• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colbert Offers Comedy Shtick in Farm Workers Testimony, Fails to Amuse Lawmakers

You never cease to create your goofy facts, with no proof to back up your silly claims.

You of course are welcome to you own opinion but you can never have your own facts.

Got it. You're going to pretend that post #39 doesn't exist because you have no way of refuting anything in it.

Btw, you may want to learn the difference between the word "employer" and "employee" you clearly screwed that one up as further demonstrated in post #39.

Tell me, you think that Wahhabist Saudi Arabia doesn't curtail freedoms? That Mullah Iran doesn't curtail freedoms? That the Puritans in both England and the colonies did not go about banning things like Christmas?

Let's see just how shallow your understanding of history is.
 
Last edited:
She can be elected, but she has no reason to be a Chairwoman if she is inviting Colbert.

What about other chairpersons who have invited controversial people to testify to make a point?

What about the chairperson who invited Mark Twain or Will Rogers?

I sense this is more partisan than anything for you.

The irony was too dense for that crowd; when Colbert speaks in character, he says the opposite of he actually believes. Anti-immigration reform people sensed they were being made fun of, pro-immigration reform people were offended the same way those reading A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift were. The irony is too think and delivered with too much sincerity for people to understand.

Sadly, his best moments were lost on the media-- during the Q&A were he spoke quite eloquently out of character about why he came, and why this issue is important to him.
 
April 2002
Elmo.PNG


Besides, shouldn't the folks concerned about this whole Colbert thing be calling and bitching on the congress person that invited him in the first place?

I mean, the dude spent *ONE* day out in the field to make a comedy show and some genius invites him to congress expecting what exactly?

I can't believe no one gets it. It got this issue and this hearing free exposure. Without his testimony, the hearing wouldn't even be discussed here. ;)
 
I can't believe no one gets it. It got this issue and this hearing free exposure. Without his testimony, the hearing wouldn't even be discussed here. ;)

The hearing still isn't being discussed here - Colberts failure is being discussed here.
 
The hearing still isn't being discussed here - Colberts failure is being discussed here.

What failure? He actually had a pretty good message. Republicans are just pissed about HOW he said it, which in all honesty, why even care about that? I see no real issue here, this is all just over-reactions to a non-issue.
 
What failure? He actually had a pretty good message. Republicans are just pissed about HOW he said it, which in all honesty, why even care about that? I see no real issue here, this is all just over-reactions to a non-issue.

He bombed.
 
Not really, the entire room looked like it was trying to keep themselves from laughing.

They did a remarkable job at not laughing, mostly because he was at the height of unfunny. Like I said, Lewis Black must have been busy and Colbert was the red-headed step-child who agreed to the bad idea. On second thought, Black probably would have turned them down, as it was a stupid idea to begin with...
 
Some people get it and some don't. That's okay. I personally though it was funny. I understood the point he was making. I doubt it will bring sweeping change, or any change for that matter. But it at least did raise the issue into the public consciousness for a moment.
 
They did a remarkable job at not laughing, mostly because he was at the height of unfunny. Like I said, Lewis Black must have been busy and Colbert was the red-headed step-child who agreed to the bad idea. On second thought, Black probably would have turned them down, as it was a stupid idea to begin with...

The only time Colbert wasn't funny when was he went out of character. You just don't like him because he satires your views.
 
I can't believe no one gets it.

sure, the committee's critics concerning this farce just don't get it

the adolescent smarminess of the too clever, kiddie crowd is lost on those who are asking---extend bush cuts to all or some, will there or won't there be a vote, how many thousands of extra dollars must i set aside in 2011 for the irs?

cracks about packers and colonoscopies are just too hi brow for the moms and pops who struggle to keep this country going

It got this issue and this hearing free exposure. Without his testimony, the hearing wouldn't even be discussed here.

this isn't quite the discussion leadership had in mind

Colbert knocks Dems off message - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42723.html ("hoyer rips colbert's appearance")

An irate House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Sunday that comedian Stephen Colbert should not have appeared before a House subcommittee last week, blasting the move as "an embarrassment."

"I think his testimony was not appropriate. I think it was an embarrassment for Mr. Colbert more than the House," Hoyer said during an on "Fox News Sunday." "It was not appropriate... What he had to say was not the way it should have been said."

of course, steny's stand must be seen in the context of intramural maneuvering

Hoyer's position on the controversial Colbert appearance was in marked contrast to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said it was fine that Colbert testified before a Judiciary subcommittee on immigration.

"Of course I think it's appropriate," Pelosi told reporters on Friday. "He's an American, right? He comes before the committee, has a point of view, he can bring attention to an important issue like immigration."

"I think it's great," Pelosi added.

not funny:

Hoyer also said that there would be no House vote on extending the Bush tax cuts before Election Day.

party on, pleasure lovers
 
Last edited:
What about other chairpersons who have invited controversial people to testify to make a point?

What about the chairperson who invited Mark Twain or Will Rogers?

You keep on pushing that Mark Twain analogy, but it still doesn't make sense.

The irony was too dense for that crowd; when Colbert speaks in character, he says the opposite of he actually believes. Anti-immigration reform people sensed they were being made fun of, pro-immigration reform people were offended the same way those reading A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift were. The irony is too think and delivered with too much sincerity for people to understand.

Yea, that's it - everyone was too confused to understand what he was saying. It wasn't that a comedian performing during a hearing was inappropriate, they're just dumb! That explains why Conyers and Hoyer were upset.

