Quake3World

all the cable shows r crying about colbert crossed the line and/or just wasn't funny...

lol right!...morons...

... so the media is actually talking about it now?

People say it took balls to do what Colbert did. As far as I can tell, Colbert stuck to his usual routine. The ballsy one was the person who invited him.

Dave wrote:People say it took balls to do what Colbert did. As far as I can tell, Colbert stuck to his usual routine. The ballsy one was the person who invited him.

Well, doing that routine in front of a very liberal late night crowd is very different from doing it in a room full of republicans. I think it did take some balls.

But yeah, who the fuck invited Colbert? Lol.

from these 'step over the line' reactions anyone would think bush was royality and deserved hushed deference from the media, rather than being an elected servant of the people who needed to be held accountable

fucking wingnuts

seremtan wrote:from these 'step over the line' reactions anyone would think bush was royality and deserved hushed deference from the media, rather than being an elected servant of the people who needed to be held accountable

fucking wingnuts

you mean god didn't elect bush?

no, god intended bush to be president
and his plan, as always, worked

Dave wrote:People say it took balls to do what Colbert did. As far as I can tell, Colbert stuck to his usual routine. The ballsy one was the person who invited him.

LOL. You don't think it took balls to say all those snide things directly into the face of the most powerful man on the planet?

I don't know if the person who invited him was brave, or an idiot, or had a death wish, but I know it took balls to do what Colbert did. He sure made quite a few enemies with that little monologue - and most people in the country will never even see it.

Just because he says similar things every day in front of an audience that's loyal to him - and anti-administration to boot - I wouldn't say that is any reason to diminish what he did at the dinner.

"I've been there before, and I can see that he is [angry]," said a former top aide. "He's got that look that he's ready to blow."

can u said owned?...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/artic ... hwatch.htm

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:People say it took balls to do what Colbert did. As far as I can tell, Colbert stuck to his usual routine. The ballsy one was the person who invited him.

LOL. You don't think it took balls to say all those snide things directly into the face of the most powerful man on the planet?

I don't know if the person who invited him was brave, or an idiot, or had a death wish, but I know it took balls to do what Colbert did. He sure made quite a few enemies with that little monologue - and most people in the country will never even see it.

Just because he says similar things every day in front of an audience that's loyal to him - and anti-administration to boot - I wouldn't say that is any reason to diminish what he did at the dinner.

What's Bush going to do, sic the black helicopters on him? lol... He might get audited, that's it. It's not like comedy central or the daily show expect to get members of the administration on their show or network with their track record.

seremtan wrote:from these 'step over the line' reactions anyone would think bush was royality and deserved hushed deference from the media, rather than being an elected servant of the people who needed to be held accountable

fucking wingnuts

exactly... the president might be an institution, but the lady of the lake did not give him power. We did and we can tell him whatever we want.

Dave wrote:What's Bush going to do, sic the black helicopters on him? lol... He might get audited, that's it. It's not like comedy central or the daily show expect to get members of the administration on their show or network with their track record.

How do you know what the president can and can not do to someone?
If what Colbert did was not a big deal then why does it not happen more often?

lol@bush...

Dave wrote:exactly... the president might be an institution, but the lady of the lake did not give him power. We did and we can tell him whatever we want.

That's the idea, but the system by which this is supposed to be accomplished is clearly not working.

Dave wrote:

seremtan wrote:from these 'step over the line' reactions anyone would think bush was royality and deserved hushed deference from the media, rather than being an elected servant of the people who needed to be held accountable

fucking wingnuts

exactly... the president might be an institution, but the lady of the lake did not give him power. We did and we can tell him whatever we want.

Somebody publicly does what noone else in the country with the same opportunities has had the courage to do, and you want to insist that it requires no courage to do it, simply because a sacred 200-year old document outlines the fact that everyone should be able to do the same?

That hardly seems a fair standard to hold someone up to in these times.

By that reasoning you could say that Martin Luther King didn't neccessarily have any courage, because his dream was the way things should have been to start with.

Freakaloin wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:the skit at the end was funny as shit...unless ur a moron...

The ending skit was truly unfunny on the whole, I agree, but his attempt at unfunny funny sometimes succeeds in being funny (within the skit). ComprendO?

actually moron its really funny but u have to watch the wh daily press conferences all the time to enjoy it...most morons don't...

most of us have jobs and are not stay at home moms....moron

u can watch it on the web moron anytime u want...

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:

seremtan wrote:from these 'step over the line' reactions anyone would think bush was royality and deserved hushed deference from the media, rather than being an elected servant of the people who needed to be held accountable

fucking wingnuts

exactly... the president might be an institution, but the lady of the lake did not give him power. We did and we can tell him whatever we want.

Somebody publicly does what noone else in the country with the same opportunities has had the courage to do, and you want to insist that it requires no courage to do it, simply because a sacred 200-year old document outlines the fact that everyone should be able to do the same?

That hardly seems a fair standard to hold someone up to in these times.

By that reasoning you could say that Martin Luther King didn't neccessarily have any courage, because his dream was the way things should have been to start with.

MLK's plan was to lead a "non-violent" march into one of the most racially charged cities in the United States and create more tension (his word)--enabling violence. Talk about misleading, but I digress... It doesn't take cahones or balls or whatever euphemism people can dream up to tell Bush to his face that he fucked up. You can call it contingency, but it's not courageous.

Oh and MLK took a chance that flirted with death or serious injury... Nothing will happen to Colbert

huevos. what Colbert did took huevos.

mjrpes wrote:huevos. what Colbert did took huevos.

hur hur.. i couldn't think of any other words besides nuts