced, President Bush turned his head slowly towards Stephen. It was the most classic "oh-shit-I-don't-know-about-this-guy" head turn I've seen in a while.

That enough made it good.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.