Adventure Game Studio

The video of Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner (http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Colbert-Confronts-Bush-With-Truthiness-202.html) has been making the rounds. To sum up what happens, Stephen Colbert is just ten feet away from President Bush and rips him a new arsehole while the whole audience watches awkwardly.

I've been reading a lof of comments from people who've seen this video and most sum up in a few short words: Big. Brass. Balls.

And I agree.

Yeah I read about that, it's great.
And George had to nod politely and shake hands afterwards, haha.

I tried watching it but it's just too awkward.  Painfully so.  But I read the transcript...it's fantastic.  I heard Bush walked out early following the speech.

Good thing the major reports about the night sum everything up by saying "Bush pokes fun at self." and then mention Stephen Colbert in maybe 2 lines...

But either way, Colbert is pretty much the most testicled man in America.

Being in Hong Kong the last few years, I'm a bit out of touch with the media and "mainstream television", so I've never heard of this Stephen Colbert guy untill now.Ã,  But after watching those videos, I must agree that he certainly put Bush and his lackeys in their place, and that indeed he has some "Big. Brass. Balls."Ã, 

Kudos to him for speaking the truth at such a gathering.Ã,  Though I almost suspect some unfortunate "accident" might now befall him, or at the very least he's now towards the top of the "President's Shit List" amoung such other outspoken people such as Micheal Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com).Ã,  Anyways, it was interesting to watch. Guess they expected something a lot different from him.

Man, that was brutal... but hilarious ;D
Being a regular viewer of the Colbert Report, I wonder what they expected him to do in the first place--I mean, what he said at the dinner isn't that different from what he says on his show.

Colbert's daughters will be born with balls.

His sons with 4.

And all made of TITANIUM!

I watched the whole thing.  It was spectacular!  It's what I've been wanting to see happen for years, but never has until now.
I think that Press Secretary audition tape was hilarious!

Cheers to ya, Colbert!

Quote from: Anarcho on Mon 01/05/2006 14:20:34
I tried watching it but it's just too awkward.  Painfully so.  But I read the transcript...it's fantastic.

Can somone point me in the direction of a transcript, please? My google skills seem to have failed.

EDIT:
Nevermind, found one here (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811).

I think the ONLY thing Bush and his people can do is try to pretend like it didn't happen ... I mean Bush's approval ratings are the lowest (I believe) that any President has ever had.  It would seem like America is finally waking up?

ANY sort of back-lash they would try to direct at Colbert would probably only send that number lower.

I say hats off to Colbert ... it's one thing to tape a show in a studio ripping on the president, it's another thing ENTIRELY to stand 10 feet from the most powerful man in the world and speak your mind.

Not only is he a great combination of smart and funny, he has now proved he's got those aforementioned brass balls.

The disturbing thing is that this hasn't received ANY attention in the mainstream media.  It's like it never happened.

Ummm....wasn't it broadcast nationally?

Isn't that mainstream enough?

I know what Anarcho means...  but I watched it live as he showed his video he produced as if he were the press secretary, and he can't get away from one of the better known press reporters. It was amusing, and I chuckled a bit, but ScubaChicVB didn't like it at all. She just didn't think it was funny. I did feel a bit bad for Stephen when the president wasn't even watching the video as it was playing. They had a split screen showing the video and the president's "reactions" during it play, live. The president really didnt care.

Then after it played, the show was over and the president really didn't stick around at all, like mentioned before. I kinda joked about that with ScubaChic at our apartment. Then Fox news anchors came on immediatly and decided to analyze the whole show, and discussed how mildly amusing Stephen was. I had to agree. It was alright. I love the Colbert Report and the Daily Show, but this bit was alright. If the video linked to above is more of like a "roast" of the president, well, then that would be certainly something, but it wasn't mentioned by those anchors at all. I'll check out the video later.

The fact that he manages to do it at all is to be applauded. Of course, America being the land of freedom and the first ammendment, they could hardly have dragged him off stage.

He manages to insult him by way of complimenting him. To say it isn't funny is to miss the point. He backhandedly calls the president an illiterate uneducated idiot in charge of a bunch of other illiterate uneducated idiots. While he is in the SAME room. In front of the world.

He ridicules domestic policy, foreign policy, the press, the Iraq situation, the military, and rightly so. The fact that what he is saying is largely true is all the more reason to commend him.

I'll be interested to see the fallout.

No, I mean that it hasn't really been talked about in the mainstream papers or media...at least I haven't seen it.  I mean when Harry Taylor confronted Bush at a "Town Hall Meeting" a while back it was all they were talking about on CNN and the like.  What Colbert did was much more confrontational if you ask me.  I mean, you can even look at what happened with the Irish reporter Carole Coleman.  She interviewed Bush and dared to interrupt him, and it was widely reported.  It was a big deal. 

Now I'm not saying there's some "conspiracy" or something, it's just strange that I'm only hearing about this on blogs.

Dunno. It was quite funny and surprising, but I'm not sure if someone has brass balls here. Or how to measure freedom of speech / joke tolerance is such case.

Maybe - for someone like Colbert - a brave/insane? show like this guarantees stardom and a nice career. Not every comedian gets the chance to make similar appearance... and not every comedian dares to even dream about it.

Then again, isn't insulting an official a crime? Especially if the official happens to be -khm- the highest of them? And in public, media? He could be locked away in totally legal manner and no one could complain about it... It would just be bad for George's already bad ratings. I'm not familiar with laws of US, but I believe there's a paragraph for cheeky comedians insulting officials :D.

Well, there's not much countries where a comedian could pull tricks like this... I can't imagine how such show would end in... Russia, for example. The comedian (to trick the public) would maybe walk off unharmed, but the director(s) of TV station(s) broadcasting such show nationwide would spend unknown amount of time in a small, wet, cold room... and never be a director again. Even if there would be NO repressions, the comedian would be fired immediately, just because directors are afraid of power and trouble it may cause.

If Bush had good advisors or figured out himself (er, maybe not), he would backfire this circus quite easily in his next speech - complain about "everybody not taking things seriously enough", "we're at war, for god's sake" and "enough of comedy", etc. Only way to get rid of buffoon's image is to start acting in serious manner.

Anyway, entertaining. As a comedy has to be. So someone did his work very well here.

Do you really call her "Scubachic" Scumbuddy?!?

Increator, making fun of the president, the press and the administration is kinda the point of the correspondance dinner.

I didn't know that.

But...
Though there's always joking about power, but this video, well. It sounded a bit too personal and offensive to me. Satire works when "attacked" person laughs along with the crowd and gives a nice warm forgiving smile. Where was it? Well, later?

Also, I think these things were televised before [I don't know when they started] and that is also getting this a lot of attention. Apparently Imus [some radio guy, I guess] laid into Clinton a few years ago too.

Oh well, as long as it kept Bush away from the whitehouse where he can do damage.

Quote from: InCreator on Mon 01/05/2006 23:03:20
Satire works when "attacked" person laughs along with the crowd and gives a nice warm forgiving smile.

No way. Satire is independent of the target's reactions and works regardless of such reactions. Case in point, the numerous targets that South Park has "attacked".

Wasn't the whole event supposed to be a roast on the press corps, the president and the two press secretaries? So personal attacks are supposed to be in there. I'm just wondering why Colbert, and especially the video sketch he did, didn't get a bigger reaction from the crowd.

Roasting is a very western thing to do and it's most prominent in the media in the US. In Finland no one makes fun or attacks people in the media, and I imagine it's the same with all Scandinavian and Slavic, as well as many of the central european nations. If attacks are made, they're very subtle and political, and they're carried out very gently and respectfully. Still, personal attacks are a big no-no here. I think it's a good and a bad thing both here and in the US.

darth,

last I heard, the distinction of Bush's approval ratings was that he has the lowest of any re-elected president during the first year of his second term.

And its going to be a long ass haul during the next three quarters.  Basically to get his ratings up, he must save a baby from a burning skyscraper during a hurricane.

Nixon had 15% approval in 1973 [after getting 60% of the vote in '72]. I don't think Bush has dived that low yet.

Hey guys, found a video clip of Leno with that "Dubya Bush" impersonator guy doing a spoof interview. Kinda funny, but, nowhere as ballsy or as biting as Colbert. Still, worth a look: http://www.wimp.com/lenobush/

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/05/2006 09:47:44Roasting is a very western thing to do and it's most prominent in the media in the US. In Finland no one makes fun or attacks people in the media, and I imagine it's the same with all Scandinavian and Slavic, as well as many of the central european nations.

I don't know you could say roasting is so promient in the US or that no one attacks the European media. For example, after the Danish cartoon controversy, a lot of embassies got roasted.

