Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke (rollingstone.com)
FCC chairman Ajit Pai said on Friday his agency will be looking into complaints made against Late Show host Stephen Colbert for what some labeled a homophobic joke about President Donald Trump. From a report: On Monday's Late Show, Colbert quipped that "the only thing [Trump's] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c**k holster." The joke drew accusations of homophobia, a viral #FireColbert campaign and FCC complaints against Colbert. In an interview Friday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai told a Philadelphia radio station, "I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints -- and we've gotten a number of them -- we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we'll take the appropriate action." Pai added, "Traditionally, the agency has to decide, if it does find a violation, what the appropriate remedy should be. A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do."
Not over the joke, over the words he used in it.
If you think Pai is a Liberal, you must be somewhere to the right of Caligula...
Captcha: laughing
It is odd that the joke is being labeled "homophobic." Nothing in it implies that homosexuality is wrong. If Colbert had said the same thing about Hilary Clinton, it would have made just as much sense, had the same meaning, but could not be described as "homophobic."
Of course not. It's the conservatives that are hypocrites. Trump is a vile sexist and racist thing. You don't care about homophobia except when it's to defend your champion.
Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by Trump. The main "liberal vs conservative" issue that the FCC deals with is network neutrality, where Pai is firmly on the conservative side (anti-NN and pro free-market-for-monopolists).
A cock is just another word for a rooster.
And cock is just another word for penis.
When you say one man is using another as a cock holster, and you know neither personally owns livestock, then the meaning is pretty clear.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I kind of disagree. In his search to find something to paint the worst picture of Trump that he can he chose an act that homosexuals do every day. For that matter, he's actually insulting women who give blow jobs as well because its such a vile act that only Trump would do it.
When this story broke out, I searched for the clip to see what the fuss was about. When I did find it I realised that I had seen it before, and while I did think at the time that it was an unusual type of joke for one of those monologues, I didn't see how it could be labelled homophobic. The joke doesn't say that homosexuality is bad, nor did it say anything about anyone who is gay. It merely suggested a closer relationship than has been admitted and a power dynamic that Trump is Putin's bitch. It's strong stuff, but nothing different that calling Hillary Clinton a witch ("jail the witch").
The funny thing is, a lot of the people who are complaining about this would also say that gay marriage should not be allowed. I think that if gays and lesbians had a choice they would rather be able to live their lives as they want to and put up with the odd joke or two than not be allowed to marry the person they love and be told that they are going to hell.
LOL you think it's millennial democrats filling these reports?!
Head over to 4chan/pol. They are organising a mass complaint campaign and trying to get him fired. 4chan's pol is far right, by the way. Deeply anti-Semitic and racist, but Trump is their guy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The Libs are eating their own now
Not really, Liberals understand that the joke was inappropriate, but not really homophobic.
The joke was inferring a relationship between two heterosexual men where the weaker one sexually submits to the stronger one for protection, basically a "prison bitch".
All the complaints are just political theatre, Conservatives don't actually care that if it's homophobic or not, they just know it sounds homophobic and that's enough to trigger the faux-outrage.
Ajit Pai is just playing the part of the establishment Republican captured by the Trump administration.
I stole this Sig
Fine him into the ground, but don't get him fired. The PUSA bragged about sexual assault (grabbin' PUSSY) and got elected. Colbert joked about something and gets fired? Give me a break. I agree his remarks might have been homo-offensive or even homophobic, but that's protected under free speech laws. Hate speech attacks individuals or orientations; homophobic speech is merely offensive. I'm a staunch advocate of free speech and I defend both Trump's "locker room talk" and Colbert's "homophobic remarks" because they are not meant to provoke, but rather to entertain. I find both incidents morally objectionable, but not to the point of obscenity or hate against a class. tl;dr this shit doesn't matter: fix hunger, refugee crises, nuclear threats, global warming before you shit your pants over sex jokes while the whole system fails.
Not over the joke, over the words he used in it.
That's a good description of the issue.
We don't really care that much when people insult the president, and we can think badly of such people or goodly of them. That part doesn't matter.
But Colbert's phrase was particularly rude, it's pretty-much covered in Carlin's seven dirty words, and it wasn't a sly, under-the-radar slip or emotional outburst as part of a dramatic scene, for example. It was explicit profanity.
People aren't going after him for the rest of his monologue, which was also very insulting, and they don't complain about John Oliver or Bill Maher when they face the camera and rattle off insults with no wit or insight.
It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.
Aaaaand you fail basic reading comprehension.
He said he had no sympathy, BECAUSE the snowflakes have been filing FCC complaints about all sorts of conservative stuff for years, on grounds much weaker than this.
Hey, not all homosexuals. I bet there's at least a few that don't even like Vladimir Putin, much less want to give him blowjobs every day...
I think you're wrong about this. He wasn't suggesting Trump would give or has given a blowjob to Putin. He was drawing a word picture of Putin pissing in Trump's mouth, which is a) not a common sexual act and b) something that is in keeping with what we know about Trump.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The difference is that the FCC is a government agency.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're projecting a bit, he never suggested it was a vile act. You can only see it as a homophobic insult if somehow a blow job is a bad thing, which is what that argument hinges on. The joke works because it implies a consensual servitude on the part of Trump towards Putin, as well as the fact that Trump is pretty terrible at talking. Talk of homophobia is a diversion.
If he doesn't pay the fine, he could be subject to arrest. A fine is not really morally different than arrest.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's not always homophobic to mockingly refer to someone as a homo, or even a submissive bottom homo. Not every pejorative homosexual joke is homophobic or offensive. Sometime it's just boys being boys.
CowboyNeal enjoys ruggedized USB sticks up his bunghole. See, it's all good.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
In what universe is this story news for nerds?
I disagree. He was looking for a way to depict Trump as sexual partner for Putin -- a way to paint him as literally "in bed together" with the Russians. If either Putin or Trump had been female, it could have been any other sexual act... or possibly one with a strap on or other phallus.
Just because it was a homo or bi sexual act doesn't place the negative on the act -- the negative is on the improper relationship -- especially Trump's desire to please Putin.
Or he means to imply that Trump and Putin really, really like each other. The terms like 'being in bed with' have existed for a long time to describe ties like the one Trump is accused of having with Russia (e.g. Senator Johnson opposes Bill X because he is in bed with Big Oil!). To me this simply seems like a more crass variant.
That said, even if it was homophobic, a fine for a joke is absolute bullshit. What is this, Germany? Besides that, since when has the Trump administration given a shit about homophobia? Do they realize who the VP is?
