It is just absolutely hilarious watching those idiots respond to Iraq questions. They have to be so careful of what they say because they have dumbed down their base so much they can't begin to touch on the truth without looking like a complete hypocrite.
it just speaks to the dissonance that you have to have to be a republican presidential candidate.
funny thing is, more and more republicans feel that we should not be getting involved in other countries or regions. the fiscal commitment to such a war would be questioned by today's republicans. going into iraq would fly in the face of those principles. these clowns think they are going to win the white house by saying they would make the same decision to invade even if they know what they know now. morons.
Exactly they will never admit what a gigantic mistake it was to have invaded ...
And the next democratic nominee will have to admit that it was a gigantic mistake to leave Iraq
Again I'll have more respect for a man that admits their mistakes that led to this mess let's come to terms with the 1st mistake ok
In the next election you will have a democratic candidate who both voted for the initial invasion and then presided over the withdrawal. Let's see what level of respect that generates.
can we please stop perpetuating the incredibly false narrative that obama pulled the troops out of iraq?
i am so sick of stating it and restating it, but george w bush signed the status of forces agreement that set a withdrawl date, and he signed it before obama was even elected. bush tied obama's hands. obama wanted the troops to stay, but iraq said no. we got kicked out. please stop lying about what actually happened.
Ha. Plain old ridiculous. Obama ran for election on withdrawing. He wanted to withdraw. McCain wanted to stay. Call McCain wrong if you want but he would have stayed regardless of what the status of forces agreement said...he would have negotiated a new one. Withdrawal is the policy you wanted. Own it.
please.
again, lay off of the fox news and the right wing talk radio.
mccain is too much of a hothead to negotiate anything. it is his way or no way, and when trying to negotiate with an entire region who views things differently than you do, stubbornness and sheer will is not going to get a deal made..
mccain could not have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. there was a democratic congress. the american people wanted us out. iraq wanted us out. saudi arabia wanted us out. iran wanted us out. all of the muslim countries in the middle east wanted us out. our own generals wants us out. mccain was not going to influence every single one of them to allow us to stay.
again, you can not blame the successor for the deal made by the predecessor.
bush tied obama's hands. bush took a giant shit in a room and rubbed it all over the walls and obama had to clean it up. i give obama credit for getting us out. i own it. bush gets the blame for getting us in there in the first place.
Of all those countries only Iran wanted us out but good on you for owning it.
you have to own the actual breaking of iraq because you supported the bush invasion. the history revision you have been doing is proof enough of that.
I do own that which is why I think the withdrawal was a massive mistake. As per Colin Powell pre-invasion "you break it, you own it". Leaving is washing your hands of a problem your country actively participated in.
george w bush should have listned to colin powell before he
a: invaded iraq in the first place b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It is just absolutely hilarious watching those idiots respond to Iraq questions. They have to be so careful of what they say because they have dumbed down their base so much they can't begin to touch on the truth without looking like a complete hypocrite.
it just speaks to the dissonance that you have to have to be a republican presidential candidate.
funny thing is, more and more republicans feel that we should not be getting involved in other countries or regions. the fiscal commitment to such a war would be questioned by today's republicans. going into iraq would fly in the face of those principles. these clowns think they are going to win the white house by saying they would make the same decision to invade even if they know what they know now. morons.
Exactly they will never admit what a gigantic mistake it was to have invaded ...
And the next democratic nominee will have to admit that it was a gigantic mistake to leave Iraq
Again I'll have more respect for a man that admits their mistakes that led to this mess let's come to terms with the 1st mistake ok
In the next election you will have a democratic candidate who both voted for the initial invasion and then presided over the withdrawal. Let's see what level of respect that generates.
can we please stop perpetuating the incredibly false narrative that obama pulled the troops out of iraq?
i am so sick of stating it and restating it, but george w bush signed the status of forces agreement that set a withdrawl date, and he signed it before obama was even elected. bush tied obama's hands. obama wanted the troops to stay, but iraq said no. we got kicked out. please stop lying about what actually happened.
