Uh “moonbats”? Anyone care to explain what this means and where it came from? Please?
Sorry, I never really thought Colbert was all that funny before this dinner. My opinion hasn’t changed.
Wikipedia’s “moonbat” info:
[i]According to de Havilland, a moonbat is “someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be”. Adriana Cronin defines the term as “someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency”. This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians.
Moonbat has frequently been used to describe those of any political persuasion who believe in conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were engineered by George W. Bush, or that the US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices, or did so under the direction of Israel.[/i]
great job colbert, keep it comin.
Al Gore would’ve been a better president.
I know he got 7 F’s in college but that he invented the Internet. Anyone that can overcome his humble beginnings in Tennessee and invent the internet has to be way better than Bush.
Since his mentor would have been President Clinton, he would’ve had him to call upon when 9/11 happened, for advice and counsel. Gore would have pursued Clinton’s successful anti-terrorist policies, and maybe 9/11 would have never even happened!
All in all, I wish we could somehow go back in time and change to outcome of that phony election in 2000.
HH
[quote]harris447 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No, ninny…YOU were nonplussed, as was the audience there who contained the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are not generally regarded as the perfect comedy room.
Let’s see - you just said yourself it wasn’t the perfect comedy room. Exactly. That explains why they were non-plussed, per my point - they weren’t expecting Colbert to do that kind of routine, and it missed its mark for the audience there.
You ever BEEN to the Press Correspondents Dinner? No. Guess what: I have. NO ONE gets laughs, besides the polite ones afforded the president.
I wasn’t measuring by how much the audience slapped the table and guffawed (or didn’t) - I am measuring by the response after the fact.
Besides, no one else thinks it’s terrifying that the entire premise of the president’s “bit” was that he’s a retard?
Seriously? You must easily frightened. Again, I don’t think Colbert was particularly biting, mostly blindly partisan. If that is your version of ‘speaking truth to power’, score one for ‘power’.
Colbert was honest to the point of being cruel about EVERYBODY in the room. He was funny.
Naah, he was an opportunist.
“Not to the adult world”? What the fuck does that mean?
It means exactly what it says it means.
Does the adult world think that comedians should just smile and tell knock-knock jokes when given the chance to mock the single most incompetent president we’ve had this century?
And you’ve proved the point - Colbert’s routine only generated heat with the moonbat contingency, of which you are a part. Comedians can make jokes about the President - watch Letterman or Leno every night - that has nothing to do with any of this.
It is about Colbert being invited to do a job and, intoxicated with his agenda, he didn’t do all that great of a job. The rest of the world has moved on - only the moonbattery is still chirping about how “awe-thum!” it was, with unintentionally funny ‘thank you’ websites and the like.
Of course he had an agenda: you’re just pissy that it wasn’t yours.
Nope - in situations like that, as with the Alfred Smith dinner, there is a certain vibe - Colbert didn’t deliver, mainly because he saw it an opportunity to so something else. No problem, but let’s not pretend it was some revolutionary savaging on President Bush - it was the Left’s usual sarcasm hidden behind humor: as in, the sarcasm is supposed to be serious right up until someone challenges them, and then suddenly it’s “I am a comedian! I do funny! Don’t get so bent out of shape!”
As I said before, I think Colbert is a pretty funny guy - although this brand of satire generally I think is losing its steam as a fad.
A fad? Making fun of politicians for being danferously incompetent is a fad?
You’re right. Let’s dig up Bob Hope so he can tell some “jokes” about the preident’s golf game.
Have you even heard the routine? he did get laughs.
But of course, the right will say he didn’t. Same reason the left said Imus bombed when he made fun of the Clintons.
It’s an easy way to avoid talking about the subject of his jokes. The fact that Bush is, you know, the worst president of the century.
[/quote]
What century is this, Harris?
Bush is the best president in this century also.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wikipedia’s “moonbat” info:
[i]According to de Havilland, a moonbat is “someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be”. Adriana Cronin defines the term as “someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency”. This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians.
Moonbat has frequently been used to describe those of any political persuasion who believe in conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were engineered by George W. Bush, or that the US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices, or did so under the direction of Israel.[/i]
[/quote]
Thanks thunder!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Al Gore would’ve been a better president.
I know he got 7 F’s in college but that he invented the Internet. Anyone that can overcome his humble beginnings in Tennessee and invent the internet has to be way better than Bush.
Since his mentor would have been President Clinton, he would’ve had him to call upon when 9/11 happened, for advice and counsel. Gore would have pursued Clinton’s successful anti-terrorist policies, and maybe 9/11 would have never even happened!
All in all, I wish we could somehow go back in time and change to outcome of that phony election in 2000.
HH[/quote]
Left or right, they are all cut from the same cloth.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Uh “moonbats”? Anyone care to explain what this means and where it came from? Please?[/quote]
According to Thunderbolt, it apparently means around 67% of the country.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
A fad? Making fun of politicians for being danferously incompetent is a fad?
No, dumbass, the fad of ‘fake news’ satire made famous by Stewart, Colbert, and Carrell, etc., not making fun of politicans. Crikey.
Have you even heard the routine? he did get laughs.
Yes, I even laughed at parts of it.
It’s an easy way to avoid talking about the subject of his jokes. The fact that Bush is, you know, the worst president of the century.
You are right - Bush is both the best and worst President of the 21st century, since he is the only one who has participated in it. Nice job, Harris.[/quote]
The fake news trend? The one that Colbert and Stewart started?
Or the one that Fernwood 2-Night, SNL, Not Necessarily the News, and countles others have been doing for years, dumbass?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
The fact that Bush is, you know, the worst president of the century.
[/quote]
He’s also the best president of the century. And the median president of the century. At least so far…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What century is this, Harris?
Bush is the best president in this century also.
[/quote]
Dang it, didn’t read far enough down – Headhunter beat me to the punchline… My bad.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You are right - Bush is both the best and worst President of the 21st century, since he is the only one who has participated in it. Nice job, Harris.[/quote]
Eh, even worse, I was third. I will skulk away in shame now.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
The fake news trend? The one that Colbert and Stewart started?
Or the one that Fernwood 2-Night, SNL, Not Necessarily the News, and countles others have been doing for years, dumbass?[/quote]
Who said they started it? I said their brand of it is quite famous - in fact, supported by the fact that many youngsters have admitted (around the 2004 election) that they got their info from the Daily Show much more than other traditional networks.
Did the SNL bit ever achieve that level of that type of importance?
That was my my point - I think that intensity/popularity is winding down.
I never even suggested that they invented it. And to qualify - are we talking about SNL this century or last century?
If you guys watch the video clip, there was plenty of audience reaction.
And no, I generally don’t get invited to beltway events very often, so I don’t have much experience with it.
However, I will say that the devoted spin disciples in here are doing their damndest to suggest that there is nothing to see here.
If there was nothing to see here… you guys wouldn’t be falling all over yourselves to make sure everyone knew there was nothing to see here.
Pitiful.
[quote]vroom wrote:
And no, I generally don’t get invited to beltway events very often, so I don’t have much experience with it.[/quote]
We already noticed that with your complete airball on Bush poking fun at himself.
There isn’t - and I don’t know that anyone here has tried their ‘damnedest’, because such an exertion would seem to infer it would be a hard task, which it isn’t.
Oh, and get some new material - you’ve abused ‘spin’ just as much as your other buzzwords offered in lieu of an argument.
No one is doing what you are suggesting - you want us to be, but it simply isn’t so. Far more than mean ole right-wingers have said what we are saying.
Really, Vroom - do you think anyone here anymore actually thinks your smugness is backed with anything substantive?
LOL. I’m not the one abusing spin… nor am I being smug. Thanks for caring though!
Ouch. This actually hurts… (luckily it is only Sploid).
Bush ‘ready to blow’ over Colbert
http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/05/bush_ready_to_b.php
[i]
George W. Bush is furious over comic Stephen Colbert’s brutal performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.
Top aides to the president told U.S. News & World Report that Bush was so mad he was “ready to blow.”
Performing the same flag-waving loudmouth idiot routine he does on the cable-news satire “The Colbert Report,” the comedian savaged Bush and the White House. The dazed president looked like a retarded kid being stomped by street toughs.
“Colbert crossed the line,” a top Bush aide told the magazine after fleeing the dinner and Bush’s wrath.
A “former top aide” told U.S. News that Bush’s anger was clearly visible, and that administration officials have learned to fear that look as a warning of another insane tantrum.
“He’s got that look that he’s ready to blow,” the insider said after the Colbert spectacle.
But the real target of Colbert’s attack was the Washington press, those grossly overpaid typists who blindly “reported” whatever the administration told them to report for five devastating years – an era that many historians are already calling the last days of the United States.
…
The D.C. media gathered at the formal dinner were delighted with every bit of moronic vaudeville that passes for entertainment at these White House Correspondents’ dinners – after all, these are the same people who become absolutely giddy when some washed-up television actor shows up to these tributes to propaganda and mediocrity.
But their reaction to Colbert was mute horror. A few nervous gigglers caught on camera actually pulled the old fake coughing routine with the hand over the mouth.
The video – broadcast on CSPAN and now available all over the Internet – makes perfectly clear that Washington media people live in utter fear of angering Bush and his thugs. At times, Bush is even seen looking around the room, mentally noting who laughed at the cruelly accurate “comedy routine.”
The media’s painfully uncomfortable silence continued through the weekend and to Monday, when the usual self-congratulatory reports of the dinner appeared on television and in newspapers – but with hardly a mention of Colbert’s indictment of the president and the press.
[/i]
Colbert was being comedic w/o trying to be funny. He took the administration to task the whole time. He called them out and as anyone can see, Bush didn’t like it. Even the audience seemed a bit shocked as these events tend to be more light-hearted. Of course there is always some joking but most of the time no one has the balls to tell the emperor he has no clothes. Especially right in front of him. Kudos to Colbert!
Looking at the video, I too thought that it wasn’t necesarily hilarious, except maybe in a few spots. Really, not all that funny. There were indeed problems with timing, and the joke video with Doubting Thomas did drag a bit.
No, no. Not funny. It was better than funny. It was mordant. It was vicious to the point I experienced fleeting feelings of sympathy for the victims. But only fleetingly.
When you count the entire “Bill O’Reilly” setup Colbert uses, the Washington press corps took a good half of the damage, along with the administration. I’m not surprised they weren’t exactly rolling in the aisles. Everybody in that room was being ridiculed and pilloried for all the country to see, and deservedly so. Rather than making them giggle, I hope the after-dinner entertainment made at least a few of them sick to their stomachs.
Colbert’s real target that evening was the tight little relationship between the media and the administration. Maybe in some distant future when the fourth estate has purged the shills and the doormats from its ranks, the press dinner can get back to being a good-natured ribbing.
Meantime, the Daily Show is as good a place to get your news as any.