If he doesn't pay the fine, he could be subject to arrest. A fine is not really morally different than arrest.
Yessir, indeed, but on the order of a traffic ticket a poor person (maybe) cannot pay due to the cost of baby formula, oxycontin, or rent.
These fines can typically be sat out in exchange for some form of per diem allowance by the gracious County. Unfortunate and even inconvenient, but not on the order of an impromptu removal after dark from one's bed, with no idea who to call to make bail.
There's a good bet the fine for Colbert probably won't eeven cover the publicity value of his unfortunate choice of words...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Colbert "Trump's only use is as Putin's cock holster"
Trump: "Romney would have dropped to his knees for my endorsement in 2012"
This is political, Colbert has been nailing Trump on issue after issue.
This was a fucking hilarious attack monologue, on Trump's 100 day interview, where he insulted the man interviewing him, then refused to repeat his "Obama wiretapped me" claim, then sat down behind the deskl and did a sulk.
Trump was a dick, and Colbert used rephrased versions of TRUMP's insults into a sharper attack. TRUMP. Watch it if you haven't already, it's comedy at its finest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaHwlSTqA7s
Ajit should not be attacking free political speech, he is already in trouble killing Net Neutrality. He needs to apologise.
It is guaranteed that those consequences won't include sanction from the government.
What they're pointing out is the gigantic dose of hypocrisy on the liberal side. If someone they hate (say, a host on Fox, whatever) made the same remark, liberals would absolutely HOWL with outrage and fits of phony SJW hand-wringing and fainting couch use.
If the same monologue had been delivered by someone on the right who had no history of making homophobic comments. exactly as colbert has no such history, it would never have gone to the FCC. Some people would have bitched, but it would have been forgotten in 24 hours, as happens 95% of the time with people on the right who do have a history of homophobia make homophobic remarks. After all, O'Really loved himself a good anti-gay tirade and what did people on the left do? Roll their eyes and get on with their lives.
The only time the FCC ever gets involved is when some conservative snowflakes pop their tops at some imagined affront.
The idea that someone is giving someone else a blow job usually means that they're subservient. Could be any two people..
Ironically, the right - who have been yelling about being too PC - is now yelling to be PC. LOL
He was looking for a way to depict Trump as sexual partner for Putin ...
Or Putin's bitch. No matter, that picture has been painted and no amount of therapy is going to make it go away. #ThanksColbert
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Someone on TV says something they don't like...a sympathetic puppet of the administration brings the hammer down full force in a hypocritical display of "it's ok for us to have said this shit for years about the other guy but don't you dare say anything about us."
For starters, about the only way the FCC could really do anything about this is classifying it as obscene content; which you would further argue would have zero artistic merit. That's largely because the power to regulate indecent content is a lot looser at the time this would have aired. There's a good reason shows like South Park, or Tosh.O, or a lot of the former cable shows get syndicated at time slots that late. If they do classify it as obscene, then there will likely be further appeals on the basis of a first amendment argument. But they will have zero problem wasting all the time and resources in the world to "crush a dirty fucking liberal" than they will to take care of the sick, the elderly, the people that really need it.
Give me a fucking break.
And this Pai guy; he's very clearly a big telcomm/Verizon guy in a position to give them the most power. This man has single handly undone everything that gives consumer protections; and handed dildo of wallet rape back to the monopolies that make our lives a living hell. He has a lot more in common with the shit I flush down the toilet than color. Then again...as anyone who has Verizon will tell you; all they're going to do is stick an Indian in charge to just fuck things up.
This is going to be a witch hunt. This is going to be the start of government controlled media. This is going to be the start of the end of the personal freedoms and liberty the Republicans screamed they were about.
I hope your fucking guns were worth raping the very thing you claim.
SCOTUS needs to strike down the profanity exemption to free speech. It was always bullshit. This should've been settled with Lenny Bruce.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The joke is more about the power dynamic and that trump is subservient to Putin
All the complaints are just political theatre, Conservatives don't actually care that if it's homophobic or not, they just know it sounds homophobic and that's enough to trigger the faux-outrage.
Exactly. Someone complained on Twitter that if Rush had said that about Obama, Liberals would have freaked out. Perhaps that's true, but I contend that, had that happened, the guy who tweeted that would have simply checked "Like".
People get bent out of shape (or pretend to) way too easily these days - or do so not really understanding why.
For example, during a preview for the movie, "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" when it showed Trump saying he'd shutdown the EPA, I heard my mother say, "Good". I thought to myself, "What the fuck has the EPA every done to her?" (Answer: Nothing. Mom is 75 and watches a LOT of Fox News - sigh.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's worth looking at what's happening while we're distracted with this. Because what's happening is just not funny:
Russian violated the mid range missile treaty. Trump said nothing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html?_r=0
Russian flaunted the artic military base treaty, Trump said nothing.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-flaunts-arctic-expansion-military-bases/story?id=47091750
When Trump bombed the Syrian airbase, he informed Putin ahead of time, Putin told Assad. Assad removed all his fighters and bombers from the base. US blew up a bit of tarmac as a result. If Trump did that with ground troops, Assad would have ambushed them.
Not funny I know, but that is why we need Colbert.
This whole tempest in a teapot is an attempt to punish criticism of the government in general, and criticism of Trump specifically. Colbert did nothing to apologize for.
Trump sucks Putin's cock. Come at me, FCC!
(captcha: quoted)
In most cases, but you still can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater without government-sponsored repercussions.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What's actually happening is a bunch of alt-right dipshits are pretending to be offended because they can target a liberal by doing so. It's essentially a false flag operation. Moreover, they lack the self-awareness to tell the difference between what Colbert said and actual homophobic slurs, so it's no wonder they're labeling it inaccurately.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, this is the leftwing liberal playbook from the last 50 years being turned on a leftist for one of the few times, in only a tenth the strength. Turnabout is *always* fair play. Deal with it.
In most cases, but you still can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater without government-sponsored repercussions.
That is completely and 100% untrue. It is fully legal to yell fire in a theater, and you will not be capable of finding one single court case claiming such a thing is a crime.
You WILL discover numerous cases where there were charges of "inciting a riot" or "inciting public panic causing harm and injury", but literally not one single charge relating to publicly speaking.
Seeing that Colbert did not incite a riot or a panic, nor cause anyone to harm anyone else, the fact you imply he did with only evidence to the contrary looks very poorly of you and your judgement.
