Skip to main content

View Diary: Re-Improved Colbert transcript (now with complete text of Colbert-Thomas video!) (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The President does not have the legal right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Far left coast, Dvalkure, bluebrain

    to kill Colbert any time he wants.  I guess part of my reaction to posts on Colbert's routine, now that I've seen it, is a visceral (i.e., gut!) reaction against hyperbole.

    Nor did Colbert say "fuck you" to Bush.  He was zinging him, and "close to the edge," as Wolf Blitzer, with whom I am chagrined to agree, said, but he did not go over the line.  I thought the "fiction" zing on the media was a lot of set-up for too little payoff.

    But a brave performance?  I would chew off my own leg before denying it.

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 02:36:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Danby, claro (7+ / 0-)

      Bush also doesn't have the legal right to hold citizens without charges, eavesdrop on our phone calls, or ship prisoners off to foreign countries to be tortured on our behalf.

      But it doesn't stop him, does it?

      Bush doesn't have to do anything to hurt Colbert.  He's got a willing bunch of lickspittles, from Bill Kristol to Jeff Gannon, from Karl Rove to Bill Bennett, from Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved to a long list of faceless, nameless thugs who think patriotism is delivering "two in back of the head" to someone who would dare criticize the President [note: I've read that very quote on Free Republic.].

      Colbert was funny as hell and has big, big balls.  I've got to salute him.

      •  I'm just going to sit here and be depressed (0+ / 0-)

        by the hyperbole.  I don't care what the diaper-clad denizens of Free Republic bloviate into their keyboards.  We're the reality-based ones, and we should be avoiding hyperbolic statements like the one I addressed.  And this has everything to do with how discussion here is perceived by people whose minds I would like to change.

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 03:25:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you misunderstand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jlukes

          my point is not to indulge in hyperbole though I believe it is a respectable art-form--he does, however have every right to declare Colbert a terrorist. If he does that Colbert has no legal rights and can disspear. Of course, as a practical matter, this won't happen but at some later date when shit hits the fan who knows? My point is that there is nothing legally stopping the executive branch from doing anything it wants because it is a time of war. Of course that is illegal there has been no declaration of war etc., but the President reserves the right to act as-if.

          Om Lokaha Samastaha Sukhino Bhavantu (may all beings in all the worlds be happy)

          by Chris Cosmos on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 03:41:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know, that's BUSH'S argument (0+ / 0-)

            Mine derives from what Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in Hamdi about war not giving the President a blank check.  He may be able to do these things, but don't call them legal.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 04:15:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Honey you are not going to (0+ / 0-)

          change their minds by avoiding hyperbole. The Avatar training would be a wonderful exercise for you to understand just how rock bottom and unchangeable belief systems really are. Facts just roll off their teflon.

          •  I'm not trying to change the minds of Redstaters (0+ / 0-)

            I'm thinking of the perceptions of the people that I always tell that the dKos community is much more reality-based and non-hyperventilating than those on the right.  Today, I think, is not one of our better days.  Today we sound more like the negative copy of Redstate instead of its intellectual superior.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:42:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not the right to kill him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote

      but the power to order it done.

      Colbert,heed my warning. Do not fly in any small planes like JFK Jr.,Paul Wellstone,or the ex governor of Missouri who was running against Ashcroft for the senate,and whose name I am blocking.

      •  Well, he has the power to kill all of us (0+ / 0-)

        by starting a nuclear war.  And lots of people around you have the power to kill you if they want to.  Do you think the President orders particular people bumped off?

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:39:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure if the president himself (0+ / 0-)

          does but people in his administration probably do. After all good ol' Ike had Patrice Lamumba bumped off.

          •  American citizens. (0+ / 0-)

            Especially prominent entertainers.  Really, we shouldn't be tossing around this kind of accusation loosely.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:54:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  'Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?' (0+ / 0-)

          He needn't explicitly order a hit; Henry II didn't actually order the death of Thomas Becket, yet murder in the cathedral ensued.

          (insecure-)Ego-in-Chief Dubya is capable of sinking as low as abysses can go; every time I imagine a line even the spoiled fratboy would not breach e.g. distorting the message of Jesus into its EXACT opposite .... every time I am disappointed.

          Reason w/o fear! "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." -Sir Isaiah Berlin

          by Monique Radevu on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:19:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell me how it makes it easier (0+ / 0-)

            to get people to oppose Bush when we go around telling people that he (intentionally or recklessly) has his domestic political opponents killed?  I don't get the strategy.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:59:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sigh ... (0+ / 0-)

              You're setting up a straw mon (mon, get it? I'm Mon-ique) just in order to knock her down. I do not "go around telling ppl (Dubya) has his domestic political opponents killed"; I just have good reason to believe he considers himself above the law: "If the President does it, it's not illegal", especially since we now so conveniently have a 'permanent emergency'. Atty-General Gonzales et al are clearly enablers in this fraud. & sadly, there is perforce no end to the danger this spawns.

              I also believe his followers & circle include MANY who feel excused from normal constraints on behavior (Freud's super-ego) because they follow 'a higher law', much as admirers of historic charismatic leaders & ideologies can & do descend to the most brutal savagery because at some level, conscious/unconscious, their bond with the Great One/Great Cause relieves anxiety as to consequence, brings an ultimate permission, so the id has free play. Pol Pot yields the killing fields of Kampuchea, Nazism gives Kristalnacht.

              See "Freud & the Fundamentalist Urge" by Mark Edmundson in the NY Times magazine 4.30.06, pp. 15-18.

              See also articles & books detailing the perverse ("the noble lie excuses all") influence of Leo Strauss (1899-1973) & his neo-con acolytes (Richard Perle, Irving & William Kristol, Steven Lenzner, Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, Leon Kass, Gary 'PNAC' Schmitt, Alan Keyes, Abe Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz, et cetera ad nauseum) upon this administration, e.g. "Ignoble Liars - Leo Strauss, George Bush & the philosophy of mass deception" by Earl Shorris, Harper's, June 2004, pp. 65-71

              The great liberal/Millian historian of ideas, the admirable Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), was a contemporary & FIRM opponent of Strauss & his views. I'm proud to follow in Sir Isaiah's company.

              Reason w/o fear! "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." -Sir Isaiah Berlin

              by Monique Radevu on Mon May 01, 2006 at 01:03:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I see the problem (0+ / 0-)

                I was addressing what you said, not what you meant to say.

                Very sorry if that puts me on the side of Abu G, Pol Pot, Strauss, Perle, the Kristols, etc.  Surely I shall have to rethink in that case.

                My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                by Major Danby on Mon May 01, 2006 at 07:25:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site