Stephen Colbert's Super PAC - Nubblies.net Forums

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 02:07 AM

EDIT: These videos may not work embedded, which is gay and retarded as shit. Watch them anyway. Gaz, is there any fix for this you reckon? I know it's not on our end.

Might not seem like much now, but Colberts shenanigans in this regard are likely to put him in the history books. Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up in the Supreme Court for it some day.

If you haven't been following spend some time reviewing the material below and you will not be disappointed, unless you are Mistoffelees (complete fagtot) or DH (has a hard time comprehending "adult humor", gets confused, angry)

TL;DR IN LINE FORM

PAC = Political Action Committee

Super PAC = Super Political Action Committee?

Super PACS can spend as much money as they want (read: have) on any political candidate for whatever they want.

Stephen Colbert has one. Started as a joke, evolved into Master Trolling.

Here are the humble PAC beginnings:

Colbert PAC - The Colbert Report - 2011-30-03 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

An expert on the concept of a PAC advising Colbert on the matter, in which Colbert points out the absolutely ridiculousness of PACs in the way only he can:

Favorite part is at around 3:35

Quote:

Potter: ...because if you didn't do that, then you would be responsible for breaking the law. You wouldn't want to do that.

Colbert: Uh huhh....do a lot of people go to jail for breaking the law with their PACs?

Potter: No.

Colbert: Can you name ANYONE who has gone to jail for breaking the law with their PACS?

Potter: No.

Colbert: Thats my kinda law!

Colbert PAC - Trevor Potter - The Colbert Report - 2011-30-03 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

[size=3]BUT TROUBLE IN PARADISE[/quote]

Viacom (Comedy Central's parent company) says "fuck you lol no"

Viacom Ruins Stephen's PAC Dream - The Colbert Report - 2011-14-04 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert has balls of steel.

BUT WAIT -- A HERO EMERGES WITH THE WORD "SUPER"

Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter - The Colbert Report - 2011-14-04 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert explains loophole that allows him to do this:

Corp Constituency - The Colbert Report - 2011-11-05 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Corp Constituency - Trevor Potter - The Colbert Report - 2011-11-05 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

THE JOURNEY BEGINS

Stephen Files Super PAC Request - The Colbert Report - 2011-16-05 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert Super PAC - Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow - The Colbert Report - 2011-29-06 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Trevor Potter Prepares Stephen for his FEC Hearing - The Colbert Report - 2011-29-06 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

I can't be fucked to find the videos, but he gets it approved and starts using the money:

Make sure to check out the two ads he aired a couple months ago state-wide with SUPERPAC money:

Colbert Super PAC - Rick Parry with an "A" for America - The Colbert Report - 2011-11-08 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert Super PAC - Confused by Rick Parry with an "A" for America - The Colbert Report - 2011-11-08 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Look at this doosh:

Colbert Super PAC - "Corporations Are People" - The Colbert Report - 2011-24-10 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert Super PAC - "Corporations Are People" - Frank Luntz's Focus Group - The Colbert Report - 2011-24-10 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Issue ads controversy from last month:

Colbert Super PAC - Issue Ads - The Colbert Report - 2011-07-11 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Colbert Super PAC - Issue Ads - Trevor Potter - The Colbert Report - 2011-07-11 - Video Clip \| Comedy Central

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 02:11 AM

This is an amazing article by Colbert about his almost successful bid to "buy" the GOP election in South Carolina: Colbert guest editorial: Naming rights, state mottoes and the GOP primary + video - Editorial Columns - TheState.com

thekremlin · 12-23-2011, 02:47 AM

Wow. Thanks for a superlong post with like 20 videos, none of which work.

ADMINS! SHITHEAP THIS SHIT!

MERRY CHRISTMASSSSSSSSS

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 03:02 AM

All of the links work, just not embedded. Open up tabs you filthy jewish whore.

thekremlin · 12-23-2011, 03:25 AM

Enjoy celebrating your imaginary friend's birthday you fag.

DDTempest · 12-23-2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Enjoy celebrating your imaginary friend's birthday you fag.