Ha. Plain old ridiculous. Obama ran for election on withdrawing. He wanted to withdraw. McCain wanted to stay. Call McCain wrong if you want but he would have stayed regardless of what the status of forces agreement said...he would have negotiated a new one. Withdrawal is the policy you wanted. Own it.
please.
again, lay off of the fox news and the right wing talk radio.
mccain is too much of a hothead to negotiate anything. it is his way or no way, and when trying to negotiate with an entire region who views things differently than you do, stubbornness and sheer will is not going to get a deal made..
mccain could not have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. there was a democratic congress. the american people wanted us out. iraq wanted us out. saudi arabia wanted us out. iran wanted us out. all of the muslim countries in the middle east wanted us out. our own generals wants us out. mccain was not going to influence every single one of them to allow us to stay.
again, you can not blame the successor for the deal made by the predecessor.
bush tied obama's hands. bush took a giant shit in a room and rubbed it all over the walls and obama had to clean it up. i give obama credit for getting us out. i own it. bush gets the blame for getting us in there in the first place.
Of all those countries only Iran wanted us out but good on you for owning it.
you have to own the actual breaking of iraq because you supported the bush invasion. the history revision you have been doing is proof enough of that.
I do own that which is why I think the withdrawal was a massive mistake. As per Colin Powell pre-invasion "you break it, you own it". Leaving is washing your hands of a problem your country actively participated in.
george w bush should have listned to colin powell before he
a: invaded iraq in the first place b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
Don't forget the most important pieces of the Powell Doctrine (not the Pottery Barn rule quoted here). Could we really say yes to all of these in 2002? Powell's brilliant career was tarnished by his inability to support his own strategic requirements.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
It is just absolutely hilarious watching those idiots respond to Iraq questions. They have to be so careful of what they say because they have dumbed down their base so much they can't begin to touch on the truth without looking like a complete hypocrite.
it just speaks to the dissonance that you have to have to be a republican presidential candidate.
funny thing is, more and more republicans feel that we should not be getting involved in other countries or regions. the fiscal commitment to such a war would be questioned by today's republicans. going into iraq would fly in the face of those principles. these clowns think they are going to win the white house by saying they would make the same decision to invade even if they know what they know now. morons.
Exactly they will never admit what a gigantic mistake it was to have invaded ...
And the next democratic nominee will have to admit that it was a gigantic mistake to leave Iraq
Again I'll have more respect for a man that admits their mistakes that led to this mess let's come to terms with the 1st mistake ok
In the next election you will have a democratic candidate who both voted for the initial invasion and then presided over the withdrawal. Let's see what level of respect that generates.
can we please stop perpetuating the incredibly false narrative that obama pulled the troops out of iraq?
i am so sick of stating it and restating it, but george w bush signed the status of forces agreement that set a withdrawl date, and he signed it before obama was even elected. bush tied obama's hands. obama wanted the troops to stay, but iraq said no. we got kicked out. please stop lying about what actually happened.
Ha. Plain old ridiculous. Obama ran for election on withdrawing. He wanted to withdraw. McCain wanted to stay. Call McCain wrong if you want but he would have stayed regardless of what the status of forces agreement said...he would have negotiated a new one. Withdrawal is the policy you wanted. Own it.
please.
again, lay off of the fox news and the right wing talk radio.
mccain is too much of a hothead to negotiate anything. it is his way or no way, and when trying to negotiate with an entire region who views things differently than you do, stubbornness and sheer will is not going to get a deal made..
mccain could not have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. there was a democratic congress. the american people wanted us out. iraq wanted us out. saudi arabia wanted us out. iran wanted us out. all of the muslim countries in the middle east wanted us out. our own generals wants us out. mccain was not going to influence every single one of them to allow us to stay.
again, you can not blame the successor for the deal made by the predecessor.
bush tied obama's hands. bush took a giant shit in a room and rubbed it all over the walls and obama had to clean it up. i give obama credit for getting us out. i own it. bush gets the blame for getting us in there in the first place.
Of all those countries only Iran wanted us out but good on you for owning it.
you have to own the actual breaking of iraq because you supported the bush invasion. the history revision you have been doing is proof enough of that.
