Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "More on Sibel Edmonds"] [Archive Index] [>>"Reagan's Navy Secretary weighs in"]
03/27/2004 Archived Entry: "Question Mark #34: 'What's So Funny?'"
Question Mark #34: 'What's So Funny?'
Some people have a very strange sense of humor.
Replies: 26 people speak up
Taken purely out of context, like everything else both of them will say for the next 8 months. Id rather have 4 more years of Clinton the 4 minutes of Kerry.
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 03/27/2004 07:12 AM NY
Nice work, as. Very, very creepy, and dead on.
Posted by snabby @ 03/27/2004 07:23 AM NY
Robin, I don't understand your criticism that the comment was "taken out of context". I suppose we should all be dressed to the nines, sitting down to a $5000-a-plate dinner with a thousand other people who never have and never will see the horrors of this bogus "war on terror" in Iraq to truly appreciate the context in which that irresponsible and inconsiderate joke was meant.
Posted by The Tater @ 03/27/2004 09:38 AM NY
Taken out of context?
Right...
Give me a context in which you would find that disgusting 'joke' acceptable. I know I sure as hell don't have one.
Posted by editor @ 03/27/2004 10:15 AM NY
I'm sick of hearing that GWB was being "self-deprecating" and "making a joke at his own expense." Nope. Tens of thousands literally paid for it with their lives.
And piss on the whores laughing along who promoted the WMD fraud. The blood's on their hands too.
Posted by Peanut @ 03/27/2004 12:46 PM NY
I am once again reminded how grateful I am not to be endowed with such hate for those with whom I disagree. I was in Gulf War I, and I thought the joke was hilarious.
Humor is simply a reflection of real life. If Leno or Letterman had made the same jokes, they would find their way to these same blogs with cheers and Kerry directing the band.
Gawd, it must suck to be you.
Posted by Murphy @ 03/27/2004 03:34 PM NY
Murphy,
Actually, it's pretty good to be me.
I don't watch Leno or Letterman. I stopped finding either one of them funny a long time ago, although Dave's a little bit ahead in that department. Leno's worthless, and he should fire his writers, cancel his contract and retire from show business.
Maybe it wouldn't have been so offensive if someone else made the joke. But we've got nearly 600 dead Americans thanks to the guy who told the joke.
The guy who got those 600 americans killed.
Sorry, dude. That ain't funny.
Posted by editor @ 03/27/2004 03:45 PM NY
Here's the perfect example. We disagree, but we don't have to hate one another. Why is it necessary to hate politicians?
We can take it to email if you wish, so as not to disrupt the blog.
Posted by Murphy @ 03/27/2004 04:02 PM NY
"Why is it necessary to hate politicians?"
Murphy, I don't know, maybe you could ask all the Republicans who so vociferously spew their hatred for the Clintons and Kerry. They might have a good idea. Why is it necessary for you to hate (e.g., "Gawd, it must suck to be you") anyone who critiques Bush?
Robin, your comment that the joke was "taken out of context" is ridiculous. Bush made a bad judgment call to even joke about it. We lost millions of dollars and 600 American soldiers' lives based on the Bush administration's lies about the WMDs. The fact that you see any kind of humor in Bush joking about this is sad. Open your eyes.
Posted by mykull @ 03/27/2004 04:49 PM NY
I don't mind keeping it here, Murph. That's what the comments are for.
I wouldn't say I 'hate' Bush, but I do have an extremely healthy dislike of him.
He ran as a 'uniter,' and he's driven a wedge right down the middle of the country.
He promised a 'humble' foreign policy, and then treated the world like his personal sand box for 3 years - all the while, making plenty of money for his cronies.
He ran as a moderate, yet he's been trying to shove a religious-right agenda down this country's throat since he got into office.
He didn't win the election, he had it handed to him - and he acts as if he received a mandate.
He's proven that if you cross him or criticize him, you can expect to have your integrity, patriotism and sanity questioned and your career destroyed (see O'Neil, Clarke, Shinseki and countless others).
He's more petty and vindictive than Nixon ever was, more dishonest than Clinton ever dreamed of being, and less intellectually curious than any president I've been alive to see.
In truth, I don't see that much to like. Do you?
Posted by editor @ 03/27/2004 05:00 PM NY
What's so funny about it?
What's funny about it is the fact that it's true. It hits the funny bone because, for the first time anyone has ever seen, Bush is admitting there are no WMD--and only in jest. But as Freud said, there are many an inherent truth in jest.
It is true. There are no WMD. That was why we went to Iraq--supposedly. Bush has just made himself look real, real bad to anyone with a working brain. But not all the rest.
