If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Stephen Colbert donates all of his super PAC money to charity, potentially pissing off lots of viewers who actually think he's a fire-breathing conservative   (politico.com) divider line 123
    More: Amusing, funds, political committee, Habitat for Humanity, Center for Responsive Politics  
•       •       •

4440 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 8:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 08:29:52 AM
oh, I dunno, I remember when a conservative would have done something like help the poor. Maybe he's just anachronistic.
 
2012-12-14 08:30:34 AM
Donate to charities supporting learning disabilities and kill two birds with one stone.
 
2012-12-14 08:30:59 AM
I would like to see Rove do the same. Conservative always argue that charity is their forte. Well lets see some charitable donations in the multi-million dollar levels.
 
2012-12-14 08:34:04 AM

rev. dave: I would like to see Rove do the same. Conservative always argue that charity is their forte. Well lets see some charitable donations in the multi-million dollar levels.


Bah, give a leech a capillary and they'll take an aorta.
 
2012-12-14 08:34:49 AM

rev. dave: I would like to see Rove do the same. Conservative always argue that charity is their forte. Well lets see some charitable donations in the multi-million dollar levels.


I am sure conservatives make plenty of mutli-million dollar donations. Donations like that keep the Pat Robersons of the world going.
 
2012-12-14 08:36:06 AM
Lots of funny in that article.
 
2012-12-14 08:36:57 AM

rev. dave: I would like to see Rove do the same. Conservative always argue that charity is their forte. Well lets see some charitable donations in the multi-million dollar levels.


Contemporary conservatives do not hesitate to donate to charity, when that charity is their own church and when the tax-deductible donations are necessary to keep their tax rate equal to or above a tax rate that they have claimed to have paid.
 
2012-12-14 08:39:08 AM
Nothing to see here. Liberals love giving away money that isn't their own.
 
2012-12-14 08:41:39 AM
web.wm.edu
 
2012-12-14 08:42:29 AM

Kiinux: Nothing to see here. Liberals love giving away money that isn't their own.


Conservatives like funneling it to their wealthy friends.
 
2012-12-14 08:43:46 AM
What? No donation to a Save The Polar Bear charity?
 
2012-12-14 08:51:06 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: What? No donation to a Save The Polar Bear charity?


BEARS!
 
2012-12-14 08:53:09 AM
All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."
 
2012-12-14 08:56:17 AM

rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."


More likely, they'll decide the charities he picked are controlled by George Soros.
 
2012-12-14 08:57:26 AM

rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."


Yeah. That'll happen
 
2012-12-14 08:58:43 AM

rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."


Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.
 
2012-12-14 08:59:10 AM

Kiinux: Nothing to see here. Liberals love giving away money that isn't their own.


And Conservatives obviously would rather spend that money on killing brown people.
 
2012-12-14 08:59:11 AM

imontheinternet: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

More likely, they'll decide the charities he picked are controlled by George Soros.


Did Soros even play a role in the election that was anything comparable to Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Bros.?
 
2012-12-14 08:59:56 AM
I'm just old enough to remember when we used to admire the poltical leaders, and laugh at the comedians. Now it's exactly the opposite.
 
2012-12-14 09:00:42 AM
good on ya Stephen. Nice touch with the Ham Rove memorial.
 
2012-12-14 09:03:08 AM
blog.chron.com
 
2012-12-14 09:04:14 AM

Dhusk: Kiinux: Nothing to see here. Liberals love giving away money that isn't their own.

And Conservatives obviously would rather spend that money on killing brown people.


Or give it to oil companies. Which sometimes has the govt kill brown people for them. Did you notice how quick the Iraq war hype stopped after they got their long term oil contracts?
 
2012-12-14 09:04:35 AM
Conservatives give more to charity. Colbert should have given it to the government.
 
2012-12-14 09:04:36 AM
Huh. So if Colbert can donate PAC money to charity, doesn't that mean all of the candidates could as well? I don't recall hearing about any candidate doing this...I wonder what they do with all that PAC money, since they technically can't legally spend it?

I mean, because if they could, then you'd get political hacks and con men setting up PACs just to grift idological members of the American public--and they wouldn't stand for it!
 
2012-12-14 09:06:04 AM

born_yesterday: Huh. So if Colbert can donate PAC money to charity, doesn't that mean all of the candidates could as well? I don't recall hearing about any candidate doing this...I wonder what they do with all that PAC money, since they technically can't legally spend it?


Technically the money doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-14 09:06:09 AM

ghare: oh, I dunno, I remember when a conservative would have done something like help the poor. Maybe he's just anachronistic.


Paul Ryan washes clean dishes.
 
2012-12-14 09:10:17 AM

badhatharry: Conservatives give more to charity. Colbert should have given it to the government.