I do own that which is why I think the withdrawal was a massive mistake. As per Colin Powell pre-invasion "you break it, you own it". Leaving is washing your hands of a problem your country actively participated in.
george w bush should have listned to colin powell before he
a: invaded iraq in the first place b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
Don't forget the most important pieces of the Powell Doctrine (not the Pottery Barn rule quoted here). Could we really say yes to all of these in 2002? Powell's brilliant career was tarnished by his inability to support his own strategic requirements.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
It is just absolutely hilarious watching those idiots respond to Iraq questions. They have to be so careful of what they say because they have dumbed down their base so much they can't begin to touch on the truth without looking like a complete hypocrite.
it just speaks to the dissonance that you have to have to be a republican presidential candidate.
funny thing is, more and more republicans feel that we should not be getting involved in other countries or regions. the fiscal commitment to such a war would be questioned by today's republicans. going into iraq would fly in the face of those principles. these clowns think they are going to win the white house by saying they would make the same decision to invade even if they know what they know now. morons.
Exactly they will never admit what a gigantic mistake it was to have invaded ...
And the next democratic nominee will have to admit that it was a gigantic mistake to leave Iraq
Again I'll have more respect for a man that admits their mistakes that led to this mess let's come to terms with the 1st mistake ok
In the next election you will have a democratic candidate who both voted for the initial invasion and then presided over the withdrawal. Let's see what level of respect that generates.
can we please stop perpetuating the incredibly false narrative that obama pulled the troops out of iraq?
i am so sick of stating it and restating it, but george w bush signed the status of forces agreement that set a withdrawl date, and he signed it before obama was even elected. bush tied obama's hands. obama wanted the troops to stay, but iraq said no. we got kicked out. please stop lying about what actually happened.
Ha. Plain old ridiculous. Obama ran for election on withdrawing. He wanted to withdraw. McCain wanted to stay. Call McCain wrong if you want but he would have stayed regardless of what the status of forces agreement said...he would have negotiated a new one. Withdrawal is the policy you wanted. Own it.
please.
again, lay off of the fox news and the right wing talk radio.
mccain is too much of a hothead to negotiate anything. it is his way or no way, and when trying to negotiate with an entire region who views things differently than you do, stubbornness and sheer will is not going to get a deal made..
mccain could not have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. there was a democratic congress. the american people wanted us out. iraq wanted us out. saudi arabia wanted us out. iran wanted us out. all of the muslim countries in the middle east wanted us out. our own generals wants us out. mccain was not going to influence every single one of them to allow us to stay.
again, you can not blame the successor for the deal made by the predecessor.
bush tied obama's hands. bush took a giant shit in a room and rubbed it all over the walls and obama had to clean it up. i give obama credit for getting us out. i own it. bush gets the blame for getting us in there in the first place.
Of all those countries only Iran wanted us out but good on you for owning it.
you have to own the actual breaking of iraq because you supported the bush invasion. the history revision you have been doing is proof enough of that.
I do own that which is why I think the withdrawal was a massive mistake. As per Colin Powell pre-invasion "you break it, you own it". Leaving is washing your hands of a problem your country actively participated in.
george w bush should have listned to colin powell before he
a: invaded iraq in the first place b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
Don't forget the most important pieces of the Powell Doctrine (not the Pottery Barn rule quoted here). Could we really say yes to all of these in 2002? Powell's brilliant career was tarnished by his inability to support his own strategic requirements.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
But Powell was fed a crock of shit...he figured that out later which is most likely a big part in his support of Obama in 2008. That was huge...a former GOP Sec of State endorsing the democrat vs McCain.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
It is just absolutely hilarious watching those idiots respond to Iraq questions. They have to be so careful of what they say because they have dumbed down their base so much they can't begin to touch on the truth without looking like a complete hypocrite.
it just speaks to the dissonance that you have to have to be a republican presidential candidate.
funny thing is, more and more republicans feel that we should not be getting involved in other countries or regions. the fiscal commitment to such a war would be questioned by today's republicans. going into iraq would fly in the face of those principles. these clowns think they are going to win the white house by saying they would make the same decision to invade even if they know what they know now. morons.
Exactly they will never admit what a gigantic mistake it was to have invaded ...
And the next democratic nominee will have to admit that it was a gigantic mistake to leave Iraq
Again I'll have more respect for a man that admits their mistakes that led to this mess let's come to terms with the 1st mistake ok
In the next election you will have a democratic candidate who both voted for the initial invasion and then presided over the withdrawal. Let's see what level of respect that generates.
can we please stop perpetuating the incredibly false narrative that obama pulled the troops out of iraq?
i am so sick of stating it and restating it, but george w bush signed the status of forces agreement that set a withdrawl date, and he signed it before obama was even elected. bush tied obama's hands. obama wanted the troops to stay, but iraq said no. we got kicked out. please stop lying about what actually happened.