People complained to the FCC about Colbert's joke, so the FCC is supposed to review the case. This is the FCC's job, and they would be remiss if they didn't investigate. The FCC isn't investigating because they have a problem with Colbert criticizing Trump, but because it's their job to investigate complaints. The FCC regularly gets complaints about SNL, including a sketch last year in which Dave Chappelle used the n-word on the show. They investigate those complaints, just like they have to investigate the complaints against CBS and Colbert. It's their job. There are a number of factors that go into the FCC's decision, including the context of the objectionable content, whether it was live or not, and the time at which the program aired.
I don't think Colbert's comments merit a fine from the FCC, but that would be the typical penalty for objectionable content on broadcast TV. I don't believe Colbert's comments were homophobic, but they do refer to the act of oral sex, and content relating to sexual acts can still draw a fine from the FCC. There wasn't anything graphic about what Colbert said, and there's a long history of sex-related jokes on late night TV going back at least to the days of Johnny Carson. There were far more objectionable things that aired regularly when Conan hosted Late Night, including characters like the masturbating bear. Then there's all the things Sean Connery has claimed to have done with Alex Trebek's mother on SNL Celebrity Jeopardy, which, by the way, is hilariously funny. I think it would be strange if the FCC issued a fine, especially given that this is late night TV where such content is pretty common.
That said, I didn't find Colbert's comments funny. There wasn't anything particularly clever and I just didn't find it amusing. Personally, I think Colbert is the least funny of any late night TV hosts in recent memory. I didn't really like Conan when he was on Late Night, because I felt too much of his humor was toilet humor. He did have some really good sketches, though, like the recurring In The Year 2000. To his credit, he's gotten a lot better since moving to the Tonight Show and now to TBS. Leno didn't quite measure up to Carson, but he was more in the style of Carson than other hosts. I really enjoyed Leno's Tonight Show, though Fallon is also really good. I didn't find Letterman particularly funny, though he was better than Colbert. James Corden has his moments on the Late Late Show, and Craig Ferguson was pretty good at times. That said, I prefer Seth Meyers, who I think is quite amusing and does a great job with interviewing his guests. I really liked Meyers when he did SNL's Weekend Update, and he's gotten a lot better at hosting Late Night.
No, I don't think Colbert's comments were homophobic or merit a fine. As late night TV goes, Colbert's comments weren't particularly pushing the envelope, though the FCC has to investigate these complaints. They should investigate and hopefully decide that no further action is warranted. I don't think Colbert should be fired over this, but I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced because he's just not that funny. My opinion has nothing to do with these comments, but rather my overall opinion of him as a late night TV host.
By the way, the lameness filter shouldn't be preventing me from using the n-word. Dave Chappelle has a long history of using it in his sketches, including the classic Black White Supremacist, and it's on-topic because he used it in the same time slot on SNL. I know, trolls use it on a regular basis, but it's actually on topic here in providing some context for other content that's been aired on late night TV and why I don't think Colbert's comments merit a fine from the FCC.
Putin said emphatically: "I did not have sexual relations with that man"
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Steven played a closeted gay man back in strangers with candy and constantly alluded to being gay in the old report show.
He hosted gay and trans people and advocated for their rights publicly and repeatedly. The joke was related to whose cock not the fact that it's a gay relationship... Republicans always attack the political correct left, well whose the bitching little PC police now???
This will totally backfire on republicans, the press from this will finally help him double his ratings and permanently become #1 over Fallon and for good reason. He is way funnier and smarter.
Same people who wanted FCC to "treat the internet like a public utility" are aghast that there's an FCC investigation into Stephen Colbert.
Somewhere on the internet, someone is crowing over their world class wit, not realising even for an instant that they have just made exactly the opposite point from the one they intended.
The best part is, no matter how many times they read this reply, they're still not going to see the problem. But they'll spend the rest of the day vaguely anxious that maybe they really are the idiot that everyone knows them to be.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Every day? Wow, that's a lot of action.
Well, I heard the reason Melania doesn't sleep in the white house with Donald is because Putin snores.
So there are better and wittier ways of making the same point.
...Except when it is on TV.... Then some word are less free than others.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The "joke" was more than inappropriate. It was obscene and not in keeping with established broadcast standards. The writers wrote it, the actor spoke it, the network censors decided to allow it, it was taped and not scrubbed from the tape. Therefore it was also a conspired effort to defame and denigrate. A big fine is in order and probably some censures.
You're meaning is unclear.
Do you mean we know President Trump has praised and complemented President Putin?
I believe we do.
Do you mean we are not unaware that President Putin has ordered the assassination of leaders critical of Mr. Putin?
I believe we do know that.
Do you believe we are unaware of President Trump's financial interest in in the Russian block?
I believe we are aware of it.
I think the discernment here is to observe President Putin's actions, and to measure it against the freedoms our founders thought important. If they are congruent, then your view is correct. If they significantly diverge, then perhaps you'd like to explain to those "too stupid" to understand how killing people for expressing their opinion is just dandy and OK.
Since this departs from your own willingness to use your mouth as a cock sock for President Trump, I'm sure you'll disagree with these points. I'm simply devastated by that.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Trump: "Romney would have dropped to his knees for my endorsement in 2012"
Irony and Hypocrisy are both dead.
The media cleaned up Trump so people didn't realize how much worse he talked in public- they edited out the best they could while retaining a lot of the stupid and inflammatory statements... which mostly served to distract from the lack of any detail on positions (which he is flip flopping at record levels anyway.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Is the holster joke the only bad thing about Colbert's monologue? How about the the overall contempt and personal attacks? Here are a few:
You’re not the POTUS; you’re the ‘BLOTUS.’
You’re the glutton with the button.
You’re a regular ‘Gorge Washington.’
You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head.
In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster.
The only thing smaller than your hands are your tax returns and you can take that any way you want.
And Colbert treated Stephen Miller even worse - he made "jokes" about Miller being killed. In a video clip that contains superimposed heads of Miller,
he [Miller] is electrocuted, bashed in the head with a baseball bat, and decapitated. One of the scenes Miller is added to is from the HBO series Game of Thrones, and mirrors a controversial scene where the show’s creators placed former President George W. Bush’s head on a spike.
Can you imagine anyone making "jokes" like that about any other president or his advisors? I didn't like Obama's actions in his second term, but if anyone had made "jokes" like that against Obama or his advisors personally, I would have told him they weren't funny.
If Colbert doesn't like Trump's policies and actions, fine. I don't like some of them either. Colbert should make jokes that criticize Trump's policies. Maybe joke about the Obamacare replacement bill. Attack his policies, not the man personally.
