IN THE COMMENTS: Quaestor said...
Some impression[s] I've formed on this matter:
1) A disgusting and puerile corruption of the legislative process. Thank you Colbert, the Comedy Channel, and the Democratic Party (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Comedy Channel) for your efforts to uplift the cultural milieu of our heretofore tawdry government.
2) Colbert has been jealous of Jon Stewert's bottom line for years. Being a witness before a Congressional committee adds product recognition at taxpayer's expense.
3) A "Punch 'n Judy" show aimed to distract the MSM from Christopher Coates testimony before the Civil Rights Commission.
4) Witnesses before Congressional committees are typically sworn. Is Colbert liable to perjury charges?
Posts
144 comments:
And-we have our theme o' the day.
******************
On a serious note, however-this is beyond Kabuki Theatre.
What would you call this?
The Dems have been using Hollywood as their tool, and now it looks like the tool used them.
watching this i am reminded of what it was like to babysit my niece.
now my niece was, as a little girl, one of the cutest things you ever saw. really. you have no idea. and as a result she was constantly funny.
even when she did something really bad.
like one time she met a boy in day school. he was visiting for the day to see how he would do. and they were good friends by the end of the day. she even hugged him and he was smitten.
Then like 2 weeks later he comes back to be a permanent student.
and my niece was so mad at him for being away she walked right up and punched him. devastated the poor kid.
it was hilarious and utterly inappropriate.
so when my niece would do something like that, i would literally put my hand over my mouth and hope she couldn't see i was trying not to laugh.
colbert was funny.
but it was completely inappropriate.
part of me wants to laugh.
And part of me is dismayed at everyone who disrespected this institution today.
and all distracting us from the fact that the DOJ apparently will only enforce the laws against people of a certain race.
nobody likes being the straight man in a bit.
Colbert needs T-P for his bunghole.
That Colbert. He sure showed that Republican from Iowa. Didn't he.
Remember when Tony Stark did this very same thing?
madawaskan said...
And-we have our theme o' the day.
******************
On a serious note, however-this is beyond Kabuki Theatre.
What would you call this?
The Dems have been using Hollywood as their tool, and now it looks like the tool used them.
Tool is the most apt word imaginable.
Comrade X said...
nobody likes being the straight man in a bit.
Except for Jack Benny and Bud Abbott.
So nothing "productive" happened for the whole hour, or half-hour, that Colbert was testifying.
hmm ...
Works for me. I like it.
Many have said for quite some time that we need to have a serious debate regarding immigration in America.
Its refreshing to note that that time has now come. Mr. Colbert, America salutes you for your bravery in wading into the breach.
Would that there were not more patriots like Mr. Colbert. Men who put personal glory and gain aside and dedicate themselves to the betterment of their fellow man and this United States of America.
The message we got from this.... The Comedy Channel has paid for the naming rights to our Congress and it will be placing cameras in the House and the Senate?
I'm still at a loss here.
GMay said...
I'm still at a loss here.
This is one of those situations where everybody loses.
Some impressioned I've formed on this matter:
1) A disgusting and puerile corruption of the legislative process. Thank you Colbert, the Comedy Channel, and the Democratic Party (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Comedy Channel) for your efforts to uplift the cultural milieu of our heretofore tawdry government.
2) Colbert has been jealous of Jon Stewert's bottom line for years. Being a witness before a Congressional committee adds product recognition at taxpayer's expense.
3) A "Punch 'n Judy" show aimed to distract the MSM from Christopher Coates testimony before the Civil Rights Commission.
4) Witnesses before Congressional committees are typically sworn. Is Colbert liable to perjury charges?
So nothing "productive" happened for the whole hour, or half-hour, that Colbert was testifying.
A productive congress is an expensive congress. Bring on the nonsense, if it keeps those idiots busy for an hour.
They told me if I voted for McCain ...
I don't give a shit. Colbert is not funny and I'm still waiting for him to dedicate half his program to caricatures of left-wing pundits.
Alex is Moby out trolling to suck your balls.
Just sayin, be warned and keep him away from your kids.
What a disgrace.
Could Congress be any more embarrassing for us? I doubt it. They would all have to wear red rubber noses and carry ooogah horns to any more be-clowned.
What a useless pack of idiots. Sometimes I think we SHOULD have let a plane fly into Congress on 911 and wipe out the entire bunch.
as much as i think that congress is a broken institution, it is said to see them allow this to occur. what a f'in joke that they don't even take themselves seriously
I just saw a snippet of his testimony- WTF?! Our govt at work? WTF?
@DBQ
Clowning would be a step up for Congress. We need term limits but they will never vote themselves out of office so we're probably screwed unless the Splodydopes take them out en mass.
Harsh but sadly, true.
Too bad Barney Frank wasn't on the panel to hear the corn packer discussion. He would of course asked to have the record reflect[said w/ a lisp] "The correct term, Madame Chair is shit packer."
"The correct term, Madame Chair is shit packer."
Actually....fudge packer.
I'm holding my sides with the hilarity.
As if they weren't sure enough that we knew what a bunch of time wasting, spendthrift gecks they were, the Democrats pull this stunt. It probably amused the D.C. media elite, though.
Prof. Reynolds is saying that this was an attempt to keep Mr. Coates testimony about racial favoritism at the DOJ out of the headlines.
Does everybody here know what "hippie punching" is? I'd never heard it before. Likewise "teabagging."
The video is not loading (probably due to too much traffic).
Hey, he's a comedian and it's just a few minutes of testimony. It's not like he was elected to the Senate.
I have occasionally watched these sort of proceedings on C-span. And, it's not too unusual to see witnesses that are smarter and more informed than the Congress folks who make stupid statements.
But, the witnesses are not (usually) willing or politically wise to rip apart and harshly mock the Congress folks. It looks like this Hetero sapien (as he identifies himself in the intro graphics to his show) didn't feel the pressure to hold back.
I'd like to see more of this from the serious witnesses. Imagine if these Congress folks went in to these things knowing that their stupidity could result in an extreme verbal thrashing. BTW, this is a bipartisan issue, e.g. Johnson and Guam tipping over.
@Alex
SNL did Chris Matthews for a while, but it wasn't nearly as funny as Colbert's caricature of O'Reilly.
Hey, he's a comedian and it's just a few minutes of testimony. It's not like he was elected to the Senate.