What's it like to hate yourself so much that you don't even believe an imaginary person would want to be friends with you?

thekremlin · 12-23-2011, 08:36 AM

Good one.

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 09:50 AM

In any case, the embedding not working isn't my fault. Pretty lame though.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 12-23-2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Gaz, is there any fix for this you reckon? I know it's not on our end.

Yea Gaz, can you fix this problem that isn't on "our end"?

Beebs · 12-23-2011, 12:01 PM

The whole "Corporations aren't people" thing is a red herring; corporations have been considered the equivilant of a person forever, it's the very basis of incorporation. Without it, corporations wouldn't be able to sign contracts, be named in lawsuits, pay taxes, or much of anything. The debate comes down to one very specific issue of how much money they should be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

It's not just "oh you silly corporation, you're not a real person, what kind of crazy world do we live in" as Colbert is misrepresenting it as, which is about par for the course.

DDTempest · 12-23-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

The whole "Corporations aren't people" thing is a red herring; corporations have been considered the equivilant of a person forever, it's the very basis of incorporation. Without it, corporations wouldn't be able to sign contracts, be named in lawsuits, pay taxes, or much of anything. The debate comes down to one very specific issue of how much money they should be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

It's not just "oh you silly corporation, you're not a real person, what kind of crazy world do we live in" as Colbert is misrepresenting it as, which is about par for the course.

I think the question we are really worried about is whether or not corporate personhood begins at conception?

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

The whole "Corporations aren't people" thing is a red herring; corporations have been considered the equivilant of a person forever, it's the very basis of incorporation. Without it, corporations wouldn't be able to sign contracts, be named in lawsuits, pay taxes, or much of anything. The debate comes down to one very specific issue of how much money they should be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

It's not just "oh you silly corporation, you're not a real person, what kind of crazy world do we live in" as Colbert is misrepresenting it as, which is about par for the course.

Thanks for just focusing on that one point instead of the concept of a Super PAC, which, based on your post, I can only assume you are perfectly okay with millions of corporate dollars being spent without having to report it on anything you want in politics. Money and politics is a good thing, right?

Typical focusing on Colbert being a " mere exaggerating comedian" rather than focusing on what he's criticizing. Honestly, should a "mere comedian" REALLY be allowed to do what he's doing, legally? The whole process is insanity.

Beebs · 12-23-2011, 01:30 PM

No, comedians should not be allowed a political voice. This is also exactly what I said. I even mentioned it explicitly.

The one point is kind of a big deal, it's the biggest point to be made, it was probably the most chanted slogan at the occupy whatevers.

What exactly is insane about people advertising their political point of view? Seems like that issue was thought of already.

His whole ordeal with Viacom is case in point in a way; Corporations have been actively campaigning forever, see MSNBC and Fox News. If you can buy a network to extoll your views, why shouldn't you be able to rent time from a network to do the same? If a newspaper endorses a candidate, and that newspaper is owned by a large corporation, what makes that different than a PAC taking out an ad on the next page saying "let gays get married"?

Let's just pass some laws restricting the expression of political viewpoints at all, that will keep money out of politics.

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

No, comedians should not be allowed a political voice. This is also exactly what I said. I even mentioned it explicitly.

Why not? One could easily say that the GOP lineup is full of comedians. Let's not forget Al Franken, a Senator from Minnesota.

I get where you're coming from RE: corporate responsibility, but that's about it. I refuse to accept money=speech and as long as you insist on supporting it I don't see how you are intellectually okay with saying "No, comedians should not be allowed a political voice...but racist, backwards-ass creationist war mongering hicks should be allowed a political voice as much as their money can get them.

Also, why in the FUCK does the US not have a "factchecking/truth" law in order for our fucking national media, ESPECIALLY when it comes to political reporting? The fact that any of our networks can blatantly lie to tens or hundreds of millions of people at once is INSANE. Is it that considered censorship? Why isn't political reporting (honest mistakes/public apologies aside) held to the some form of civilian perjury?

And I'm not just talking about money being used for media endorsements here. I'm talking about the back-alley, unwritten deals that this money buys. Lobbying = political favors. Media backing candidates = political favors.