For one thing, in most other western nations people and media can openly criticise the government without being called unpatriotic.
I think in the states you see more of the two extremes; both the sharpest satire and the most hushing-up.

The biggest part of this Colbert thing is that this dinner thing is a tradition, right?

the president would rather not deal with the press, unless they had intentions to boost his image.  He spends the majority of the time ignoring them and giving them ambiguous replies.

Critics like Colbert have always been around, theyve simply not been as funny .. or at least got this kind of air play.

I think a lot of people in the US would consider you unpatriotic for criticizing the government.   Just watch five minutes of Fox News and see!   We just don't get sent to jail for it...well, unless you criticize the government without a permit.  In public.  That can often lead to tear gas AND jail.  And techincally, since we're at war, I'm pretty sure the Sedition Act is still valid...so criticizing the government is illegal:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html

But hey, at least we're not China!  We don't jail bloggers!

[EDIT] Oh wait, evidently the Sedition Act of 1918 was REPEALED!  Whew!  That was a close one...

I still don't see why americans brag about freedom. There are other places with more freedom.

The moon, up your mother's ass (Mr. Show), some parts of the Sahara and Gobi deserts...

Guam?

Canada!
Were we throw pies in  two our leaders face, one TWICE (Jean Chretien, Paul Martin
Were a former prime minister got Egged while walking down the street. ( Pierre Trudeau)
Were the national sport is criticising the government.
Were we have one of the worlds highest comedians per capita
Sorry, but for the most part, I love my country. ;D

Canadian money. 'Nuff said. ;) :P

So we got monopoly money, so what? the colour of your money doesn't make you FREE.

QuoteIn Finland no one makes fun or attacks people in the media, and I imagine it's the same with all Scandinavian and Slavic, as well as many of the central european nations.

Indeed. If any joker could walk up to our President and make a clown out of him, nobody would respect him anymore.
He's our elected image (not leader) and only one who should be treated with respect. After all, Parliament decides stuff, not him.
If I'd post a message on Internet saying that he's a moron, I should expect KAPO (our Defence Police, read "FBI" or "KGB") knocking at my door 30 minutes later. Recently, defence minister accepted a law which allows to punish people commenting in Internet... Of course, it just means serious money fine, not a dark cell for a lifetime.

And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Making fun of press and Parliament is way another thing, of course.

lo-res man, lo-res man, lo-res man.

Don't you know that colour is the international sign of er... unfreedom?

Everyone wearing the same drab colours and everything looking identical, say drab green is the international symbol of a military-industrial com--I mean freedom.

Of course, you couldn't say this about the US, where everyone wears colourful costumes and dances in the street at night during one or two hollidays a year.

Of course, their flag has three colours, while ours only has two.  And white isn't a colour--so, that makes it more like 3-1.  Except one of their colours is white.  I think we can agree at least our flag isn't Lybia's.  I mean green?  That's  the colour of fascis--I mean freedom.  Hey look! Boat!

Quote
And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

In the USA we try to understand that dissenting from our elected leader is NOT dissenting from our country.Ã,  It is in no way unpatriotic to disagree and even publicly ridicule the President.

I wish more people recognized that, but it seems that more and more people will lable you a traitor, or terrorist sympathizer if you don't bow down to the will of the President.

But, as the very famous quote from Thomas Jefferson goes, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

What I have learned, the Finnish media isn't that free. Take this EU farming support (don't know the correct term yet, but the amount of money they give to support farming). Now we have a prime minister that is from the central party. And basically that means he does what the farmers tell him to do. Well, he himself went to the conference, negotiated Finland the worst agricultural funds one could, and at the same time we ended up paying support to France and England. Now there was a big rumble about how my party, SDP and the central party were arguing and they were accusing my party's leader for driving bad politics on the farmers.

Well that's all because the fact that we lost all the support money was never revealed. The current prime minister told the press that they couldn't make it public, and since 95% of the finnish media is owned by the righties they stood behind him.

It's a bit off topic, but it's an opinion... and the truth about this.
basically I find that a huge amount of people's opinions are based on what the media tells them, and the media is manipulated all the time. Yeh, I won't go deeper into it, it's pretty small scale and boring.

Quote from: InCreator
He's our elected image (not leader) and only one who should be treated with respect. After all, Parliament decides stuff, not himquote]

True but the prime minister does have quite a bit of power.

[quote author=InCreator
And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Quote

Quote from: Raggit on Tue 02/05/2006 17:47:04

Quote
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Definitly Raggit. The right to disagree is the most importent right there is, IMO, but anyone is free to disagree with me ;D

QuoteLaughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Can I ridicule and criticise the leader of my country that I personally did not vote for and does not represent my views?

Quote from: InCreator on Tue 02/05/2006 17:24:34

QuoteIn Finland no one makes fun or attacks people in the media, and I imagine it's the same with all Scandinavian and Slavic, as well as many of the central european nations.

Indeed. If any joker could walk up to our President and make a clown out of him, nobody would respect him anymore.
He's our elected image (not leader) and only one who should be treated with respect. After all, Parliament decides stuff, not him.
If I'd post a message on Internet saying that he's a moron, I should expect KAPO (our Defence Police, read "FBI" or "KGB") knocking at my door 30 minutes later. Recently, defence minister accepted a law which allows to punish people commenting in Internet... Of course, it just means serious money fine, not a dark cell for a lifetime.

And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Making fun of press and Parliament is way another thing, of course.

Wow, that is soooo not what I meant. You can critisize the President or whoever you want in Finland. I was just saying that we don't flame it out like the americans. The Finnish media and the people involved in it are very courteous. If someone critisizes another person, it is usually done in a calm and backing way. It has to do with the common Finnish timid, humble and respectful nature, rather than any government mandate. Simply put, we respect calmness, respectfulness and intelligence, so we expect that from people. If someone shouts out an outrageous flame without backing it up, it's usually not taken seriously. It's the code of respect and the nature of timidness rather than any government stranglehold, that's keeping down the flamewars.

I can't believe Estonia is as you described. That some secret police would come and get you for speaking your mind. You make it sound like you're living in a dictatorship. Finland is very proud of its grassroots-fair nature. If there was any suspicion of suppression of free speech or corruption here in terms of the goverment, the country would seriously be flabbergasted. So in this way, I'm very happy to have a respectful media.

But as I said, it's a good and a bad thing. Whilst in Finland the media is very dull as I described, and it has zero entertainment value, opposed to the US, it can also be a bit suppressive. For example, people really look down on those who say radical claims, when the image of the country is at risk. In this way, we kind of hold down people. There is no legal or byrocratical boundary for saying what you want, but rather a moral bind. For example, anyone could go around saying he's a terrorist and a traitor without any ramifications, but that person probably wouldn't get much airtime in the media. And just to be clear, it wouldn't be a matter of legality, but more of a matter of what the news executives think is proper or worthy news to report.

In the US, news, particularly cable news, are also for entertainment. Hence the studly and beautiful news anchors, the adorable pet news and all the fear mongering. People are always competing for viewers, so the most shocking things are rewarded. This is why flaming is so common in the states. They get the craziest pundits to battle each other out, until the public doesn't know what to think. So being like such, it isn't really a good representation of the general american public. My point in the beginning was that a fear-mongering, hate-spouting lunatic like Bill O'Reilly would simply not get any airtime in Finland, because such behaviour is looked down on, whereas in the states it can be recognized as a controversial viewer magnet.

There are two examples I'd like to mention about both good and bad representations of our media.

First of all, about the openness. The Prime Minister's father, a recognized and merited professor, said some time ago that black people don't have the as good of a capacity to learn than white men - that they're brains don't function the same way as ours. He was highly criticized, and the Prime Minister as well as the whole country were a bit embarrassed. Some controversy sprung with Nigeria threatning to end all relations with Finland, because they thought it was the Prime Minister himself who said it. Well, they apologized after hearing who had actually said it. But my point is, such a statement wasn't suppressed or covered up in any way. Neither was it bolted up as a national tragedy, which would definately happen in the US, if George Bush sr. would say something like it. People were embarrassed, but that was about it. Anyhow, after smacking my forehead in a general 'oh no he didn't' gesture, I was proud that a story such as that one was able to get published.

Now for the suppressiveness. The Danish cartoons sprung a global conflict. Shortly after the cartoons, a Finnish magazine decided to publish a cartoon ridiculing the President, the PM and the foreign minister about their timidness about the whole scandal. The cartoon portrayed the leaders burning a Danish flag. This critique meant that the famous Finnish neutrality and humility was kind of keeping us away from taking sides, when we should've taken the side of our Danish blood brothers. Anyways, the cartoonist and the guy who ran the story were both fired, and the main claim for it was that the cartoon had personally ridiculed the leaders to the level of a terrorist, and that such cartoons may well jeopardize national security. This was kind of an embarrassment for me, since I feel that even if the message is negative, publishers and cartoonists should be able to do whatever they wanted. But I guess it was more of risk management than a matter of free speech. A similar thing where risk management overlapped free speech was when a Finnish magazine was gonna publish the Danish cartoons and they were forbidden to do so in fear of Islamist retaliation.