As the RollingStone article says, after the backlash against Colbert's homo joke, Colbert talked about love: "... life is short, and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero." That sounds good. Let's see more brotherly love or kindness in Colbert's monologues in the future.
Plenty of Republican homosexuals would disagree with you, you left wing bigot.
It also works because neither Trump nor Putin are that keen on "the gays".
It wasn't a joke, it was alternative facts!
Jesus, I though the US prides itself free speech. But apparently making a joke on TV after 2335 is not allowed.
Liberals* want to stop free speech in universities. Conservatives want to stop free speech because it's obscene.
* I loathe to call them liberals, seeing as they're views are fairly authoritarian and I'm pretty sure a authoritarian-liberal is an oxymoron.
Consider:
(a) Colbert was attacking a person he hates. No mind reading is necessary; he has made this very clear over the past year.
(b) Colbert was making the nastiest attack he felt he could get away with. This too is quite clear both from the performance and from the follow-up the following night.
(c) When you slime somebody, you do it by labelling with something very highly obnoxious and objectionable; terms like motherf***er, "child molester", etc and NOT with positive things like "humanitarian". By definition, the labels you fling are ones YOU consider "bad".
Colbert (like Alec Baldwin) seems to instinctively go to tarring people he despises with homosexual-related labels. It appears to be a deep-seated bigotry in both of these jerks, and they both get away with it because they are "good" liberals. Ask yourself a question: if Trump were to repeatedly attach homosexual references to people he attacked, would you assume it was evidence he was biased against gays? If Trump repeatedly attached Jewish stereotypes to people he was attacking would you assume he was anti-semitic? If Trump was repeatedly attaching anti-black stereotypes to people when he attacked them would you assume he was a racist? WHY did Colbert go straight to the slang reference to a generally recognized as gay activity when he needed a way to label Trump as particularly repulsive?
THINK about it. Colbert may well pretend to be gay-friendly, possibly to aid in his career, but this seems to out his inner feelings every bit as much as Mel Gibson's anti-semitic rantings when he was arrested for drunk driving. Gibson had the excuse that his judgement was askew because he was drunk, yet Hollywood boycotted and blackballed Gibson for a decade.
You Tighty-Righties have been getting away with this shit for decades. But NOW you're offended?
Phuck you!
Every day? After 20 years of marriage, I'm lucky if there's a BJ in it for me on Christmas or my birthday.
I disagree, it wasn't the worst thing that could be painted about Trump. I'm sure there are many much worse things he could come up with. It was the least appropriate thing he could come up with for describing what Trump's mouth is good for. There's a clear difference here.
He's saying that the only thing Trumps mouth is good for is performing sexual acts. This could be considered highly complimentary.
I have never given a blow job, but I have received a few from different women over the years... though only one in the last 20 (in case my wife is reading) and I must say that the best blow jobs I've experienced were from women with exceptional endurance and exceptional lung capacity.
In fact, with how much pride Trump takes in his incredible physique and personal fitness,
I'd say it's an incredible compliment that Colbert has paid him by saying that Trump almost certainly would be a person in such amazing condition that Trump would be a suitable match for performing this act on such a powerful man as Putin.
I would certainly imagine that while Trump and his supporters might be offended by the fact that Colbert doesn't place a high value on Trumps words, speech or thoughts, but he does highly respect the president for his self proclaimed excellent health and physical prowess.
So, I don't really see what the issue is here. In fact, even as a straight man, I'm damn near tempted to play the other side of the fence to try and get myself one of these amazing Trump (registered trademark) Blow Jobs. I bet they're the biggest and I mean the best and most amazing blow jobs anyone could ever receive. And I mean huge, you'll just have to wait and see. It's cumming soon... did I spell that wrong?
If the homophobia complaints were coming from gays, then there would be something to it. The fact that it's coming from Trump supporters shows that it's insincere. You can't be outraged on behalf of another group when that group doesn't care, and especially when that group is one that your side goes out of it's way to marginalize.
I demand that parent poster be fired for this homophobic joke.
I can only use my own orientation to speculate on the thinkings of others. I would not use a joke like that because it creates a disgusting picture. I don't think it would be disgusting to a gay comedian, and thus, Colbert has revealed himself.
(||) Nehmo (||)
I'm living in Europe and I bet tomorrow morning in Church, people will be laughing not at the joke but at how America is still arguing left wing and right wing when most of the free world sees it as far right wing and further right wing.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is the definition of right and left in America anymore? Should we start calling it team red and team blue or team elephant and team donkey? This has so little to do with left and right or conservative and liberal that people simply make fools of themselves saying these things.
It's a competition of who can pretend to claim the high ground more than the other by declining into the deepest and darkest pits to do so. Good people don't choose sides. Good people treat everyone with kindness, dignity and respect... even the people they don't like. Good people don't say "it's ok to talk badly about this person because someone on the news does... or because he said something bad first".
No. the blowjob isn't the insult, but serving putin for his sexual pleasure in a subservient manner is.
Not just gay men receive blowjobs. Not just gay men give them. And, regardless of your gender or orientation, it's considered more submissive to give than receive.
The only people who thought this homophobic aren't gay. Trump is a servant to Putin.
Learn to love Alaska
Agreed.
This is just a crude way of stating that Trump is essentially "Putin's bitch".
If either one or both of them were female, similar crude statements could have been made without any homosexual connection.
As it stands though, both are male and thus such a crude statement requires describing a sexual act between two males.
Labeling this as homophobic is nothing more than trying to find a justification for wanting to punish Colbert.
There are plenty of statements disdainful of homosexuals uttered on TV that are much clearer and cruder, including statements by Trump.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What about "Golden Showers"? Don't be surprised when actual footage hits the internet.
To be republican and homosexual.... the epitome of self-hatred.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The accusation got worse, it was upgraded from slander to betrayal of state secrets.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then you should say in "bed together" or in cahooots but NOT "cock holster".
You're trying to make the case for being politically correct?
...grab 'em by the pussy.
rotflmao. That ship sailed a long time ago.
etc.
Huh? Obama bent over to take Putin's cock, too?
I really haven't been paying much attention to US politics those past 8 years...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And the same people who pretty much wanted to see the FCC disbanded because it stood in the way of eliminating a free internet now demand it to "do its job".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Who cares about fair when the result fucks everybody? Everybody having nuclear bombs and shooting them simultaneously is also "fair" according to your "turnabout criteria", so what?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Holsters just hold it and no amount of gurgling, licking or sucking was intended in Colbert's joke. Trump leaves that for cleanup time.
