It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Biggest Dissapointment In The Year - The Colbert Report

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Shame shame shame shame

I remember when I first used to watch the colbert report
it had officially became one of my most favorite shows
and I don't have many

truth, good commentary, some times little known news and wrapped in a form the average somewhat unimformed person could digest - humor.

I remember when he had an interview with someone
This was before the show even started
and the interviewer said "what ur goal"
colbert said "change the world" in a somewhat funny tone

after seeing many many episodes i kinda believed the comedy network and that they had a noble goal

Now, look at the Colbert Report and what it has become.

Although he often attacks MSNBC he's just another slave.

I first became a little "what's going on here" when he used to mock Ron Paul.

Then he endorsed Huckabee, but somewhat taunted him too, i'll give that.

And then became completely pro-democrat, anti-republican and made colbert report an Obama slobfest.

And now?????????

Did anyone catch his recent reporsts from Iraq?

He went to iraq and broadcasted many shows there.

He had John McCain videoconference in in front of the troops(audience) and gave a speech to troops stationed in iraq, the same guy that wanted to condemn them and their/your kids to 100 years in Iraq.

Then he had Obama, videoconference in, the same person under who's watch the DHS claimed that iraqi vets are potential terroists.

Then he had guess Sarah Palin, the same person who made very scary statements like the war in iraq being a war for god or soemthing.

Then guess what................ GUess who he had videoconference in?

GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!
The same guy who sent these people there for a wild goose chase(wmd's), and whom was again and again proved to have started the war in Iraq with lies after lies after lies after lies.

Imagine the political connections and strings that must have been pulled, and even marketing dollars to go to Iraq and broadcast a very pro-war message to the world and have so many high up politicians who basically spat into the faces of every troop to give the troops a thank you and I apreciate your commitment speech hypocritical speech.

The highest form of hypocrisy in the history of the world!


Unbelievable!
Shame on Colbert!

He used to stand for something and now he's just another puppet leading the opposition.

EDIT: Oh ya, not to mention He even Gave a PRO-KBR Speech!!!!!!!!

I couldn't believe he would stoop that lowwwwwww


[edit on 13-7-2009 by ModernAcademia]




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
If it's on the MSM its an enemy operation. Stop watching the enemies brainwashing. If you don't they will eventually break down your resistence and you will become a lobotomized sheep like everyone else.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Colbert made fun of Bush to his face.....watch this video and try not to laugh, definately a classic

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by iTz C1oCKWoRK
Colbert made fun of Bush to his face.....watch this video and try not to laugh, definately a classic

www.youtube.com...


he peaked there, unfortunately it's all been downhill since



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It's no coincidence that neither Colbert nor Stewart have ever addressed the question of 911 truth. It's just light entertainment to get your mind off what really matters, you know-- comedy. Just because they look like news men doesn't mean you should take them seriously.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Colbert is an actor playing the parody part of a Conservative pundit. If anything the list of guests you gave means that he is willing to have any high profile political candidate on his show regardless of party. Making fun of Ron Paul doesn't make the man a villain, after all who knows how many of those jokes he writes himself, he's just an actor, who knows what his true political opinions are? Plus you have to admit there are a lot of fanatics for Ron Paul and some of them give his movement a bad name, that's the danger when a person's stances on issues attract people from a myriad of groups and opinion types, you get some who are a little wacky.

I prefer John Stewart and the Daily Show over Colbert but just by a hair, they are both good shows but as mainstream comedy shows owned by Viacom they should be taken with a grain of salt and not places to receive unadulterated truth.

The one thing I don't like about Colbert are the constant product placements, although he seems to do those almost as a joke. Oh and the fact that he's on at 11:30 and the Tonight Show with Conan is on at 11:35, it creates a comedy conflict for me.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
(reposted from different topic)
I don't know how Ron Paul has so effectively marketed himself. He is a LIBERTARIAN. If you don't know what that means you should look it up so that you aren't just taking my word for it (hint, Rush Limbaugh is a celebrated Libertarian). One of the key tenants of Libertarianism is: Deregulation. They want a society that is run by commerce not politicians. That means the market will decide what is too much toxic effluent, not regulations set forth by politicians. Lead in your baby formula?-- people will stop buying it, problem solved. He is just like the rest of them, maybe worse because ultimately there will be no regulations or consequences for the corporations in the NWO. You are all being duped into thinking the most right-wing party is on your side. Libertarians are the types that got us into the mess we are in ( lack of banking regulations). If you think voting in a Libertarian will make your life better after the eye of this Crapacain passes, maybe you deserve what comes next.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mumbotron
 


Rush is not a libertarian. There are people who like to call themselves that, when all you have to do is look at the things they support to know they aren't like that.