I watched it all. Whereas it was balsy, I don't feel Colbert said very much. Personal attacks aside, his satire, though somewhat funny, didn't really get any points across. It just seemed like a very bad SNL sketch. Silly and obtuse (mainly his "audition" tape).

I think roasts can be a high form of flattery... But when it's not particularly expected, it can send some crazy hard feelings around.

Personally, I don't know what to feel about anything in politics these days, except apathy. I don't know who to listen to, who to believe, and therefore I can't form my own opinion because I have nothing to base it in.

What little Colbert actually said, though, I may have to agree with. But honestly, I think Bush deserves much more respect than he gets. We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*, and with all due respect I think the man has made some terrible horrible decisions. But who are we to judge? We, as a society, can never be pleased it seems. We seem to always have the answers, but nobody with enough say cares.

I think we are putting our blame on the wrong guy. It's the high corporate executives and corrupt senators, all hungry for money, who we should be looking at. They, it seems, have more power than even the president. When the issue of deciding where to buy a summer home with 18 rooms and 250,000 sqare feet of beach and garden is more important than the welfare of an entire society, I think taking pot shots at the country's leader should be the least of our concern.

But who am I to say. I know next to nothing about all of this...

Yeah, well don't take us for nazis or fascist because of what I said.  ;D There's no such difference between people's PUBLIC opinions, but you know, the gap is the reason we are losing the so called nordic welfare that some societies so like about us.

Well it was supposed to be a roast, it was supposed to be funny, and Mr. Colbert is supposed to be a professional comedian.  The audience was mostly composed of left leaning journalists who oppose most of Bush's policies and therefore not hostile to Colbert's comments.    As someone in this thread correctly noted there wasn't much response from the audience in the way of laughter, especially during his initial comments about Bush.   The audience's response improved slightly when he went on to other topics.   

Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouHJuSbuTlo

Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 02/05/2006 20:04:56
I watched it all. Whereas it was balsy, I don't feel Colbert said very much. Personal attacks aside, his satire, though somewhat funny, didn't really get any points across. It just seemed like a very bad SNL sketch. Silly and obtuse (mainly his "audition" tape).

We watched the same video, right? There were plenty of points he got across.

QuoteBut honestly, I think Bush deserves much more respect than he gets. We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*, and with all due respect I think the man has made some terrible horrible decisions. But who are we to judge? We, as a society, can never be pleased it seems. We seem to always have the answers, but nobody with enough say cares.

You're saying we should respect him based purely on the fact that we shouldn't judge him and can never be pleased? And despite all the, as you say, terrible horrible decisions he's made?

Yeah, THAT makes sense!

Quote from: RickJ on Tue 02/05/2006 22:47:38Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

Bush's thing was very safe. It just left me with a "So what?" kinda feeling.

Colbert's bit had more edge to it. Some of the stuff Colbert's bit made my jaw drop, making me go, "He really said THAT?? Wow... What balls!!" The camera even cut to a lady in the audience with the same reaction as I had.

Quote from: Haddas on Tue 02/05/2006 15:32:25
I still don't see why americans brag about freedom. There are other places with more freedom.

It's not really their fault. It's what movies, newspapers, and tv tells them. The media still acts like it's right after 1776 (american independence year) and the spanish, the british, and the french still control most of the American continent and Europe is full of monarchies. Unless they mean freedom to capitalize everything that exists including other countries like Iraq, then I guess they do have the freedom to do it.

I thought Colbert was alright, but I expected a lot more. It was extremely mild stuff, like he was feeling a bit awkward or the whitehouse edited his monologue. I like him much better when he's in comedy central and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Quote from: Edmundo on Wed 03/05/2006 02:08:27I thought Colbert was alright, but I expected a lot more. It was extremely mild stuff, like he was feeling a bit awkward or the whitehouse edited his monologue.

I'm surprised people are expecting more from Colbert and calling his performance "mild". It was a huge sucker punch to everyone involved: Bush, the press corp, Scotty McLellan, practically everyone. It was a complete ass-whooping.

I also doubt the White House edited the monologue. If they actually did, it'd be cut down to something like 3 mins.


Here's a good Washinton Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/05/02/BL2006050200424.html) on the debate that has followed.

EDIT: Here's another (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/05/02/BL2006050200755.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR).

Quote
Quote from: RickJ on Today at 14:47
Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

Bush's thing was very safe. It just left me with a "So what?" kinda feeling.

Colbert's bit had more edge to it. Some of the stuff Colbert's bit made my jaw drop, making me go, "He really said THAT?? Wow... What balls!!" The camera even cut to a lady in the audience with the same reaction as I had.

It's a roast for goodness sake, your supposed to insult the guest of honor, which in this case was the pres!  So why doe it take balls to do  that.  Do you not understand what a "Roast" is?  And you are avoiding my question "Who did the audience think was funnier?"

Also in a recent interview, Mr. Colbert stated that he doesn't allow his young children to watch his work because he "deals in insincerity" and that they would probably not understand why their father was being insincere.   Given that this is his work and he does it everyday, insult and make fun of famous people and by his own words in a hopefully funny and insincere way, why does that take balls?

Quote
I'm surprised people are expecting more from Colbert and calling his performance "mild".

Probably because you haven't seen his other work.  Comparatively speaking this act was pretty lame.   I did enjoy the Helen Thomas bit though.  Probably most of you non-americans don;t know who Helen and so didn't really get the joke.

I dunno, DG... Everyone makes mistakes. Why does Bush have to constantly be compared to monkeys and be referred to as the next Hitler? It's stuff like that, the blind accusations, that really irk me. The guy's not perfect, but it hurts to watch the flak Bush gets. Honestly, my wishy washy attitude about him goes back to the fact that I really don't know what to believe. How do I know for certain he lied about Iraq? How certain am I that his only worry is about oil? How do I know he avoided the war? And certainly, how do I really know if he is from Texas?

Much of the mainstream media has turned into a cesspool of squirming vermon, clawing their way to the next article that'll bring shock, conspiracy, scandal, and boat-loads of readers, viewrs, and cashola. I just refuse to listen to much of it. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, so hey... I must be the next Hitler too. (Okay, that was terrible. I'm sorry).

Honestly, I think Bush's intentions for America are good, and that the influence of his cabinet and advisors sways him to some decisions that just aren't good. At all.

In my opinion, if anyone is at the top spot for destroying America, it is most definitely Paris Hilton! ;)

edit: A roast, eh? I guess White House Correspondents Dinner is code for roast these days.

Quote from: RickJ on Wed 03/05/2006 03:13:58It's a roast for goodness sake, your supposed to insult the guest of honor, which in this case was the pres!  So why doe it take balls to do  that.

It wasn't so much the roasting, it was more the honesty of it. It was so blunt and truthful, that it gave everyone a good kick in the behind.

QuoteDo you not understand what a "Roast" is?  And you are avoiding my question "Who did the audience think was funnier?"

That's because I don't give a shit who the audience found funnier. I found Colbert funnier.

Also, I do stand-up comedy. I know for a fact that just because a comedian doesn't get big laughs at one gig, doesn't mean his routine is a failure. It's a well-known fact about stand-up comedy. I've bombed at some gigs and got huge laughs at others with the same material.

Was Colbert's stuff appropriate for the audience? My answer: Who cares? It slapped everyone in the face, and I think that's what was important.

It's attracted a lot of debate too, and I also feel that is important.

QuoteAlso in a recent interview, Mr. Colbert stated that he doesn't allow his young children to watch his work because he "deals in insincerity" and that they would probably not understand why their father was being insincere.   Given that this is his work and he does it everyday, insult and make fun of famous people and by his own words in a hopefully funny and insincere way, why does that take balls?

It's not that he insulted him. It's more that he was so blunt in his speech. It's the first time anyone has been this blunt to Bush right in his face. It was a total arse-ripping. The only thing I think exceeds it is what happened at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

QuoteProbably because you haven't seen his other work.  Comparatively speaking this act was pretty lame.   I did enjoy the Helen Thomas bit though.  Probably most of you non-americans don;t know who Helen and so didn't really get the joke.

I have seen his other stuff. I watched him when he was on the Daily Show and I watch Colbert Report clips whenever I can. Hell, I even did my honours thesis on news satire. So, don't treat me like I don't know what I'm talking about.

And I disagree his act was lame. I consider it among his finest work.

Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 03/05/2006 03:20:30
I dunno, DG... Everyone makes mistakes. Why does Bush have to constantly be compared to monkeys and be referred to as the next Hitler?