In no way do I feel the same deification (and rewriting of history that goes along with that) of the founding fathers that the Tea party and Neo-cons do. But I have read enough to know that most of them were smarter than any of us here, and certainly smarter than most of the presidential candidates.

If they were alive today, given a brush up of the past 240 years, and saw the almost-oligarchy government and insane amount of debt to foreign countries/federal reserve we have going on the States today, honestly Beebs, what position do you think they would take?

f3lix · 12-23-2011, 10:37 PM

Because the lack of factchecking/truth is what keeps politicians in office.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 12-23-2011, 11:14 PM

The Federal Fact Checking Bureau. Sounds very Orwellian.

Mr. Blonde · 12-23-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees

The Federal Fact Checking Bureau. Sounds very Orwellian.

FTFY, already exists.

Beebs · 12-24-2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Why not? One could easily say that the GOP lineup is full of comedians. Let's not forget Al Franken, a Senator from Minnesota.

Quote:

I get where you're coming from RE: corporate responsibility, but that's about it. I refuse to accept money=speech and as long as you insist on supporting it I don't see how you are intellectually okay with saying "No, comedians should not be allowed a political voice...but racist, backwards-ass creationist war mongering hicks should be allowed a political voice as much as their money can get them.

I'm not really saying that money = speech. I'm saying that entities have a right to state their view, and I'm saying that they should be able to collect and spend their money freely. The most urgent purpose of freedom of speech is to protect political speech, which is what PACs do; they express a political viewpoint. It makes no sense to have free speech but then make an exception for what is a group specifically dedicated to political speech and say "you have to stay within these special boundaries that don't exist for other topics or other groups of people because it might effect our political system." That is what it is supposed to do, that is our system: speaking out about ideas. By saying "well it's not fair that some groups spend more than others" that is equating money with speech, because it is saying money spent is more important than the message.

Quote:

Also, why in the FUCK does the US not have a "factchecking/truth" law in order for our fucking national media, ESPECIALLY when it comes to political reporting? The fact that any of our networks can blatantly lie to tens or hundreds of millions of people at once is INSANE. Is it that considered censorship? Why isn't political reporting (honest mistakes/public apologies aside) held to the some form of civilian perjury?

This is a pretty surprising question, honestly. There are slander and libel laws for lies with intent to harm, not sure what else you want? What is "truth", and according to whom? What about parody, that is, in simple terms, dishonest, but was rightly ruled as protected (Larry Flynt). Reporters aren't under oath, for one thing. I'm really pretty surprised at this section; what exactly do you find wrong here? Outside of math, there really aren't any fields where everybody can agree on what is true and what isn't. You can stop people from maliciously lying already. What you seem to be wanting is a ban on opinion, or at least opinions other than your own.

Quote:

And I'm not just talking about money being used for media endorsements here. I'm talking about the back-alley, unwritten deals that this money buys. Lobbying = political favors. Media backing candidates = political favors.

What is the answer though? Making it illegal to talk to politicians? Illegal to donate and talk? Illegal to spend money on a viewpoint? The only reasonable way to stop it is through not electing politicians who can be bought, and obviously continuing to make bribery illegal. All lobbying really is though, is people speaking their minds to somebody with the power to do something about it.

Quote:

In no way do I feel the same deification (and rewriting of history that goes along with that) of the founding fathers that the Tea party and Neo-cons do. But I have read enough to know that most of them were smarter than any of us here, and certainly smarter than most of the presidential candidates.

If they were alive today, given a brush up of the past 240 years, and saw the almost-oligarchy government and insane amount of debt to foreign countries/federal reserve we have going on the States today, honestly Beebs, what position do you think they would take?

Free speech really isn't the same as something like the second amendment though, you can't argue it applies to a different time and what have you; free speech is a pretty universal ideal, it's in the UN charter for human rights. I don't think you need to have any particular esteem for the constitution to argue for free speech.

It's an interesting question; they were a pretty varied group, more so than thought of today. On one hand I think they would be appalled at the scale and scope of government control, on the other one of the first things our government ever did was take out a loan from foreign governments to pay for the revolution.