Aside from that, you don't have the first clue what you are talking about regarding libertarians.

Please, get a clue before you start spouting off about libertarians. If someone put lead in such things, that would be called illegal and a crime.

Who do you think makes the regulations you are so found of? It's done through lobbyists. Who do these lobbyists work for? The corporations. The big corporations pass these "regulations". Why? Because it stomps out competition due to increased costs, and it allows for things like pollution to be legalized to a specific group of people.

You seem to think politicians will make your life better. Which is funny as they are known to be liars, crooks and only looking out for getting re-elected while serving the money interests that got them there in the first place. You use the big corporations who are the ones who push for regulations in the first place as reasons why, when it is actually about giving the smaller businesses and companies a chance - outside of spending lots of money for lobbyists and government contracts.

Get a clue.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Colbert and Stewart both seem like decent enough people but they are ignorant and probably hampered by their own self-importance and public reception/perception of their own work. They must not think TOO badly of the media machine in which they participate, though if they weren't a part of it I bet they would be more liable to see just how bad it really is.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Mumbotron
 


Rush is not a libertarian. There are people who like to call themselves that, when all you have to do is look at the things they support to know they aren't like that.

Aside from that, you don't have the first clue what you are talking about regarding libertarians.

Please, get a clue before you start spouting off about libertarians. If someone put lead in such things, that would be called illegal and a crime.

Who do you think makes the regulations you are so found of? It's done through lobbyists. Who do these lobbyists work for? The corporations. The big corporations pass these "regulations". Why? Because it stomps out competition due to increased costs, and it allows for things like pollution to be legalized to a specific group of people.

You seem to think politicians will make your life better. Which is funny as they are known to be liars, crooks and only looking out for getting re-elected while serving the money interests that got them there in the first place. You use the big corporations who are the ones who push for regulations in the first place as reasons why, when it is actually about giving the smaller businesses and companies a chance - outside of spending lots of money for lobbyists and government contracts.

Get a clue.

It's only a crime because a politician made regulations to make it so. There are lots of dangerous things that will be coming out of the Monsanto cookbook in the next little while that haven't been studied or regulated. I for one would like some publicly responsible agency to study and restrict what may kill or harm me and you. Rush is so a Libertarian, maybe not in your imaginary realm. We can thank government regulations for removing lead, asbestos and so many other harmful substances from our industries, making it law. I'll give you the fact that large corporations tend to have the strongest lobbying power, but that is a little off topic IMO. The fact that Paul is against the federal reserve has many of you confused into thinking he's on your side. I wonder if reducing the regulations in Banking practices will fix this little mess we are in?




[edit on 13-7-2009 by Mumbotron]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
They're both hilarious. They're not trying to be pundits, politicians, or spokespersons for any movement. They'll tell you to your face that they're faux news, just like CNN, MSNBC and Fox are faux news, only those networks ain't funny.

If they've taken more shots at Bush or Cheney, it isn't because they're anti-Bush or anti-Cheney, it's just those two have given them more material to work with.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
my bad, double post

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
It's a joke. It's always been a joke. He's never really been Conservative, he's been sarcastic the whole time.

I think he's great, haha.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
No offense intended but anyone who watches Comedy Central for anything other than a few laffs needs to run around the block in freezing rain and wake up a litte more. I admit I watched the Daily Show and Colbert Report religiously because I thought there was finally going to be a way to get new news without spin but they both sold out. I wonder if MSM thre them both a party when they signed their name in blood. Maybe had a nice big NWO cake. Sell out or die out. That seems to be the theme of all media outlets.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
It's only a crime because a politician made regulations to make it so. There are lots of dangerous things that will be coming out of the Monsanto cookbook in the next little while that haven't been studied or regulated. I for one would like some publicly responsible agency to study and restrict what may kill or harm me and you. Rush is so a Libertarian, maybe not in your imaginary realm. We can thank government regulations for removing lead, asbestos and so many other harmful substances from our industries, making it law. I'll give you the fact that large corporations tend to have the strongest lobbying power, but that is a little off topic IMO. The fact that Paul is against the federal reserve has many of you confused into thinking he's on your side. I wonder if reducing the regulations in Banking practices will fix this little mess we are in?