Colbert said nothing about Hitler or monkey. Neither did I.

I agree that that kind of humour sucks, but mainly because it's been overdue and is a cheap way to get a laugh. What Colbert did exceeded the usual "bush=hitler lol".

QuoteThe guy's not perfect, but it hurts to watch the flak Bush gets.

C'mon, he deserves it. Does it really wound you THAT much that people are saying mean things about the president?

QuoteHow do I know for certain he lied about Iraq?

Because even his administration admitted so.

QuoteAnd certainly, how do I really know if he is from Texas?

You're right, he was actually built from parts of other presidents in order to create a Super President! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

QuoteMuch of the mainstream media has turned into a cesspool of squirming vermon, clawing their way to the next article that'll bring shock, conspiracy, scandal, and boat-loads of readers, viewrs, and cashola. I just refuse to listen to much of it. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, so hey... I must be the next Hitler too. (Okay, that was terrible. I'm sorry).

How coincidental! I read in last week's New York Times that they're specifically pointing to you, some guy they've never heard about, as the next Hitler for completely unknown reasons.

QuoteHonestly, I think Bush's intentions for America are good, and that the influence of his cabinet and advisors sways him to some decisions that just aren't good.

So you're saying the blind guy running the country is being lead by evil guys? Well, now I can rest easy!

QuoteIn my opinion, if anyone is at the top spot for destroying America, it is most definitely Paris Hilton! ;)

I'll tell Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate her ASAP.

Quote from: Farlander on Mon 01/05/2006 22:37:52
Do you really call her "Scubachic" Scumbuddy?!?

Only in bed....

Nah, I just thought it would allow for some people here to know who I was talking about.  :P

It doesn't wound me that much. I just, you know, think the guy who runs our country wouldn't be treated as such a joke. And I understand Colbert took the humor beyond the cheap hits... I guess I just want to hear somthing nice and considerate about the president.

And what I meant about his cabinet "leading him" wasn't quite like you assumed. It's more like.. Hey, the president isn't the only one responsible... That sort of thing.

I dunno. I don't even know why I seem to care so much. If I want to argue further I'll actually study my country's politics, but I really have better things to do. Like.. Going to college and meeting the ladies..

Quote from: [lgm] on Tue 02/05/2006 20:04:56
We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*

Why was Nixon any worse than Bush?
Nixon didn't start Vietnam. Watergate was just about bugging the Democrats' campaign offices. If that had happened these days, people would just shrug. Wiretapping... Secret (and not so secret) prisons... Outing CIA agents... Cutting taxes for the rich... Largest deficit ever... the list just goes on.

Quote from: lgm
I don't even know why I seem to care so much.

Err... because the future of your country is at stake?
If you want to hear nice things about Bush, listen to Faux news.

Quote from: RickJ
Who did the audience find funnier?

That's a very difficult question to answer. Certainly they laughed more at the Bush^2 routine. Cheap laughs. That's why people are saying Colbert's got big brass balls. It takes a brave person to even laugh at Colbert's jokes when Bush is sitting RIGHT THERE.

Warren J. Harding.

Worst. President. Ever.

William "I'm-so-fat-I-got-stuck-in-my-bathtub" Taft

Second. Worst. President. Ever


Also, disregarding the negative columns of respective presidents, Nixon had at least two achievements whereby he opened up relations with the PRC and ended Bretton-Woods, but the plus column for the current administration is lacking.

Come on guys, lets compare postives and look on the bright side of life :=

Lincoln sold poisoned milk to school children.

Audience reaction -

I doubt very much that the audience had many microphones, so that we could feel confident in judging their actual reaction.

It could be that those moments where you do hear them laugh, microphones had been set up or that they simply were laughing loud enough to be heard from the ones onstage.

SNL and other comedy shows set up strategic mics in the audience, if they aren't simply using a laugh track.

It didn't even look as though Bush understood what he was talking about, I'm sure he had it translated to him later. The crowd seemed a bit reluctant to laugh, I'd say they were a bit unsure whether they should, pretty emotionless crowds in political settings, they don't like giving anything away.

I think Colbert held back a bit more than he could have


An Indonesian paper printed this cartoon not long ago just after the Danish one, it's the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as copulating dingos
(http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6840/how0iy.gif)

The only reaction from the Australian public was a bit of laughter, and John Howard hiding the picture it was based on.

I dunno, ballsy or not.. it is good satire but still, imo nothing outrageous. I have only read the transcript, the actual expression may do the difference between brass scrotum or simple plywood.

Quote from: big brother on Tue 02/05/2006 15:53:03
The moon, up your mother's ass (Mr. Show), some parts of the Sahara and Gobi deserts...

Hm...are you suggesting that these are the only places with more freedom than the USA?
You need to travel more, matey

Being from the Netherlands, where satire is at a high at the moment, it's nothing special to me. Our royal family gets a lot of lip from comedians, and it's there where you expect it - on nationally subsidized television. The government gets even more lip, and that's just the way it should be. The media is coloured - yes, but when something is clearly wrong, it's shown to be.

This "roast" was weird for me, as I didn't expect it in America. Though it's the "land of the free", and so many Americans still have pride in that, I can't help but feel that political correctness is too strong there - as if the Media have their own agenda and select their news on that agenda.

But I'm uneducated in the workings of America and/or the American press. That's just what it seems like to me.

And the audition tape bit was just plain lame. Safe. While he did address some issues, it was still very, very mild. Perhaps the situation in which it was said makes it more ballsy, but this is mild compared to what the Dutch government has to live with :D

I think the audience wasn't sure if they SHOULD laugh.  The entire situation was so awkward.  NOBODY has confronted the president like this, through satire or other means.  But as other people have stated, I think the value is in what Colbert said and who he said it in front of, not whether or not it was funny.  The NY Times has finally covered this story, but they sorta framed it as, "Was he funny?"  My opinion is...well yes, he was funny, but the point is...he just called out the President on all his sh%t, right to his face.

For those of you who suggest Colbert was mild in his speech...I think you need to understand the culture surrounding the President and media right now.  The press rarely ask him tough questions, he gets offended if they do.  They get called "Liberal" if they ask him anything midly confrontational.  Colbert was saying some hardcore stuff if you ask me.  My jaw dropped on hearing some of his speech.

Finally, I don't want to start a pissing match on whether or not Bush is a good president, or the worst in history...but why should anyone automatically give a person respect?  Respect is earned.  This man hasn't done a single thing to earn my respect.  Sure, he's the President, but that doesn't entitle him to a free ride.

Hey, of course he deserves your respect.  It's not as if becoming president is all about having a dedicated "liberal" press, powerful financial backers, the support of your dad who was the president AND the head of the secret service.  That's the kind of stuff that would happen in Soviet Russia!

Bush personally fought an army of terrorist ninjas on rollerblades riding manta-rays led by Kerry, flying straight into the undersea white-house with his arms tied behind his back and lime (the stone kind) being rubbed in his eyes by his jealous brother.  Remember, Dubya came up in this world FROM NOTHING, literally a zygote, and he had to win the election without even getting the popular vote.  That's hard.

And he did it all with a learning disability!  Not even Ronald Regan can say that.  Of course, he's dead, but that doesn't detract from the president's achievement.  After all, only he could have done it, not just any warm body capable/incapable of handling talking points could do it.  Like, my friend's hispanic--that never would have flown.

Wow Bspeers... I can't believe you got that so wrong...

God appointed George Bush and everyone knows it!

Quote from: Andail on Wed 03/05/2006 12:52:54

Quote from: big brother on Tue 02/05/2006 15:53:03
The moon, up your mother's ass (Mr. Show), some parts of the Sahara and Gobi deserts...

Hm...are you suggesting that these are the only places with more freedom than the USA?
You need to travel more, matey

You missing the point, buddy. :)

If you want to quibble, I compete in the fencing World Cup circuit a few years back... which gives me more international travel experience than most Americans (and more mileage than most Europeans).

What places are you talking about?

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 02/05/2006 16:54:11
Canada!
Were we throw pies inÃ,  two our prime ministers face, one TWICE (Jean Chretien, Paul Martin
Were a former prime minister got Egged while walking down the street. ( Pierre Trudeau)
Were the national sport is criticising the government.
Were we have one of the worlds highest comedians per capita

I have never quoted myself before, but I thought it was  a good idea. this is a place with more freedom, but admittedly not much :P

The whole bit (and even the one with the twin bushes), was hysterical. Surely, the only thing worth watching on CSPAN for quite a while

How come "liberal media" is frowned upon in the land of LIBERTY..