True. So why don't we just give up all pretense that these clowns in Congress have one iota of self respect or respect for the office.
I say we get mimes to testify next. That should be entertaining.
How about Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog to discuss hog farming and EPA warnings about frogs going extinct?
Or maybe play charades.
Or just fucking put on the Kabuki make up and go for the gusto.
Colbert should run for Senator in Minnesota.
The Colbert/Franken team would be a non-stop laff riot, like Abbott and Costello or Ted Kennedy and an Olds Delmont 88.
Plus, I'm sure Franken has some leftover ballots in his trunk, just to put Colbert 'over the top.'
Tri Man,
Speaking of Bill, this was brutal.
Here Stewart goes down a different path than Colbert chose, but he still gets to one of those 'the emperor has no cloths' revelations.
Stewart is earnest, when he's expected to be the joker. But, in the end he punches through the phoniness, just like Colbert did by being a clown in a forum that is supposedly deliberate and serious--contrary to the evidence regularly disseminated by Brian Lamb.
Even the Roman senate when Caligula was emperor was classier than this bunch of clowns--at least caligula made his horse a senator--here we only have a horses ass. Of course this is the house of reps who have even less class than senators
What a sorry spectacle--what a bunch of losers--what a waste of tax payer money. Hang all the bastards. Including Colbert. Just to decorate the gibbet.
Anyone-- whether Congressperson, reporter, blogger, or Joe Schmoe off the street-- who thinks that Colbert's testimony had anything to do with illegal immigrants is mistaken.
It had everything to do with showing how utterly idiotic our political establishment is.
The dysfunction of our national politics is nothing to joke about. Colbert was making an extremely serious point about it by demonstration.
That's not the good show, it's old. This is the new one. It's as cringe worthy as the Colbert thing in Congress, because like Colbert Stewart isn't "playing along."
They have time for comedy, but no time to preserve your tax cuts. Remember that November 2.
But now that the precedent is set, I can't wait to see the testimony of Drew Carey on over-regulation.
Or Rush Limbaugh on practically anything.
Hey, Nero, nice fiddling there!
Dust Bunny Queen,
I worked @ USP Leavenworth. There is some serious shit packing done in maximum security prisons. There are many euphemisms, but "packing shit" was the original. "Fudge packing" was created for women? named "Dust Bunny Queen" to feel more comfortable w/ this quite scatalogical enterprise.
That skank Zoe Lofgren from California saw that every imaginable demographic was fleeing her Party, so she made a grab for the lowest hanging fruit.
What better way to reach the stoners and poli-sci posers than by giving Colbert a Congressional set for his comedy routine?
And these idiots will spend weeks wondering why the country spit them out like a bad oyster on Nov. 2nd.
If Gen. McChrystal testified against illegal immigration, everyone would cry foul: He knows nothing about the subject and he would be using the good will he earned in one arena to win his case in another. It would be cheap and manipulative. So is Colbert's testimony, and the more polished his performance, the more manipulative it is.
Hahahah... Look at Quaestor fumigate.
Doesn't it suck when someone with actual talent and a real sense of humor shows all you Lush Rimbaugh fans how it's really done?
This will be the beginning of a long era of Republican fumigating. All you wet blankets should try running yourselves through a sprinkler. Too much pressure through a garden hose and no one to direct it just leaves a writhing spectacle of wetness.
I'll give him props because that was a pretty tough crowd and he didnt' start fidgeting thinking he had lost the audience. And in truth a few of the jokes I heard (I only had it on for a few minutes) were cute.
But totally innapropriate for a congressional committee. Even worse, considering that it cost upwards of a hundred grand for what was all intents and purposes a comedy show. Why not, in the interest of saving money, have congressional comiittees held at Chuckles. They could get in their eating and drinking while they're at i.
I've heard that the next congressional committee will have Maroon 5 singing about health care (plus their hits). It'll be a blast. Then they're going to get Cirque Du Soleil to perform about the very important issue of funding for aids research. Everyone should get tickets for that. It's going to be a blast.
Ritmo, you sound desperate today.
And please, step away from the horse. Its not that kind of club. And besides, that horse is waiting to be confirmed to the Department of Justice.
Awww, Fen ;-) Do you need to be hosed off as well?
Like the titles for all the "Friends" episodes
The Thread Where Ritmo Did Something With The Horse.
Ah, I see by your deletion you've decided to be a grammar nazi again
but you forgot to proof your own post, again
can we just skip to the part where you beat your fists on the floor and have another meltdown?
It was a duplication due to a glitch in Blogger, as all the other commenters have complained about. But feel free to use material wherever you can find it, seeing as how poor your delivery, timing and talent is.
:-)
(I inserted a smiley face to be like Revenant).
Really. An impression of a Republican is akin to Caligula? That says a lot more about your side than you know.
Fen @6:50 PM said
And besides, that horse is waiting to be confirmed to the Department of Justice.
It's only part of the horse that's waiting to be confirmed.
Ritmo: It was a duplication due to a glitch in Blogger
Right.
And you just happened to use "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" on the same day that a West Wing episode of the same name was playing.
I believe you.
Really.
I don't care if you believe me. The fact is you don't believe anything you're mommy (and daddy?) didn't tell you to believe.
Which leads me to believe that she must have been a really, er, unusual person to have told you to fantasize about pseudonymous people on the internets and imagine watching television shows with them.
Ritmo flailed: "Look at Quaestor fumigate.
This will be the beginning of a long era of Republican fumigating."
VERB: fu·mi·gat·ed, fu·mi·gat·ing, fu·mi·gates
VERB:
tr.
To subject to smoke or fumes, usually in order to exterminate pests or disinfect.
VERB:
intr.
To employ smoke or fumes in order to exterminate or disinfect.
Oh Ritmo, your substance-free comments are so much funnier when you choose your words poorly. And this one rates an 8 on the Chuckle Meter.
Ritmo: An impression of a Republican is akin to Caligula?
WHOOSH.
You'd think someone who "knows" latin could connect the dots. Maybe you can get Martin Sheen to explain it to you.
Ritmo: I don't care if you believe me.
And I dont care that you dont care.
So?
Really, Fen. You do need some new material. I know that's a difficult task for someone as uncreative and dull as yourself, but reach back. Reach deep. Reach into that part of yourself where you imagine yourself being fondled as people you only know through the internets (pseudonymously) watch teevee with you.
