But I thought the NYTimes was liberal...

how is Stephen Colbert at the White House actually news? And how is not covering the story a "conservative conspiracy"?

there's a major blackout on the whole thing and doesn't surprise me a bit.

it's totally newsworthy.

Oh come now. It wasn't all that. It was a trumped up celebrity roast.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by Clov]

as Vernicous knid has already pointed out, the Bush impersonator is by far the lesser story compared with Stephen Colbert. The simple fact that i saw this story on pretty much every discussion board that I look at, and not one of them mentions the Bush impersonator (except in the same cntext as this thread). I have also not seen Colbert mentioned in a single 'mainstream' newspaper.

It is clearly a media whitewash and it is absolutely clear that Colbert said things that he wasn't supposed to have said. Either the media deliberately tried to censor him of their own accord, or the White house told the owners and editors 'Either you keep this quiet, or there won't be another roast next year and you'll miss out on your little party with the president.'

col--bert? i dont think ive ever heard that name. now, come along vermicious, to our re-education center.

Let's also not forget that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton among many other liberals supported the war at the outset.

A lot of people supported the war based on the lies that the administration told them, what's your point?

Colbert thread number 3.

if you think the bush impersonator needs his own thread, please start one. itherwise its colbert 3+ / impersonator 0.

Actually I was thinking of starting a "Did Colbert Plan 911" thread until HoratiosDream threatened to "take me on a little trip to the vets to calm me down"

My point is that saying that the NYT supported the war doesn't make it a conservative paper. What's YOUR point?

go for it! just make sure to put it in silliness board.

Vermicious, some help for you on this one.

I think I've posted this before. The link below shows maps of the various board members of major news corporations in America.

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/mediamaps.htm

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/C2006_chap6.pdf

For those of you who don't know corporate structure in America, the board is the guiding force behind a corporation. Residing above the officers (who get all the press) the board is the entity that typically determines what company is doing. In other words, the board runs the company (not the nitty gritty details, but the overall picture, this is a simplistic explanation, but it covers what is needed)

The articles makes some statements regarding the news being reported accurately. The simple idea being, a board member of a news corporation, that resides on the board of say the carlyle group would tend to not want the news corp he helps govern to go overboard on reporting the details of his company unless it were positive press.

Now, of course, these board members of multiple corporations, that extract maximum profit from their various adventures.They want us the people that support their wealth to have news that is potentially damaging to them? Or potentially damaging to their interests? Yep, they're outstanding people that care more about the democracy then they do the lining of their pockets?

Doubtful.

It isn't a conspiracy theory, just something people aren't aware of.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by joker_c86]

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by joker_c86]

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by joker_c86]

Which discussion boards? Kos? DU?

The fact that Leftists are fawning over Colbert is no guarantee of quality. Hatred fucks your critical faculties.

So they weren't slagging him off either. They ignored him because, coming after the Bush speech, he was unremarkable.

oh don't be ridiculous Akrasia.

I disagree with you on most things, but surely you are intelligent enough not to believe this?

honestly, there's been so much fawning twaddle written about this guy, it is unreal

it was funny in places, it was controversial in places, it bombed in places it fell apart in places, some of it was met with titters, some with silence -

all in it was an average, run of the mill anti-Bush set and the only reason the left are wetting themselves in exitment over it was because he said those things in front of Bush

but he appeared with Bush's sanction and any critical comments he made pailed in comparison to the self-deprecation offered by the president himself.

Bush was much harder on Bush than Colbert (and he delivered his lines better).

The left are not famous for their ability to laugh at themselves, so perhaps this is why the Bush speech isn't mentioned on those message boards.

Or perhaps it's subconcious fear that they might have to say something "positive" about Bush.

That is surely an exercise in intellectual freedom that most leftists would run miles from.

yes. yes it does, mr oven pot

again, bull. but dont take my word for it, look at the 3+ threads on this message board. or how many copies are springing up on you tube and like servers. almost noone is talking about the impersonator. a lot of people are wow ing and goshing and laughing at colberts performance.

now, granted, a lot of people are wowing at his balls, specifically. but who has more guts: a man delivering criitical humor of the leader of the free world in front of that leader of the free world, or a man hired and paid by the president to do a skit with the president?

again, pot. kettle. the right are the ones without a sense of humor. who does the right claim? pj o'rourke? you cant claim southpark any more.

or maybe its that humor works better when it makes the audience feel superior to the subject. ie; the home audience feels superior to bush. humor has always and will always strive to crack at people in power. bush does well at making fun of his speech patterns, but thats a minor quibble when compared to his other failings and i would say old hat even (bushism's books started appearing in 2000... joke books published by the left...

colbert's appearence WAS in poor taste for the function... but was also amazingly funny.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by attn_ho]

This reminds me of the part in 1984 where people keep repeating bullshit until people consider it true. Bush is so great.

bush IS great!

"don't take my word for it, take the word of thousands of other frustrated libs & leftists"

So Colbert was only noteworthy if you have liberal bent and hate Bush, eh? Then surely our mainstream "liberal" "Bush-hating" media should've been all over this story, hmm? Our "liberal" press that will supposedly inflate any "non-story" if it makes Bush look bad?



...unless our media is not quite as liberal as it has been accused.


[Edited on May 02, 2006 by Keith]

It was just pretty "nothingy".

And I don't think it takes particular "guts" for this guy, a professional presenter, to voice his rather mild & muted criticisms of Bush in front of the man himself.

meh!

fed up talking about this

like i said, if the impersonator was funnier and edgier, it would be getting this reaction. its not.
funny spreads. as kids, we're more likely to share our mad magazines than our boy's life magazines. humor IS popularity contest, measured in laughs, reads, and downloads.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by attn_ho]

that's because he performed as part of Bush's speech and the left can't even voice grudging approval of anything Bush says.

they are intellectually imprisoned

now you'll wheel out the "pot kettle" thing again, but think about this for a second

On more than one occassion I have listed the things I vehemently disagree with most Conservatives and George Bush on.

People imprisoned by hate, doctrine, dogma and partisan allegence don't allow themselves much leeway to pick and choose their own opnions.

This is especially true of the cult-like hatred of Bush that exists in liberal circles.

It would be anethema to this church to admit even slight approval of something that Bush said or did.

Compliments are as rare as hens teeth. It's not just the left. Many Conservatives don't afford themselves the freedom to accept elements of Liberal thought.

That said, I like to think that, by sheer virtue of their membership of an alternative porn site, people here HAVE exercised individual thought away from the mainstream of their ordinary political creed.


[Edited on May 02, 2006 by UpTight]

you know what? im agreeing with almost all of what you said here. but by saying the left is a cult, well, you get it a little wrong. its more like frustration of a group of workers who have an incompetant and crooked boss. it becomes a bitchfest that can rile people up more than solve any problems.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by attn_ho]

the left isn't a cult - fuck, my politcal compass put me on the left

but there is a cult of Bush hate and it makes people do very wierd stuff

see:

http://www.zombietime.com

Can anyone please tell me why liberals take a poor and failed comic routine by talentless comic and try and make it seem as if it's a heroic act of "Speaking Truth to Power"? .

Here guys, let me help you... THE SCHTICK SUCKED! Buddy Hackett would'nt of used such shitty material if he was playing the Aderondacks! Colbert is a shitty comedian! Bush does better stand-up! Get over it!! Live with it already!!

The NYT did'nt write about it BECASUE IT BOMBED! They were embarssed to have anything to do with it!! 'mmmmmkay??