Rhetoric my good man, (or woman)itÃ, is the art of packaging bullshit so people WANT to buy it. "Land of Liberty" my star spangled ASS. >:(

Quote from: 2ma2 on Wed 03/05/2006 20:47:34
How come "liberal media" is frowned upon in the land of LIBERTY..

There is no "Liberal Media". US Conservatives created its myth, so they wouldnt be accountible to the press.

You guys and the argument that Colbert was SOOOO contraversial are forgetting this particular pattern:


2005 White House Correspondents Dinner:


Laura Bush makes contraversial jokes about herself and her husband, about her being a desperate housewife and about her husband jacking off a horse. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EQv0v3Xme0I&search=dinner%20correspondents)


2004 White House Correspondents Dinner:

George W. Bush roasts himself for not being able to find WMDs... in his oval office, using a slideshow. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4&search=dinner%20correspondents)


2000 White House Correspondents Dinner:

Just for fun!!!!!

Bill Clinton's self-depracating short film including Kevin Spacey. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=W8Ep4ss_eaY&search=dinner%20correspondents)



These dinners are ALL about roasting the president.  Yes, Colbert kept a straight face and burned his ass...... but the only reason why is that G.W.  had ALOT to be burned about.  Everything recently has been negative.

Quote from: big brother on Wed 03/05/2006 16:42:51

You missing the point, buddy. :)

If you want to quibble, I compete in the fencing World Cup circuit a few years back... which gives me more international travel experience than most Americans (and more mileage than most Europeans).

What places are you talking about?

For the record, I've been to some 25 countries on 4 different continents, and I've been involved in exchange student organisations since 2001.

When it comes to freedom, it's a matter of what you value. For me it's a sort of freedom being able to walk in a school or a street without risking being gunned down.
Then again, last time I was in the Sahara desert I was part of a convoy surveyed by armed policemen, which wasn't very free at all.

Watch this clip (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Lou-Dobbs-Colbert-Zoller-.wmv)

That's how retarded the criticism against Colbert is.

"Boohoo! Colbert mentioned the word "Tuesday" and Sept 11 happened on a Tuesday and I'm going to hold it against him even though this relation I've made is completely arbitrary! Also, I recently saw Colbert eating M&Ms and I was eating M&Ms when Sept 11 happened, which must mean Colbert is making a disgrace out of our nation's tragedy! Waawaawaacryboohoo I'm a fucking idiot!"

Well I agreeÃ,  it is pretty stupid.
BUT freedom is the right to believe something someone else believes is wrong.
and it works BOTH ways.
So they are Neo-Con-Bible-Belt-Flag-Waving nutcases?
you might be a Commie-Evolutionist- Flag-Burning psycho
or a Bland- Molly â€"Coddleâ€"Milky-Toasty wimp.
All sides must be allowed there say for this to be democracy.
So you don't agree with them, fine.
But you don't have to be rude.
(But you can if you really WANT to be ;D )

Quote from: Andail on Thu 04/05/2006 12:56:47
For the record, I've been to some 25 countries on 4 different continents, and I've been involved in exchange student organisations since 2001.

When it comes to freedom, it's a matter of what you value. For me it's a sort of freedom being able to walk in a school or a street without risking being gunned down.
Then again, last time I was in the Sahara desert I was part of a convoy surveyed by armed policemen, which wasn't very free at all.

This is nice, but you're still missing the original point. I'm not trying to have a tourism competition with you (I only wanted to know I'm slightly more traveled than your average Yank). In fact, I've already admitted I'm not as traveled as most Europeans, so you win!

Of those 25 countries you've been to, which ones have more freedom (your definition) than the US (assuming you've spent a few weeks here)? I for one, have never been gunned down walking on the street (in fact, the only place that this possibility occurs to me in the slightest is the ghetto NJ area in which I live).

If we assume I didn't say "parts of the Sahara and Gobi", what about the other two options?

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 04/05/2006 17:06:59
So you don't agree with them, fine.
But you don't have to be rude.
(But you can if you really WANT to be ;D )

cuz freedom isnt free

buck oh five

america.... FUCK YEAH!!!

I think what is sad about the US of A right now is not its lack of freedom,(America still has more freedom then say...China) but the DECRESE of freedom. for "Security"
an American statesmen said it best, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" That is what is wrong, this loss of freedom.
And what make it so sad is that it was "voluntary"
So sad.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 04/05/2006 17:33:06
buck oh five

america.... FUCK YEAH!!!

???    what does this mean, I do not understand your lingo, I am sensing a feeling of anger about america, but not much else, please clarify ???

It's from the film Team America - World Police. And it's awesome.

Big Brother:
Let's recapitulate. Somebody tried to present the fact there exist places with more freedom than the USA, to which you reply

Quote
The moon, up your mother's ass (Mr. Show), some parts of the Sahara and Gobi deserts...

After this statement, immature in diction as in sentiment, you seem both amused and surprised that I didn't get your "point" (but please, pretty please, feel free to enlighten me about this point of yours).

Freedom is of course subjective, and it's also a question of give and take. Most Americans claim to be free since they have the rights to own weapons, but this in my opinion takes away from the freedom of feeling safe.

You have the Patriot Act and several other more or less known survellaince programs, often heavily focused on organisations openly debating everything from veganism to anti-war issues to abortions (no matter how peaceful they are). People who look just remotely arabic can be held captive and sustained without cause, trial or attorneys.

If you ever partake in movements more politically provokative than fencing, you might experience this too.
And this doesn't happen in most western European countries today.

That's, and sorry about this, both of you are pals, a silly discussion. The amount of freedom in every country where a real democracy is stablished and strong will always be almost the same, IMO.

Going with extreme examples makes the discussion even sillier. Maybe in the USA there are more gunfights in the streets. But... Since when that is an expression of lack of freedom? That's an example of how different our societies are.

If we change the topic "Political killings" We, as european had three in the last year, as far as I remember (Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh and the Suede Prime Minister? Was she the primer minister, or the former Prime Minister? sorry, I can t remember...) Europe 3- Yankees 0. Must that mean that "We like to kill politicians!" therefore, we have less freedom than the Yankees"?

In my opinion, no.

But, if example 2 is not valid... Example 1 is not either, IMO.

My point. We can't mesure freedom propperly. We would need a divine machine to meassure it. But the "You can be killed in a street of America, so, there's less freedom than in Europe" sounds to me like a manifesto stalement to me.

Same with "The only place with more freedom than America is the Gobi, Sahara, your mom's ass and the moon"  But as I didn't really catched it, I decided not to post about it.  :)

Because I would probably be mocked by my bad English if I attempt to reply to something I haven't totally understood...   :'(

Quote from: Andail on Fri 05/05/2006 11:54:06
After this statement, immature in diction as in sentiment, you seem both amused and surprised that I didn't get your "point" (but please, pretty please, feel free to enlighten me about this point of yours).

I didn't realize this was going to be so obtuse. I attacked a generalization with specifics. If you want to tell me that there are countries that have more freedom than America, please list them. Create a working definition of freedom, and tell me why these countries have more of it than the USA. I'm not saying that they don't exist, only that I haven't been to them. In almost every one of my replies, I've tried to clarify and ask for examples, but you seem intent on feeding me bullshit. Who's really immature here, buddy?

The goofy list was a reference to the TV show that I put in paranthesis in my original post (Mr. Show).

And yeah, thanks for the fencing put-down. Next time you might want to spell "provocative" correctly when you're trying to make me feel uneducated. Mortal Kombat isn't a good reference for learning English.

I strongly demmand (Pray) English-natibe members not to point the typos of the non-natibe English members, because I would probably habe to abandon this community due to my bad English, if that happens...

And my vad grammar.

[flame]And, anyway... if you have freedom is because our guys did their job in Normandy, if not, you'd be talking German, at this moment!!!111111one!!!![/flame]  ;D

I was joking...  :)

Silly Debate about freedom, as it is impossible to judge as it is totally up to what you think feedom is as suggested in this thread.

I agree with Farlander in the fact we can't measure it.

I live in a pretty free country, if not one of the most free in the world, and when it comes down to it, (as with any country) different States, Counties, Province's, Councils have different rules or laws that contradict even the major laws of the country, making it even more impossible to judge.

As with feeling safe walking streets, anywhere, it depends where you are specifically.

I know in Sydney where I live there is almost a drive by shooting everyday (according to the media) which was never even heard of a few years ago (or not reported in the media) but these, generally, are usually in very specific areas. I know I'm safe around where I live (until some wanker feels the need to go on a killing spree)

Oh yeah, I've never been overseas, but as with the position and size of my country (and budget) I've probably been to the equivalent of most of Europe or Most of America etc, which has nothing to do with this topic.

So I can't comment on experience of Freedoms, but I feel comfortable.


