|
Post by wedestroymyths on May 3, 2006 22:29:17 GMT -5
that colbert...he's a funny, funny guy.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on May 4, 2006 9:29:15 GMT -5
Can you show me any evidence that it's President Bush sending the price of oil up?....In the meantime (ma'am) I'd still like you to show me how President Bush deliberately jacked up the world wide price of oil. Bush doesn't sit on the Board of any existing Oil Company (I know because every time he has, they're gone out of business) so of course he didn't raise the prices himself. And the loss of Iraq's oil production wouldn't have caused this raise in prices... The prices are rising and the oil companies profits are rising in ways that can't be traced back to the fall in supply. If this were a case of the companies passing it's increase in costs along to the consumer then the prices would rise but their profits would stay flat.... Bush however has helped his oil buddies (and his family) by invading Iraq which cut the production that give the oil companies the smoke screen to raise prices. Then people with weak brains (ahem) will simply accept that explanation. Bush not only refuses to do anything about this, he also gave these same price-gouging companies tax cuts....that subsidy then has to be replaced by the government borrowing which increases the national debt which is more and more in the hands of China. I'm at a loss at what you find acceptable in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on May 4, 2006 10:37:31 GMT -5
Then people with weak brains (ahem) will simply accept that explanation. Wild Rebel, as you know, you're free to express your opinions here. But you are not free to insult those who disagree with you. Unless it's in good fun, which this clearly is not. Refrain from the condescending tone.
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on May 4, 2006 11:13:10 GMT -5
That was great. Personally I thought Bush was hilarious as well. "I'm feeling chipper tonight, I survived the White House shakeup". That line needs to be engraved on the front of his Presidential Library.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on May 4, 2006 11:20:24 GMT -5
Then people with weak brains (ahem) will simply accept that explanation. Wild Rebel, as you know, you're free to express your opinions here. But you are not free to insult those who disagree with you. Unless it's in good fun, which this clearly is not. Refrain from the condescending tone. Sorry....in the memory of the 2400 + of our people and god only knows how many Iraqis who are dead now....all of which died because of lies....I have a hard time respecting anyone who would give Bush a blank check on any subject.
|
|
|
Post by KGB on May 4, 2006 11:54:13 GMT -5
Can you show me any evidence that it's President Bush sending the price of oil up?....In the meantime (ma'am) I'd still like you to show me how President Bush deliberately jacked up the world wide price of oil. Bush doesn't sit on the Board of any existing Oil Company (I know because every time he has, they're gone out of business) so of course he didn't raise the prices himself. And the loss of Iraq's oil production wouldn't have caused this raise in prices... The prices are rising and the oil companies profits are rising in ways that can't be traced back to the fall in supply. If this were a case of the companies passing it's increase in costs along to the consumer then the prices would rise but their profits would stay flat.... Bush however has helped his oil buddies (and his family) by invading Iraq which cut the production that give the oil companies the smoke screen to raise prices. Then people with weak brains (ahem) will simply accept that explanation. Bush not only refuses to do anything about this, he also gave these same price-gouging companies tax cuts....that subsidy then has to be replaced by the government borrowing which increases the national debt which is more and more in the hands of China. I'm at a loss at what you find acceptable in this situation. Assuming that the profit margain remains steady, then higher prices are going to result in higher profits. That's elementary business. If I buy a product for $8 and then sell it for $10, I'm making $2 profit. But if I now buy that product for $80, does it make sense that I'm going to sell it for $82? Do you know how much profit oil companies were making back in 1998, when oil was $10 a barrel? In 1998, Exxonmobil made a profit of $8.81 billion dollars. In 2005, with oil priced at 5-6 times the 1998 price, they made $36.13 billion. Where is the problem? The amount of taxes collected on a gallon of gasoline far outstrip the profit for the oil companies, so why aren't you complaining about the government gouging the consumer? Wild Rebel, tax cuts are not subsidies. There's no deficit incurred if the government doesn't plan on spending money that it doesn't have. Yes, I know, the budget has only increased under Bush and that's something I'm not happy about, but you've got it backwards when you say that deficits arise because not enough taxes are being extracted. You're also off base when you imply that oil companies directly determine the price of oil. There are a large number of factors, but most of them come down to oil producing countries, not the petrol companies. Read this for a simple overview of how things work. With problems in Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iran (none of which can be blamed on President Bush), coupled by skyrocketing demand worldwide, it's perfectly reasonable for the price of oil to go up so quickly. The article I linked to mentions that a 1% difference in the expected supply can result in a 15% change in price. This is the market at work, there's no big, bad oil company boogey man behind it all. I may not like the price of gas, but I do find the current situatino acceptable, no one's making me drive a car. At the same time, there's no doubt the price of oil is having a largely negative impact on this country, it's just that I'd like to see the US do something effective about it, not point fingers. Let's open up ANWR and the coastal regions for drilling. I'm all for making new technology a priority, but only if it's feasible and worth the time and effort invovled. As yet, there's nothing out there that can replace the combustible engine.
|
|
|
Post by KGB on May 4, 2006 12:02:50 GMT -5
Sorry....in the memory of the 2400 + of our people and god only knows how many Iraqis who are dead now....all of which died because of lies....I have a hard time respecting anyone who would give Bush a blank check on any subject. But I'm not giving him a blank check at all. He's simply not involved in this process to the degree you think he is. It's you who needs to show me why Bush is an issue here.
|
|
|
Post by Ted Husing on May 5, 2006 10:25:10 GMT -5
Getting back on topic ;D My understanding is that the reason everybody was so startled by what Colbert did was that, though poking fun in this manner is not new and is done at every such event, Colbert's comments were a little more "on point" than is customary. Combine that with a press corps that got castrated long ago and you have a recipe for awkward shifting. Though this article makes it sound like his reception at the time wasn't that bad. I have yet to watch it (still downloading...) but I certainly don't trust any online commentator's assessment of it, whether it's somebody from the SF Chronicle, the Weekly Standard, or the most august MST3K discussion board.