You're really making this too easy.
Ritmo: You're really making this too easy.
Ah yes, victory by assertion.
Like I said, you're very desperate today.
The biggest trump card Ritmo and all progressives have is classy envy and their America-hate. They've successfully managed to inculcate the America-hate in schools the last 20 years. I find it fascinating that Ritmo defends Meso-American cultures despite all their evils and depravity. He basically mourns for the fact that they weren't strong enough to fend off the Spanish. Somehow Spain being stronger is evil, whatever.
GMay: Oh Ritmo, your substance-free comments are so much funnier when you choose your words poorly.
You can always tell when Ritmo has misplaced his Thesaurus.
Like I said, you're very desperate today.
More ideas that exist only in your imagination. Just like your constant fantasies of us watching television together.
;-)
Fen, even though you're obviously a flaming homosexual, did you ever watch Tango and Cash? I heard that was a good movie. It's not as trendy as West Wing or Sex in the City (which is your favorite) were, but you might like it.
Human Sacrifice in Aztec Culture
Thank god the Spaniards came and put an end to that depraved "civilization". Oh and the Romans did the same thing to those human-sacrificing, evil Carthaginians 1700 years earlier.
I find so much substance in Fen's comments. A comparison of a parody of a Republican to a horse and another one of his fantasies where he's watching teevee with me.
Of course, it's rich, but not very substantive. And it fits right in with all the other daily bullshit posted here.
Tee Hee!
The tolerant enlightened libtard uses "homosexual" as an insult.
[who has the popcorn?]
Ritmo: A comparison of a parody of a Republican to a horse
No. You're still not getting it.
Can someone please explain the joke to the Libtard, so we can move on?
I was a cherry-picker in Michigan for a couple of weeks, one summer.
That was before kids weren't allowed on ladders.
You won't find it insulting once you finally come out of the closet, ReactionaryTard.
What's the difference between Stephen Colbert and Zoe Lofgren?
One is a national laughingstock who has parlayed over-the-top buffoonery into a lucrative career. And the other has a show on the Comedy Channel.
l'affaire Colbert: it doesn't even feel scandalous. Just dully vulgar and tinny.
"You won't find it insulting once you finally come out of the closet, ReactionaryTard."
I'm out of the "closet" and I find it insulting, but not surprising. Your kind has feigned sympathy and concern for us queers for quite a while, in order to get us to vote for your candidates. You've managed to pull the same con on black Americans for a hell of a long time as well. But let one of us stray out of line, and all the disdain, insult and hatred that's quite alive underneath that supposedly caring dermis comes seeping out the pores.
"Just dully vulgar and tinny."
That's a perfect description for pretty much everything that occurs in contemporary society.
So what is reactionary about being against racial set asides?
Your feigned outrage is almost as intriguing as the kind that FOX Noise types muster every day for different reasons, Palladian.
Fen's sexual orientation is nothing I take umbrage at, as you obviously know when you're thinking more clearly. Nor are his fantasies. But when he wants to continue making me the object of them in public, as a way to make a stupid point about how many Latin phrases I know, why should I have a problem outing him? It's his politics, not mine, that make his urges unacceptable to him. I make no apology for that and neither should you.
Get a grip, man.
Ritmo,
"This will be the beginning of a long era of Republican fumigating"
Good point. Congress is getting tented in November.
Ritmo - though you are 100%jackass, I was surprised you would stoop to gay bash even if in jest.
But I must protest! "Fulminating" sounded too scripted, removed and devoid of images of self-combustion!
Seriously, these Irrelephants need to be hosed down. They need to just chill. Ever since the first actor-president, they've been putting their crap over on the country as if replacing any appeal to reality with the right myth and narrative is all that matters. Enough.
And just look at what this got us into. Not just with the financial meltdown (that they fantasize to no end about finding the right gimmick to ameliorate). Palladian bitches about civility and decency with the rest while blaming tolerant people for pointing out the inability of intolerant people to get their party to tolerate them.
If that isn't the height of ridiculousness, who knows what is? Only Julius comes close to pointing out why comedians like Colbert can be the only antidote to all this nonsense. Maybe someone else will get you to accept a line between reality and fantasy. But in the meantime, he's doing a fine job of it.
Ritmo - though you are 100%jackass, I was surprised you would stoop to gay bash even if in jest.
How did I bash Fen? He's the one who seems to insist that he's privy to personal details about my life. I just don't know why he would imagine that he is unless he has a thing for me.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Unless you're a Republican and other Republicans tell you there is. Which I'm not and I don't.
Seriously. Democrats are now responsible for the fact that Republicans have trouble accepting gays? Now I've heard it all. You fuckers have lost all touch with reality.
And for the record, I never said anything rude to Palladian when he claimed that any women in my life were secretly attracted to other men who, in turn, were secretly attracted to him.
I just thought it was funny. As is Fen's insistence that he has personal knowledge of any of the personal or intimate details of my life. The only difference is, Palladian meant to be funny.
But of course, you will accuse me of being responsible for, you know, pointing that out. The ultimate sin among the reactionaries is making a point that they were too stupid to figure out. They call that "uncivil".
You have to respect their stupidity, I guess.
Elmo, the muppet, testified before Congress in 1992.
I'm sorry, 2002.
Ritmo - though you are 100%jackass, I was surprised you would stoop to gay bash even if in jest.
I wasn't surprised: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about - Fen, 2001.
Thankfully, Ritmo is stupid enough to be rattled into showing his true colors.
Not as ridiculous as his last meltdown, but still entertaining.
God Ritmo, you take so long to write so little.
Just admit you used "gay" as an epithet. The only person you might be fooling with your verbal ejaculations here is yourself. Which would not be the least bit surprising.
Ritmo: Palladian bitches about civility and decency with the rest while blaming tolerant people for pointing out the inability of intolerant people to get their party to tolerate them.
Uhm, Palladian is the one who convinced me to support gay marriage some years ago.
The only thing you've been able to convince anyone of is that you are a Fraud.
The only joke here is this Democratic congress. Are they so out of touch they wonder why November 2nd is going to be a bloodbath?
Eric:
The Colbert stunt in Congress probably pissed off all Americans no matter their political party. I suspect the Dems will be the party that pays the price for it.