The only thing I can see more free in the USA is the gun laws (which in turn is the oldest excuse in the history of existance[which causes less freedom more death and more gaol {jail} than anywhere else [freedom, i think not]) Still having states with the Death penalty makes it even less free, who has the right to take a single life, especially supposedly christain people.

The only other thing I can think of is the freedom to vote (which is really the freedom not to vote) which is used and abused by polititians, which is how people like Bush can get power [freedom, I think not]

There are many flaws in the interpretation of freedom, it only exists in apple crumble with extra crumble

Quote from: big brother on Fri 05/05/2006 15:05:51
I didn't realize this was going to be so obtuse. I attacked a generalization with specifics. If you want to tell me that there are countries that have more freedom than America, please list them. Create a working definition of freedom, and tell me why these countries have more of it than the USA. I'm not saying that they don't exist, only that I haven't been to them. In almost every one of my replies, I've tried to clarify and ask for examples, but you seem intent on feeding me bullshit. Who's really immature here, buddy?

The goofy list was a reference to the TV show that I put in paranthesis in my original post (Mr. Show).

It's a little ironic you mention Mr Show and also say you claim not to know about countries that are freer than the US in the same post. Ironic because David Cross lists a bunch of countries that he thinks are freer than the US on his album "It's Not Funny".

He says:

"Seriously, if the terrorists hated freedom, the Netherlands would be fucking dust! As would Denmark and Sweden and Switzerland and New Zealand and Canada and every other country that's truly freer than we are."

I guess what I'm saying is you're shooting yourself in the foot, big brother.

BLAM! Arrg, your foot! It's bleeding!

Yes... Let's recognise that your reply is a perfect dialectic movement, Daniel!

It points the irony of BB's mentioning Mr. Show, and stales the fact that Mr. Show thinks there are other countries with more freedom.

But you don't position yourself. Do you think Mr. Show is right or not?

The fact I don't mention which "side" I take somehow diminishes my point of view? Bullcrap! I'm stating there's a little hypocrisy here. If big brother is going to define a certain standard, there should be some consistancy. But what I think is irrelevant in regards to that particular point.

But if you want to know my position just for the sake of wanting to know what I think, I'm leaning more to Andail's way of thinking. The way we determine freedom is a subjective thing because everyone has different values on certain issues. And when people enforce their values upon others, it no longer becomes liberation but subjugation.

Case in point, the US using the threat of terrorism and WMDs to scare people into common values. As Bush said, "You're either for us or against us". That's not freedom. And there are many countries that don't do this.

That's not to say the US is on the bottom rung of the ladder; for example, the US doesn't lock journalists up for speaking out against their government, unlike China. But there are rungs higher in a lot of other aspects.

I wanted you to position in one side or another to start the discussion, moron!!!Ã,  ;D

;)

I am into Timosity's position them.

:)

Hey, don't impose how you value moronity upon me, you fascist!  ;)

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 05/05/2006 16:51:21
Hey, don't impose how you value moronity upon me, you fascist!Ã,  ;)

Fortunatelly, moronity can be meassured (unlike the freedom):

http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_stupid.php

;D

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 05/05/2006 16:02:18
He says:

"Seriously, if the terrorists hated freedom, the Netherlands would be fucking dust! As would Denmark and Sweden and Switzerland and New Zealand and Canada and every other country that's truly freer than we are."

I guess what I'm saying is you're shooting yourself in the foot, big brother.

I only used Mr. Show as a goofy reference. I have not watched/listened to everything Odenkirk/Cross/Silverman/etc. have their names on.

This is not an example of shooting myself in the foot. I never said that there AREN'T places more free. Please read my last post more thoroughly and focus on my question rather than any obscure comedic reference.

QuoteBLAM! Arrg, your foot! It's bleeding!

This is quite ironic, considering your misuse of the idiom. Looks like you're the one who just blew his foot off.

DGMacboy: Oh God, my foot is gone. Oh fuck me up the ass, why did I just do that to myself! (wails hysterically)

Sorry BB, if I missunderstood that.

But, even recognising my bad English, if someone says "There are places with more freedom than America", and you reply quoting a set of "weird" places (Such as deserts and asses), I think I am not totally crazy if I believe that you have been ironic!

Anyway... as said, sorry.

Quote from: big brother on Fri 05/05/2006 17:23:26
I only used Mr. Show as a goofy reference. I have not watched/listened to everything Odenkirk/Cross/Silverman/etc. have their names on.

This is not an example of shooting myself in the foot. I never said that there AREN'T places more free. Please read my last post more thoroughly and focus on my question rather than any obscure comedic reference.

I did read what you said. You challenging Andail to provide an objective list of countries that are freer than the US.

I pointed out, since you quoted Mr Show, that such a list already exists by your standards.

Hence, you shot yourself in the foot with your GOOFY REFERENCE! HYUCK HYUCK!

I never said you don't think there are or aren't countries that are freer than the US. I just said you claimed not to know about any countries since you're asking Andail for a working definition and a list of countries. I can only assume based upon what you write. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more, so Andail and I can actually understand instead of trying to read your mind because, try as we might, we haven't perfected our telepathic skills.

QuoteLooks like you're the one who just blew his foot off.

Wow, you totally GOT ME with your crazy pointing-out-of-a-misuse-of-an-idiom-that-I've since-pointed-out-is-actually-correct-usage! Better call my my mother cause... sniff... I-I just don't think my fragile ego can take this! WAAAAAAAAA! *stomps away and kicks the cat*

QuoteOh God, my foot is gone. Oh fuck me up the ass, why did I just do that to myself! (wails hysterically)

Heeeeeey, you're being sarcastic, aren't you?

Maybe I had taken that a bit far. :)

I seriously am interested in hearing about people personally experiencing greater freedom in a certain country than in America. Perhaps this needs its own thread.

I think we can strike Switzerland off as a candidate, since mandatory military service for males from the time they turn 18 to 65 doesn't strike me as "free".

A few others may be disqualified, due to high taxes (the US actually has some of the lowest personal income taxes in the world: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp?GT1=8011).
(from article, single with no kids)
Belgium - 55.4%
Canada - 31.6%
Sweden - 47.9%
Denmark - 41.1%
US - 29.1%

Still depends on the working definition, that being said.

In addition, I've recently heard in the news that the skadinavian countries, which are supposed to be the most "peacefull and civilizised" in the world, have the highest ratio of agressions inside of the marriage. It really shocked me, but I can swear I heard it.

So, would that beated women think they have more freedom than a non-beaten yankee woman? Probably not. But, as said, this is just an isolated data... It means NOTHING. I go on thinking that discussin which country has more freedom is like discussing the sex of the angels.

We have high taxes, but we get alot of stuff for free. Like healthcare and food in schools.

Your money goes farther on individual items (like consumer goods and services) when you spend it yourself. Money in the government has to pass through many layers of bureaucracy. This system works for buying expensive things like jets, but is inefficient for lunches.

This is a total hijack. Perhaps a moderator would split the threads.

We believe that even the poor should have the right to service

Now after I read Haddas's reply, it struck me...

Finland has no freedom. You know, we all go to school, eat the food given to us. After that was try and get into a uni, some people don't because the tests are hard on certain occasions. Then after we go to work. Umm... some people don't get work and live on social security until they find one. When you grow old you get pensioned and start getting all, well, illnesses, well these you have always. So basically you go to hospital. The school and the food there is paid by taxes. The unis are paid with taxes. The social security money for jobless people and pensioned is paid by... taxes, and the health care is paid by taxes.

Ã,  Ã, Now I get this doesn't sound quite free. It's silly having to be the one to pay for other people being old or getting sick or educated. Think of it, say for example in USA, at school you get to decide werther to eat the food that's sold at schools or the food you want to buy. Then you can go to uni if you will... pay for it. Which is understandable, hey, the American dream, you can go as up as you will, just a bit of cash here and there will help. AND, you get to decide if you want to have health care or not. we don't, we all pay for it, you can deicide if you want the insurance or not. Or, if you don't WANT to pay for it, why not die, you have the freedom to do that.

On one thing I find Finland more free though. In here, if you murder someone as your first crime, you get something 7 years, if you're underaged, correct me if I'm wrong. And in the USA 10% of black young men are in prisons. Now I understand this completely. Hey, they had the freedom to choose between being a corporate chief or a drugdealer/killer, it's their fault.

What is truly unfair, that the rich make more money as they deserve, they're better beings, but for christs sake, they have to pay more taxes. Now I raise my voice for their rights, come on, after taxes they still get more money, but they should get even more. After all, it's their right as better beings. It's called progressive taxing, as a poor, I like it, but some poeple don't... now I don't see this killing of freedom everywhere.

