Reply With Quote
The whole 2+ hrs.
Good statement starting about 7:55. posted this link before getting farther.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/progra...=7039&end=7268
He made more heartfelt, honest statements in two minutes of seriousness than most politicians say in a year.
The whole 2+ hrs.
Good statement starting about 7:55. posted this link before getting farther.
He is a comedian. Who cares?
This 2 hour clip is very enlightening, of what others think.
Anybody take the time, or you liberals going to simply trust the pundits?
Did you just accuse liberals of being negatively-biased in their opinions of Stephen Colbert at the behest of the real talking heads. Seriously? It's unbelievable I have to ask, but you are aware that the man's career and liberal audience has been built on mocking the media and the right, right?
more to the point, did he just accuse jack of being a liberal?
Neither.
That was two separate sentences.
It's obvious neither of you watched the clip, else you wouldn't jump to such conclusions.
This is true. I do not watch video which is posted in the political forum. You can thank your ideological cohorts who use youtube clips they see on Drudge and regurgitate here as their primary source of political information.
So you remarks are typical nonsense then.
My remarks are based on you defending Stephen Colbert from liberals and punditry.
If you say so. However, I don't think comedians need defending at working their craft.
No wonder you're always so wrong. Jumping to you conclusions based on your biased beliefs of others.
You should consider that in total, Colbert was on for about 10 minutes. That clip is something like 2 hrs and 10 minutes. There is 2 hours of other material.
Maybe you should think a little.
Then it's not a ing clip.
OK, you got me on one.
Happy?
Yes, he did, but WC was addressing Jack. Did you catch that?
You said it first, I blundered in with the exact same observation later.more to the point, did he just accuse jack of being a liberal?
Rep. Chu shepherded Colbert through the questions more or less, despite the odd disclosure relating to "field songs." You could see her ticking off the boxes:
Too hot.
No breaks.
No evident contingency for workers' health issues.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-27-2010 at 05:29 AM.
@MNMNA:
OTOH, the same jacksommerset claims he was a Hilary voter in 2008.
Can you imagine that?
If it were true, or even if jack merely claimed it were, would WC have forgotten it by now or forgiven him? I think not.
It seemed a little stilted to me.
Maybe you understand the heart of Stephen Colbert. I do not.
What stood out for you, CH?
Colbert snottily clowned with the clowns in Congress-the-joke, many of them self-congratulating "Christians" who don't give a about "the least among us". Where's the harm?
But he did speak some truth to elected power, and elected power, that bathes in truthiness, doesn't like it.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-27-2010 at 09:36 AM.
I think he was put in a pretty compromising position, considering how many media were there. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for him, since he volunteered to do this, but the fact remains is that he generated more interest on C-Span in an afternoon than has been since the Clinton impeachment trials, as was stated in the video.
I watched most of the 2 hours, and I felt that he was torn between what he really wanted to say, and whether or not he should remain in character. Despite the fact that he presented himself as the comedian, I think many of his remarks were still very telling and insightful. He was trying to shed light on a hopeless situation, and decided to do it through comedy. Maybe he felt that talking about it in a grave, serious manner hadn't worked for so long that it was time for a new tactic.
I thought a lot of his outlandish comments were well-placed, because he was speaking to a bi-partisan room about whether or not these workers should have rights. I think his goal was to point out that, "Hey, these workers aren't asking for a retirement package with a 401k (i.e., the soil to be raised to waist level to make picking easier), they just want to be able to work without fear of dying on the job for money that will barely buy them food." I think that's why he chose to use hyperbole, because there were several speakers who seemed to think that these people not only deserve the treatment they're given, but shouldn't even be in this country. And since all of those jobs were offered to U.S. citizens and only 3 people actually took them, I think it speaks to how dire the situation there is.
Either way, it seems to have gone well over the heads of most people who heard it. I think he underestimated how well he plays his persona and how easy it is to mistake dramatic irony for someone who isn't serious. By the end of the clip he realized that he wasn't getting the responses he hoped for, so he decided to make more straightforward comments.
At the very worst, I don't know how anyone can fault Colbert for doing this. Would we be talking about immigrant labor in this forum if he hadn't? Even if he's criticized, he brought a lot of attention to a problem that needs it. What he did takes a of a lot more brass than to stand on stage before an adoring crowd at the Emmy's and screaming about how corrupt our government or President Bush is.
Like GITMO prisoners, illegal aliens don't have "inalienable (God-given) rights" because such rights are purely man-given and man-taken-away.
"Why D.C. Is Scared of Stephen Colbert?"
"As we learned more about how farms are closing for lack of workers to harvest crops, several Republicans said that if you just paid higher wages and provided better working conditions, then real Americans would take these tough jobs. To which Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) rather pointedly noted that three of the GOPers at the other end of the dais had voted against raising the minimum wage."
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148309
O U C H !
That is how you limited thinking lib s think.
If the wages aren't high enough to bring in workers, than yes. Raise the wages. However, it's not the responsibility of the government to raise wages, but the crop owners.
Americans Don't Want Farm Work, Despite Economy
Most Americans simply don't apply for jobs harvesting fruits and vegetables in California, where one of every eight people is out of work, according to government data for a federal seasonal farmworker program analyzed by The Associated Press.
"It's just not something that most Americans are going to pack up their bags and move here to do," said farmer Steve Fortin, who pays $10.25 an hour to foreign workers to trim strawberry plants for six weeks each summer at his nursery near the Nevada border. He has spent $3,000 this year ensuring domestic workers have first dibs on his jobs in the sparsely populated stretch of the state, advertising in newspapers and on an electronic job registry.
But he hasn't had any takers, and only one farmer in the state hired anyone using a little-known, little-used program to hire foreign farmworkers the legal way – by applying for guest worker visas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...tml?view=print
====
So there, conserve , GFY.
You're right, government should have no part in enforcing pay or rights for workers. Because that worked so well for conditions in the industrial revolution!
You never cease to amaze, WC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