Uhm, Palladian is the one who convinced me to support gay marriage some years ago.
Ummm.... He's against civil marriage for anyone, idiot-asshole "Uhm".
The only thing you've been able to convince anyone of is that you are a Fraud.
I don't know what I ever claimed to "genuinely" be, but I do know that you're genuinely fixated by the idea of watching teevee with me.
Which makes you a closeted homosexual.
And therefore, a fraud.
Come out of the closet, Fen. The view of the teevee is much better.
Fen coined:
"The Left doesn't really believe the things they lecture us about".
That is a good one to remember for my family arguments. It can be applied to so many issues: paying taxes [Geithner], school choice vs private schools [Clintons & Obamas], etc
Just admit you used "gay" as an epithet. The only person you might be fooling with your verbal ejaculations here is yourself. Which would not be the least bit surprising.
I used the word "homosexual" to describe Fen.
The fact that he and you see it as an epithet is his business, and your business. Not mine.
But I am intrigued to know what you have against ejaculation. That seems to take this to a whole new level.
God Ritmo, you take so long to write so little.
And with so little you reveal vast quantities of what you do not know.
Good bye, G-Mayfly. Fly away, to the land of the little mayflies.
"The Left doesn't really believe the things they lecture us about".
That is a good one to remember for my family arguments. It can be applied to so many issues: paying taxes [Geithner], school choice vs private schools [Clintons & Obamas], etc
Why not just write it on the back of your hand, Cartman?
I left a comment earlier today, but either Althouse deleted it because it made her look bad, it was moderated and she didn't approve it because it made her look bad, or it was innocently caught in a filter.
So, let's try again.
The reader might want to compare my discussion of why Stephen Colbert is wrong to that offered by others. That's - sadly, since I have other things to do - my fourth post since June about Colbert's efforts.
I've gotten almost no help with my attempts to discredit him, and no one else (except perhaps vDare, Sailer, or Digger; I haven't checked) has even tried. Instead, they offer Hannity-style coverage. And, that doesn't work.
If you oppose illegal immigration, there are a lot of people who you might think are on your side, but aren't. They're just putting on a show and not willing or able to do things that are effective.
Ritmo:
In the olden days [I love that saying], we'd be having this conservation in a bar and everyone would be drunk and by now you'd be on the bar floor bleeding after one of us decided it was time to kick the shit out of you.
[Apparently this gets caught in a filter, so let's try again.]
The reader might want to compare my discussion of why Stephen Colbert is wrong to that offered by others. That's - sadly, since I have other things to do - my fourth post since June about Colbert's efforts.
I've gotten almost no help with my attempts to discredit him, and no one else (except perhaps vDare, Sailer, or Digger; I haven't checked) has even tried. Instead, they offer Hannity-style coverage. And, that doesn't work.
If you oppose illegal immigration, there are a lot of people who you might think are on your side, but aren't. They're just putting on a show and not willing or able to do things that are effective.
Oh wow, Cartman. Violence. That's a convincing way to prove, well... nothing except how impotent you feel.
I know it must suck to not have a point worth making. But suck it up and be a man about that. It allows you to pass for a just barely civilized human, rather than a prison brawler.
AJ, I had a very long comment in work about how RB has long ceased to treat us as anything but a captive audience of targets, a sponge for his pain, but you just said it so much better than I.
My chief point was that his discourse is only suited for the Internet and, in a f2f environment, wouldn't work out so well.
Not so much the idea of being scared and/or beaten, I wasn't going there. Though that would probably happen too.
But IRL, almost any human in a real life crowd of such as this blog audience, let alone one so wonderful as Ritmo, would surely read his audience and realize that he was boring, unimpressing, not fooling, antagonizing, and in every way losing his audience. And of course he couldn't go on at such length.
Ritmo has had talented people say nice things to or about him at one time or another and consequently thinks himself bulletproof. He ain't. He doesn't even know, or won't admit, that the word he was fumbling for was "fuming!"
TW: waker. Close. waker
If Congress doesn't take itself seriously, I guess I won't either.
Ritmo: I used the word "homosexual" to describe Fen.
Yes, and you meant it as an insult.
Keep pretending you don't understand what that says about you. Its much more entertaining for the rest of us.
Ritmo floated this one out there: "I don't know what I ever claimed to "genuinely" be, but I do know that you're genuinely fixated by the idea of watching teevee with me.
Which makes you a closeted homosexual."
Non sequitur of the month right there.
Chuckle Meter reading: 9.
"But I am intrigued to know what you have against ejaculation. That seems to take this to a whole new level."
What's odd about this is that you feel my proper usage of a word means I have something against it. You've always had problems with the language, but you're stepping on your dick more than usual tonight.
"And with so little you reveal vast quantities of what you do not know."
Whoa dude, you like, sooooo deep!
"Good bye, G-Mayfly. Fly away, to the land of the little mayflies."
Ritty, that taunt may scare off the competition for dates down at the local playground, but someone of your Laurentian depth should be capable of something more effective.
Just accept that "IRL" (as you're so fond of saying), not as many people think the way you do as you would like to think, Nichevo - (Really. Violence for saying the wrong thing. I guess that's the reactionary's idea of free speech. Oh well). Also, accept that the internet is one of, if not the most dominant medium for exchanging ideas nowadays.
If you can't hack that, why not just go back to those "IRL" locales where you can demand respect for what you can't articulate, and threaten to beat people up for not being sufficiently deferential to you for not being able to defend what you say with words.
And by the way, you're not as nice a guy as you think, either, Nichevo. A nice person wouldn't be as easily threatened as you are by mere ideas with which you happen to be incapable of competing against.
(And discussing this blog at work? Lame. Some hobbies are really best kept to oneself, Nichevo).
Ritty, that taunt may scare off the competition for dates down at the local playground, but someone of your Laurentian depth should be capable of something more effective.
But it wasn't worth it, man. I don't care if you stay around. I just wish you would come up with something original or thoughtful for a change.
Exactly, Fen. RB, this is just such a case of what I mean: you persist in your whimsy of ad homs in that jejune way of yours, and think you are getting over. (Oh, huhuh, I called him a kike, that isn't an insult if he's Jewish because then he really is one, uuhuhuh, has he got problem with that, and if he isn't Jewish then it doesn't apply to him, huh-uhuh. PS, I am better than you, kthxbai. PPS, I am Cornholio!)