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on May 5, 2006 10:39:33 GMT -5
Getting back on topic ;D My understanding is that the reason everybody was so startled by what Colbert did was that, though poking fun in this manner is not new and is done at every such event, Colbert's comments were a little more "on point" than is customary. Personally I have no clue what anyone is talking about. I'm sure Bush wasn't exactly thrilled at the ribbing he took, but in the videos I saw he didn't look "angry" or "frustrated". Heck, he himself made fun of Dick Cheney's heart problem. I think most liberals would like to believe that Bush was sweating and blushing under the jokes. It's nothing he hasn't heard before I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by KGB on May 5, 2006 11:10:58 GMT -5
I have nothing against Colbert, I think he's occasionally funny and occasionally insipid (Mr Goodwrench commercials anyone?), but on this occasion, he just wasn't make many "jokes" per se. I thought the purpose of being hired for this gig was to try to be funny, not repeat that afternoon's posts from Daily Kos. The reason that it was so awkardly quiet during his monologue, compared to the reaction President Bush got, was that he wasn't really attempting to make his points in a humorous fashion. Or was he? Hard to tell, and that's a problem when you're being paid to be a comedian.
|
|
|
Post by Skellen on May 5, 2006 11:29:11 GMT -5
Well I don't think he was aiming for humor but rather satire, and rather up front and biting to boot. That said, I think Bush took it better than some of the audience (not Scalia - sense of humor on him ). I had a lot of fun watching this, but this sort of thing just rolls of Bush. That's a shame; I wish he was more receptive to criticism, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Trumpy Dumpy's Salvation Army on May 6, 2006 10:26:42 GMT -5
I thought the funniest part was watching some of the people restrain their laughter as if they may some how offend the president. It seemed to me that the president was laughing just as hard, if not harder, as everyone else.
It was funny.
|
|
|
Post by RafaelH on May 6, 2006 11:33:38 GMT -5
I have nothing against Colbert, I think he's occasionally funny and occasionally insipid (Mr Goodwrench commercials anyone?), but on this occasion, he just wasn't make many "jokes" per se. I thought the purpose of being hired for this gig was to try to be funny, not repeat that afternoon's posts from Daily Kos. The reason that it was so awkardly quiet during his monologue, compared to the reaction President Bush got, was that he wasn't really attempting to make his points in a humorous fashion. Or was he? Hard to tell, and that's a problem when you're being paid to be a comedian. BS. The reason that they were akward was the he was calling them out and criticizing them and they were miffed. The reason isn't that they are funny but that it's inside joke funny,not meant to go too far and Colbert didn't do that. For god sake this is an event where Bush once did a video about looking for WMD under his desk and the First Lady did a monologue last year. Both of those things were lamer than anything that Rob Schneider has done. And yet they laughed liked crazy that time. That first lady monologue was acclaimed by everyone there and it was the biggest insult to comedy since Hope and Faith got the green light.
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on May 6, 2006 11:42:59 GMT -5
I have nothing against Colbert, I think he's occasionally funny and occasionally insipid (Mr Goodwrench commercials anyone?), but on this occasion, he just wasn't make many "jokes" per se. I thought the purpose of being hired for this gig was to try to be funny, not repeat that afternoon's posts from Daily Kos. The reason that it was so awkardly quiet during his monologue, compared to the reaction President Bush got, was that he wasn't really attempting to make his points in a humorous fashion. Or was he? Hard to tell, and that's a problem when you're being paid to be a comedian. BS. The reason that they were akward was the he was calling them out and criticizing them and they were miffed. The reason isn't that they are funny but that it's inside joke funny,not meant to go too far and Colbert didn't do that. For god sake this is an event where Bush once did a video about looking for WMD under his desk and the First Lady did a monologue last year. Both of those things were lamer than anything that Rob Schneider has done. And yet they laughed liked crazy that time. That first lady monologue was acclaimed by everyone there and it was the biggest insult to comedy since Hope and Faith got the green light. First off I thought Laura's comedy speech last year was really funny, secondly I didn't know so many people cared about how funny the president was. I see this whole event as a false news story altogether. "Bush Embarrased! Conservatives Furious!". In the video I saw Bush didn't appear embarrased at all. Oh and by the way, I saw the video on Fox News, the so called "conservative capitol of the world". Can we all just agree that it was funny, and move on?
|
|
|
Post by RafaelH on May 6, 2006 11:55:51 GMT -5
First off I thought Laura's comedy speech last year was really funny, secondly I didn't know so many people cared about how funny the president was. I see this whole event as a false news story altogether. "Bush Embarrased! Conservatives Furious!". In the video I saw Bush didn't appear embarrased at all. Oh and by the way, I saw the video on Fox News, the so called "conservative capitol of the world". Can we all just agree that it was funny, and move on? I think that anybody else had said Laura speech, it would have been labelled as horrible, but since it was the first lady and she just went out there, it was labeled as great when it was pure lame garbage. The point is not the the president is funny or the event is that I've seen the excuse from some conservatives about how Colbert wasn't funny when his speech was a million times better than what is done in that event recently. Especially when lame stuff like Laura's was laughed out loud and praised by people who have no clue about comedy. They either didn't get Colbert because of being too stupid (which wasn't the case) or they just were akward becuase he was calling them out and hard and they aren't used to that but just some lame joke about being a desperate housewife and idiocy like that.
|
|