If you can't see how his "joke" is offensive
It's offensive towards Trump, which was kind of the point.
The only thing about it that could be considered offensive to gay people is the suggestion that they have something in common with Trump.
come at me bro
Frankly, the comment we are talking about was just a quip, in poor taste of not.
The one I thought would get him in trouble was a recent mock interview, with Trump, which was, to some viewers, indiscernible from a real Trump interview.
You don't have to imagine, you can read them if you dig up some cartoons from when Clinton was President.
All fired, correct?
Plenty of Republican homosexuals would disagree with you
Well if you vote for a party that blatantly hates you, you're pretty much the poster child for irrationality. So, frankly, who cares?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The "joke" requires an assumption there is something wrong with being what was said. Many would interpret that differently for a man than a woman while many would not. It's not really odd that many see it as homophobic. It clearly is, though that's not its primary problem.
The real problem is that the joke crossed the line, the entire section of the monologue did. It was not funny, just hateful. Very unlike Colbert and I'm surprised anything like that material ever made it to air.
If the joke merely implied "consensual servitude" then substituting that term would make the joke equally effective. It does not. The joke only works with an underlying assumption that the particular form of servitude is repugnant and there's no reason to assume that the servitude is even consensual. Talk about diversions, apparently you've never understood a single blow job putdown in your life.
How do you know that gays don't care, do you speak for them? How do you know the complaints are coming from Trump supporters (for a fact!)?
Gays, by an large, are likely to dislike Trump more than the general population. That, combined with the fact the homophobic nature of the comment was one of its lesser problems, means that many gays may not consider the homophobic aspects so important, it does not mean that they don't see it as homophobic.
Homophobia creates an emotional response. When that emotional response is dominated by other responses, you may not notice it in the moment.
Trump is not personally anti-gay, his party is. Trump in office is not good for gay issues, but probably not as bad as Pence assuming his office would be.
You're going to volunteer to tell the professor with the bike lock that he's not supposed to beat people for expressing their opinion? Or just about everyone else in your party that it's not OK to punch people because they wish they were Nazis?
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to play some Tomb Raider and malegaze starerape a fake woman's tits and ass. Which, as we all know, makes me literally Hitler in the left wing's eyes. I better wear my mouthguard just in case someone tries to bash my face in for playing a video game.
"The only people who thought this homophobic aren't gay."
How do you know this? Are you speaking as a gay man? Have you taken polls of the gay community? Why is it important that such a distinction even be made?
Second time I've seen this comment and it makes absolutely no sense. What you're really saying is that it's not homophobic because gays approve...and then simply making up that gays approve. Gays may approve of the putdown without approving of the form, it's not as though gays never make homophobic comments themselves.
Frankly, there's a homophobic bent to this observation itself.
I get that this might be insulting to Trump (saying that a world leader is willing to submit sexually to Putin is pretty insulting), but how's it homophobic?
Also, this whole stupid hypocrisy about swearing on TV in the United States is ridiculous. How many kids have been harmed by hearing the word "fuck"? Zero.
There is a simple test to tell if he's biased toward using homosexual acts as insults. Does he use heterosexual acts equally or not? If he more often chooses a homosexual act to insult someone, then he's biased.
Clearly he is hateful, which is a shame. Had anyone said "Hillary is Obama's __holster", they would not retain a prominent host position on any major network. And the uproar would be many times what we are seeing here because it would be the liberals who would be offended.
And why are some claiming this is just using this as an act of submission and subservience? Is that implying that 1/2 homosexuals are subservient to their partners? Would you say that about a female in a heterosexual relationship, that she is subservient?
Exactly. To say this implies subservience would also be implying that women are the subservient ones in heterosexual relationships. The liberals are parsing themselves into a corner.
Its clear that Colbert sees a sexual act as being representative of subservience at a minimum, and that he resorts to heterosexual acts in hateful rants tells me something more. I'm sure he'll cover his tracks and do something wonderful for the gay community sometime soon.
Stephen Colbert Hits Best Ratings Since 2015 Premiere
It would seem the people enjoy this kind of thing.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
He said he had no sympathy, BECAUSE the snowflakes have been filing FCC complaints about all sorts of conservative stuff for years, on grounds much weaker than this.
[citation needed]
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The backlash is from the left (hint: it's on Twitter). The right could care less about Colbert, it's not his audience. The problem is that everything is scrutinized and has to be politically correct even in comedy. I am a typical left-leaning person with very liberal sexual proclivities but the PC crowd, SJW and Feminists of the era do not represent my or most LGBTQ values, they are bordering on Nazism in regards their ideology and are a leader away from repealing the constitution in their quest.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Given that the FCC is involved the complaints are actually from thousands of busybody old ladies, even ones who voted for Clinton. The fact of the matter is, unless their obscenity standards have significantly changed since a certain super bowl incident occurred, Colbert's use of cock-holster as part of a pre-arranged twelve minute rant should be fined.
"In his search to find something to paint the worst picture of Trump that he can he chose an act that homosexuals do every day"
Your mother does it every day when I wake her up, too. It's not juts a homosexual act you homophobic fuck.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Good thing his show runs at 23:30 then.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
If the FCC takes any action against Stephen Colbert for speaking out against Trump, then that's a clear violation of his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, plain and simple.
Is THIS the country we're living in now? Where you can't criticize POTUS without being OFFICIALLY censured? If so then we're one step closer to living in a dictatorship. Is this the United States of America, or is it somewhere like Syria, or Turkey, or Malaysia?
FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke
cock holsters. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Saying that Hillary won the election because she had the most popular votes is like saying a team won a football game because it gained the most offensive yards (without scoring the most points). Contests have rules, and you can't change these when the contest is over because you lost. You say "Hillary really won!" I say "Trump would have won the Popular Vote by campaigning differently, if he knew that is what was needed to win." Nobody, Left or Right, disagrees that Hillary ran a terrible campaign and that her managers should never work again. Democrats need to focus on fixing their organization if they plan on bouncing back.
You can bet it would be deemed 'misogynist' if it would have been about Hillary Clinton.
This is, in fact, bullshit, as it was all over Drudge Report earlier this week and the right-wing snowflakes were making a shitstorm on the message boards of the news articles and twitter.
Limbaugh, Jones, and all the other fascist/neo-nazi opiod addicted freaks have said much more offensive crap about whoever the liberal flavor-of-the-month was, and not a word was said by the neo-fascist currently foaming at the mouth over a cock joke.
