|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Phred]
#5578358 - 05/01/06 06:30 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The fact that this thread is over 7 pages and other more intelligent debates in this forum have no replies. This is one of the reasons P&L is going down the shitter.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#5578373 - 05/01/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's the American Idol of PA&L
--------------------
|
KingOftheThing
the cool fool


Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: zappaisgod]
#5579096 - 05/01/06 09:23 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,086
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 29 minutes
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: gluke bastid]
#5579265 - 05/01/06 09:47 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
Quote:
gluke bastid said: The only thing funnier than watching Colbert simultaneously mock the president and the media is laughing at people who think it was another example of some sort of "trend" of Bush-bashing, as if it is unthinkable that hatred for him and his media protection from voices of dissent could be genuine. Some people have no clue
^^
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Phred]
#5581311 - 05/02/06 12:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: They didn't like what he had to say, so they didn't laugh. That's the total extent of the "punishment" he'll receive for his "bravery" -- a lukewarm response from the audience.
Colbert wasn't criticized, or threatened, or given a dressing down afterwards, or anything even close to that. All that happened was that he got perfunctory applause. Bush and the impersonator got laughs (and Colbert didn't) because --
1) they respected the spirit the of the event and Colbert didn't
2) they were funny and Colbert wasn't
Now that the transcripts of the event are available, it's plain that the lack of applause for Colbert wasn't due just to audience discomfort at his crassness, but because his material and delivery weren't all that funny. Some of the stuff reads no differently than a standard rant at the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. Most of the rest of it rises maybe to the level of Margaret Cho (which - for those who have never seen Margaret Cho perform - is no compliment). Yeah, there were a few chuckles in there, but for a professional comedian that was pretty lame stuff. Maybe he does better on the Daily Show (I have no TV so have never seen the Daily Show), but if what he delivered at that gig is representative of his usual work, he'd do well to hire better writers.
Phred
Actually I agree with you 100%, especially about Margaret Cho. She has yet to make me crack a smile. Colbert's routine, if you watch the footage, comes across as pretty tired and uncreative.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero


Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 24 days
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: gluke bastid]
#5581346 - 05/02/06 12:39 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
this board is tired and uncreative.
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
Sporetacus
Swashbuckler

Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 152
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Basilides]
#5584425 - 05/03/06 03:07 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Basilides said: I despise Bush as much as the next man, but something in me felt sorry for him while Colbert was taking shots at him.
I feel more sorry for the soldiers who are getting potshots taken at them for the Bush Admins' money-making agenda.
-------------------- I'm Sporetacus!
|
ebass
Stranger


Registered: 03/15/06
Posts: 387
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Phred]
#5588595 - 05/04/06 12:22 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Ah, but that's the whole point -- it is NOT a "roast". At a roast some guy is targeted and speakers take shots at them.
As for "balls", if he really knew (and I agree with you that he did in fact know -- he's not a fool) how the event works then what he did shows not "balls", but crassness. It takes exactly zero "balls" to criticize Bush. It's the national pastime, for cryin' out loud. It's not as if Colbert were in any danger of being hussled off to a locked room to have the soles of his feet beaten with rubber truncheons. Or even of having his job at Comedy Central vanish. Or even having anyone in the mainstream press say anything the least bit negative about his behavior. No, the only negative consequence he suffered for his breach of protocol was that his act bombed. Not a unique occurrence for a comedian, you have to admit.
What truly could be considered ballsy would be some Iraqi pulling the same stunt on Saddam Hussein at a dinner in Baghdad a few years back.
Phred
He was trying to prove a point that there is no liberal media. Mission accomplished.
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: ebass]
#5589573 - 05/04/06 10:52 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Does anyone else feel that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are right on the edge of slipping into the abyss of sheer hyperbole, or are they there already? 'Liberal media' in what sense? Liberal as in promoting liberty or liberal as in increasing the scope of federal government? Both definitions have been applied to the word liberal, yet they are diametrically opposed.
|
Ythan
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ


Registered: 08/08/97
Posts: 18,774
Loc: NY/MA/VT Borderlands
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Viveka]
#5592300 - 05/04/06 11:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Not really, you need a big powerful government to provide "liberties" like welfare, food stamps and medicare. Neither right nor left is that concerned with real liberties, like leaving people the fuck alone. The liberals spend all your money and the conservatives legislate morality. That's why I don't vote, so I can complain the system doesn't adequately represent me and use that to further justify my lack of participation (to paraphrase Calvin). Actually I don't vote so I don't have to deal with jury duty.
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Ythan]
#5608412 - 05/09/06 11:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Welfare, food stamps and medicare aren't "liberties", they're privileges. Big government cannot provide liberty, it can only refrain from taking it away.
You can say "liberals" spend all your money and while historically that may be true, today the people you would label conservatives like the current administration are spending more money than any administration in history.
You can say conservatives legislate morality but remember that panel of senators wives back in the 80's, the PMRC, that insisted that Zappa and other musicians were corrupting his own and everyone else's children and then used their husbands' influence and money to institute legislation attempting to censor modern music? Were those "conservatives" or "liberals" legislating morality?
You have to admit these terms have become almost meaningless rhetoric. They are more inflammatory than informative and they do more to hinder real communication than to foster it. They imply that everything is polarized and all of a person's ideas can be neatly collected under one heading like iron filings on the end of a magnet.
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer


Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Ythan]
#5608496 - 05/09/06 12:13 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think the bush camp understood that colbert is a satirist whenever they invited him.
whatever though, it was hilarious.
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Viveka]
#5608785 - 05/09/06 01:26 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EvilEye? said: Does anyone else feel that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are right on the edge of slipping into the abyss of sheer hyperbole, or are they there already?

I would go as far as to say that left vs. right politics are no longer a representation of the American people, and that basically what we have instead of a dynamic political system is a spectacle put on by the media and the RNC and the DNC. Instead of either party ever really getting anything done, they simply find a typically meaningless issue in which a debate can be polarized between right and left. Then they trot out their respective pit bulls to argue, and the media covers the whole thing and the public swallows the debate and then go home and argue over the same meaningless issue with whoever they can find on the other side.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: gluke bastid]
#5608991 - 05/09/06 02:28 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I agree. This is a do-nothing government. Real issues are not being addressed and there are urgent matters that need to be addressed before they bloom into full-grown crises.
The difference between the two parties in terms of how they actually govern is not nearly as wide as their rhetoric would lead you to believe. The ideological rhetoric is just red meat for the clueless faithful.
The sad truth is that over time, national politics has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America. A handful of large corporations own and control the major media outlets and the two political parties. They have ensured that no matter who wins they win.
So the public gets its nightly tv dinner consisting of missing-pretty-young-white-female, harrowing police chases, out of control brush fires, celebrity gossip, and shiny objects with an occasional helping of watered-down news to keep them occupied.
Bread and circuses.
Then every four years voters are offered a choice between Coke and Pepsi. You decide.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
AKtoker
Shibby

Registered: 03/08/05
Posts: 200
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: zorbman]
#5609135 - 05/09/06 03:01 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
http://files.ww.com/download.html?id=13904
heres a good link to the video. 15 mins and 10mb in wma format
|
quillini
one meanmotorscooter


Registered: 04/18/06
Posts: 255
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Ythan]
#5609534 - 05/09/06 05:05 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Rock on Stephen Colbert! Oh my fucking great god! That was a riot!
Whoever didn't think that was the funniest shit ever, my god I can't stop laughing. All I'm thinking is, someone needed to say it!
I can't believe what I saw. Bush got SHUT DOWN, clubbed like a baby seal. You know, the bit with the impersonator made me kinda like Bush for a second. I thought, you know, he's actually pretty funny. But in the back of my mind I'm thinking, yeah, he's also a sonofabitch.
Then Colbert takes the stage. And he speaks the truth that no one in the room wanted to hear. I'm not saying it took "balls" or "courage", because there were no serious consequences. But it did take nerves of steel. I mean, you could be courageous but still not maintain your composure, and being courageous is certainly more honorable than having nerve.
But HOT DAMN does Colbert have some nerve!
-------------------- No; truth, being alive, was not halfway between anything. It was only to be found by continuous excursions into either realm, and though proportion is the final secret, to espouse it at the outset is to insure sterility. Only connect...
|
Darcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#5610088 - 05/09/06 07:41 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The_Red_Crayon said: The fact that this thread is over 7 pages and other more intelligent debates in this forum have no replies. This is one of the reasons P&L is going down the shitter.
I may be tripping, but isn't this thread only 4 pages in length?
I am confused, what happened to the other 3 pages?
|
guri
Master of theimprobablitydrive

Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 576
Loc: PNWish.
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: Darcho]
#5611402 - 05/10/06 01:50 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
they are chilling with the wmds...
actually he probably just has his pages set to display a fewer amount of posts and that in turn increases his page count for a thread.
-------------------- "If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? The Beatles were so fucking high, they let Ringo sing a few songs." --Bill Hicks
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: guri]
#5612384 - 05/10/06 12:00 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I love all the whining about the appropriateness from the people who traditionally decry whiners.
funny is funny.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Stephen Colbert talking shit to GW [Re: afoaf]
#5619338 - 05/11/06 10:38 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
here's a good editoral on cobert: http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/hottype/060512/
Quote:
Laugh Riot
Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House press corps dinner threw the gap between the old and new media into stark relief.
In blog time Stephen Colbert’s speech at the April 29 White House correspondents dinner is ancient history, though its glory will live forever. By mainstream-media standards Colbert spoke just the other day, but nothing he said was worth reporting.
The AP story on the dinner that both the Tribune and the Sun-Times carried was a model of mainstream-media construction. Reporter Elizabeth White focused on the royalty instead of the rabble—jokes that President Bush told on himself were the news, not what some professional jester said about him. “President Bush and a lookalike, soundalike sidekick poked fun at the president and fellow politicians,” White reported. It was “twice the fun” for the audience of journalists and guests.
Ten paragraphs in, White reported perfunctorily on the “featured entertainer,” Colbert: “‘I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq,’ Colbert said in a typical zinger. He also paid mock tribute to Bush as a man who ‘believes Wednesday what he believed Monday, despite what happened Tuesday.’”
The Sun-Times trimmed the AP story by editing out Colbert’s quotes, reducing him to a passing reference. It was classic MSM thinking: hey, space is tight, and where’s the news value in a comedian’s quips? But in the blogosphere, where space is infinite and communal wisdom decides what matters, MSM economies garner the contempt Matthew would have been due if his report on the Sermon on the Mount had blown off the beatitudes.
In the days that followed, the Sun-Times, like the Tribune, printed not another word on Colbert—though Sun-Times Washington reporter Lynn Sweet acknowledged him online. When she asserted in her blog that Colbert had disappointed her—“Given the potential material, I expected better”—bloggers’ condemnation rained down. “It was the most electric and searing comic performance in a decade. You are insensate inside.” And “Come clean, Lynn. America is BEGGING for honest journalism.”
To its credit, the Sun-Times slapped together a Colbert package for its Sunday, May 7, Controversy section—an edited text of Colbert’s talk ran alongside an essay by TV critic Doug Elfman, who acknowledged the “blogstorm” and suggested a “newsworthy lead” that MSM reporters (like Elizabeth White—and Sweet, for that matter) hadn’t been sharp enough to write: “It was perhaps the first time in Bush’s tenure that the president was forced to sit and listen to any American cite the litany of criminal and corruption allegations that have piled up against his administration.”
In another part of the paper Paige Wiser weighed in with her usual ingenuous acuity, observing that “what should have been an occasion for laughter has become a political hot button, a media frenzy, a national scandal. Nothing has been taken more seriously than this guy’s little standup routine. . . . Can’t anybody take a joke?”