You think that would work to get you out of trouble at the principal's office at elementary school? Do you? Really?
TW: harid. I should say so!
Yes, and you meant it as an insult.
I take it by this that you mean I should view your homosexuality as an insulting thing, Fen. Is that right?
Must we apply the low standards of Republicans to everyone?
(Oh, huhuh, I called him a kike, that isn't an insult if he's Jewish because then he really is one, uuhuhuh, has he got problem with that, and if he isn't Jewish then it doesn't apply to him, huh-uhuh. PS, I am better than you, kthxbai. PPS, I am Cornholio!)
But I never used an epithet in referring to Fen's homosexuality, Nichevo. I passed no judgment on it. The word "homosexual" is only an epithet if you think there is something wrong with being a homosexual.
So, what is it, in your mind, that makes Fen's homosexuality wrong? (I mean, other than the fact that he should be more circumspect with the object of his fantasies.)
Ritmo the Jitmo.
No one here cares what you think or say - why don't you just stfu or better yet shrivel up, lay on the NJ Turnpike and die asswipe [ask me what I really think].
Anyway, enough of this whole distraction that Fen's put us through.
I've watched the video again. Here's the point: Republicans are too embarrassed by "their" comedian-cheerleader (Rush Limbaugh) in public to bring him before Congress. Ergo, what dirty bastards the Democrats are for allowing Colbert to humorously address a session of the chamber!!!
Get a fucking grip. All of you. And no, I don't mean it in the way that G-Unit is thinking.
I reject your vapid, non sequitur aspersions of non-niceness, and I miss your meaning about work entirely, but all that to one side. I have not advocated violence to shut you up, I have differentiated myself from those who have.
My point was not that I or someone else would inevitably slap you silly or put a bullet through your brain for daring to say the things you do. Besides, maybe you are a real tough guy and can impose your will on people if you choose.
My point was that in real life, among a group of people in a room or in a field, if you had the attention of and were addressing the one or three or ten or fifty of us Althousians who are currently immured in this thread, you would find ample nonverbal cues that you were losing that attention.
If you like to address the waves like Demosthenes, a fitter and more grateful audience than you have had hitherto, then knock yourself out. Just wondering why, like a fool.
Dear A.J.:
Can you lay off the antipsychotics for just a minute? They're really not meant for recreational use, you know.
Dearest Nichevo,
I consider it a compliment to be considered ignorable by such an un-influential blog. So thank you! ;-)
But really, dude. You're not such a bad or uncivilized guy once you get someone to level with you in the manner you seek. I suppose I should thank the guy who reminds me of manners for not wishing death or defamation (as others here have done) on me. Even if he thinks that alone isn't reason enough to find more to agree with me on than with them.
You might consider pondering that for a second, Nichevo!
OK, let's wrestle with the pig a little.
1) I doubt Fen is gay (NTTWW, at least for the sake of argument, lol); you are baiting him, at a level about as witty as saying that in college, your opponent was a noted thespian.
3) You are gay-baiting him because you think either it will sting Fen personally, or that the argle-bargle over this imputation inevitably makes Fen and anyone else who "dabbles into it" look bad - but not you somehow.
Your illusion is that since you say "homosexual" or "gay" instead of "faggot" or "queer," you are not being rude. (The more so as in the modern era, the pomo homo critique is "owning" it e.g. caling oneself "queer" to disarm the word as Quentin Tarantino, Chris Rock et al purportedly attempted to do with "nigger.")
But anyway, "homosexual" is the dictionary word and a good balance of latent vs manifest offensiveness. You dodge my first trap by saying Ah, a more accurate simile is that I did not call you kike, I called you Jew. Surely you are proud to be a Jew?
The insult though is connoted at more levels than one. In your ambit this passes for "deep."
See...if you call me, as Hillary Clinton was said to do to some fellow someplace, a "Fucking Jew Bastard:"
"Jew" is true enough, though some might always quibble;
"Bastard" is false;
And "Fucking" is best expressed as a probability cloud, true or false at any given moment.
But, however, is not "Fucking Jew Bastard" an insult? is it meant as an insult? of course it is. And truth or falsehood has nothing to do with it.
Clinically, if I were illegitimate, it would always be at least 2/3 true, but unless my lineage were at specific issue as in deciding the line of succession to a throne, it would be irrelevant in almost any conversation. Added thus gratuitously or not, would it be any the less a verbal blow?
...ctd...
...ctd...
And if I were Christian, or Muslim, or other or none, what combinations...a Muslim bastard with no sex life...a round-heeled atheist from a good home...a animist of uncertain parentage who is a virgin...
IRL, it would be clearer because there would be clues - tone, posture, facial expression, context. Calling your friend "you old bastard" because he beat you at chess and you owe him a pony ride for his youngest daughter is a little different from saying that to the Wal-Mart greeter who stubs your toe.
Speaking of woolgathering...let's say I call you a commie all the time. Commie Ritmo, Ritmo the commie who is always trying to share the wealth and liquidate dissent. Commie Ritmo has inappropriate fantasies about my wallet and my Constitutional rights.
1) Is being a communist a bad thing? RB, want to state a position on that? Short and clear would be good.
2) Is Ritmo a communist? Well, RB?
3) is Ritmo something close enough to a formal proper communist to be loosely tagged with just "commie" or "pinko," and if so would he like to admit it?
...Now, Ritmo, you would have a fine time dancing around the questions when probably your short clear true answers would be fine. You probably don't like such questions and wouldn't like to ask or be asked them. You would find them tendentious, which is exactly what your use of "homosexual" is - much as Cedarford's constant usage of Jew this and Jewish that - though he generally doesn't descend to such epithets as "kike" or "Yid" - "Jew" this and "Jew" that is bad enough for him to get his point across.
And I doubt he would expect a Jew, "good" or "bad" according to whatever tally he keeps or doesn't keep, to fail to see it. (Or maybe the "good" Jews know what he means and don't take it personally, and the rest of them can go to hell.)
Or like in Blazing Saddles. The sheriff was black, and what was the problem? But obviously most people in the film had a problem one way or the other.
TW: can I resse my case or do you wish to be schooled some more? Warning, I'm getting sleepy, bored, and my typing is not likely to improve, so sorry.
