- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
She needs to be gone then because he has no real reason being there.
Besides being elected...
She needs to be gone then because he has no real reason being there.
Besides being elected...
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.
She can be elected, but she has no reason to be a Chairwoman if she is inviting Colbert.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
Hoyer also said that there would be no House vote on extending the Bush tax cuts before Election Day.
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?
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.
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 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.
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
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)
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.
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
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
Duke Cunningham invited him. :lol: