• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Colbert! Congress!

Augustine said:
The OP didn't seem outraged by Colbert's appearance. Yet, by his tags and comments, it would seem that he does not want to discuss the issue either.
Click to expand...

Not outraged at all. I like that he was there, I like what he said. Hell, I like what Elmo said. I see no harm in letting any opinion, presented however goofily, get into Congressional testimony.

And Colbert just rocks.

I was pretty clear about my opinion, I thought. I thought we had a fine discussion... I guess I was wrong. What sort of interchange were you looking for? Something like in the political threads?

You and I clearly do not and will not see eye to eye on this, however, I do believe if Mr. Wackylaugh should decide to discuss this further with me and shuck off his oppressive representation, we could come to a fantastic meeting of minds.
 
Last edited:
FSM said:
You and I clearly do not and will not see eye to eye on this, however, I do believe if Mr. Wackylaugh should decide to discuss this further with me and shuck off his oppressive representation, we could come to a fantastic meeting of minds.
Click to expand...

You don't have the stature to call out Mr. Wackylaugh like that. He'll let you know if and when he's ready to talk.
 
Augustine said:
If that refers to me, I would point out that I am not giving a complete pass to anyone. Having a puppet testify is ridiculous.

HOWEVER, Elmo was testifying before an Appropriations Subcommittee on a $2M expenditure in a total federal outlay of $2T. In other words, the muppet testified to one-ten thousandth of one percent of federal spending (or 0.0001%). Which is the approximate amount of federal spending I am comfortable taking the word of a muppet on.

Colbert is testifying before a subcommittee on an issue that some 60% of Americans want to see meaningful reform on. There is no equivalency here between the two appearances, unless Democrats and Colbert are saying that immigration merits the same attention as 0.0001% of federal spending does. His appearance was ridiculous, and did nothing to stimulate a substantive discussion of the issue, as this thread alone demonstrates.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you've created an arbitrary standard by which to judge these two events so that one can come out not looking as egregious as the other.

The bottom line is this: Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee.

To parse it any further than that is disingenuous hair-splitting.
 
TraneWreck said:
You don't have the stature to call out Mr. Wackylaugh like that.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Huh. How do YOU know? FSM may have a whole yard full of lawn gnomes and cement cherubs and it concrete bird baths and ...


Oh.

You said "stature", not "statuary".

:blush:

...

...

...

Huh. How do YOU know. FSM may stand well over a full Smoot in his stocking feet. He may be the tallest one in his Girl Guide troop.

How about that?
 
johnny karate said:
Sorry, but you've created an arbitrary standard by which to judge these two events so that one can come out not looking as egregious as the other.

The bottom line is this: Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee.

To parse it any further than that is disingenuous hair-splitting.
Click to expand...


The Republicans win.

Their muppet was also a comedian.

It was a twofer.
 
johnny karate said:
Sorry, but you've created an arbitrary standard by which to judge these two events so that one can come out not looking as egregious as the other.

The bottom line is this: Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee.

To parse it any further than that is disingenuous hair-splitting.
Click to expand...

There is nothing arbitrary about it; it is a matter of gauging the relative importance of the subject matter.

Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, on appropriations that represented one-millionth of the federal budget and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee on an issue that a majority of Americans would like to see meaningful reform on.

FIFY.

The only way these are comparable is if you are arguing that the importance of the issue on which Stephen Colbert's testimony was solicited was on a scale of similar relative importance (i.e. insignificant).
 
Augustine said:
There is nothing arbitrary about it; it is a matter of gauging the relative importance of the subject matter.

Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, on appropriations that represented one-millionth of the federal budget and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee on an issue that a majority of Americans would like to see meaningful reform on.

FIFY.

The only way these are comparable is if you are arguing that the importance of the issue on which Stephen Colbert's testimony was solicited was on a scale of similar relative importance (i.e. insignificant).
Click to expand...

You're right. This proves republicans are way better than democrats. Nice work.
 
Augustine said:
There is nothing arbitrary about it; it is a matter of gauging the relative importance of the subject matter.

Republicans brought a muppet to testify before a congressional committee, on appropriations that represented one-millionth of the federal budget and Democrats brought a comedian to testify before congressional committee on an issue that a majority of Americans would like to see meaningful reform on.

FIFY.

The only way these are comparable is if you are arguing that the importance of the issue on which Stephen Colbert's testimony was solicited was on a scale of similar relative importance (i.e. insignificant).
Click to expand...

So is it then your opinion that it's not the political body (i.e. Congress) that is sacrosanct, but rather the issue being discussed? It's okay if we let muppets and comedians testify before a congressional committee, just as long as they aren't testifying about something too important.

Are you arguing that there's an inverse relationship between the importance of the topic and the acceptable ridiculousness of the invited speaker?
 
I kind of think Colbert classed the place up.

But man, talk about tough crowds. I barely saw anyone crack a smile, and that was some pretty good material.
 
Augustine said:
Of course, in your response, you acknowledge that the "we" in the sentences "We ask them to come and work. Then we ask them to leave again." is two totally separate groups. So I guess you concede that the concept of a "we" doing these two things is fictional. (Not to mention the vast simplification in the two concepts. No one is "asked" to come and work, or to leave.)

Suffering is suffering, as you say. So there is nothing unique about it, correct? No more unique than the suffering of American citizens?

So they have all other rights except the labor rights you mention? That is hardly "no rights". Also, are the labor rights denied specifically to illegal immigrants only, or to all farm workers? If so, why is it a plight unique to illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...
So, you want people to suffer? Unless they are suffering "uniquely", you aren't interested? What, people have to entertain you with their suffering in order for you to take notice? If so, are you in favor of forcing illegal immigrants to join televised fight clubs?

That's right, I can do strawmen too, and I can do it all ****** day. In the meantime, why don't you explain how illegal immigrants have rights in America, and then maybe work on addressing some actual topics being discussed at the adult table.
 
Dorian Gray said:
In the meantime, why don't you explain how illegal immigrants have rights in America, and then maybe work on addressing some actual topics being discussed at the adult table.
Click to expand...

Are you sitting at the adult table throwing that tantrum?

Courts have consistently held that illegal immigrants have the right to due process, right of habeas corpus, and first amendment rights. Since you are wearing your big boy pants, maybe you can take a deep breath and tell me what rights they are denied that are unique to them as illegal immigrants?
(Bearing in mind of course that the original claim was that they "had no rights", which has already been proven demonstrably false.)
 
Augustine said:
Are you sitting at the adult table throwing that tantrum?

Courts have consistently held that illegal immigrants have the right to due process, right of habeas corpus, and first amendment rights. Since you are wearing your big boy pants, maybe you can take a deep breath and tell me what rights they are denied that are unique to them as illegal immigrants?
(Bearing in mind of course that the original claim was that they "had no rights", which has already been proven demonstrably false.)
Click to expand...

I don't know if there are 6 or twelve steps to a massive overreaction, but I know that step 2, after step 1: become enraged before really understanding what's going on, is: become ridiculous technical and anal to try and make the initial tantrum seem salient.

Illegal immigrants are abused, cheated, and otherwise mistreated in ways that citizen workers are not. They're rightfully afraid to use the court system to protect their rights because of the threat of deportation. It's the perfect setting to extort cheap labor, which is why, as Colbert said, we continue to invite them over even as we rage about their presence.
 
TraneWreck said:
I don't know if there are 6 or twelve steps to a massive overreaction, but I know that step 2, after step 1: become enraged before really understanding what's going on, is: become ridiculous technical and anal to try and make the initial tantrum seem salient.

