PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Colbert for President: Is America Ready for a Faking Frenchman?



Steve
18th October 07, 12:34 AM
As the title of the thread says:

Stephen Colbert for President: Is America Ready for a Faking Frenchman?

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/FtheNaysayers/Colbert_Lancelot_2.jpgIn announcing his candidacy for presidency, Stephen Colbert hopes to beat Fred Thompson to the punch for the Hollywood fan ticket, or so one would presume. At its barest, we can rest assured that Stephen has what it takes in order to be the nation's next President - he has absolutely no qualms changing any particular aspect of his character in order to garner acclaim and fame. From an admittedly Irish background, the native Colbert admitted to Conservative political commentator Bill O'Reilly that he dropped the T sound at the end of his name in something of an appeasement of the media.

He still, however, attempts to garner the Irish vote by staunchly reminding them that he is, by all accounts, still as Irish as ever. The dropping of the T was purely for political purposes.

Some experts wonder if he perhaps waited too long to enter into the race - wondering if this may hurt his chances in the primaries. Perhaps to make up for this tardy debut onto the political scene, Stephen Colbert has announced his candidacy as both Republican and Democrat, and further went on to say that he runs as a "Favorite son of South Carolina".

It has been pointed out however that he stands a good chance of winning several key votes that have the potential to hinder his competition - such as the religious vote for his observance of Lent. In 2006, he was named by Time Magazine to be one of the top 100 Most Influential People, and stands educated, having received a Doctorate of Fine Arts degree from Knox College.

He's made international guest appearances and offered to bring his boat to the ruins of Katrina to offer assistance - demonstrating that he's a capable leader in times of crises and has no problems with potential foreign relations. So far he sounds like your typical politician.

And like all politicians, Colbert has a darker side to him - a side of corporate greed and corruption.

-----------------------------------

Link. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/418450/stephen_colbert_for_president_is_america.html)

Finally, a real contender!

fes_fsa
18th October 07, 12:37 AM
he's got my vote.

jvjim
18th October 07, 12:43 AM
Ann Coulter's right then.

Steve
18th October 07, 01:04 AM
Ann Coulter's right then.

HUR HUR HUR.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 02:22 AM
Well, fuck Ron Paul then.





COLBERT 2008!









COLBERT FOREVER!

Sun Wukong
18th October 07, 03:20 AM
i never thought he'd do it. this could be the greatest joke of all time.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 03:22 AM
better than when i was a girl?

Steve
18th October 07, 03:25 AM
Much.

Sun Wukong
18th October 07, 03:52 AM
better than when i was a girl?

oh god yes. way better. he actually stands a chance of getting on both ballots and he may even be entitled to speak at debates. Almost nothing would be more awesome than that.

Shawarma
18th October 07, 09:06 AM
The scary thing is that he'd probably win. The scarier thing is that this will surely prompt Ted Haggard, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter to run as well, further contributing to the disintegration of US politics as well as general lulz.

Stick
18th October 07, 09:31 AM
Funny;

To get his name on the Democratic ticket, Stephen needs $2,500 or 3,000 signatures. To get his name on the Republican ticket, Stephen needs $35,000, there is no option to get on the ticket by virtue of public support.

More than ten times as much money required to run as a Republican; what a fucking surprise.

Party of fiscal responsibility my ass, well, unless you're wealthy enough that dropping $35,000 to get your name on a single ticket isn't irresponsible.

I'm sure these fees and entry qualifications vary from state to state; I would love to see a comparison of entry fees for every state.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 10:41 AM
I can't see him doing any worse as president than any other candidate. Surely better than most.

And when he fucks up, he can just say "LOL I WAS JUST PRETENDING" and people will laugh.

Shawarma
18th October 07, 10:44 AM
Surely you jest Loops. Voting for him would be akin to voting for Schwarzenegger for the entertainment value.

GreenHornet
18th October 07, 11:17 AM
Which is why Arnold was elected.
People of california did it for the lulz.

Riddeck
18th October 07, 11:19 AM
Surely you jest Loops. Voting for him would be akin to voting for Schwarzenegger for the entertainment value.

I assure you there would be zero entertainment in even considering Arnold for President.

Though Carl Rove suggested we amend the Constitution so Arnold could run.

He is a fucking cunt.


As for the rest of the runners...Ron Paul is the only hope.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 11:22 AM
Which is why Arnold was elected.
People of california did it for the lulz.

And it seems like he's doing a good job, last I heard.



I assure you there would be zero entertainment in even considering Arnold for President.

Though Carl Rove suggested we amend the Constitution so Arnold could run.