Good ad, editor. I've been saying for the last two years that the only thing we need to do to beat Bush BADLY is to show what he's said in public places, out loud, on video and audio, to the general voting public who hasn't seen or heard this.
If somebody does just that simple thing, Bush will be lucky not to be tarred, feathered, hung from a lamppost AND deported. He is a Fortunate Son, though.
Later!
Posted by Daddy-O @ 03/27/2004 05:08 PM NY
Murphy, who said anything about "hate"?
This is the same bullshit we've been dealing with since this administration took office. Anybody who calls George W. Bush on his lies and mistakes is accused of either hating him or our country, or being unpatriotic.
The Rude Pundit posted some pretty observant comments on this whole issue. What it boils down to is the simple fact that most republicans can't stand being caught in their hypocrisy. A prime example that comes to mind is the whole incident with MoveOn.org's contest and the now-infamous "Nazi ad". It was okay for republican leaders and pundits to make over 200 comparisons between Bill & Hillary Clinton and the nazi party, but let ONE person do the same with George W. Bush, and suddenly such comparisons "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech." At the same time all this was going on, the New York Post published a column by Ralph Peters that compared Howard Dean and his supporters to Joseph Goebbels and the brownshirts. Where was the rhetoric about "hate speech" concerning this where "It's okay if you're a republican", but let a democrat (or any liberal, for that matter) do the same, and we're branded as hatemongers.
Oh, and it doesn't suck to be me, either.
Posted by The Tater @ 03/27/2004 05:25 PM NY
My bad...there were actually two "nazi ads", but I forgot to proofread after researching.
Posted by The Tater @ 03/27/2004 05:27 PM NY
In this case the laughter is mixed with tears. Anyone who doesn't realize WMD are not so goddamn funny a subject is lacking human feeling.
Good job on the flash.
Posted by cgreen @ 03/27/2004 06:10 PM NY
The dinner or fundraiser has always been a hard satire event.
Now had Bush done that on letterman or leno that would have been wrong.
That's what out of context means in this case
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 03/27/2004 06:30 PM NY
So the joke itself is okay, so long as he doesn't tell it in the wrong setting?
What a ridiculous argument. That's like saying a racist joke is okay in an upstate New York country club, as long as you don't tell it in Harlem.
Posted by The Tater @ 03/27/2004 06:37 PM NY
tater, a thousand amens on your previous post (below). thanks for pointing this out so articulately.
"This is the same bullshit we've been dealing with since this administration took office. Anybody who calls George W. Bush on his lies and mistakes is accused of either hating him or our country, or being unpatriotic.
The Rude Pundit posted some pretty observant comments on this whole issue. What it boils down to is the simple fact that most republicans can't stand being caught in their hypocrisy. A prime example that comes to mind is the whole incident with MoveOn.org's contest and the now-infamous "Nazi ad". It was okay for republican leaders and pundits to make over 200 comparisons between Bill & Hillary Clinton and the nazi party, but let ONE person do the same with George W. Bush, and suddenly such comparisons "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech." At the same time all this was going on, the New York Post published a column by Ralph Peters that compared Howard Dean and his supporters to Joseph Goebbels and the brownshirts. Where was the rhetoric about "hate speech" concerning this where "It's okay if you're a republican", but let a democrat (or any liberal, for that matter) do the same, and we're branded as hatemongers."
Posted by mykull @ 03/27/2004 06:45 PM NY
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satire
"2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."
Wow. What a Bush-hater that George W. Bush must be.
Posted by None @ 03/27/2004 07:08 PM NY
Do you play basketball on a football field ?
Damn,
Time and place is what im saying.
If you want to tell cracker jokes in Harlem have at it.
Also you should check out how Clinton poked fun at himself at the same event, of course only with dems
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 03/27/2004 09:07 PM NY
Robin, Robin, Robin -
The only way you could possibly make a Clinton comparison is if he made a joke about, say, the situation in Kosovo or maybe Somalia.
I saw Clinton's last appearance at that dinner - the difference between Clinton and Bush was this - Clinton's appearance was funny.
I watched the whole Bush appearance last night. Besides being offensive, it was fucking lame. Even the non-WMD jokes weren't funny.
Posted by editor @ 03/27/2004 09:15 PM NY
I can't beleive you watched the whole thing ! !!
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 03/27/2004 09:41 PM NY
Yeah, I did. In the interest of gathering information, of course.