TW 2: perplo. i was perplo to ind I had exceeded 4096 characters. Oops!
And if I were Christian, or Muslim, or other or none, what combinations...a Muslim bastard with no sex life...a round-heeled atheist from a good home...a animist of uncertain parentage who is a virgin...
IRL, it would be clearer because there would be clues - tone, posture, facial expression, context. Calling your friend "you old bastard" because he beat you at chess and you owe him a pony ride for his youngest daughter is a little different from saying that to the Wal-Mart greeter who stubs your toe.
Speaking of woolgathering...let's say I call you a commie all the time. Commie Ritmo, Ritmo the commie who is always trying to share the wealth and liquidate dissent. Commie Ritmo has inappropriate fantasies about my wallet and my Constitutional rights.
1) Is being a communist a bad thing? RB, want to state a position on that? Short and clear would be good.
2) Is Ritmo a communist? Well, RB?
3) is Ritmo something close enough to a formal proper communist to be loosely tagged with just "commie" or "pinko," and if so would he like to admit it?
...ctd...
...Now, Ritmo, you would have a fine time dancing around the questions when probably your short clear true answers would be fine. You probably don't like such questions and wouldn't like to ask or be asked them. You would find them tendentious, which is exactly what your use of "homosexual" is - much as Cedarford's constant usage of Jew this and Jewish that - though he generally doesn't descend to such epithets as "kike" or "Yid" - "Jew" this and "Jew" that is bad enough for him to get his point across.
And I doubt he would expect a Jew, "good" or "bad" according to whatever tally he keeps or doesn't keep, to fail to see it. (Or maybe the "good" Jews know what he means and don't take it personally, and the rest of them can go to hell.)
Or like in Blazing Saddles. The sheriff was black, and what was the problem? But obviously most people in the film had a problem one way or the other.
TW: can I resse my case or do you wish to be schooled some more? Warning, I'm getting sleepy, bored, and my typing is not likely to improve, so sorry.
TW3: prograil. Well I ain't anti-.
TW4: resseem. It resseems to me I've been entering this comment a long time.
If I'd known Ann was going to tag me I'd have proofed my post.
And I managed to bait Ritmo without even trying. Bingo!
Note to Ritmo: Fumigate was probably a typo. I accept that. However, I never fulminate. I seethe.
un-influential blog
Eh? Althouse an un-influential blog? The key to wit is an element of truth.
As for the rest, now a bathic appeal as underdog? Nobody here is ACTUALLY going to hit you. (If anyone does I want video please)
You have been unpleasant to me personally in the past, gratuitously and beyond apparent utility, and I have no reason to have any sympathy for you. And whether a beating would be fair comeuppance in your case is hard to know. I just doubt that karmic justice will find you so readily.
Ain't no hangman gonna,
He ain't gonna put a rope around you
As to whether your being an "elp, elp, I'm being oppressed" minority here adds credence to your views which I should consider outside of my instinctive distaste for you...
well, I don't see it, but you're welcome to expand on that theory here.
In any case, as long as I can have a conversation at some level of decency, I am satisfied. I am even willing to entertain your humors at the moment, being bored. You wish to contend the Colbert appearance was a net good, or at least an appreciable good? We can start there.
OK, so a hundred posts ago:
--------
I've watched the video again. Here's the point: Republicans are too embarrassed by "their" comedian-cheerleader (Rush Limbaugh) in public to bring him before Congress. Ergo, what dirty bastards the Democrats are for allowing Colbert to humorously address a session of the chamber!!!
-------
Frankly I'd prefer not to dignify the spectacle by watching it, which I guess is old-maidish...from news accounts, Colbert was probably more self-aware than many in attendance at the hearings. With a little praeteritio even he could have added to the day.
And it would probably count as Conyers' finest hour, or at least the one part where he got up on his hind legs and wondered what was going on?
But no, I don't think mugging for the cameras in a pastiche of his television act can possibly be the right thing to do. We could argue effective but effective or no, RB, isn't it just a little bit filthy?
Spittle flying, the Ritmoron defends the indefensible, posts serially and stupidly and insults all comers.
Bravo, Ritmoron. Good on ya, gay baiter.
You have to admire Colbert's effort. It takes real attention to detail to make yourself the biggest buffoon at a congressional hearing.
But no, I don't think mugging for the cameras in a pastiche of his television act can possibly be the right thing to do. We could argue effective but effective or no, RB, isn't it just a little bit filthy?
Why on earth should Democrats care about whether Colbert's (likely effective) use of humor comes at the expense of offending Republicans when Republicans never gave a damn about how many millions of people Lush Rimbaugh has offended over the dozens of years they've spent listening to him? Since they've happened to anoint him a de facto co-chair of their political faction (a distinction to be shared with Sarah Palin) you might think they'd be even less circumspect about trotting his presence out in an official, public forum. But they won't. And for good reason.
The difference between Colbert and Limbaugh, or between Colbert and Palin, is that Colbert can actually engage people who disagree with him in a public or neutral or critical forum, whereas the leaders of your party are too much a bunch of pussies to ever do that.
This is why the Althousians are angry.
Ritty projected again: "I just wish you would come up with something original or thoughtful for a change."
Because gay baiting is so fresh!
Ritty added 2+2 and came up with 'cake': "Why on earth should Democrats care about whether Colbert's (likely effective) use of humor comes at the expense of offending Republicans when Republicans never gave a damn about how many millions of people Lush Rimbaugh has offended over the dozens of years they've spent listening to him?"
Because one's ongressional testimony and the other is some guy's radio show.
How in hell you've convinced some here that you're smart is a fucking mystery.
Looks like the Colbert appearance was wildly successful for the Democrats. Clearly a brilliant move that has played well to an admiring national audience.
Yep, so commanding a performance, I'm sure constituents nationwide will express their new understanding of whatever it was Colbert was testifying about at the voting booth in November.
Pure genius.
I don't refer to Fen's homosexuality because I view it as some sort of gratuitous insult, the way C-Fud uses the word "Jew". I do it because he seems fixated with me to the point where he believes he has some sort of special, privileged access to the details of my personal life.
If he is embarrassed about his man crush, that is his problem. He should really get over it.