That media frenzy had produced a new Web site, thankyoustephencolbert.org, a 37 percent jump in ratings for Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, and an announcement on Yahoo’s “buzz log” last Sunday that searches for Colbert had jumped 5,625 percent in the previous week and were still “picking up speed.” But if you hadn’t been online you saw none of it. Stoutly maintaining its obliviousness to Colbert mania right up to the mania’s sell-by date, the Tribune produced a Sunday Perspective section that was all about Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics. This was the sort of editor-driven team journalism the Internet remains incapable of, and frankly, I was happy to read about something besides Colbert. Even so, he’d come and gone, and the Tribune had barely noticed. The Week in Review section of the Sunday New York Times was also Colbert free. The Times left Colbert out of its original coverage of the dinner, carried a piece on the blogstorm on May 3, and then forgot about him. Colbert returned to the Times May 8 in its business pages: C-SPAN, which had aired the dinner live and was marketing the DVD for $24.95, was telling other Web sites that had posted the video of the speech to take it down.
If this skirmish between old media and new had spent itself, never was the line between the two so clear. The old offers coverage, the new conversation. The old doesn’t like being part of the story and shrinks from characters like Colbert who insist it is. The new—like a colony of ants swarming over a dead wren—can’t separate its rapt attention to a story from the story. If the AP had written the story the bloggers were collectively ratifying, it could have begun like this: “Truth was finally spoken to power Saturday night in Washington D.C., humiliating a fitfully laughing audience that consisted of the president of the United States and hundreds of squirming journalists. Power had no comment afterward.”
The Opinionator is a New York Times-maintained blog that hailed Colbert as it drew withering fire on the Times itself. “Stephen Colbert’s remarks were so scathing,” said one contributor, “that none of the sycophants amongst the assembled would have dared to laugh for fear of being demoted or marginalized. The comedic tension he created simply blew the room away. It wasn’t a high score on the laff-o-meter he sought. Nope, he had a loftier ambition. (TO TELL THE TRUTH.)”
This comment touched on a crucial point: Colbert didn’t leave ’em rolling in the aisles. Which is why, when virtually overnight the Internet exploded, the original subject wasn’t truth and power. It was whether Colbert was actually funny.
Did Colbert deliver Swiftian irony or leaden sarcasm? Did a craven press corps laugh less than it should have or as much as Colbert deserved? Was the laughter tepid because the press corps was also the target of Colbert’s irony/sarcasm or because it felt embarrassed for President Bush, Colbert’s main target, sitting just a few feet away? Was their embarrassment gallant, or did it betray the corps’ toady status?
And by the way, why was Antonin Scalia laughing so hard? And George Clooney not laughing at all?
Big questions. Questions ultimately transcended but never settled, not even by the gawker.com poll that saw Colbert’s performance called “one of the most patriotic acts I’ve witnessed of any individual” by 87.9 percent of people who voted and “not really that funny” by the rest.
But they were questions posed by the new media and ignored by the old. This schism may call for another C.P. Snow, a scientist and author who made a career along the last century’s cultural fault line. “A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists,” he wrote. “Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’”
The law of entropy was founded on the observation that dis-equilibriums resolve themselves. Hot things cool off. Cold things get tepid. Concentrations of energy disperse and diffuse. This Monday the Newspaper Association of America reported that, according to the most recent figures, daily circulation had dropped by another 2.5 percent but visits to the papers’ Web sites had climbed by 8 percent. Energy is shifting. A new equilibrium is out there somewhere in the future.
When Washington Post political reporter Dana Milbank fielded questions online on May 5, most were about Colbert. Except they weren’t questions—they were pronouncements. The first had the press sitting idly by as Colbert was “revealing the truth about their complicity with the White House.” Another had the Post “and the rest of the White house lap dogs [sweeping] Republican shenanigans under the rug.” Milbank tried to give as good as he got, replying that he’d forward the latter complaint “to my colleagues Sue Schmidt, who won the Pulitzer last month for the Abramoff story, and to Dana Priest, who won the Pulitzer for exposing the administration’s secret prisons.”
Unfortunately, Milbank thought Colbert “wasn’t terribly funny.” Someone in Chicago set him straight. “It’s not whether Colbert was funny or not. . . . It’s that either way, nobody in the media reported it. THAT’s what’s troubling—sound, intelligent dissent going down the memory hole.”
As if.
|
|