Whiny hypocritical assholes.
~X~
Don't fire him, he spoke the truth., If you silence him by firing him, all you do is show that some people are to powerful, to stupid, to bigoted to be ridiculed.
I don't see this as anything to do with homosexuality, just a euphemism for "brown nosing" which itself is not a reference to coprophilia, but a euphemism for "sucking up to someone", again nothing to do with actual sucking... Oh you get the point.
Twinstiq, game news
Finally someone who actually read and understood my post instead of just attacking or modding it down. Oh well, this post pretty much sums up my views on this forum. Have fun folks.
You conveniently forgot to mention that this particular monologue wasn't actually about Trump's policies but rather about him calling the journalist interviewing him 'fake media' and referring to his show as 'deface the nation'.
It was Colbert reciprocating the name-calling Trump is famous for, and while you might find it distasteful Colbert would stoop to that level, one is a television comedian while the other is supposed to be the president.
The particular choice of words suggests that it isn't so much the fact that the act would be homosexual but that the act would be submissive and unreciprocated.
and that "wrong" would be the idea of a president bending over backwards (or just over) to please the leader of russia, a man guilty of assassination, violating human rights, and the illegal invasion of other nations (2 out of 3.... no wonder republicans like him so much). pleasing that sort of evil man is not something the "leader of the free world" should be doing.
that's what is wrong.
and thats why Merkel is now the LotFW.
the US has abdicated.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
he chose an act that homosexuals do every day
He chose an act that was compatible with what Vladamir Putin has on offer, where Putin in particular being a raging homophobe allows him to kill two birds with one stone.
There was nothing homophobic about his comment, however extreme it may have been.
The FCC should never have been given any power to punish anybody for what they say.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yep. As usual, Libertarians are the only ones with consistent and reasonable viewpoints.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
So, he's returned any campaign money that came from anti-gays, right?
That is correct. The something is wrong is that it is Putin and Trump. Had Colbert said Trump's mouth was only useful as a cock holster for Melania nobody would have batted an eyelash".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
There's a difference between being anti-gay and opposing some of the absurd policies and legal decisions claimed to be pro-gay.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
His signing an executive order (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), allowing people to discriminate against same-sex couples, and their children, says otherwise. Obviously the last person he talked to that day was against same-sex marriage, and he always goes with the last person he talks to, or the latest thing he's seen on Fox News. He's a follower with ADD, not a leader.
His support of ANY rights except for the rich and powerful is certainly not "baked into" his character.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's like saying that it's okay to discriminate against the children of same-sex couples (as his religious freedoms executive order allows because it allows daycares to refuse to accept children of same-sex couples) because at least they're not being stoned in public or thrown off roofs.
Gee whiz, they should be SO grateful that Trump is, as you say, "not personally anti-gay." He's just in favour of fundamentalist christian sharia law.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Wow... Are you really trying to claim that George Carlin's bit about words you can't say, in which he says every single one of them, implies that he wouldn't use them?
Depends on whose cock. If it were Wall Street and the big banks, there are plenty of Dems who would agree, as we saw them doing the unthinkable and voting ABC (Anybody But Clinton) - including voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm very Republican, and very proud to be gay.
Fuck you, and your narrative. We're not on your plantation anymore and you can't stand it.
Not proud enough to put your name to it though, Anonymous Coward. Is that closet really all that comfy?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Plenty of Republican homosexuals would disagree with you
Well if you vote for a party that blatantly hates you, you're pretty much the poster child for irrationality. So, frankly, who cares?
... or Stockholm Syndrome.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
For those of you that don't get it, this is what authoritarianism actually looks like.
Colbert's comment was absolutely NOT homophobic, unless you consider associating Trump with gays to be insulting to gays (which, I would grant...).
What this is ACTUALLY about is the Trump administration not being happy that a prominent celebrity made a negative comment about Trump, and so they will do whatever they can to prosecute him, even if it means redefining the english language.
And by the way, THIS is what first amendment is for. Like it or not, Trump IS government. That means he is *required* to suck it up if people criticize him, just like every gov't body has done before him.
It's truely scary how you Americans are not just fucking yourselves over, but you're doing it with eyes wide open and cheers.
No more obscene than a lot of the stuff that's come out of Trump's mouth. So what's your point?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The principle of an omnipotent state does not differ, but the practice does. For instance, further legal action would be required for an arrest, or for any other enforcement move like taking Colbert's money from a bank account.
An arrest for refusing to pay the fine would be on a charge such as contempt of court.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The irony of this story is that a decade ago some Americans argued Russia didn't have speech freedom because of Vladimir Rakhmankov story, a man fined for writing a newspaper article in which he called Putin a "Russia's phallic symbol".
Now I can respond to the allegations of the past. Where is your speech freedom, America?
The difference is that the FCC is a government agency.
For how much longer? They look to be on the endangered species list.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Exactly. To say this implies subservience would also be implying that women are the subservient ones in heterosexual relationships. The liberals are parsing themselves into a corner.
Yeah yeah, we get it, just as all Conservatives are members of the KKK and family values people tho are actually closeted gays.
You want to use a black and white color scheme that takes the kooks and applies their insanity to everyone get's you painted the same way.
Meanwhile, have you stopped burning crosses on those chocolate people's lawns yet?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There is no actual footage. Camera equipment is very cheap these days so fake footage would be trivial to spin up. If you can come up with a rubber Trump mask (they are surely rather common at costumers these days) you could even get the starring part!
Exactly. To say this implies subservience would also be implying that women are the subservient ones in heterosexual relationships. The liberals are parsing themselves into a corner.
Yeah yeah, we get it, just as all Conservatives are members of the KKK and family values people tho are actually closeted gays.
You want to use a black and white color scheme that takes the kooks and applies their insanity to everyone get's you painted the same way.
Meanwhile, have you stopped burning crosses on those chocolate people's lawns yet?
You sure do get mean when you are backed into a corner.
Either that, or they are bending to pressure from the executive branch.
OTOH, I remember a huge amount of "alarm" and "concern" about a "wardrobe malfunction", so they could just be being their normal prissy bastards.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Damnit Dad, they're gonna take away your internet priveliges at the public library - again!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Why are you sharing your porn collection with all of us here? Can't you jack off in privacy?
...but for the fact that he said cock-holster on broadcast tv.
You can bet it would be deemed 'misogynist' if it would have been about Hillary Clinton.
Except Putin doesn't like her, so she probably isn't going to get the chance to give him oral.