You guys will not win this one, Nichevo. Argument by assertion is as big a problem of this blog as is knowing when to lay off. If Fen is not proud of what his obsession about my personal life says about him, then the solution is simple: He can stop obsessively pretending that he knows a thing about it. Unless his fantasies make that impossible, of course.
And you cannot fixate his way out of it, either.
BTW, The Blazing Saddles reference reflects more poorly on the audience here than on me.
G-May fulminated:
Because one's ongressional testimony and the other is some guy's radio show.
before reading the rest of the comment and realizing that was the point entirely.
But I'll restate it for the illiterate:
Limbaugh wouldn't be called before Congress (or "ongress", for that matter) because the Republicans are rightly more embarrassed by their dirty laundry in public than the Democrats are of an actual comedian who sympathizes with them, Colbert.
Wash, rinse, and repeat, G-Man.
Yeah, Ritmo, Colbert's testimony will long be considered a Mensa-level move for the Democrats.
I'm certain the Sunday chat shows will be backslapping and high-fiving the responsible Senators for such a successful strategy.
Ritty tried: "Argument by assertion is as big a problem of this blog as is knowing when to lay off."
Coming from far and away the biggest offender, this is fucking rich. Seriously, this accusation is coming from the guy who carpet bombs the threads he oozes into with literally thousands of words backed by nothing more than his fevered imagination.
Keep 'em coming Champ. You're on a roll.
Maybe if your favorite blog was capable of attracting more diverse opinion, G-Man, than I wouldn't have so many cloistered Yes-Men to challenge and rebut.
Have you ever considered challenging your own ideas, first?
I'd say the answer to that is somewhere between "I doubt it" and "Of course not".
"Sunday chat shows"
A true representation of all the right cognoscenti, they are, serving up elite opinion with the proper imprimatur.
The news anchors on those shows envy Stewart and Colbert for being, er, relevant.
Ritty bloviated: "before reading the rest of the comment and realizing that was the point entirely."
Here we go with the projection again.
Slow down and read this time: you apparently missed my point - Republicans realize that calling entertainers to testify in character before congress is not only a poor political move, but a waste of taxpayers dollars.
I figure it'll only take you about 3 readings to grasp the point. (I didn't commit the error of a cryptic typo like "ongressional" to throw you off this time.)
Ready...go.
(But hey, I'll keep going with your Limbaugh red herring as long as you want...until college football starts, then you're on your own)
Ritty tried: "Maybe if your favorite blog was capable of attracting more diverse opinion, G-Man, than I wouldn't have so many cloistered Yes-Men to challenge and rebut."
Assumption - "this is my favorite blog." Like you know anything about me. Oh wait, by your warped logic, I can call you a homosexual now if I were inclined to use that term as an insult.
And I don't think I've ever seen you rebut anything effectively here. (Volume does not make for effective argument by the way)
I am certain the chat shows are jealous of the ratings achieved by comedy shows, reality TV, and reruns of Law and Order.
And their talking heads will no doubt sing the praises of the sooper genius Democrats who arranged Colbert's testimony. The boost it will give Democrats in close races is almost palpable.
The Colbert abortion is just the latest example of the Left's validation-by-celebrity tack. "Ooooh, a cable network comedian said it, so it must be true! He's soooo edgy!!!"
Being stupid as rocks, Dem voters don't realize that getting their views from strung out starlets and washed up musical acts reveals them for the pea-brains they really are.
After Nov. 2nd the collective Congressional I.Q. is going to spike, that's for sure.
Meanwhile, the DoJ Civil/Voting Rights apparatus has been exposed as nothing but a tool to exact racial vengeance. The eventual Congressional hearings promise to be fascinating, but ugly. So maybe a little levity this weekend isn't the worst thing.
Republicans realize that calling entertainers to testify in character before congress is not only a poor political move, but a waste of taxpayers dollars.
For your side, it obviously is.
And that is because Republican entertainers are less funny and cannot attract as wide an audience as those who appeal beyond the right-wing base.
I think this has something to do with non-right wing entertainers being more creative, less wedded to the emotion of anger and more interested in the state of the human condition generally. But I'm obviously wasting my breath. You still seem incapable of getting past the idea that right-wing entertainers are less popular overall, let alone why.
But keep up the envy the right has for Hollywood and the entertainment industry. As if that doesn't say everything.
Ritty just kept going: "But I'm obviously wasting my breath. You still seem incapable of getting past the idea that right-wing entertainers are less popular in general, let alone why."
We're both wasting our breath. I'm not arging about the effectiveness of partisan entertainers, you are. I'm pointing out how having comedians giving congressional testimony in character is wildly inappropriate on a number of levels. Can you wrap your tiny little head around that? Is this just too hard for you?
But keep bringing up Rush Limbaugh as if he's related to this story in the slightest degree other than your obvious fixation on him.
Now I'm off to catch some pre-game stuff. You're on your own Ritty. But before I go, here are some scare words for you:
Halliburton!!
FOX!!
VRWC!!
CHENEY!!
BLOOD FOR OIL!!
I'm pointing out how having comedians giving congressional testimony in character is wildly inappropriate on a number of levels. Can you wrap your tiny little head around that?
No. I cannot.
Is this just too hard for you?
Yes. It is.
But here's my question for you:
Can you not wrap your tiny head around the fact that what is considered "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion?
Is it too hard for you to accept that when it comes to opinions, there are no such things as human universals?
Do Republicans understand the meaning of subjectivity? Are they capable of comprehending such a concept?
Or do they assume that all reactions to an idea have to be homogenized into one, universally acceptable referendum?
I would venture to say that your sense of political entitlement leads you to answer no to all those questions except for the first and last one.
Re this thread, GBShaw's aphorism comes to mind.
RB 9/25/10 8:38 AM:
This is another of those rhetorical dodges I would remember the name of if we'd had Latin in grade school. In effect I said: it may or may not be effective but it is filthy amirite? To which you said: Who cares if it offends GOPers, who have bad mean poopy head Rush?
- Oh yes, tu quoque. You invoke "my" or "our" offenders (provocateurs, death squads, insult comics, party platform shibboleths) as a response to indictments of your own offenders.
But I don't believe that tu quoque is the rhetorical nuclear weapon it is sometimes made out to be. My real beef here is that with this wriggle you dodge the actual point in question.
Don't you feel like having a bath, or losing a layer of skin, after some of the guys on your side do their thing? (And maybe 'your side' is as unfair as 'my side' and the people and positions you seek to link me with...let it be shorthand for now.)