Oh yeah, I forgot. We have compulsory DEFENCE forces for men at 18, as does Switzerland. basically, we do our service in 6-12 months, some fools more. That's just discrimination. But USA for that matter, they have ATTACKING forces full of poor people who have decided to live the american dream. You knew, the army pays for the education, and if they're not willing to pay (cheap bastards) the least they can do is go and kill themselves for the others who have money. Now that's freedom. I'm surprised how sad things are here in Finland. I claim for one that Finland could never be as free as the United States of America. Well at least we're not in NATO yet... which actually would make us a perfect subject for terrorist bombing.

enough said :-\

Without taxes I couldn't afford education. (Think of us poor people)

How is the tax percentage a measure of freedom?
That suggests that the less money you have in the US, the more free you are as you have to pay less tax, which is clearly nonsense.
The people decided (by voting for socialist governments) that they wanted to pay more tax in Europe.

I lived in Belgium for a year, and I'm living in the US right now.
Belgium: going to the dentist/doctor is basically free, possession of MJ is legal.
US: possession of handguns is legal. Anything else?

Tuomas, nice Colbert-like satire... :)

QuoteOr, if you don't WANT to pay for it, why not die, you have the freedom to do that.

What about if you CAN'T pay for it?  I thought a right to LIFE was a fundamental human right. 

QuoteIt's silly having to be the one to pay for other people being old or getting sick or educated.

Note that the system is in place because one day you will/or have done rely/relied on the services that you pay taxes for.  If you don't want to pay for anyone else to benefit, why should anyone else support you?

QuoteWhat is truly unfair, that the rich make more money as they deserve, they're better beings, but for christs sake, they have to pay more taxes. Now I raise my voice for their rights, come on, after taxes they still get more money, but they should get even more. After all, it's their right as better beings.

Having more money does not make you a better person.  It means you have more money.

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Fri 05/05/2006 23:23:33
Tuomas, nice Colbert-like satire... :)

Thanks, thb, I was kind of aiming to that :D Though apparently some of us didn't get that -_-...

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Fri 05/05/2006 23:23:33
How is the tax percentage a measure of freedom?
That suggests that the less money you have in the US, the more free you are as you have to pay less tax, which is clearly nonsense.
The people decided (by voting for socialist governments) that they wanted to pay more tax in Europe.

This is not for me, is it? considering the latter quote...

The ironic previous post was ok, Tuomas, even might be totally true if you push it a bit.

But I am sure that an intelligent yankee could write something simillar towards Europe, full of simillar thruths.

Stop manifestos... please...  :P

But sanctimony is so fun! It makes me feel better about myself! I need this to make up for my lack of self affirmation!


Now, I can't decide whether to claim that all Americans or all Muslims are ignorant and prejudiced today

Let's all just save up our money, decide to get something on http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/islandsforsale.html and declare independence as Christopia.

I've allways thought in making a collective exercise of creating an imaginary AGS country, with its flag, its president... My idea is to use this country as a place for making some kind of RONish enviroment for placing AGS games (Like Borduria and Syldavia in Tintin's adventures)Ã,  :D

And I allways thought in some kind of caribbean enviroment for it... Funny coincidence, Haddas.Ã,  :)


EDIT: On the other hand...

http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sale/site/html/cms_de-sale_detail_en-430/Argironisos%20Island.html

This island is located in the area of Evia, if I am correct, were mittens 2005 was set... Somebody has 2 or 3 millions of euros?

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 06/05/2006 11:01:20
I've allways thought in making a collective exercise of creating an imaginary AGS country, with its flag, its president...

I know this is OT, but I've always thought this would be a good idea too. With CJ as king, the presidential election campaigns would be great.

There'd be manifestos, promises, sloganeering, dirty tactics...

MY attempt:


In the shield:

Welsh "Jones" Lion.
One of the parts of the shield of the french name "Roger"
The cross of Saint James George (thanks Becky) (Because the AGS program is English...)

And of course, the bluecup.

The flag it's a bit rushed, but, as we are going to buy the island in the caribbean, I thought it might be cool to have some kind of "Jamaican squeme". I am open to suggestions.

Now we need an anthem... Nikolas? M0ds? Who wants to write the lyrics?

I think I am going to open a new thread, this is going to rock ^_^.

Oh, but we have an anthem already. The AGS overture of course! (which we sang at Mittens too, remember?)

Mid it. Record it... I want to hear it, I can't remember it. Was that the night I was drunk?

Opening a new thread.

It's one of the original AGS operas. Hear it here. (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/agsoperas/original/The%20AGS%20Overture.mp3)

Big Brother:
You make a big deal out of spotting a typo when you debate with a foreigner.

Also, you equate lack of taxes with freedom.

I think continuing this is quite pointless.

Well, I didn't exactly EQUATE the two. In the same message, I did say it depends on your working definition of freedom (the one you stated earlier involved not getting shot on the street).

Federal income taxes restrict the financial leverage a consumer holds in society, thus reducing their freedom in any monetary exchange for goods or services. Does that help clarify? It may not be an end all measurement, but it's nice to have a quantifiable metric in this otherwise subjective argument.

Quote
You make a big deal out of spotting a typo when you debate with a foreigner.

You make fun of my sport, I make fun of your English.

Dude, I said that fencing isn't very politically provocative. I meant that if you were ever to partake in associations or organisations dealing with politically hot stuff, like anti-war issues, veganism, unionism, etc, you might experience a different side of your government.
I never said that fencing is unsophisticated or a sign of low education. I myself go to the gym regularly, and that's light-years away from the sophistication of fencing.

And if you think it's "making fun" of somebody to point out a typo, you need to brush up your mocking skills. Spelling has little to do with education. People with dyslexia can still be remarkably well educated.
But hey, if you want to quibble, we could still have a spelling bee just you and me, and then we could laugh at the loser.

Edit: Here's the passage, in all its i-mockerish glory, that I was referring to:

Quote
And yeah, thanks for the fencing put-down. Next time you might want to spell "provocative" correctly when you're trying to make me feel uneducated. Mortal Kombat isn't a good reference for learning English.

On the other hand. Some people with great grammatical and vocabulary skills may be but idiots in disguise.

What... ¬¬

Quote from: big brother on Sat 06/05/2006 23:35:37

Quote
You make a big deal out of spotting a typo when you debate with a foreigner.

You make fun of my sport, I make fun of your English.

Quote from: Andail on Sun 07/05/2006 14:29:43
And if you think it's "making fun" of somebody to point out a typo, you need to brush up your mocking skills. Spelling has little to do with education. People with dyslexia can still be remarkably well educated.
But hey, if you want to quibble, we could still have a spelling bee just you and me, and then we could laugh at the loser.

Oh, this is priceless. And while you're at it, how about the two of you call each other "smelly poo-heads" and have a peeing contest in the boys' lavatory?

QuoteIf you ever partake in movements more politically provokative than fencing, you might experience this too.
And this doesn't happen in most western European countries today.

I only said that fencing gave me the opportunity to travel, experience different cultures, and meet more diverse people than a lot of the Americans I know.

Your statement is insulting because it assumes that this sport is the extent of my political involvement, something you can't possibly know. In addition, it belittles the international experience I've earned from the sport. For instance, it's one thing to talk about racial tension in France, and quite another to be attacked by a gypsy in Strasbourg.

I see this as a put down, a sort of "well, that's nice you can play with your toy swords, but leave the real thinking to me, the mighty gym-attending, self-actualized Andail and my erudite fellow Europeans".

As far as an insult goes, I was hitting more at your English learning method than your actual spelling. :)

If you'd like to clarify, please enlighten me.

What is fencing?

Sword fighting with foils or rapiers or whatever they are called these days....Basically...

You're over-sensitive, my friend :)
First you get all wound up about something I never said, namely that fencing is unsophisticated or whatnot (which is a complete fabrication on your part), and when I try to make you feel better by mentioning that I myself go to a gym, which is far less sophisticated, you make a big deal out of that:
"the mighty gym-attending, self-actualized Andail ".
It seems there is little I can say to console your wounded ego.

Quote from: big brother on Sun 07/05/2006 19:23:28
As far as an insult goes, I was hitting more at your English learning method than your actual spelling. :)

This is a part I still don't get at all. What, pray, are those methods that you make fun of? I just got back my literature thesis, and I got a far better grade than any of my Sussex (native English speakers) classmates.

And even if I would have acquired all my English knowledge from Mortal Kombat (a game whose connection to me I still fail to grasp...or wait, is it the usage of "K"? Please tell me it isn't!), wouldn't that be quite cool?

EDIT:
A little article about what I spoke of earlier
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060508/8homeland.htm

extract:

Quote
U.S. News has identified nearly a dozen cases in which city and county police, in the name of homeland security, have surveilled or harassed animal-rights and antiwar protesters, union activists, and even library patrons surfing the Web. Unlike with Washington's warrantless domestic surveillance program, little attention has been focused on the role of state and local authorities in the war on terrorism

Woah, hadn't read this thread for ages and i see it has turned into a discussion of welfare, libertarianism and a flame war!