Beebs · 12-24-2011, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

FTFY, already exists.

I really don't get what you're saying. How does a law regarding about not lying in a court of law equate to government "fact checking" of the media?

Mr. Blonde · 12-24-2011, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

Outside of math, there really aren't any fields where everybody can agree on what is true and what isn't. You can stop people from maliciously lying already. What you seem to be wanting is a ban on opinion, or at least opinions other than your own.

Really? Are you a male or a female? I know it's not math, but i'm pretty sure it would be a lie to call you a female, bro.

This isn't just about "opinions". You know I lean to the left and you know that I'm against all forms of censorship. But when lies are touted by authority as truth, governmental or otherwise, it is unjust and needs to be dealt with. For you to ask how this concept relates to perjury is silly. I'm not saying that lying for everybody should be against the law. But "serious" news media should have the responsibility to report facts. This is about intentionally maliciously distorting or flat out lying about verifiable facts in the media.

Examples, since you seem to be completely oblivious to how a "lie" differs from "a different political perspective":

PolitiFact | The latest statements we've reviewed

Fox News Lies

I'm sure there are a lot of liberal sites as well but I would wager a far less amount than conservatives and they should be held to the same standards

What don't you get about my proposal? It already exists, in Canada namely.

Opponents of CRTC’s false-news proposal bombard website - The Globe and Mail

Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

Mr. Blonde · 12-24-2011, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebs

There are slander and libel laws for lies with intent to harm, not sure what else you want?

What I want is for these to actually be used when the media lies with malicious and manipulative intent.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 12-24-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

FTFY, already exists.

12-23-2011, 01:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	No, comedians should not be allowed a political voice. This is also exactly what I said. I even mentioned it explicitly. The one point is kind of a big deal, it's the biggest point to be made, it was probably the most chanted slogan at the occupy whatevers. What exactly is insane about people advertising their political point of view? Seems like that issue was thought of already. His whole ordeal with Viacom is case in point in a way; Corporations have been actively campaigning forever, see MSNBC and Fox News. If you can buy a network to extoll your views, why shouldn't you be able to rent time from a network to do the same? If a newspaper endorses a candidate, and that newspaper is owned by a large corporation, what makes that different than a PAC taking out an ad on the next page saying "let gays get married"? Let's just pass some laws restricting the expression of political viewpoints at all, that will keep money out of politics.
	Last edited by Beebs; 12-23-2011 at 01:39 PM.

12-23-2011, 11:14 PM	#16 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,352 Internets: 290966	The Federal Fact Checking Bureau. Sounds very Orwellian.
	#YOLO

12-24-2011, 09:03 PM	#24 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Even the first site you says has a meter that has degrees; and uses wiggle words like "mostly." What is a serious news company? Who makes that determination? Do they have to register? Can others report the news? Can serious news companies joke? Can they have opinion shows? Can they be wrong when reporting something in good faith? I mean what the fuck is "half true" What you appear to want is somebody to censor the news media you don't like so it fits your idea of what is ok. This is wrong.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Going to the Super Bowl	bert	Sports	44	02-10-2007 09:06 AM

12-23-2011, 02:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	This is an amazing article by Colbert about his almost successful bid to "buy" the GOP election in South Carolina: Colbert guest editorial: Naming rights, state mottoes and the GOP primary + video - Editorial Columns - TheState.com

12-23-2011, 03:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	All of the links work, just not embedded. Open up tabs you filthy jewish whore.

12-23-2011, 09:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	In any case, the embedding not working isn't my fault. Pretty lame though.

12-23-2011, 12:01 PM	#10 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	The whole "Corporations aren't people" thing is a red herring; corporations have been considered the equivilant of a person forever, it's the very basis of incorporation. Without it, corporations wouldn't be able to sign contracts, be named in lawsuits, pay taxes, or much of anything. The debate comes down to one very specific issue of how much money they should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. It's not just "oh you silly corporation, you're not a real person, what kind of crazy world do we live in" as Colbert is misrepresenting it as, which is about par for the course.

12-23-2011, 10:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	Because the lack of factchecking/truth is what keeps politicians in office.