Let me me be specific: in our nonreligious system, it is nonetheless kind of a sacred thing - or used to be? - to be summoned or invited to testify before part or all of Congress. An honor, a privilege, a responsibility.
People from all walks of life, including geniuses, entertainers and bad men, may have come with the intent of helping or of tearing down the country - but they came having worn their good underwear and lucky ties and brushed their teeth and hair and practiced the use of Sir and Ma'am and Senator and such. They came and swore to tell the truth, whether they did or not, but they understood they were not there to be, or pretend to be, Joe Friday or Elmer Gantry or Loretta Lynn...
...ctd...
Your obtusity, real or feigned, may defeat me yet, Ritmo. Do you really mean to tell me that you don't see the point here? It's as if you had Carmen Miranda come into Congress, not to speak to the assembled on such topics as nutrition, fruit tariffs, soil erosion, LatAm death squads, broadcast decency standards or copyright - on any of which she might hypothetically have valuable remarks to make - but to leap up, encostumed, and dance and sing the Chiquita Banana song!
You really have to have your nose rubbed in it to show how making a circus of the place, makes a circus of the place?
I am not the cynosure of Legislative pretensions, no; look at your own Conyers, who bade him go his ways (with next best thing to a Sirrah!), till he was brought in on the joke. Conyers knew there was something wrong. Like, no doubt, that pitbull on the other thread - the wife lifted it out of the way so the murderers could come in all the quieter?
But I guess when Mommy says Lie down and No bite, a good loving well-trained dog heels and licks feet.
No, I will just borrow the cant phrase "whistling past the graveyard" to describe your ignoring this very apparent truth. Well, if it eases and cools you to do so...
...ctd...
This is entirely aside from the merits or the premise of his arguments as made. "I don't want to eat a tomato picked by a Mexican" is wrong on so many levels, is it really fair to put such words in the mouth of whoever? And when you come and say "I hate X and y and Z and PDQ, blah blah blah, I am a typical Republican, ha ha ha," you are quite clearly making the imputation that Republicans hate X, Y, , and PDQ.
Why doesn't he say, I am a conservative, I love commies and drugs and child molesting? It would be worse, more damaging, than what he said at the hearing. Probably funnier, too, and get better ratings. Why? Because it would be less effective as a political tactic.
Colbert, on the margin, would clearly prefer to gain one more net Democratic vote rather than one more laugh from his audience. As such, he is a sellout of his art.
He and Stewart duck behind "hey I'm just a dumb comic" when called on any flagrant foul of fact, but certainly don't seem to mind being taken as authorities, i.e., they don't mind that people aren't in on the joke.
Maybe someone said it best earlier: Why not have the guy from Borat? (Maybe he can sit on someone's face and tell them that he loves them? Pelosi would probably love it, like a mud pack.)
Ritty asked: "Can you not wrap your tiny head around the fact that what is considered "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion?"
Oh no Ritmo, you're easily understood. You and any other American are more than entitled to defend Democrats making a mockery and a joke of congressional testimony at taxpayer expense.
Knock yourself out Champ.
And speaking of Tu quoque...imagine this happening under the Bush admin or a future Palin, Romney, Christie, whoever conservative admin...
I think well-chosen words would fairly flow from Ritmo. He wouldn't have any trouble comprehending the horrid travesty.
---
O tempora! O mores! Caesar's horse! The august halls, the domains of Clay and Webster, sullied as never before by a superficially intelligent (i.e. verbally fluent) partisan media figure with no policy qualifications WHATSOEVER!
(He is undoubtedly talking poo, and need not be regarded whether he makes sense or not. If necessary he will be found to be an icky flawed human, heh, IYKWIM, AITYD, heh.)
Just doing a cheap piece of political theater, always making the other fellows out to be apes. Opining on subjects best left to his betters, who are legion.
Pish tosh! It is to laugh, ha, ha. What next, a pie in the face?
Plus of course he's wrong, as if it were even necessary to say so. I trust I don't have to explain why?
---
I think that would be a good lead-in for RB. You may have it as a draft, Ritmo, but add some mistakes so they'll know it's not mine :>
TW: hosem
as he always does
Given the way others knock me down for verbosity, I should begrudgingly offer my respect to Nichevo for at least attempting to fully explicate his case.
But to someone not wedded to the political right, it (what they are saying) comes down to this: Purity (or gravitas, or a sense of what is sacrosanct) matters. And it matters especially in the halls of congress.
I think this is a bit in error. The right is entitled to feel that purity matters. But then, why are they going on about how important it is to listen to the arithmetically inept blather coming from the uneducable rabble known as the "Tea Partiers"? I understand you have a thing against elitism. But then, why go on against Carmen Miranda, as if requiring someone to wear the right costume isn't an elitist request in itself?
Colbert's point is simple. The political process is a joke. Slapping a veneer of gravitas onto something that isn't worth taking seriously is a waste of time.
When the congresscritters come around to making mathematic sense and seriously considering the long-term problems this country faces, and discussing the problems in this country and its culture (which never takes anything seriously, anyway) with candor, then maybe there won't be a demand for someone like the character of Colbert.
Until then, you can take your gravitas and shove it!
(Of course, I mean that last point rhetorically. Only to make a point. I congratulate Nichevo for at least attempting a serious criticism of my comments and empathize with his understanding that serious questions and serious answers sometimes require a degree of thought. Which is reflected in a longer response).
Colbert, on the margin, would clearly prefer to gain one more net Democratic vote rather than one more laugh from his audience. As such, he is a sellout of his art.
This is illogical. One can desire (and have) both.
One consequence of saturation blogging is that one cannot always keep it up. Hence your unanswered remarks. Please forgive any implied discourtesy and rest assured i will get back to as much of this old stuff i can find as and where found.
tw: "Later," he sings.
At the margin, it is always the one last thing, by definition. My point of that was, given the choice - and to govern is to choose, Ritmo - Colbert would choose the one, politics or ideology, over the other, art or integrity. And according to his choice we judge him.
If I have any latent beef against Colbert it is that I don't think he's very funny and that it is a hackneyed, labored act.
If he were "my SOB?" If I were convinced he was full of win it might gall me to cast him aside, but really how much can a body take?
Post a Comment