I wouldn't mind that at all. As it stands, I am 3 months away from being eligible for becoming POTUS. And it always will be 3 months, since I came to the US at 3 months old.

Where can I run for office? Greece. Fucking Greece. I lived there for a grand total of 3 months and never intend to go back. But I am more Greek than anybody who moves there now and lives there for 50 years!

Riddeck
18th October 07, 11:28 AM
And it seems like he's doing a good job, last I heard.




I wouldn't mind that at all. As it stands, I am 3 months away from being eligible for becoming POTUS. And it always will be 3 months, since I came to the US at 3 months old.

Where can I run for office? Greece. Fucking Greece. I lived there for a grand total of 3 months and never intend to go back. But I am more Greek than anybody who moves there now and lives there for 50 years!

I would move to Greece, and vote for you.

However, I think the whole thing is a principled idea, letting only natural born Americans run.

However I think there should be something in the books about letting a guy from Maine pretend he is Texan and then run for President.

If that made sense.

GreenHornet
18th October 07, 11:30 AM
And it seems like he's doing a good job, last I heard.

As a lulz maker or as a senator?

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 11:32 AM
He's a governor.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 11:37 AM
What if Colbert got on BOTH tickets? And won them? He could actually run against himself! Those would seriously be the best presidential debates ever.

2bTY2e63B-g

But who would his running mates be? I can see super-ultra-liberal John Stewart for his Democratic running mate, and ultra-right-wing-conspirator Bill O'Reilley for his Republican VP.

Dagon

GreenHornet
18th October 07, 11:46 AM
He's a governor.
And I am a french guy living in Quebec, to me those are semantics.
You didn't answer my question.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 11:48 AM
Right, semantics are when you claim a person has one occupation when he has something completely different. In fact, you're not a person, you're a piece of shit. Those are just semantics!

To answer your question, as a "senator".

GreenHornet
18th October 07, 11:52 AM
You really are as angry as your avatar!
But I still love you.

Riddeck
18th October 07, 11:52 AM
But who would his running mates be? I can see super-ultra-liberal John Stewart for his Democratic running mate, and ultra-right-wing-conspirator Bill O'Reilley for his Republican VP.

Dagon


Bill O'Rielly is a piece of shit.

end of story

TM
18th October 07, 12:45 PM
Please! No more "entertainers" in public office. Ever!

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 01:21 PM
Bill O'Rielly is a piece of shit.

end of story
So you're saying you'd vote Democratic. Democrats take the White House! Colbert gets mandate to do something about the ice-caps!

Dagon

Shawarma
18th October 07, 03:07 PM
Ice caps are full of polar bears. He'd nuke the shit out of them.

Better to vote for Hillary, even.

fes_fsa
18th October 07, 03:14 PM
you can't beat a guy who has THIS much gravitas.

NvkF2N8Bs1M
fOu-jGcQVPQ

Riddeck
18th October 07, 07:23 PM
So you're saying you'd vote Democratic. Democrats take the White House! Colbert gets mandate to do something about the ice-caps!

Dagon

I am not a victim of the left/right paradigm that controls the rest of you.

I would vote Ron Paul and hire security, en mass so he can do what he intends to. (IRS gone, Income Tax gone, War in Iraq, Gone...the list is endless)

So I would vote Republican, if he gets the nomination.

That is all.

NoMan
19th October 07, 12:21 AM
I would vote for Colbert because:

1.) He's more intelligent than almost any of the other candidates out there.

2.) Has no history or connections to special interest groups and other people that would derail him.

3.) Would have the best State of the Union and Correspondance Dinner's *EVER*.

4.) Can sing in Korean. Has a Captain America shield. And has the Sword from Lord of the Rings, as personally given to him in preparation for the role as President of the United States. (Anyone remember that episode?)

And the "Governator" switched his low ratings around when he tried a new and unusual strategy..... he started listening to Californians. Just imagine what would happen if Congress and the President actually started listening to the people they were ruling, er.... representing.

Sun Wukong
19th October 07, 12:40 AM
I am not a victim of the left/right paradigm that controls the rest of you.


Oh the hubris is painful.




I would vote Ron Paul and hire security, en mass so he can do what he intends to. (IRS gone, Income Tax gone, War in Iraq, Gone...the list is endless)

Want in one hand, shit in the other...

This isn't even part of Ron Pauls platform. But since you brought it up:

Get rid of income tax? And replace it with what? This deficit isn't going to pay itself off.

Get rid of the IRS? How so? there's always going to be federal taxes. As long as federal taxes are collected, we're going to have an IRS.

