| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bend It Like Beck | ||||
| ||||
If you haven't seen Stephen Colbert compare himself to Glenn Beck, watch this.
I've admired Colbert for a long time, but this really is in a category of its own.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bend It Like Beck | ||||
| ||||
26 comments:
7 minutes on Glenn Beck ... BORING
except for the snot hanging from the fugazy nose ... now that was funny.
Jesus, Charlie, what crawled up your pants today?
Hell, Dave, I'm always like this (curmodgeon). I like Colbert, but that was boring (for 7 minutes). Beck is a clown to be ignored. I see all these attacks on morons like Beck and Limbaugh as 1 of 2 things: 1) a distraction from the pressure that should be applied to the people elected to get something done (and who have the power to do so) and 2) a distraction from the fact they aren't getting anything done.
The snot stuff was fun (5-10 seconds).
Who cares about Palin, Beck, et al?
The Dems finally have everything in place to get something done and you guys are playing with yourselves over Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I don't get it.
Why aren't liberal democrats breaking the shoes that count?
I'll explain, Charlie. While you think Beck and Limbaugh are clowns, I think they're dangerous. One of the reasons (just one) the blue dogs are rnning scared is they know a lot of their constituents listen to these guys and believe what they say.
That Colbert can so artfully, and humorously make the point that Beck is cynically defrauding his viewers is anything but boring.
And things are getting done. Maybe not as quickly, or as sweepingly as any of us would like, but things are getting done.
As to why I'm not busting the shoes of the Democrats is because they have plenty of eager critics.
When we have two parties, one that's weak and disorganized and one that's pure fucking crazy, I'm not about to join the crazies.
Hell, if it was up to me Ie'd have single-payer, six weeks vacation, wage protection and full retirement. But then I'd have to learn French.
I understand where you're coming from, I'm just not that eager to join the dump Obama parade. I'm afraid of what we'd get in his place.
Besides, making fun of the GOP and their leaders is more fun because they're so fucking crazy.
Charlie, read this, it explains better than I can here where I'm at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/is-this-as-good-as-it-get_b_343144.html
Thanks, David. Your blog is one of my valued resources to keep me in touch with what goes on at home.
I'll explain, Charlie. While you think Beck and Limbaugh are clowns, I think they're dangerous. One of the reasons (just one) the blue dogs are running scared is they know a lot of their constituents listen to these guys and believe what they say.
Those who would listen to Beck, etc. are going to vote Republican; those who listen to Olbermann are going to vote Democrat. Independents are all you need worry about. Independents who listen to Beck ARE Republicans and vice versa. Those independents left from the mix are going to want to see results. Bill Maher’s argument is akin to the one against Nader (or any other third party) and ultimately a guarantee that nothing changes.
Nobody is looking to dump on Obama but ignoring what he is/isn’t doing is living in denial. If those who voted him in refuse to hold him to account, who does? What you’re left with is right vs. left finger pointing. Great. That may be good for cable ratings but it is also piss poor for policy change. The Democratic left, by backing down from pressuring Obama (from fear of all those dangerous Beck, Palin, Limbaugh’s), accomplishes what exactly?
That Colbert can so artfully, and humorously make the point that Beck is cynically defrauding his viewers is anything but boring.
Colbert is usually funny. That skit was boring.
And things are getting done. Maybe not as quickly, or as sweepingly as any of us would like, but things are getting done.
Yeah, if you’re corporate America, they sure are.
As to why I'm not busting the shoes of the Democrats is because they have plenty of eager critics.
Which plays to the right’s claims about Obama not being able to handle criticism (his supporters sure can’t).
When we have two parties, one that's weak and disorganized and one that's pure fucking crazy, I'm not about to join the crazies.
Those crazies are kicking ass tonight for the same reason the disorganized one kicked ass in 2008 --- an anti President vote. Maybe if the President accomplished something …
Hell, if it was up to me Ie'd have single-payer, six weeks vacation, wage protection and full retirement. But then I'd have to learn French.
So long as you refuse to hold your party accountable, you’re right, French it is.
I understand where you're coming from, I'm just not that eager to join the dump Obama parade. I'm afraid of what we'd get in his place.
I’m coming from the dump both parties side of the political spectrum. They’re both corrupt and Obama is no different than the rest of these clowns.
Besides, making fun of the GOP and their leaders is more fun because they're so fucking crazy.
Well, you’re mostly right about that. Some of those guys/gals are, in fact, both funny and fucking crazy.
Charlie-- I don't think the GOP victories in NJ or VA were anti-Obama votes. They were based on local issues.
The closest thing to a referendum on Obama was in the NY 23rd where Beck, Palin, Pawlenty, Dickhead Armey and others all stuck their noses in, trying to push their conservative candidate agenda down the throats of the voters. They failed. And to punctuate their failure, they failed in an area where a Democrat hasn't won a House seat in well over a century.