Tell you one thing - I won't watch it again. ;)
Posted by editor @ 03/27/2004 09:46 PM NY
I find it sufficient to disagree with people without the necessity of hate-filled verbiage. The reason for my comment is that I think it would suck to be me if I was angry all the time. Anger is wasted energy. If you want to call someone to the pad to present their facts, fine. If you want to bash someone because they disagree with you, that's just shortsighted anger and worthless to the advancement of ideas. I like some liberal ideas. I like some conservative ideas. I presently find all the verbal bombings offensive (both sides). I also see much more anger and Bush-hate from the far left than I see Kerry-hate from the far right.
That's my view from the skeptical middle.
This position that Bush and his crowd are automatically wrong about all the facts and anyone who disagrees with him is automatically right is misguided.
I find politicizing facts to be useless. Facts are what they are. I want documentation that is testable.
Perhaps we should spend a little more time figuring out WHAT's right instead of WHO's right.
The war is wrong. OK, why?
The economy is bad/good. OK, Why?
I'll vote for the candidate to makes a solid argument. I won't vote for the candidate who spends his time just saying "the other guy's wrong".
Doesn't look like Bush or your boy gets my vote.
Posted by Murphy @ 03/27/2004 10:59 PM NY
Murphy, maybe you should vote for St. Ralph, then. He's the only candidate I know of who is perfect. Or maybe you could make that move to Australia sometime soon.
There was one person at that dinner who was not amused at the WMD joke in the least--David Corn. He wrote about his reaction; apparently, friends at his table tried to cajole him into admitting it was funny. But: How can you 'admit' something is funny if you don't really think it is? Humor is not a universal value.
But appreciating the deaths of nearly 600 soldiers who died for those missing WMD ought to be a universal value. Sadly, it's one that Bush does not share, and he obviously doesn't mind making a joke out of it, either.
Bush is constantly giving us these little hints into his own real character. I wish he'd keep it to himself; it's DISGUSTING.
Later.
Posted by Daddy-O @ 03/28/2004 03:32 AM NY
Excellent job on "What's so funny"!!!
Can i post it around? Is it copylefted??
I'm sure this particular 'funny' will be Much more humorous when the draft is reinstated, with B**h OR Kerry i think that's practically a done deal.
Consider this from Alt net..:
Despite statements to the contrary, quiet preparations for the return of the draft have been under way for some time. The Selective Service System's Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2004 – despite a ton of obfuscatory jargon, acronyms, and bureaucrat-speak – can't quite manage to bury all of its bombshells.
Strategic Objective 1.2 of the 2004 plan commits the Selective Service System to being fully operational within 75 days of "an authorized return to conscription." Strategic Objective 1.3 then commits them to "be operationally ready to furnish untrained manpower within DOD timelines." By next year the government intends to turn the ignition key on a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters, 442 Area Offices, and 1,980 Local Boards. There's even a big chunk of funding this year to run what's called an "Area Office Prototype Exercise" which will "test the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of First Armed Forces Examination Orders."
Strategic Objective 2.2 is all about bumping up the Selective Service System's High School Registrar Program. What's that? It's a plan to put volunteer Registrars in at least 85% of the nation's high schools, up from 65% in 1998. Consider these the SSS's "troops on the ground," making sure that the smallest possible number of eligible draftees manages to slip through the net. (In the school arena, by the way, the Bush administration has already pulled a fast one. Buried deep in the 670 pages of the No Child Left Behind Act there is a provision which requires that public high schools give military recruiters access to facilities and also contact information for every student – or else face a cutoff of federal aid.)
The 2004 plan commits the SSS to report to the president on March 31st, 2005, that the system is ready for activation with 75 days. If they manage the task, then the first lottery could happen as early as June 15th, 2005.
The job of approving a draft officially belongs to both the President and Congress, working together to pass new legislation, and officially it can only happen if the country is at war. But given the examples of the last three years, these safeguards are hard to call firm and reassuring.
First, as far as the Bush administration is concerned we are at war in every respect. On the basis of this position the President has skated around the strict language of the Constitution and launched the invasion of two different countries, despite the fact that only Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. Second, the White House is supported by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. While it is certain that any Presidential decision to reactivate the draft would be hotly debated in Congress, and resisted by a majority of the public, it is by no means clear that it could be effectively blocked – especially with prominent Democrats such as Representative Charlie Rangel and Senator Hillary Clinton on record as supporting the possibility of some kind of conscription.
Of course, the Selective Service System doesn't call it a "draft." In their lexicon of acronyms it's a "Registrant Integrated Processing System": RIPS, for short. The acronym's horrible irony – Rest In Peace, anyone? – seems to have been lost on the bureaucrats.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18225
Posted by Joni @ 03/28/2004 09:38 PM NY
Joni - Feel free to post it anywhere. That's what I do them for.
Posted by editor @ 03/29/2004 01:39 AM NY