Question!
19th October 07, 12:42 AM
Both Arnold and Colbert are mega awesome.

Steve
19th October 07, 01:18 AM
But Putin is still better than them both combined.

Question!
19th October 07, 02:10 AM
You shut your commie mouth!

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
19th October 07, 02:16 AM
I am not a victim of the left/right paradigm that controls the rest of you.

I would vote Ron Paul and hire security, en mass so he can do what he intends to. (IRS gone, Income Tax gone, War in Iraq, Gone...the list is endless)

So I would vote Republican, if he gets the nomination.

That is all.

Because abolishing the income tax is such a great idea! Who needs progressive taxation anyway?

Steve
19th October 07, 02:28 AM
Move out and then get back to us.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
19th October 07, 02:34 AM
You'll be glad there's an income tax when you're taxed into poverty and everyone else is paying your welfare.

Steve
19th October 07, 02:49 AM
So will your parents.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
19th October 07, 02:55 AM
rockstars don't pay taxes

Steve
19th October 07, 03:13 AM
rockstars don't pay taxes

Only Little People Pay Taxes
by Marie Cocco

It’s odd, this urge I have to mark the passing of Leona Helmsley. The diva of a hotel empire whose abrasive arrogance was given a full public airing during her tabloid-terrific trial on tax-evasion charges in the late 1980s died earlier this week at 87. Her epitaph: the Queen of Mean.

Nostalgia for New York City is a common affliction among those of us who once made our homes there. It drives an entire industry built upon the memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and infuses people with the determined outlook that somehow life on the Lower East Side was better when it was an immigrant ghetto than it is today as a gentrified enclave for suburban college students in search of a cool nightclub.

There is an awful lot to legitimately miss about New York without resorting to a gauzy glance back at the 1980s, a time when the very rich -always a source of curiosity and perverse civic pride-held cultural sway. Wall Street rose up as a way of life instead of as a mere industry. Real estate barons such as Helmsley and her husband, Harry, were titans. Donald Trump was building his career as a developer, investor and political player-viewed as a savior of struggling municipal projects or as an instigator of self-enriching sweetheart deals, take your pick. This was before Trump became a caricature of himself for TV.

Average New Yorkers gained little from all this money sloshing up and down the avenues. The trickle-down economics of the Reagan era didn’t turn the aging subways around, fill the potholes or shore up the bridges. Public investment of all kinds was starved in part because of deep federal budget cuts.

So when a former housekeeper testified at the queen’s trial that Leona Helmsley once told her that “only the little people pay taxes,” something snapped. It was as though the decade had been unmasked for what it was: an era of individual rapaciousness, backed in good part by government itself.

How could we know that two decades later that sound bite of selfishness-”only the little people pay taxes”-would become public policy?

Recalling Helmsley has jogged another memory. It is of Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill after the 2002 midterm elections. According to Ron Suskind’s 2004 book, “The Price of Loyalty,” O’Neill wanted the White House to abandon its plan for a second round of big tax cuts. The federal deficit already was rising, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, necessitated enormous new expenditures for security, and the war in Afghanistan created another big demand for funds. But, Cheney told O’Neill dismissively: “We won the midterms. This is our due.”

So the second installment went forward, part of a tax-cut tab from the still- unfinished Bush era that amounts to a 10-year, $2 trillion drain on the public treasury. By any measure, the cuts flow disproportionately not to the “little people” but to those who already are living large.

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, says the combined effect of the Bush tax cuts was to raise the after-tax incomes of those taxpayers with more than $1 million in annual income by 6 percent-more than twice the benefit for those with incomes between $20,000 and $75,000.

Looked at another way, those with incomes of more than $1 million got an average tax cut of $118,477. That compares with $1,205 for a taxpayer whose income falls between $50,000 and $75,000.

As the Bush presidency limps to a close, the country is frantic about Iraq and weighed down by concerns over terrorism. The central theme among Democrats running for president is undoing President Bush’s catastrophic foreign policy mistakes. Republican candidates, by and large, solemnly swear to stay the course in Iraq.

There’s been little discussion of how to repair the damage from a fiscal policy based on the premise that only the little people pay taxes. Some Democrats have pledged to repeal the tax cuts for those with the highest incomes-say, people earning $200,000 or more a year. No attention has been paid to the inevitable future program cuts to bring the federal budget into line. These will almost certainly fall upon the public at large-whether they are drivers or hospital patients or students or retirees.

Such is the legacy of this particular decade of greed. At least back in the 1980s, we were appalled by it.

-------------------------

Link. (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/23/3355/)

G5xL4pcd1ts

Kiko
19th October 07, 07:01 AM
So did anyone see Man of the Year? (http://www.levinson.com/bl/manoftheyear/index.htm)

NoMan
19th October 07, 09:39 AM
Great movie.

Whenever they proposed the tax cuts, there were Republicans that went against it. John McCain, (he was blackballed until '06 when he voted for it, thus making him in the acceptable party again), Richard Darman, (aka "Darmageddeon" as the Republicans called him thereafter), Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Bill Owens of Colorada, and Governor Bob Riley, who was upset when he found that his state of Alabama had taxed the poorest far more than the highest. Timber companies owned 71% of the land, but paid 2% of the taxes on property. The poorest one-fifth of Alabamans paid 10 percent of their income in state taxes, while the richest 1 percent paid less than 4 percent.

The official heretic version of tax cutting to the rich and taxing the poor came from Arthur Laffer of the "Lafer Curve" fame, and Grover Norquist. They organized a central party line that states anyone against cutting taxes to the rich and taxing the poor is a heretic and must be expelled from the group, and they even got David Frum to write "Dead Right" blaming Republican woes on George Bush the Sr.'s tax hike on the rich, while Ronald Reagan gets enshrined in a glorious halo for his rich cuts/poor hikes policy. Norquist's main notoriety is having a huge snake that he feeds mice to, which he names after Democratic senators and governors. You might want to check out the book "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics" by Jonathan Chait.

According to economic theory, part of the reason is due to 'worker elasticity', which means when immigrants can come into a country illegally, homegrown workers lose their ability to unionize and get concessions from employers and the government. What's the point if they can easily swap out their current workers for a ready-made batch of them coming in? So the home laborers accept lower wages and since unions are also notorious for applying voter pressure, the loss of unionization means the loss of information about what politicians are doing. And naturally, a poor population composed of immigrants has less say so than a population of skilled laborers.

The second is that corporations have elasticity as well. They can move to areas where they are taxed less than where they are at, which shifts the burden of taxation onto the workers, since the top dogs can just leave and go to a country where they can pollute it, kill the population off, and turn them into fiefdoms like they did in Hawaii, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Hondorus, China, Papau New Guinea, etc.

And, of course, the rather rampant greed and cronyism that is our current government right now certainly doesn't help.

Shawarma
19th October 07, 12:37 PM
Being There with Peter Sellers owns that movie.

Kiko
19th October 07, 04:49 PM
Being There with Peter Sellers owns that movie.

Of course it does. It's not quite the same though. I thought that movie had quite a few parallels with Colbert. Btw, I really really enjoy his show and I'm tickled that he's eclipsed Stewart and the Daily Show with the Report.

Steve
2nd November 07, 12:45 PM
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted:

Colbert Won't Appear on SC Ballot

COLUMBIA, S.C. - South Carolina Democrats squashed Stephen Colbert's fanciful White House bid on Thursday.

Colbert, who poses as a conservative talk-show host on the Comedy Central cable network, filed to get on the ballot as a Democratic candidate in his native South Carolina. His campaign paid a $2,500 filing fee just before the noon deadline, said state Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler.

However, after about 40 minutes of discussion by top party officials, the executive council voted 13-3 to keep the host of "The Colbert Report" off the ballot.

"He's really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine," said Waring Howe, a member of the executive council. And Colbert "serves to detract from the serious candidates on the ballot."

But state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter told the committee Colbert could showcase the state "in a way that none of the other candidates on the ballot have been able to do."

"I think you're taking this a little too seriously," she said.

When Colbert announced his candidacy on his show last month, he said he would run only in this key primary state. He said then he planned to run as a Democrat and a Republican -- so he could lose twice.

The GOP filing fee is $35,000; the deadline was Thursday night.

Democrats say he will get his $2,500 back.

---------------------------------

Link. (http://www.newsday.com/news/elections/sns-ap-colbert-ballot,0,4021069.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines )

Guess he didn't even bother with the GOP.

Shawarma
2nd November 07, 12:47 PM
Translation: The dems KNOW he would win.

All for the best, though.

fes_fsa
2nd November 07, 01:03 PM
ummm... the reason they won't let him on the ballot for president... is because states don't have their own presidents or what have you... so we should try to help those states less fortunate than us.... like in the iraq and the africa...

SpringHeeledJack
2nd November 07, 02:42 PM
At least my old representative called it like it is. (Sadly, I have a new Rep. now (Since I moved)and he's a right-wing fuckhead.

Zendetta
2nd November 07, 03:38 PM
Twice in one week! If SC EVER gets national attention from something non-stupid, i'll die of shock.