If you know the 23rd district, you know this is not the NY of the elite. This is rural and mostly poor. And predominately GOP. If ever there was a litmus test on Obama (which is a ludicrous idea after 10 months, given the scope of the problems he faced coming in)this was it.
And the crazies still lost.
I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I certainly wish Obama could give us everything he promised right now. But given the problems and the level of obstruction from the GOP (and the Blue Dogs) I am actually amazed at how much is getting done.
Red Tree: You're 1000% right about Palin sticking her nose in the 23rd and costing them the election ... but that goes to my point; she is the kiss of death so there's no need to toss stones at her and defend a guy for doing nothing. Screw her (she'll never do anything but hurt the right's chances of winning), but that doesn't mean Democrats (especially liberal ones) should let this clown (Obama) sit back and do nothing for 4 years. Bush had to cross aisles to get what he wanted from Democrats (and they very willingly gave it--even after they were the majority). This guy can't get what he claimed he wanted with a clear majority -- which he won't have next year unless he gets something done.
Virignia was Republican and went Republican because black voters stayed home. That isn't going to help Obama in 2010... when the majority he has may possibly be lost. Then he'll have an excuse. Not now.
Charlie,
When you refer to Obama as "that clown" and "Obambi" it tells me that I'll most likely never be in the same place you are.
Which is all either of us really needs to know.
Charlie-- I can't imagine what your dump 'em all philosophy would bring and I don't think you can either. I understand your dissatisfaction but to think that a new party will rise that will sweep aside the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Dems and GOP is wishful thinking. And to think that such a party, once in power, wouldn't soon be as corrupt as what we have now is naive. And I know you're not naive.
Be careful what you wish for-- you may get it. With unexpected results...
Excuse me for not kissing his ass. He's a slick clown as far as I'm concerned. You call him what you want, brother ... but the fact he's still voting "Present" with a clear majority doesn't change his effectiveness as President. You don't want Republicans anywhere near political power, but you'll accept the status quo from fear of Republicans. I want results, not some political icon I can make believe is a great man/president because he's the cool choice. I suggest you do some reading up on the gifted one (there's a difference between smart and saavy and the way this guy was first elected in Chicago was nothing more than using lawyers to disqualify incumbents on technicalities). If you think that's inclusive or noble, good for you. I call it slick.
I don't see this guy as the second coming. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy (like every other politician when they need to be), but he seems a lot more interested in not making mistakes he can be blamed for then using the political capital he was handed on election night.
And until he gets something done for the people, I'll call him Obambi and a clown.
Red Tree: So long as your reasoning prevails, we're stuck with two corrupt parties that do nothing for the people they supposedly represent. I've tried both parties and understand the reasoning behind voting one or the other but I refuse to support either anymore.
I'm a lost cause on either party (there Dave is right--we'll never be on the same page--I've returned to the extreme left--Nader and/or the socialist party). What I don't understand is how (or why) liberal democrats refuse to pressure this guy (or anybody they've voted for). I mean, WTF? You voted him in so you can make fun of the opposite party?
Great ... that'll work.
Charlie, you're talking out of your ass.
I call my local Congressman's office and I write letters. I held him accountable for the FISA vote, the bankruptcy bill and a half dozen other things. I even met with him in his office about healthcare. He's a liberal Democrat and I do push him to live up to our principles.
And if I had a line to Obama I'd do the same thing. But I don't. I have a blog which you think I should use to go all Fox News on Obama. Ain't going to happen.
I suggest you use your own blog for that.
And for the record, I have no illusions about Obama. He's a politician, not a messiah. But with this guy we have a chance, slim as it may be, to improve things. With Republicans, we have no chance. Zip.
But if you think the answer is to back a third party, you have my blessings. Just don't assume I'm not doing what I can to hold my party accountable because you don't know what I do outside of this blog.
My ass speaks and Dave listens … I like that.
The problem with your summation, counselor, is this: “the blue dogs are rnning scared is they know a lot of their constituents listen to these guys and believe what they say” … do you really think your blog is being read by those on the right (or independents) who might be swayed by Steven Colbert poking fun at Glenn Beck?
You have blog cheerleaders, no doubt, and although I find a lot of your contents funny (i.e., the 5-10 second snot thing in the 7 minute mostly boring video—no fair, sometimes you're legitimately very funny), I seriously doubt that you’re doing more than playing to the crowd … but how would I know what you do at home (writing your congressman, etc.) from what you put on your blog? To me it looks like you will do anything to avoid what’s going on in Washington. To be fair, you do occasionally show you’re pissed off at what isn’t getting done (healthcare comes to mind) and I commend you for it … but it seems to me that when the chips are down in Obamaville, you find idiots like Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc., a more convenient target than what might get people to start questioning the leadership they just voted into office. I mean, how about some banking oversight legislation? You think maybe if you once in a while got the troops (your readers) up in arms over the fact that the corporate shakedown one year ago hasn’t had a single piece of oversight legislation directed its way by a government that gave away all OUR money, it might help the cause more than Steven Colbert on Glenn Beck? You did a great and noble job of having us send books to Iraq … maybe all of us might write our congressmen too?