No, conservatives give to religious institutions that vote for them. Just because it's deductible doesn't mean they use it for charity. They build huge opulent temples unto themselves and fly in private jets and take old people's social security checks selling them prayer hankies and a false sense of security
 
2012-12-14 09:12:24 AM

badhatharry: Conservatives give more to charity. Colbert should have given it to the government.


Making sure that Joel Osteen can buy another $5,000 suit or that the Pope can maintain his art collection is not charity.
 
2012-12-14 09:13:34 AM

born_yesterday: Huh. So if Colbert can donate PAC money to charity, doesn't that mean all of the candidates could as well? I don't recall hearing about any candidate doing this...I wonder what they do with all that PAC money, since they technically can't legally spend it?

I mean, because if they could, then you'd get political hacks and con men setting up PACs just to grift idological members of the American public--and they wouldn't stand for it!


Jon Stewart had a guest on his show who explained how PAC money could legally be channeled back into the hands of, well, anyone - including the candidate. So... there's that.
 
2012-12-14 09:15:29 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: badhatharry: Conservatives give more to charity. Colbert should have given it to the government.

Making sure that Joel Osteen can buy another $5,000 suit or that the Pope can maintain his art collection is not charity.


and don't even get me started about Mormons.inc
 
2012-12-14 09:17:04 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.


There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.
 
2012-12-14 09:20:08 AM

DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.


Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.
 
2012-12-14 09:22:14 AM

Epicedion: [blog.chron.com image 600x335]


Came here for THIS. One more:

www.thestand.org
 
2012-12-14 09:24:53 AM

badhatharry: Conservatives give more to charity. Colbert should have given it to the government.


Religion is not a real charity.
 
2012-12-14 09:25:47 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.


There is a difference between 'retain skepticism' and 'always assume the worst'.
 
2012-12-14 09:25:54 AM

Zerochance: imontheinternet: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

More likely, they'll decide the charities he picked are controlled by George Soros.

Did Soros even play a role in the election that was anything comparable to Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Bros.?


Looks like a couple million and maybe more discreetly, but nothing like Adelson.
 
2012-12-14 09:27:38 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.

Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.


You're just a fountain of what you believe to be wise-sounding platitudes, aren't you?
 
2012-12-14 09:28:36 AM

Kiinux: Nothing to see here. Liberals love giving away money that isn't their own.


ok I'll bite...

Cons love giving billions of dollars in money that isn't their own to corporations they used to run and still have financial ties to, through no bid contracts. So they can help us in an unnecessary war started by Cons based on false pretenses.

how the GOP bashing of government aid to the poor has any traction after what they did with their 8 years in the WH is a great mystery.

billions wasted on an optional war that they never cared to pay for, false pretenses for a war that killed thousands, and the cherry on top? crash the entire US economy on the way out.



hey guys? is it ok if we help the poor?

NO!!!! you wasteful Democrats will spend us to oblivion!

what a joke the GOP is.

/the Dems need to get mean with these people
 
2012-12-14 09:29:26 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.


Not a hero.
 
2012-12-14 09:31:46 AM

thurstonxhowell: Philip Francis Queeg: DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.

Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.

You're just a fountain of what you believe to be wise-sounding platitudes, aren't you?


Sorry for interrupting the hero worship. Please continue with the adulation uninterrupted.
 
2012-12-14 09:37:43 AM
bravo! Stephen. bravo!
 
2012-12-14 09:40:40 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: thurstonxhowell: Philip Francis Queeg: DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.

Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.

You're just a fountain of what you believe to be wise-sounding platitudes, aren't you?

Sorry for interrupting the hero worship. Please continue with the adulation uninterrupted.


maybe you aren't a regular viewer, but it was pretty obvious he wasn't going to keep the money.

He was very clear where the money went every step of the way (did the paperwork on air) and when he made it 'disappear' it was obviously part of the entire demonstration as to why these PACs are criminal. He did it very openly.

IF he were to never mention the money again, you can bet his viewers wouldn't just trust it went to charity. That said, the fact that people were willing to wait a few weeks before forming a mob over where the money went doesn't amount to hero worship.
people expected him to do something good with it and he did, after demonstrating how easy it is to game that awful system.
 
2012-12-14 09:41:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.


It wasn't "blind faith." It was more "faith that he will keep doing what he's done so far to show us what a horrible campaign finance system." And a little "faith that he won't destroy all of his credibility for a few hundred thousand bucks when he's got a LOT more cash than that."

He showed everyone how the system works.

Now, In an apparent final act of a nearly year-and-a-half-long gag about the influence of money in politics, Colbert said the Ham Rove Memorial Foundation, which received an anonymous donation of precisely $773,704.03 from an unnamed group with the address of "P.O. Box Bite Me," is giving $125,000 each to the Hurricane Sandy relief efforts of charities DonorsChoose.org, Team Rubicon and Habitat for Humanity, plus another $125,000 to Yellow Ribbon Fund, which supports injured military members.