Ha. Plain old ridiculous. Obama ran for election on withdrawing. He wanted to withdraw. McCain wanted to stay. Call McCain wrong if you want but he would have stayed regardless of what the status of forces agreement said...he would have negotiated a new one. Withdrawal is the policy you wanted. Own it.
please.
again, lay off of the fox news and the right wing talk radio.
mccain is too much of a hothead to negotiate anything. it is his way or no way, and when trying to negotiate with an entire region who views things differently than you do, stubbornness and sheer will is not going to get a deal made..
mccain could not have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. there was a democratic congress. the american people wanted us out. iraq wanted us out. saudi arabia wanted us out. iran wanted us out. all of the muslim countries in the middle east wanted us out. our own generals wants us out. mccain was not going to influence every single one of them to allow us to stay.
again, you can not blame the successor for the deal made by the predecessor.
bush tied obama's hands. bush took a giant shit in a room and rubbed it all over the walls and obama had to clean it up. i give obama credit for getting us out. i own it. bush gets the blame for getting us in there in the first place.
Of all those countries only Iran wanted us out but good on you for owning it.
you have to own the actual breaking of iraq because you supported the bush invasion. the history revision you have been doing is proof enough of that.
I do own that which is why I think the withdrawal was a massive mistake. As per Colin Powell pre-invasion "you break it, you own it". Leaving is washing your hands of a problem your country actively participated in.
george w bush should have listned to colin powell before he
a: invaded iraq in the first place b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
Don't forget the most important pieces of the Powell Doctrine (not the Pottery Barn rule quoted here). Could we really say yes to all of these in 2002? Powell's brilliant career was tarnished by his inability to support his own strategic requirements.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
At the very least, questions 1, 3, 5, and 6 are definite no's and were the same in 2003.
The spirit of antic fun that Stephen Colbert is spreading in advance of his Late Show premiere on Sept. 8 just got a little sharper. Colbert got wind of a raffle opening-night guest Jeb Bush is holding — send three dollars to Bush’s campaign and get a chance to win a ticket to the show — and the Late Show host decided to get in on the action.
In a new video, Colbert cheerfully chides Bush for not telling anyone at the Late Show that he was using the Colbert program as a fund-raising strategy: “No one from Jeb’s campaign asked me if this was okay with me to raise money off my first show,” says Colbert. “Where’s my cut of that sweet three bucks, Governor, huh?”
Stephen Colbert Smacks Jeb Bush For Fund-Raising Raffle
The spirit of antic fun that Stephen Colbert is spreading in advance of his Late Show premiere on Sept. 8 just got a little sharper. Colbert got wind of a raffle opening-night guest Jeb Bush is holding — send three dollars to Bush’s campaign and get a chance to win a ticket to the show — and the Late Show host decided to get in on the action.
In a new video, Colbert cheerfully chides Bush for not telling anyone at the Late Show that he was using the Colbert program as a fund-raising strategy: “No one from Jeb’s campaign asked me if this was okay with me to raise money off my first show,” says Colbert. “Where’s my cut of that sweet three bucks, Governor, huh?”
Colbert then announces his own “Jeb Bush On The Stephen Colbert Late Show Raffle!” (exclamation point Colbert’s, mocking Bush’s own “Jeb!” campaign logo). Send three bucks to Colbert, and rather than put it in his own pocket, as Bush is doing, Colbert will donate it to Yellow Ribbon Fund that assists injured military personnel and their families.
It’s great that Colbert and his staff are not just staying aware of what’s going on, but are using stunts like Bush’s to piggyback comedy stunts of their own off of it.
The build-up to Colbert’s opening night just keeps getting more intriguing.
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert premieres Sept. 8 at 11:35 p.m. on CBS.
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I thought he came across pretty well.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I thought he came across pretty well.
I think he always comes across just fine.... assuming you don't care that he has no personality to speak of.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I thought he came across pretty well.
Yeah I was really suprised Colbert didn't go harder on him.
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I thought he came across pretty well.
Yeah I was really suprised Colbert didn't go harder on him.