I do, in fact, take shots at Mr. Obambi (the clown) and the right (those clowns too) pretty much every post on my blog. I try to anyway … but that has more to do with confronting defenders of both parties with facts I would hope some of my readers (however much they might not like it) start to deal with.
And I doubt I'm making many friends over at my place ... most of my friends on the left won't forgive my abandoning the Dems for Bush (twice) ... and now those on the left won't forgive me my insistance that Obama (who's not nearly left enough for me) start DOING SOMETHING for the people rather than the Corporations ...
And, of course, then there's DOC I let comment after each post ... and he's relentlessly against the Dems and my choices.
Sounds like someone didn't eat their Wheaties today...
Just so I understand, Charlie, you voted for Bush twice and are now a Nader/Socialist?
Yeah, Obama isn't the great lefty many of us want him to be, and it would be nice to see some more strong arm tactics ala LBJ, but that ain't his way. On the other hand, we now have a number of things we didn't have a year ago:
*The Lily Ledbetter Act
*More funding for Stem Cell research
*A plan to close Gitmo (though no, it won't happen within the year timeline)
*A stimulus bill that actually helped staunch the bleeding
*A President who actually thinks.
It's a start.
Two things, Charlie, and then let's move on:
1. ...how would I know what you do at home..?
My point exactly. You assumed this blog was the beginning and end of my political involvement in keeping the Democratic party honest. You were wrong.
2. ...but it seems to me that when the chips are down in Obamaville, you find ... a more convenient target than what might get people to start questioning the leadership they just voted into office.
And this, Charlie, is where I see the source of your frustration and confusion. I write this blog for me. Nobody else. If I think something is amusing, or interesting, or informative or I just want to vent, I do it here. See, it's all about whatever shiny object attracts my attention.
I don't do it for money, obviously, and I have no sponsors to please.
I do it because I like it.
If other people enjoy reading this thing, I'm not only happy, I'm also a little surprised.
If I've entertained a few people for a few minutes, that's great. Because that's what I am, really, at my core - an entertainer.
So, if I'm not doing it for you here, Charlie, there are lots of other sites you can read that might. Try Free Republic for nonstop Obama- bashing. Just try not to get any of that Freeper sludge on you. That shit's toxic.
Just so I understand, Charlie, you voted for Bush twice and are now a Nader/Socialist
Correctomundo … I was on the far left prior to Bush but felt abandoned by the Dems on defense issues (Clinton). Neither here nor there at this point; I would’ve loved to see Bush et al brought up on war crimes (but the DEMS didn’t do that either) … but I’m curious as to what you think is so different between this clown (Obama) and the last one (Bush)? You do realize not much of substance (if anything) has changed, I hope. I'd go into detail (regarding how workers were screwed back to the 1930's on labor issues because of Obama's rush to support the Bush proposed bailouts), but Dave's eyes would roll into the back of his head again.
On the other hand, we now have a number of things we didn't have a year ago:
I’ll skip to this one because the others you mentioned just aren’t enough to argue:
*A President who actually thinks.
Well, like most PHd’s (although I don’t think they’ve bestowed that title to him yet), he thinks far more than he does. 100 Present votes in the Chicago Senate … you think he’s decided on any of those yet?
Buddy, what’s to “think” about? He has enough of a majority to nail the Republicans to the cross on health care and getting out of Iraq but somehow he can’t get it done. Give Bush this much … he got those morons (the Democrats in the Senate and Congress) to approve two fucking wars (not to mention everything else he got after 2006) … this clown has a veto proof majority and what, he has to think about ramming it up their (Republican) asses?
It's a start.
He doesn’t get something substantial accomplished before next November, it’ll be finished. He may get reelected (because the other clowns don’t have anybody to put against him) but what exactly does that accomplish if he’s still rotating his thumbs to his ass?
Maybe it’s just me … I don’t understand why everyone on the Democratic left is so content to let this clown off the hook …
So, if I'm not doing it for you here, Charlie, there are lots of other sites you can read that might. Try Free Republic for nonstop Obama- bashing. Just try not to get any of that Freeper sludge on you. That shit's toxic.
Actually, I comment on a far right wing blog and torture them equally … and there are a few there who get over sensitive and sarcastic but on the whole, they’re pretty decent about it (of course they think I’m nuts too).