Do you really think that being a libertarian means there is no crime? It's pretty simple - were people damaged or harmed? If the answer is yes, then it's a crime. If it is a crime, then it should be outright illegal, not a regulation which allows for certain amounts of the crime for certain "special" people.

You mention Monsanto. Do you realize this is one of the biggest lobbyist forces in the US and they push many regulations? They are killing the farmers with their regulations. Their genetically engineered seeds float around, get mixed in with other crops and then due to regulations Monsanto sues them and basically gets everything the farmer owns.

What do you think the purpose of lobbyists are? To get the government to pass the laws and regulations they want.

The reason you deem "deregulation" as bad(and why it is), is because they are not really deregulating them. They are only taking away some of the regulations. Regulations which were usually put in place as part of a plan for the initial regulation.

So, you introduce regulation that contains some protection. Costs go up due to the regulations, companies/competition starts to go under. Then, you deregulate the safety regulations after, and the company with the monopoly makes out like a rat. Over and over this happens.

You think a libertarian view point is more "lax" because you do not understand. It is not more lax at all. It is more fair to small businesses(main street) rather than catering to big time corporations(wall street).

If it's bad, then it should be illegal. If it's not bad, then it should be legal period. Regulations are the "middle" ground, which just make it legal for the special few.

If Rush is a libertarian:

Does he stand for open borders?
Legalization of drugs?
Free Speech?
Social freedoms?
Gay Marriage?

etc.

Libertarians are for both Social freedom, and Economic Freedom. The "left" sells themselves as being for "social freedom". The "right" sells themselves as being for economic freedom. The left points out the bad government(social laws) the right wants. The right points out the economic laws the left wants. This is how they sell themselves.

However, when you combine the government the left wants, with the government the right wants, guess what you get? You get no social free, and no economic freedom. It is by design. When was the last time a politician got rid of an existing program? NEVER. Did GWB get rid of public education, welfare or any of those things? No, he increased them in size. Did Obama get rid of homeland security, or all these programs Bush started? No, he has increased their power.

Combine the 2 and what do you have? A completely authoritarian government. And this is by design and you are sitting here pretending that people have the best interests of the people at heart? Please!

I am a libertarian. For the 8 years Bush was in office I got called a Liberal over and over. Now I get called a conservative over and over. Why?

You can vote for the left, you can vote for the right. But they both attack Libertarians because they represent the freedom aspects of both parties.

And you can sit here and focus on a single issue all you want and call that person "Libertarian". But the fact of the matter is that since Libertarians represent the freedom side of both, you can do that with anything. Which is exactly why I get called a Liberal by conservatives, and a Conservative by liberals.

But whatever. You keep believing in the things those politicians tell you. You keep telling yourself that the regulations are put into place for your protection. You keep convincing yourself that known liars, crooks and opportunists are really worried about your best interests when they regulate businesses.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


What makes you think I am in support of big business creating the laws? That is certainly not the case. Just because I disagree with Libertarianism doesn't mean I want things to remain how they are. I personally want private interests out of the legislative body. Deregulation is a double edged sword. Monsanto's patented seeds should have regulations put on them. There should be a revision of any laws that stifle small business while promoting big business. I'm sorry for you and those in your Ron Paul campaign who don't see that.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
It is shows like this that are brainwashing your sons and daughters.
Oh sure, you think it is just comedy, but it is forming thoughts in the minds of your children. It is weakening them.
When a country becomes too soft, then it is time for war.
Next year we will see the effort to create heroes out of our sons instead of letting them wither and become effeminate wastrels.
War will make men of boys, or remove them from the equation.
War will create jobs for the unemployed.
War will save this country and keep us on top.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
It is shows like this that are brainwashing your sons and daughters.
Oh sure, you think it is just comedy, but it is forming thoughts in the minds of your children. It is weakening them.
When a country becomes too soft, then it is time for war.
Next year we will see the effort to create heroes out of our sons instead of letting them wither and become effeminate wastrels.
War will make men of boys, or remove them from the equation.
War will create jobs for the unemployed.
War will save this country and keep us on top.