But yeah, to your point, it would have been abled - probably sexist more than misogynist, but that's tough.
People without a sense of humor have always been outraged by people with a sense of humor. That's true whether they are left or right wing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Wrong
14th Amendment.
Go ahead, show me how every citizen shall enjoy EQUAL rights, privileges and immunities and still the loser of the election takes the seat!
The 14th came AFTER Article 3, and therefore in the conflict the 14th SHALL prevail
Once again, the rules which do not comply with the 14th Amendment are invalid, just like the 3/5 compromise died as of the 13th Amendment
You sure do get mean when you are backed into a corner.
I'm always mean. I'll say this to you real nicely.
I'm center right, what used to be called conservative.
But I don't march inlock step. Some of my views are quite "liberal" and some are quite "conservative" But for the most part, Center right.
But that doesn't mean I am a social Justice Warrior or a Klansman or NeoNazi or a third wave feminist.
You on the other hand have a track record of assigning the far left to anyone who doesn't fit your litmus tests. I was merely playing your game back to you.
Hopefully you didn't have to go to your safe space while reading this post. I tried to be nice. It's hard some times.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's like saying 'gib gib gib let me pull you into my detailed minutiae of issues and concerns because you're anti-gay unless you meet these bullet points.'
It is odd that the joke is being labeled "homophobic." Nothing in it implies that homosexuality is wrong.
The social justice warriors alerted the world to all the many new ways that people are still homophobic even when they do not imply that homosexuality is wrong.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"His name was James Damore."
If the homophobia complaints were coming from gays
Nice start, but paints you into a corner.
then there would be something to it.
The homophobia complaints are coming from Gays for Trump homosexuals.
Therefore there is "something to it"
"His name was James Damore."
More evidence of just how clueless Trumpanzees are - he thinks Pai is liberal.
The majority of those "outraged" are Trumpanzees defending their beloved leader. The whiny little bitches are just like fragile, delicate Trump that cries to Twitter every time someone hurts his widdle feelings. They trigger easily when their porcelain ego's are wounded, just like the Putin c**k holster in chief.
I'm still waiting for someone to make an oral sex joke about Merkel and Putin so that heteros everywhere have an "excuse" to claim offense...
Thats like asking for a citation that Clinton was a liar.
In the case of the Clinton-era and then later Obama-era push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, they were clearly trying to use the FCC as a weapon against conservatives.
I cant think of a single conservative use of our government as vile as this use of it by the liberals, and this is only one of the things that the liberals do that is as vile and worse.... and its repeatedly made front page top of fold headlines over the decades... yet here you are asking for a citation.
Your bias is clearly doing more than shaping your future opinion. Its clearly also shaping your selective memory.
"His name was James Damore."
The difference is that the FCC is a government agency.
How is the FCC being a government agency the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to making complaints?
Answer: its not... but you had to defend the liberals somehow.
"His name was James Damore."
You on the other hand have a track record of assigning the far left to anyone who doesn't fit your litmus tests.
And what was my litmus test in this case, getting a mean spirited 'attack" response with no meat on the bone and nothing to contest the point? Many liberals do that, but there are other thoughtless idiots that do as well. Maybe you are in the second group, my apologies.
Run them over AND then beat the shit out of them? Have a Snickers, dude.
Because every woman aspires to be Monica Lewinsky, right? That's some failed fucking logic.
Or fined double the amount as it is sounds like a bi-sexual joke.
Definitely inappropriate for broadcast TV...but...who the hell watches broadcast TV anymore?
When you can't even figure out that "group X" includes many women (on the giving side) and most men/almost every aspiring young man (on the receiving side), what does that say about your human categorization tree?
Really, the only significant group of people that "group X" excludes in America are post-curiosity lesbians and the Christian evangelicals, subset prudish (minus a large, crescent-shaped bite from the om nom nom nom Venn circle "hypocrite").
[*] Most lesbians these days are post-curiosity lesbians, as the social cost of an openly lesbian lifestyle has become less obnoxious.
Colbert could easily level the playing field by finding a suitably target (male or female) with a tiny tongue to tag as "Marine Le Pen's clit carpet".
Only that would probably backfire for the worst reason: your grandfather's Leave it to Beaver infested FCC is probably still mired in distinguishing "cock" from "clit" on the obscenity scale, and he'd probably receive an even bigger fine.
Disgusting.
"Putin's bitch" could have generated just as much fake outrage, and be absent fake claims of homophobia. The point is, insult the president, go to jail. We live in the Fascist Sates of America, comrade.
Learn to love Alaska
So you like abuse of power, so long as you don't like those it's used against. That makes you evil.
Learn to love Alaska
Liberals aren't even part of this story. It's Trump's FCC responding to Trump's complaint about his mouth being called Vladimir Putin's cock-holster.
Trump is well-known for his thin skin when it comes to any criticism. Google "Trump thin skin" if you're not aware of this.
But the sweetest part of this entire story is how so many alt-right jackoffs who consider themselves "free speech absolutists" when it comes to calling someone a racial slur are suddenly crying for a critic of Donald Trump to be censored. You must admit, the irony is delicious.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Which? You give no cites, and I didn't see any in https://www.google.com/search?... a casual Google search. Give cites. I think you are lying.
Learn to love Alaska
I had a gay friend (who has since passed) who would often use the word "faggot" to describe himself and other gay friends of his. As "faggot" is simply a word homosexuals use as a term of endearment, by your logic, it would have been okay (and not homophobic) if Colbert called Trump a "faggot."
The problem with using such terminology to describe someone should be self-evident. By stating that Trump's mouth is only good as Putin's c*** holster, Colbert was deliberately using homosexual imagery to insult Trump. (It's clear that was Colbert's intent from the context of his monologue--to insult Trump using degrading language.) When you use homosexual imagery in a degrading way--either by calling someone a faggot, or a c*** holster--you reinforce the notion that homosexuality itself is degrading. Otherwise why use the homosexual insult?
It is the context in which the term or phrase is used--as a degrading insult--which makes the homosexual reference degrading, not the homosexual reference itself.
That someone cannot see this fundamental truth--that using homosexual imagery as an insult is homophobic because it uses homosexual imagery in a degrading way--strikes me as terribly sad. But that's because we now live in a world where politics trumps the personal, and if your side calls someone a c*** holster, it's a funny remark--but if Trump had used the term c*** holster to describe, say, Senator Franken (D-MN), the Left would be all over Trump (appropriately) for being a homophobic jerk.
Colbert's "joke" was homophobic, because off the cuff the most disgusting, insulting thing Colbert could come up to be insulting as possible was to call Trump some form of being gay. Even far left Vox writers consider in Homophobic, so keep trying to spin it. https://www.vox.com/identities...
"Gays for Trump" complaints don't count. The complaints need to be about homophobia, not anti-trump sentiment. Find a gay non-pro-trump complaint and we'll talk.
I'm confused, the discussion was on weird sexual practices and you've replied with a bunch of random photographs that don't even qualify as sexual, let alone weird.
For decades calling (or suggesting) someone was a faggot has been an insult
Not any more though, unless you combine insecurity with ignorance, in which case it's really your stupidity that's being insulted.
Indeed, anybody using the term 'faggot' perjoratively is basically revealing their own stupidity and opening themselves up to mockery or sympathy.
Why is it homophobic?
Why isn't it a comical taunt to Putin about his own homophobia?
Why is making a joke so fucking bad anyway?
Why do you think people think they own you?
You seem to need professional assistance.
you'd be autistic screeching
Oh, nice attack on people with learning disabilities. Good that you establish your credibility so quickly
about misogyny
No, I'd be laughing about it while dismissing it as obvious bullshit. Much the same response I've had to Colbert's joke.
and you would be right
No, there'd be absolutely nothing misogynistic about Clinton giving Obama somewhere warm and wet to park. Shit, the hatred in that scenario isn't towards the woman - I wouldn't wish that on any man, what the fuck did Obama do to deserve such hatred?
It's unfortunate that you put politics ahead of what's right.
Nope, I'm keeping politics out of this.
Colbert is a homophobe but you refuse to see it
He may or may not be, I don't know enough about him to be sure. I do know that the joke being discussed isn't homophobic, no matter how much you screech on about it.
only because he's on your side.
I'm fairly sure he isn't on my side.
A joke that has something to offend everybody (well, people on both sides of the aisle) apparently offends only people on one side.
Guess which one?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
You don't think getting a lap dance from your teenaged daughter is a weird sexual practice? You need me to spell it out. OK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w...
You are welcome on my lawn.
You shared a fucking photograph. I have no idea whether it was a lapdance or if that's just your twisted imagination.
Given the lack of sexual deviance in the articles you just linked I'm guessing it's the latter.
Shit, the entire fucking media trying to demonise Trump and that's the best you can find? Someone losing their virginity at 14? Fucking hell, I'm more deviant than that and my neighbours can confirm it.
Why should anyone be fined for telling the truth? Apparently CHUMP could be renamed the "Yellow Gobbler".
If the joke were about Hillary it would be funny because it's the truth. That's why things are funny. There is no connection between Trump and Putin. We have documented proof there is between Hillary, Podesta and Putin. Uranium deal, Podesta not registering as a foreign agent, and so on and so on. So she is his cock sucker. Trump kicked him in his cock if you have been reading the news. The other cock sucker was (do nothing) Obama. Putin showed him up every time he met him.
It's only funny if it's true. There is nothing going on there between Trump and Putin. We have documented proof there was between Hillary, Podesta and Russia. Uranium deal, the unregistered foreign agent for Podesta, and so on.
We could get Cobert for not being funny.
Allowing children to be discriminated against based on who their parents are and that they're adopted is okay with you? That's hardly "detailed minutiae of issues and concerns." There's almost half a million children in foster homes in the US on any given day. They need a home, and friends who they can share experiences with such as going to school together, far more than they need pinheads like you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I guess you missed the memo. There is no such thing as the alt-right. They were trying to associate themselves with the right, they are leftists. Fascist are always leftist. Between Communism and socialism.
Besides, that is what the left does all the time. Act offended. Make up bullshit. License to act like assholes. Form their own hate groups. KKK (founded and run by the Democrats - look it up) has moved on to BLM and so on.
Yea, Trump is weaker... HOW? Russia has the economy that is basically the size of California. They are no threat to us. Putin would be his bitch.
Whole joke isn't funny because there is no basis in truth.
Now if he said the same thing about Hillary, that would be funny. We have documented proof, the Uranium deal, Podesta not being registered as a foreign agent, and so on.
I'd go down on Hillary Clinton (used to be Marge Schott) for an Ariel Atom 500 (not the 4 banger).
Does having used that figure of speech a thousand times make me a heterophobe?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
According to some, it means you are submissive. I'd just call you desperate.
Absolute nonsense!
You, completely idiotically, are trying to pretend that it's possible to present political ideology along only a single axis. This is false. Once you recognize that politics exists along at least two axes (liberal - conservative along X, and libertarian-authoritarian along Y), you realize that fascism is actually centrist authoritarianism.
LOL! FYI, dumbass, the Democrats -- and especially the "Dixiecrat" faction -- were not leftist at the time.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Does anybody else think that Ajit Pai speaks like an ignorant person. The quotes in the article make him sound just like Trump. He speaks like he does not know what he is talking about. See here:
as we get complaints -- and we've gotten a number of them --
we've gotten a number of them??? Is that what you gotten Ajit? A number? Thanks for the important inclusion of this valuable information in the middle of your sentence Ajit.
apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts
So you say that you apply law as it is written. So that is how you interpret your laws. Thanks Ajit.
And which court will judge Stephens violations? Oh it's the supreme court or one of them other ones? I hope it is the supreme court, because it is hard to recall the names of them other ones.
I don't know Ajit. But he has Trump speak.
"Trumphobes"?
One, what is a "trum" and why do you feel people are afraid of it?
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
This reminds me of a hilarous song by Monty Pythons Eric Idle that sums up what the FCC does.
https://youtu.be/jixxYx9fklM
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
Thats like asking for a citation that Clinton was a liar.
If you want a citation that shows Clinton is a liar, they're easy to come up with. If the situations are so congruent, surely you can trivially provide a citation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you eat pussy 'submissively', you are doing it wrong.
Have you seen the V8 atom?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No if he said Hillary was Obama's cock holster I'd say I don't think she's touched anyone's cock in a few decades.
Have you seen the V8 atom?
I checked it out. I almost can understand....but Hillary? There's got to be better way.
Come back when you post with something other than "Anonymous Coward"
I at least will put a some sort of name to what I think. If you are unwilling to do that - or provide some -very slight- insight, then all you have is #drainthewamp in one hand, and sewage to replace it with.
Typical alt-right lack of thought.
Being anonymous isn't a fault - not with Donald John Trump as president, anyway.
You're in great - FABULOUS - best you've ever seen - I mean it's beautiful! So Beautiful! - company.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.