What would you do without me, Dave? I’m a constant ball-breaker for you and Dusty. I piss off your loyals (even you sometimes) but that’s what discourse is all about. Aside from some of the anonymous loons you occasionally get in here, who would you get frustrated over without the fat guy from Joisey?
Besides, I’m a creature of habit … I go here, Dusty’s place and the right wing blog (and occasionally have to point out to them how pissed off I get people here) …
This may explain four marriages too, while I’m at it …
So equal pay for woman, decent research funding (to say nothing of an overall return to science), and preventing even more massive unemployment isn't "enough to argue" about? I'll take that as agreement that these are all worthy accomplishments.
Having said that, if you don't think the left is pissed about his stance on FISA, or the desire for a strong, robust public option, or about the Obama administration dragging their feet on any sort of prosecution for torture, than you haven't been visiting the same blogs as I. Still, this is better than VP Palin.
Sounds like you're being a contrarian for contrarian's sake.
So equal pay for woman, decent research funding (to say nothing of an overall return to science), and preventing even more massive unemployment isn't "enough to argue" about? I'll take that as agreement that these are all worthy accomplishments.
Okay, you asked for it (forgive me, Dave) … let’s start with the last of your “worthy accomplishments” and I’ll stipulate to equal pay and science … PREVENTING MORE MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT?
First off … do you have a clue as to what the American worker gave up in this prevention of his/her massive unemployment? Let’s start with how OUR money was given (with extreme prejudice and speed—where was his fucking “thoughtfulness” when it came to giving the money away) without a single fucking protection for workers. AIG, et al gets our money but aren’t required to a) reverse outsourcing of AMERICAN jobs or b) preclude any further outsourcing. AIG gets our money but 1) there are no tax deferments for those of us who need to borrow from our 401K’s (which have also been destroyed by AIG, et al). While we’re there, what about bailout out our 401K’s while we’re at it? The method by which corporations et al have stripped workers of bonuses, vacation days, hours, wage increases and gone with wage cuts instead is akin to losing 80 years of labor gains. Corporate bonuses, salary increases, regulations … not a single one was stipulated to before he gave away our money. Do you know how when you go to a bank (or a loan shark) you don’t get to tell them the terms of the loan? Well, maybe his thoughtfulness shouldn’t consulted you (or a loan shark) because he gave that money away without a thought to halting the clowns who bankrupted us from doing it again (not to mention the bonuses they got to keep after failing miserably).
Buddy, my fingers hurt. You convince yourself that this guy is doing something. Knock yourself out. This guy was part of the biggest crime ever launched on the American worker. You call it preventing massive unemployment … yeah, right.
And before you tell me he did something (as opposed to nothing) just remember that he took the ball Bush handed him (the bailout ball) and ran with it (he supported Bush’s bailouts as a Senator and again as President). What, suddenly George Bush is an economic fucking genius?
Wow. Holy strawman argument, Batman!
I never said the word "thoughtful", so I'm not sure where you got that "quote" from.
You say in one breath that you stipulate the equal pay and science piece, then you intimate that he hasn't in fact done anything. In my posts, I gave examples of areas that he's disappointed the left. You appear to ignore those sections in favor of rants. I'm all in favor of a good rant from time to time, but let's focus on the entire message.
My comment re: preventing more massive employment was in reference to the stimulus package saving jobs. If you want to skip that part and jump over to the issue of how Wall street is/was being dealt with, I'm right there with you. But dude, no need to be so combative.
Sorry for the angst, anonymous ... I get emotional about 3:00 p.m.
The stimulus hopefully will do something for workers but I'm not seeing it here in NY ... in fact, I already lost one job (weekends) and am waiting on losing #2. Then I'm really screwed (but my raises, etc. were all killed last year). I don't like how so much of the stimulus became pet projects; the 12 republicans who originally held out (at $700 billion) and then extorted the extra $150 billion from the Dems) should've be lined up and shot. But, so should have the Dems for caving in without reading the bill!
What you mentioned as accomplishments are nice but ... not near enough to get excited about (not with the current crisis we're all living with). You do know there hasn't been a single piece of regulation oversight legislation passed, right? He should be catching crap for that every day it continues; the banks can do exactly what they did to us all over again (too big to fail?). They've already given themselves excutive compenation above and BEYOND what they had before the failed.
You did say he's a "thinking" president (what I meant by his thoughtfulness--i thought you were alluding to his taking his time on afghanistan).
Again, sorry for the combative tone.
Hi Charlie,
Understood. We're cool. Again, I'm right there with you on executive pay and the (so far) lack of oversight legislation. Plus, I fear whatever oversight legislation does pass, it'll be watered down. So on those pieces, hand me a pitchfork and torch, and I'll storm the barricades with ya!
Good luck on the job front.
Peace.
I love it when the kids play nice.
Post a Comment