http://css.ilovetheworld.com/APColbert.wmv

Bush. Having to listen to Colbert ridiculing him and his administration for 23 minutes. Make of it what you will.

What I'm wondering: Why did they invite Colbert there to give a speech in the first place?

And btw, I lost my password so I'm know KnobZ...2!

i'm watching it now

haha, Bush doesnt know what to do but sit back and freeze.

Maybe they didnt know what he was gonna say?

yeh its pretty funny.

Surely Bush must be thinking "oh god, this is embarrassing, get Cheney to pull out his rifle..."

after 7 minutes, i think the audience is starting to get uncomfortable, and Bush is looking around for a way out.

bah, i cant watch out any more.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I'll have to watch it later - I love Colbert. Seems like from the little I watched he was acting same as his show, but with not same affect on audience.

I can't tell what Colbert's political standings lie. I know he's Catholic, but it seems like he acts more conservative than liberal on the show *but that could be the joke*. He'll do his Bush bashing, but not nearly to the extent of Jon Stewart. Still - can't believe he did the Iraq joke there...wow. Bush definitely looks unhappy there...

Edit: Hahaha! Got to 9:30ish before stopping. His Hindenburg joke was hilarious, but no one laughed it seemed. And I'm conservative too... I'll watch the rest after my final today

Oh my god. How did that ever happen 0_o.

hahaha that was great

the press conference wasn't bad either

NOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOO

Lawrence Fishbourne? What the hell?

He's an entertainer for the White House correspondents dinner.

Colbert is great. While the hilarious Jon Stewart can come off to be a Bush basher, I think Colbert's show is viewable for the middle, taking jabs at both conservatives and liberals. According to wikipedia, he's a self-described democrat.

The daily show takes jabs at both often, although it is true that Jon Stewart is much more liberal. But as in this speech, Colbert took quite a lot of shots at Bush that Bush probably didn't like

The ending was hilarious. That video they showed shut the crowd up after a while, lol

I almost feel sorry for Bush.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Oh my god. How did that ever happen 0_o.[/QUOTE]

Because those dinners have always been there to roast the President, it isn't a new thing with Bush.

Funny stuff, although Colbert's press secretary video was drawn out. Also, there were times where the crowd was silent for stretches.

Ah, watched it all now. Good stuff.

If you notice, Laura Bush remain seated when he walked to shake everyone's hands.

I agree though, Press Secretary thing was drawn out at the end, but the first half of it was funny.

I hope Colbert talks about it on his show...

I'm laughing so hard right now

I bet he will. He already referred to it when he interviewed Bill Kristol.

Bush looses because he's trying to appeal to two opposite political parties, and in doing so alienates them both.

It's almost as if he's a politician.

When was he appealing to Democrats? With a Republican majority in Congress, control of the executive, and lucky influence (two SC justices decided to leave, opening to a conservative majority) in the Judiciary, he does need to target them. He needs to restore support from his base, but his administration is incompetent.

Think of how much money he's spent on expanding the government, censoring freedoms in the name of "the people", et al.

Actually that's the new Republican party line...

hehe

Moving more towards the Liberal side...to appease both parties.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Think of how much money he's spent on expanding the government[/QUOTE]

Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with many of the thinktanks that back the Bush administration, embrace neo-conservativism, which incorporates expansive government. This runs contrary to the definition of standard conservatism but in no way is an appeal to liberals.

Yes it does. Censoring the media, censoring our freedoms in order to "protect the people" and for "national security" appeals to liberals.

It was a shotgun, not a rifle ya Britstick

That was great.

Favorite points were the jab at Fox News, the fiction novel, the Hindenberg bit, boxing a glacier, Senator McCain speaking at Bob Jones University, the chocolate city with a marshmallow center, and his crack at Scott McClellan. Great stuff.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Yes it does. Censoring the media, censoring our freedoms in order to "protect the people" and for "national security" appeals to liberals.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't liberals not want censors?

...no.

Republicans, or conservatives, want no censors on the media in order to "protect the people", want a small government, and want more say in their economics. Liberals want censors in certain places to "protect the people", want a larger, more "caring" government, and want the government to run more of their economics. In general.

Liberals generally tend to be all for civil liberties. This extends to not being censored.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...no.

Republicans, or conservatives, want no censors on the media in order to "protect the people", want a small government, and want more say in their economics. Liberals want censors in certain places to "protect the people", want a larger, more "caring" government, and want the government to run more of their economics. In general.[/QUOTE]


(lets just ignore the fact that this was a blanket generalization and I will partake and pretend that "liberals" and "conservatives" all have the same beliefs as Yoshi has done)

No, a "true liberal" would believe in no censorship, unless they are authoritarian (uh oh i slipped away from the generalizations already I think)

While Liberals do want a bigger government, it is to "help" people and provide more opportunity to people who don't have it, and provide freedoms as well, this is why "liberals" oppose the patriot act, for instance.

(althought this differs from person to person, but as Yoshi has done, lets ignore that fact)

Bigger government inherently means the government has more control over things THUS leads to less freedoms.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Bigger government inherently means the government has more control over things THUS leads to less freedoms.[/QUOTE]
Yea, all those liberals are for illegal wire tapping.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Bigger government inherently means the government has more control over things THUS leads to less freedoms.[/QUOTE]

Like China and Mother Russia!

Liberals: More social freedom, less economic freedom.
Conservatives: More economic freedom, less social freedom

Relative to each other.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Bigger government inherently means the government has more control over things THUS leads to less freedoms.[/QUOTE]
You need to separate the types of liberties that liberals are after. As I've said before, they are after civil liberties (eg gay marriage, legalisation of certain drugs, freedom of speech etc) but not necessarily for economic liberties. They want a bigger government because they believe that capitalism doesn't treat everyone fairly enough, therefore some of the wealth needs to be redistributed via the government. Whether that's for education, welfare or health care. Because you're taxed more under this system you have less freedom in how to spend your money.

Ditto.

That wasn't really overly funny... I got bored, but I was waiting to fall asleep anyway, so I watched the whole thing.

Thought it was pretty dumb overall.

Every time I download this file, it crashes my PC. VERY odd. Any other links to it?

YouTube (3 segments): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II