I'm not talking about hurting feelings. If I invite you over to my house I expect you to act cordial at the very least even if you don't agree with me. Nice show of maturity by the way.
Since I know you already think I'm a pinko-commie liberal terrorist lover and therefore have nothing else to lose, I'll play some more. Yeah - we don't like those treasonous anti-american Euros. They want us to play by the same rules! That would suck for us. Thankfully we exempted our "peacekeepers" from the ICC, the same "peacekeepers" that keep invading other nations under dubious rationale. Luckily, the logic of gwayneco is absolute: only the USA can be fair. Obviously, a USA court would never be biased by party affiliations. And if it was, well that's only fair - principles and ethics are only for those liberal hippies clinging to the antiquated ideas of civil/free society as opposed to the neo-conservative might-make-right espoused by your fearless leader. It's true gwayneco - international courts aren't fair. They are meant to rule equally, and not consistently in the favor of the glorious red white and blue. I understand that in your eyes, that kind of liberal bias is reseved for peacenik hippies like myself who are daft enough to believe in two sides to an argument. The same nefarious scoundrels who think that patriotism is to a principle and an ideology, rather than a man or an administration, or even a nation. Flame away.
Thank You Stephen Colbert! “…This is a battle that can’t really be won — you either got it Saturday night (or Sunday morning, or whenever your life was made a little brighter by viewing Colbert’s performance) or you didn’t. Personally, I’m enjoying watching apologists for the status quo wear themselves out explaining why Colbert wasn’t funny. It’s extending the reach of his performance by days without either side breaking character — the mighty Colbert or the clueless, self-important media elite he was satirizing. For those who think the media shamed itself by rolling over for this administration, especially in the run-up to the Iraq war, Colbert’s skit is the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you, Stephen Colbert!” -Joan Walsh, Salon Magazine http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/
"Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.'" ("The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", Juridical Review, April, 1946)
How is saying something to someone who won't defend themselves "speaking truth to power?" I love Colbert's show. I watch it every day. I expected him to be funny at the dinner and he wasn't.
You need to pay more attention to the four words in the image. I don't really watch his show as you claim to but this thread alone should explain everything you need to know. Concentrate really hard. That might help.
It is brave not because Bush would defend himself then, but because this administration has a history of vindictiveness at people who point out their flaws. Wilson probably didn't think he was doing anything exceptionally brave to point out the administration was lying about Iraq attempting to buy Uranium from Niger. Yet the administration outted a covert CIA operative, who had been working on matters of national security such as monitoring Iran's nuke program. If they will go that for for revenge, then I think Colbert was certainly being brave by humiliating a person and his administration who has shown such tactics with Clarke, O'Neill, Wilson, and anyone else who seemed to dare speak out against what they were doing.
Thank you for eloquently explaining why some of us believe it was a brave act. This is probably the most intelligent thing that has been posted in the past 9 pages. Keep D&D Civil.
Haha! Truthiness, OMG. Because like George Bush can't like speak English!!1!! OmG th1s p0steR r0x0rZ!!11!!! Yeah, I got that the first time but the message of "Speaking Truth to Power" has been said many times from people defending Colbert so I was just wondering how this is an example of that.
Even if I were to agree with everything you posted, it doesn't fit the definition of "brave." Is it really brave to humiliate someone?
If that humiliation serves a purpose and it subjects the person to possible retaliation, then I would say yes.