Colbert, who claimed he's a board member of the Ham Rove Memorial Fund, said he wanted to direct the money to UNICEF. But the rest of the board argued that UNICEF is the name of Colbert's yacht and denied the request, Colbert acknowledged.

Another $125,000 each would go to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center, the latter that's led by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, who served as legal counsel for Colbert's super PAC.


Which is fair - Potter has been instrumental in showing exactly how the system works, and how farked up it truly is.

Colbert wondered aloud why the Ham Rove Memorial Fund would donate money to a pair of groups that respectively focus their efforts on campaign finance-related transparency and reform.

"There are some strings attached," Colbert noted.

With that, he explained that the Center for Responsive Politics would be renaming its conference room the "Colbert Super PAC Memorial Conference Room" while the Campaign Legal Center would rename its meeting space the "Ham Rove Memorial Conference Room."


Again, not blind faith - just basing our refusal to judge on his past behavior.

"Just think," he said. "As the tidal wave of money continues to engulf politics, and these advocates for transparency are moaning about how powerless they are to stop it, little Ham here will be up on that wall watching the whole thing unfold with relish - and, maybe a little dijon."
 
2012-12-14 09:46:17 AM
third sentence in article:

"Colbert announced Thursday night on Comedy Central's Cobert Report that the $773,704.03 his now-defunct Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow super PAC"

that's some fine editing there, lou
 
2012-12-14 09:46:37 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

It wasn't "blind faith." It was more "faith that he will keep doing what he's done so far to show us what a horrible campaign finance system." And a little "faith that he won't destroy all of his credibility for a few hundred thousand bucks when he's got a LOT more cash than that."

He showed everyone how the system works.

Now, In an apparent final act of a nearly year-and-a-half-long gag about the influence of money in politics, Colbert said the Ham Rove Memorial Foundation, which received an anonymous donation of precisely $773,704.03 from an unnamed group with the address of "P.O. Box Bite Me," is giving $125,000 each to the Hurricane Sandy relief efforts of charities DonorsChoose.org, Team Rubicon and Habitat for Humanity, plus another $125,000 to Yellow Ribbon Fund, which supports injured military members.

Colbert, who claimed he's a board member of the Ham Rove Memorial Fund, said he wanted to direct the money to UNICEF. But the rest of the board argued that UNICEF is the name of Colbert's yacht and denied the request, Colbert acknowledged.

Another $125,000 each would go to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center, the latter that's led by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, who served as legal counsel for Colbert's super PAC.

Which is fair - Potter has been instrumental in showing exactly how the system works, and how farked up it truly is.

Colbert wondered aloud why the Ham Rove Memorial Fund would donate money to a pair of groups that respectively focus their efforts on campaign finance-related transparency and reform.

"There are some strings attached," Colbert noted.

With that, he explained that the Center for Responsive Politics ...


You weren't attacking those who judged. You were attacking those who even questioned.
 
2012-12-14 09:47:39 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: thurstonxhowell: Philip Francis Queeg: DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.

Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.

You're just a fountain of what you believe to be wise-sounding platitudes, aren't you?

Sorry for interrupting the hero worship. Please continue with the adulation uninterrupted.


God forbid we should resist rushing to judgement and then be proven absolutely correct about his character. He's doing what nobody else has done, and has done it under the cover of satire.

I'd imagine most of us have a "bit of skepticism" about Colbert. But, since he has not yet done anything to justify that, we can't jump to negative conclusions until we see the end of this particular performance. You just couldn't wait a farking month to see the end.

We're not worshiping a hero - we're laughing at people like you. Get over yourself.
 
2012-12-14 09:47:49 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: DirkValentine: Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.

There is nothing blind about my faith in Colbert. He has, repeatedly, shown integrity and lived up to everything he's talked shiat about.

So STFU and GBTW.

Always retain a bit of skepticism about your heroes.


As soon as he does something to lose the respect he's earned, you'll have a point. He hasn't yet. Everybody gets the benefit of the doubt once.
 
2012-12-14 09:48:59 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: rufus-t-firefly: All the concern trolls who were "worried" about him keeping the money for himself may now step up and say "Everyone else was right - I should have just waited a few weeks like they said."

Blind faith in celebrities is always justified.


And assuming the worst in someone who has consistently shown character is always justified.

His actions have always been in line with what preaches (out of character). Please, show me otherwise, and I may change my opinion of him.
 
2012-12-14 09:49:05 AM

unexplained bacon: people expected him to do something good with it and he did,


i think the charity thing is great. i would still have been much happier to see donald trump get tea-bagged for one million before the money went to charity...
 
2012-12-14 09:51:14 AM

rufus-t-firefly: God forbid we should resist rushing to judgement and then be proven absolutely correct about his character. He's doing what nobody else has done, and has done it under the cover of satire.


The guy is farking amazing. It's really unbelievable. He managed to educate his entire audience about how PACs work and how insidious they are, and they were laughing while he did it.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report