I can't believe no one gets it. It got this issue and this hearing free exposure. Without his testimony, the hearing wouldn't even be discussed here. ;)

What percent of this exposure actually has to do with the topic of the hearing? Moreover, if that's the standard we're judging things by, then we should invite the cast of Jersey Shore to preside over hearings on the tax cuts - it's sure to get the public to pay attention.
 
What percent of this exposure actually has to do with the topic of the hearing? Moreover, if that's the standard we're judging things by, then we should invite the cast of Jersey Shore to preside over hearings on the tax cuts - it's sure to get the public to pay attention.

I can't quantify a percentage. I had a conversation with my wife about the actual issue that I otherwise probably wouldn't have had. It may actually spur some watercooler talk. I don't think it hurt the cause. It would have been invisible otherwise. And these people being invisible is what he was highlighting.
 
I seen this on Cspan the other day. It was weird and random. I hope it never happens again :D
 
What failure? He actually had a pretty good message. Republicans are just pissed about HOW he said it, which in all honesty, why even care about that? I see no real issue here, this is all just over-reactions to a non-issue.


Ok, ok, the crack about submitting his (Colbert) colonoscopy into the congressional record was pretty funny, but only because the demo's on the committee in my minds eye are pictured trying to figure out whether the early shots going in are Colbert's face, or ass.

Look, a Congressional Committee hearing costs hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour to put on. In this time with the tension that exists between both sides of the isle, and the problem that illegal immigration is today, apparently San Jose's finest daughter Zoe Lofgren thinks it appropriate in true Allenski fashion to mock, and ridicule those that are against her's and her colleagues on the demo side of the isle in this issue as well as the tax payer paying for the hearing to begin with this appearance.

Illegal immigration is a problem in this country and Lofgren with her invite, then subsequent request that Colbert's mic be turned back on when he refused to leave was an outrage, and one that had republicans done anything similar would have brought mass criticism from the very people in here now feigning disbelief that repub's are upset at this farce.

Demo's are trying so hard to justify this stupid invite that they bring up an Elmo appearance to the Education Appropriations Subcommittee to urge more spending on music research and musical instruments for school programs, but in no way are the two appearances even close to commensurate with each other. Elmo was there not to mock those opposed to school musical programs, but to plea for those programs.

This show only highlights what liberal demo's really think of the American people, and their process in congress as elite blowhards that believe that they can do anything they want.

j-mac
 
If only the cost had occurred to that criminal republican who invited a puppet to appear before the committee. So demeaning to it's status.
 
If only the cost had occurred to that criminal republican who invited a puppet to appear before the committee. So demeaning to it's status.


Wait a minute, what republican invited Elmo? Can you show me that? Did Elmo mock the proceeding?

Elmo was testifying to an Education appropriations sub committee. Not a full blown committee on illegal immigration. You really think the two are parallel in substance or weight?

But hey, I guess as someone said earlier and hit it right on the head, as long as you can use that justification that is most often seen coming from 12 year olds...."Jimmy did it too!" Then it's alright...is that right?

j-mac
 
Wait a minute, what republican invited Elmo? Can you show me that? Did Elmo mock the proceeding?

Elmo was testifying to an Education appropriations sub committee. Not a full blown committee on illegal immigration. You really think the two are parallel in substance or weight?

But hey, I guess as someone said earlier and hit it right on the head, as long as you can use that justification that is most often seen coming from 12 year olds...."Jimmy did it too!" Then it's alright...is that right?

j-mac

You do realize that elmo isn't even a real person, right? He's a puppet. So um... actually... no, they aren't equal in substance or weight. Inviting elmo to "testify" was far, FAR more retarded and much more of a waste of our time and money. Not sure why folks didn't get all up in arms over it. Hell, most probably never even heard of it happening until now. (like me)
 
You do realize that elmo isn't even a real person, right? He's a puppet. So um... actually... no, they aren't equal in substance or weight. Inviting elmo to "testify" was far, FAR more retarded and much more of a waste of our time and money. Not sure why folks didn't get all up in arms over it. Hell, most probably never even heard of it happening until now. (like me)


So you think the character that Colbert was portraying in front of congress was a "real person"? Also, do you think that the topics being described, ie: Music classes in our public schools, which I fully support, to Illegal immigration?


j-mac
 
True, I'll give you that. Social Conservatism practiced individually does not tend to subvert freedom. However, Social Conservatism when practiced in politics and government does tend to subvert personal liberty. A simple glance at Iran and Saudi Arabia is sufficient evidence for that. And our history has Puritans banning **** left and right because it was immoral in their eyes.

Then the statement "Social conservatism is antithetical to limited government." is untrue. "antithetical" is direct and unequivocal opposite.
 
Wait a minute, what republican invited Elmo? Can you show me that? Did Elmo mock the proceeding?

Elmo was testifying to an Education appropriations sub committee. Not a full blown committee on illegal immigration. You really think the two are parallel in substance or weight?

But hey, I guess as someone said earlier and hit it right on the head, as long as you can use that justification that is most often seen coming from 12 year olds...."Jimmy did it too!" Then it's alright...is that right?

j-mac

Duke Cunningham invited him. :lol:

Elmo is the only non-human or puppet ever to testify before the U.S. Congress. At the request and with the assistance of Rep. Duke Cunningham, he testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education in April 2002, urging support for increased funding in music education.

Elmo: Information from Answers.com
 
Back
Top Bottom