Illegal immigrants are abused, cheated, and otherwise mistreated in ways that citizen workers are not. They're rightfully afraid to use the court system to protect their rights because of the threat of deportation. It's the perfect setting to extort cheap labor, which is why, as Colbert said, we continue to invite them over even as we rage about their presence.
Click to expand...

Are you having a tantrum as well as Dorian? I thought you were a lawyer, why do you not have an answer as to which rights illegal immigrants are denied that is unique to their situation as illegal immigrants?

(And again, for emphasis, the original claim was that they had no rights, which has already been demolished.)
 
Jeff Corey said:
Augustine said:
...This thread was originally tagged with "mockery". Then the tag removed. Now the thread is tagged with "cornpacker" and other juvenile tags.) .
Click to expand...

I thought it was a reference to the Green Bay Packers and their crumbling defense and marketing strategies. http://www.etsy.com/listing/36445874/green-bay-packers-corn-hole-bags
Click to expand...


I believe that corn-holing began in Ohio, sir.

http://www.playcornhole.org/index.php

Paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes: "Politicians can remain irrational far longer than you or I can decree Colbert's statue be set up in bronze".
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
Are you having a tantrum as well as Dorian? I thought you were a lawyer, why do you not have an answer as to which rights illegal immigrants are denied that is unique to their situation as illegal immigrants?

(And again, for emphasis, the original claim was that they had no rights, which has already been demolished.)
Click to expand...

Boy, it really seems like I just explained this.

Whether or not an illegal immigrant technically "has rights" as determined by the courts, in practice they're terrified to challenge mistreatment for fear of deportation. This leads to extortion and mistreatment at a significantly higher rate than legal workers, especially unionized workers.

It took about a century for African Americans to be allowed to actually vote in the South even though they were given the right at the end of the Civil War. The difference between laws on the books and the way things work in practice is not an unknown concept.

And again, Colbert was speaking loosely. Trying to judge his words with anal precision is just a result of you becoming defensive over criticism of your outburst.
 
blobru said:
I'm not sure, but it was a brilliant decision! It was comedy enough to get people to tune in, yet he manages, while in character, to get his point across: to argue himself into corners where even his rabid right-wing persona has to admit that granting immigrant workers visas as a way to earn citizenship is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. When you go to see a stage magician perform, do you believe he really does saw the lady in half? Of course not: even if you don't know the exact method, you know it's a bit of trickery, an act meant to amuse and entertain.

In Colbert's case, even the method itself is openly displayed. It's the straw man in classic form, the fake opponent you set up for the express purpose of knocking it down. Colbert out-argues himself in a mock argument, and you hail it as a feat of wondrous magic. It's not, though. It's an age-old rhetorical trick, fine enough when employed to amuse and entertain, but hardly the stuff of serious political debate.

You know what would be real magic? Colbert having a serious discussion with a serious opponent, and changing that person's mind about immigration reform. But that's not what Colbert does, really: His schtick is cracking jokes to the choir. Which apparently now includes the House of Representatives.
 
TraneWreck said:
Boy, it really seems like I just explained this.

Whether or not an illegal immigrant technically "has rights" as determined by the courts, in practice they're terrified to challenge mistreatment for fear of deportation. This leads to extortion and mistreatment at a significantly higher rate than legal workers, especially unionized workers.

It took about a century for African Americans to be allowed to actually vote in the South even though they were given the right at the end of the Civil War. The difference between laws on the books and the way things work in practice is not an unknown concept.

And again, Colbert was speaking loosely. Trying to judge his words with anal precision is just a result of you becoming defensive over criticism of your outburst.
Click to expand...

This is not anal precision. This is the same thing I said several pages ago: that his insights are insipid and facile. You may try to cover the gaps by claiming that he was "speaking loosely", but he was expressing little more than puerile sentiments that added nothing to a reasoned discussion of the issues. So Dorian throws a tantrum, you come in, and you still have nothing further to the point that the original observations are something I would expect an elementary school student to say, and at about that level of analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom