Added: 1 year ago
From: Faithinpubliclife
Views: 20,160
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (224)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Colbert can walk on water.

  • He took the typical route of misapplying Matthew 25 to those that are bad off or in need. This passage has nothing to do with a social gospel as so many claim it does. Read the passage in context-the judgement has already taken place in this text. The "brothers" are believers, not people who need help with being fed, given water, etc. How unsurprising.

  • @rorshakks What so ever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. Which means bad or good, he was using it out of context perhaps but he proved his point, so who cares?

  • I wish Colbert would be president <3

  • this is great.

  • if jesus crossed the rio grande, or overstayed his visa, or run away from a cruise ship . . . and worked as a carpenter. i will look up matthew 25 , for guidance.

  • @kukz65 No instead He lived His entire life knowing He would die for everybody bearing the sins of the world on His body. He suffered shock, beatings, brutality, suffocation, dehydration, crucifixion, flogging, mockery, He had everything but gave it up for the people of the world to be with them. He should have been welcomed but His own people rejected Him. Watch what you say about the Bible. It has more guidance than you know for anything.

  • @Boxer4Christ The Bible is the #1 selling fiction book in history.

  • wow my respect for this man just shot up!

  • @FynalAuthority I thought that was you. Cowering behind yet another screen name, I see. It was to be expected. And you have found a new playmate, congratulations. You two should get along well. Think of the great times yáll will have at the KKK cookouts. His posting style is not so churrigueresque as is yours but, he is a big fan of the Mac-across-the-net tactic, your favorite and his. As for the rest of your post, well, just more Mac-across-the-net. To be expected.

  • Matthew 25 is a brilliant piece of moral, and I say that as an atheist. Too often atheists, when attacking religion, forget that sometimes religion gets it right.

    Matthew 25 is one of those cases. Those who help the needy, the poor, the sick, are truly "gods people,"

  • Wow...such a good point. If only more of the so called Christians in Congress would truly think of "the least" of this country a little more often. 10 points Mr. Colbert

  • Here in Australia it's illegal to work as a tourist and it's illegal to "hire" someone without tax, super etc... but (aparently, I'm not an expert just what I heard) it's not illegal to "trade" board and food etc for work. That is, a tourist can come here and pick fruit for a week then for two weeks worth of food and accomodation. (For instance).

    Great loophole.

  • This is why the Repugs are so angry about his appearance. They all go on about what great Christians they are, but they're full of shit. So, when someone comes along who actually follows the teachings of Christ, it pisses them off.

    Oh, and for the sake of bipartisanship: Steny Hoyer can go fuck himself.

  • brilliant answer for an unexpected question!

  • Not one word of this clip will ever be seen on FOX news.

    So much for fair and balanced.

    Fox News and the right wing media is SHIT!

  • Colbert is not a very religious man, he plays the role as a all-american god-fearing patriot. This line fits with that greatly. He is basically using the bible against those who oppose the migrant workers the most. The religious southerns.

  • @jimius No, he actually is very religious. He comes from a family of devout Catholics and, outside of his character, has expressed that his family are all practicing and church-going.

  • @jimius He is actually very religious and teaches Sunday school.

  • This man is a DemiGod!

  • The essential truth. bravo. Yeah Jesus.

  • This is amazing! Go Stephen!

  • To those who think the immigration process is "easy" and that undocumented workers do not pay taxes, I can tell you that this is most definitely NOT the case. Legal immigration is nearly impossible under our current system, especially for those from south of the border. And they DO pay taxes. Many pay into our system and will never see a single dime back. They also pay sales taxes, just like everyone else. As @MarkRosengarten said, most migrant workers are little more than under-the-table slaves

  • LOL in your face racist redneck

  • Matthew 25 is one text you never hear a Republican quote!

  • @bill4588 You apparently have never been through the immigration process. It's not "easily" done for any immigrant, Latino or otherwise, but I can tell you that Latino immigrants do have a harder time with the process than, say, Canadian immigrants. Also, the number of undocumented immigrants who have been filing for federal income tax has been rising. Undocumented immigrants want citizenship; they've built ties to their communities and built families here.

  • Even if I sometimes disagree with him politically, I want to thank Mr. Colbert for standing up for these people and mentioning the Gospel in front of Congress. God knows they need more of that.