BB: income tax isn't the only tax. Best to look at the total tax burden in a country. Also, fencing does have the image (in the UK at least) of being elite and establishment, which I think was all that Andail was saying.

Tuomas: you have the freedom to move to another country and pay the taxes there for a different set of priorities. In the EU you won't even need a Visa to live there permanently.  That is much more freedom than many countries.

Andail: that would is confusing and superfluous in your last paragraph. Better to be "And even if I had..."  ;) := :P ::) Also, libertarians would equate lack of taxes with freedom... but then they are confusing "gratis" and "libre" somewhat.

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 02/05/2006 10:42:00
Nixon had 15% approval in 1973 [after getting 60% of the vote in '72]. I don't think Bush has dived that low yet.

Bumpin' the thread because they announced today that Bush's approval rating has dropped below Nixon's when Watergate was in full swing in the Summer of 1973 (39%). I reckon there's a good chance it could drop lower than Nixon's worst (As Naranjas said, 15%).

Even Republicans are pissed at him and surveys indicate 1 in 3 want the GOP out of Congress. I was watching Joe Scarborough recently and even he reckons a few of the leading administration officials will be swept away. So, unless Bush pulls a rabbit out of a hat (or Osama), he's going to go from being up Shit Creek to crashing down Shit Rapids.

Also, there's talk that Karl Rove's going to get indicted.

And the "sweeping under the rug" continues...  ;)
Interesting news follow up... The YouTube and IFILM websites have been forced to have the Colbert video clips removed from their sites:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/colbert_video

As well the Bush vs. Bush debate (can you spot the real deal ;D) is offline for "copyright issues"
While financial freedom in America may be greater then in many countries( less taxes) political freedom is dropping to an all time low. Though, give America credit, in quite a few countries he would be shot for the things he said. But somehow this is more insidious.

Quote from: Barbarian on Tue 09/05/2006 22:39:04
The YouTube and IFILM websites have been forced to have the Colbert video clips removed from their sites:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/colbert_video

Hardly "sweeping under the rug" since the speech is prominently featured at the top of the page, and in good quality, at video.google.com. When it mysteriously disappears in a week or two I'll be back on the conspiracy train, but for now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It's a "sweeping under the rug" I tell you, a major sweeping!  ;)  Com' on, jump on-board the conspiracy wagon, you know you wanna:
http://denisdekat.com/?p=1217
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000437.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/1/1299/16704
  etc.. etc... See see! It's all a massive cover up to "censor" the "truth" I tell ya.  ;D

can I still comment on the 'america is freer or is she?' thing?

Political freedom is not hard to define. The ability to congregate on social or political issues, to speak one's mind about such aspects without fear of censorship of even worse, persecution from govermental or semi-govermental elements, the freedom of vote, etc. Textbook stuff, no?

Therefore, any democratic country which doesnt enforce the Patriot Act or a variation of the form offers more political freedom to it's people than the US does.

Agree?

Yes, Helm, for once (that is nothing against you), I agree with you. I think we can't simply define Freedom, it has different aspects, and often certain freedoms are mutually exclusive.   For example Financial freedom and freedom from poverty are (correct me if I am wrong) are impossible to have in large amounts, co-existing.

Yeah, I agree too. I think Helm pretty much nailed it on the head.

I am sorry... But aren't we making some way of patriotic act when spreading the idea that Europe/Japan/Australia, etc... has more freedom than the USA?

I mean... the idea that "we are more democratic, cult, peacefull..." than the USA is THERE, at least in Europe. Man, we are seeing that in this certain thread!

Where has came that idea? Has it magically sprouted from the people? Or has it been put there by someone? I have the documental channel in my TV, and, man... you just can say when a program is french just by the topics, and how anti-americans they are. I mean, the "official" version in France is that they are the paladdins of freedom, the lighthouse of culture of the new Europe against the decadent America.

That is patriotism...

It's different than the patriotism of that fat men who have a skull of bull in his Jeep, and a confederate flag in his Harley Davidson, but patriotism. Just that our is more subtile. It is that subtile that you are being patriot without knowing it.

We are as patriots as the Americans. You just gotta name "AMERICA" in a certain place, and you'll soon start 3 or 4 voices telling how they suck, and how better than them we are! We are patriots, just that we are patriots showing how sick we are of the Yankees and they are patriots saying that their country is the best in the world... I don't really see the difference.

At least from the European point of view, I can't talk of other places, never been in Australia.

Farlander, I am reffering to The Patriot Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_Act), not acting like a patriot in general.

Reading it... seems that it is a severe cut of freedom by the idiot George... And he had the guts to call it "the patriot act"  :P What an arse.

So, I just can't do more than agreeing with Helm.  ;D

Exactly. Call it the Patriot Act, and then if you oppose it, you are obviously unpatriotic. It's typical for this administration.
The Clear Skies Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act), the Healthy Forests Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Forests_Initiative), etc.

Wouldn't freedom be better categorised according to people than to countries? I really can't think that any country could be equally free for all types of people.

political freedoms aren't very difficult to agree on for most of the western world. Depends on the point of view, but between andail, big brother, farlander and most other that post in this thread, I'm pretty sure they all agree on basic human rights and liberties, freedom of speech, press, voting and so on

I agree. We all know (In Europe, Japan, USA, Australia...) what freedom is. And my opinion is that in Western contries "which is more free" is something that can't know, because the amount of freedom is simillar.

What is out of discussion is that meassures like the "patriotic act" tie your freedom, so the USA is loosing points in the score.

I can't say how many points, and if that is making them have less advantage in the "freedometer", or making higher the distance between the US and the virtual "leader", but I agree with Helm...

But this looks for me (I hope to be right, for the benefit of my American friends, mainly...) more than a temporal issue than an unsolvable problem.

*Edit* I see that I don't mention Turkey (Gord10) or Pakistan (Babar) in the list of "free countries". That doesn't mean that I think they are not free, but the cultures are so different that maybe the concept might change a bit. But I love both of them... Specially Babar, when he has a beard.

Heh, thanks, Farlander. I'd like you too, if you grew a beard ;D

I'm sorry for being so stupid, Helm, but what do you mean by "Political Freedom"? Perhaps I'm taking the wrong meaning. Would democracy be more "free" than communism (not that I think that democracy is the opposite of communism. It just seems taken to be so)? What about the minorities, then? What about when your "liberties" infringe on mine? Where should the line be drawn? How "free" would we be with these "lines" in place?

What I meant about freedom categorised by people: Since you brought up Pakistan, I'd say I'm reasonably free over here. Of course, I'd have to admit that being male, muslim, (perhaps even bearded?) might be helping in that- but that's probably not political, just perceptive freedom. But then, I see non-muslims, females, even non-pakistanis are reasonably free over here. I see about 4 to 5 churches on my daily travels. I see truck drivers who have painted huge murals of Christ on the cross at the back of their trucks, I see many taxis with little crosses hanging on the rear view mirror, about half of the students in my classes were shias, I see women walking around in sleeveless tops, and tight fitting jeans, I see posters all around of women even more provocatively dressed, The news has some scathing article about what bad things the president has done lately, what close-mindedness the mullah's have displayed lately, etc. Of course, I'd be the first to admit that there are many things that can in no way be considered "free". The "Freedom" is geared towards one specific set of people.

The thing is, I don't see it much different in other countries (ok, perhaps a little).

In the name of religious freedom, in some countries (2?) they banned the hijab in schools. What about those people who actually wanted to wear the hijab? Isn't their freedom being restricted? Even in countries where there is no such ban, if someone wears a hijab, they are automatically thought of as "poor, isolated, mistreated, woman", while the woman who is wearing it could be trying to represent the exact opposite traits with her dress. This might not be "political" in any way, but it's a restriction of freedom. People can be stopped and strip-searched at airports just because they happen to have a terroristy sounding name, or nationality.

In the name of capitalism (freedom to make money), peoples freedoms are also being restricted. Poor people cannot really compete against the richer ones in making money, even if they have an incredible idea. In fact, the whole concept of having money-making as such an important part of a culture seems weirdly unfree to me.

Sorry to bump da thread.
As some peoples here were talking about "freedoms" in the US and such, though it's interesting to mention about recent news developments about that Bush and his Gvnmt "...has been collecting data on the phone calls of tens of millions of Americans...", "Ã, The country's three biggest phone companies have been handing over call records to the National Security Agency (NSA) since 2001". Ã, So, basically, you're free to make a phone call, but the Bush and his Government is free to spy on you if you doÃ,  :P

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4762623.stm