You're hilarious.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by badmedia
 


What makes you think I am in support of big business creating the laws? That is certainly not the case. Just because I disagree with Libertarianism doesn't mean I want things to remain how they are. I personally want private interests out of the legislative body. Deregulation is a double edged sword. Monsanto's patented seeds should have regulations put on them. There should be a revision of any laws that stifle small business while promoting big business. I'm sorry for you and those in your Ron Paul campaign who don't see that.


Because you have to look at what you enable when you support things. You give up power/control to those people not only for the good reasons, but you are also giving them up for the bad reasons.

Sure, you'll give them away to someone like Obama and think he is going to do good things. But you will always be just a GWB away from things being used in the opposite direction. The entire game is to just get you to give them the power/control of the issue. After that point, they can do whatever they want.

For every issue there are 2 questions. The first question is always kept silent. If you mention the first question, you get labeled as a "kook". The first question is always - "Is this a job for the government". Both the left and right keep this question slient because they both agree the answer is always Yes!. After that point, it's just an argument over the direction of it. They don't really care which one you support, because no matter how you answer the 2nd question you answered yes to the first, which is all that really matters.

And so they switch back and forth between the 2 parties to add the kind of things most needed for the time. Need more social laws etc, Republicans get in. Need to add a bunch of economic laws, and democrats get in. But they are both in truth the same authoritian party, broken up in 2 parts to provide the illusion of choice.

It doesn't matter what side of the debate you are on, what you are actually saying is it is the job of the federal government to decide such a thing. And then you will sit back and forever complain about how things are screwed up, because you are part of the problem.

And like right now, Republicans are in a minority. And so they will vote and appear to be against all these things for support. Because it's not going to matter, it's going to pass anyway. So they can look good. But when they were in power, it was the exact opposite. Democrats voted against to look good and so forth. It's a freaking game and you aren't a player, you are the loot.

Back and forth, back and forth. But does anything ever really change? No. Status quo keeps marching on, and it's people such as yourself who think they have the right to "regulate" and decide for others than enables it. You give that power away thinking you are getting what you "choose", but you end up being screwed over time and time again. When will you get a clue?

You're so locked into that ridiculous notion of "left vs right", you can't even address me without associating me with somekind of right wing group. Typical status quo stuff.

I'm sorry, but I am sick of it. If you wanna go live in your left vs right fantasy world, then be my guest. And it is a fantasy world. Those of you who like these things always imagine the system as if you were in charge. And that you would do it right. It's a fantasy, because you aren't in charge and it's not going to be what you want.

You fall for hollow words like "Change". Yes, a hollow word. Why? Because it's not actually defining anything. So you fill the words and meanings with your own vision of "change". And you vote for them, and get screwed over and over.

If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, then you deserve what you get. Meanwhile you sit and blame each other in a wheel of duality too blind to see whats going on around you.

You can "stay the course" all you want. But I'd rather walk than ride that train. It's not left vs right, it's up vs down. Freedom vs authority, and freedom is getting it's butt kicked by the false paradigm of a single party playing left vs right.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Actually you did identify the problem before, which is private interests have taken over the legislative powers of the U.S. government. Because of that, laws get passed that don't reflect the best interests of the people of the U.S.A. and the world. Both parties are corrupt beyond redemption as they currently stand.
I wont go into an environmentalist rant but this is a good illustration of what I'm trying to express to you: I live in a place where there is still old growth forests. Tree farming is a proven failure in Scandinavia. A lack of regulations on forestry practices has and continues to this day to create an extreme long term environmental catastrophe. Somebody has to make the law: No cutting next to a fish bearing stream. Or in oil extraction somebody has to make the law: No contaminating the 400 square miles that surround your facility. Does this happen?- No. Actually the regulations exist but aren't enforced. Would having the government turn a blind eye to such things help? Well, I sure don't think it has so far.
One of the greatest assets of humanity is that we have different individuals with different strengths. Unlike a colony of bacteria, we can arrange our society so that the ones with strengths can assist the ones without through organization, whereas the colony of bacteria develops in a homogeneous manner. By expecting our economic and social order to "work themselves out" what will happen is the ones with strengths will dominate those without. The playing field has to be leveled. Ethics must be mandated because otherwise I feel like some people would act without them.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join