He's not on that kind of show anymore.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can't see any way that going on the first show is going to better Jeb. It's probably going to be a lot of people watching that haven't started paying attention to the election yet and will see Colbert make a fool out of him, what is the strategy there?
I thought he came across pretty well.
Yeah I was really suprised Colbert didn't go harder on him.
He's not on that kind of show anymore.
I know, but Letterman went a lot harder than that on a lot of people. In retrospect I guess he did take a couple little shots.
colbert can't be all upitty in his first few months. those advertisers are going to make or break him. letterman could get away with it because he was an institution. i mean, what were they gonna do, fire letterman?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
First off - any article that refers to a presidential candidate as "Hitlery" has very clearly lost all credibility.
Second - if I make a Kickstarter campaign and I don't make it to the end, I'm significantly less likely to make my second campaign statistically speaking. This is no different. This so-called sudden about-face post-Bilderberg could very well be influenced by Bilderberg, but I think you're seriously diminishing the potential that maybe they, I don't know, have a concept of long-term strategy? But then again, I know that's not what makes a good president these days in the eyes of its citizens, so maybe I'm wrong.
Third - we are all influencers, and we are all influenced, but if put in a room with recognizably successful humans who come with backgrounds of varied expertise - the only fools in the rooms are the ones who are adamant that they ought to walk out of the room uninfluenced.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
a: invaded iraq in the first place
b: SIGNED STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT TYING THE HANDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRESIDENT.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
:FACEPALM!!!!!:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh, and allow me, gimme:
haha!
The spirit of antic fun that Stephen Colbert is spreading in advance of his Late Show premiere on Sept. 8 just got a little sharper. Colbert got wind of a raffle opening-night guest Jeb Bush is holding — send three dollars to Bush’s campaign and get a chance to win a ticket to the show — and the Late Show host decided to get in on the action.
In a new video, Colbert cheerfully chides Bush for not telling anyone at the Late Show that he was using the Colbert program as a fund-raising strategy: “No one from Jeb’s campaign asked me if this was okay with me to raise money off my first show,” says Colbert. “Where’s my cut of that sweet three bucks, Governor, huh?”
Stephen Colbert Smacks Jeb Bush For Fund-Raising Raffle
The spirit of antic fun that Stephen Colbert is spreading in advance of his Late Show premiere on Sept. 8 just got a little sharper. Colbert got wind of a raffle opening-night guest Jeb Bush is holding — send three dollars to Bush’s campaign and get a chance to win a ticket to the show — and the Late Show host decided to get in on the action.
In a new video, Colbert cheerfully chides Bush for not telling anyone at the Late Show that he was using the Colbert program as a fund-raising strategy: “No one from Jeb’s campaign asked me if this was okay with me to raise money off my first show,” says Colbert. “Where’s my cut of that sweet three bucks, Governor, huh?”
Colbert then announces his own “Jeb Bush On The Stephen Colbert Late Show Raffle!” (exclamation point Colbert’s, mocking Bush’s own “Jeb!” campaign logo). Send three bucks to Colbert, and rather than put it in his own pocket, as Bush is doing, Colbert will donate it to Yellow Ribbon Fund that assists injured military personnel and their families.
It’s great that Colbert and his staff are not just staying aware of what’s going on, but are using stunts like Bush’s to piggyback comedy stunts of their own off of it.
The build-up to Colbert’s opening night just keeps getting more intriguing.
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert premieres Sept. 8 at 11:35 p.m. on CBS.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
letterman could get away with it because he was an institution. i mean, what were they gonna do, fire letterman?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here's an article if interested.
https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/has-the-next-president-already-been-chosen-and-is-the-election-just-going-through-the-motions/
Thanks
Second - if I make a Kickstarter campaign and I don't make it to the end, I'm significantly less likely to make my second campaign statistically speaking. This is no different. This so-called sudden about-face post-Bilderberg could very well be influenced by Bilderberg, but I think you're seriously diminishing the potential that maybe they, I don't know, have a concept of long-term strategy? But then again, I know that's not what makes a good president these days in the eyes of its citizens, so maybe I'm wrong.
Third - we are all influencers, and we are all influenced, but if put in a room with recognizably successful humans who come with backgrounds of varied expertise - the only fools in the rooms are the ones who are adamant that they ought to walk out of the room uninfluenced.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."