  • M$M keeping this from hitting the air for the most part. What a great thing Mr. Colbert has done and is doing. A true American.

  • if the least of our brothers would come here legally then they would not expose themselves to such exploitation.

  • @jhamm999 as if the exploiters just can't help themselves, they have to exploit. As if we can let them all in here legally if they so choose, as if they aren't wanted here for their cheap labor, which is a result of them being here illegally.

  • @stargleamer no,they are here illegally because they choose to not obey our laws. millions before them have come here legally and have become good citizens.

  • @jhamm999

    I hate people like you. you dont realize its pretty damn near impossible to come here legally. it takes so fucking long. If they waited they would starve to death. And what laws do they break? which laws do they no obey?

  • @jhamm999 Oh, for what reason?

  • @jhamm999 And, what is it that makes that obvious? On the other hand, your so called "race baiting" has a great deal of ammunition to use. A movement which does not wish to wish to be seen as racist does not have a hate group write its laws; it does not get neo-Nazis to put on its rallies; it does not ask racists to sponsor the bills written by that hate group; it does not lie to its public; et cetera. No, I think that the the movement was custom made for racists. Is that your interest in it?

  • @jhamm999 I am perfectly aware of the word’s denotation and I am also aware of the legal connections behind which the border bigots wish to hide. (BTW, you used a plural possessive with a singular antecedent.) Still, the connotation, which you have tried to obscure, remains exactly as I described it earlier. That was an unsuccessful dodge, I’m afraid.

    Yes, I have read SB 1070 many times but, even if I hadn’t read it, it was still written by FAIR.

  • @jhamm999 I have no trouble arguing the facts. Bring them on. That would represent a welcome change, if you can stay on topic. I am getting tired of your perpetually dodging and changing the line of discussion.

  • @jhamm999 What's the matter, no guts? Yes, bigots are usually cowards too, so I guess it was not unexpected that you should turn out to be both. But, since you wish to provide no facts, even though it was you who brought up the challenge, I am more than happy to begin.

    Fact 1: The USA is a nation of immigrants.

    Fact 2: The US and Mexico are neighbors.

    Fact 3: The border between the US and Mexico is not a natural border nor a human border but rather a political border.

    Following so far?

  • @jhamm999 You will have to produce evidence of my having denied any such thing. In the event that you should fail to produce such a denial, I will conclude that this is just one more attempt to obfuscate and evade so greater scrutiny will not expose flaws in positions that you have adopted.

    Fact 4: Illegal immigration has a long history in the US.

    Fact 5: Illegal immigrants who write laws that legalize their own status are also compromised by that status.

    Now, try to keep up...

  • @jhamm999 FACTS 6-12

    1492 — Columbus

    1502 — Slave traffic begins big

    1607 — English colony built in Jamestown

    1619 — African indentured servants (Jamestown)

    1700-1776 — First large immigrant wave (European, primarily English; 1750 sees population of 1 million; 1790 sees 4 million)

    1820-1870 — Second large immigrant wave (about 7.5 million from northern and western Europe)

    1882 — Bigoted Chinese Exclusion Act (19th Century version of 1070) is passed in order to prevent Chinese immigration.

  • @jhamm999 Fact 13: The Statue of Liberty was unveiled in 1886. Fact 14: Ellis Island opened in 1892. Fact 15: One million immigrants passed through Ellis Island in 1907. Fact 16: Elis island is closed in 1954.

  • @jhamm999 Do not ask me why FAIR chose to organize around bigotry and xenophobia. Their interest in the law, on the other hand, has to do with making laws conform to their bigotries and xenophobia.

    You should go back to the illiterate Klansman who home-schooled you and ask for another lesson in civics. Anybody can write a bill. It is then congress which processes that bill toward becoming a law. The rest of your post is unintelligible. Please restate. Quote my posts if you must.

  • @jhamm999 This is entirely too one sided. You ask for facts, but provide none (you are behind 23-0). Then you ask for logic while showing yourself incapable the most elementary levels of reading comprehension... Must I do all the heavy lifting here? No need to answer that; facts and logic are obviously too exigent for your bigot's brain to comprehend.

    Fact 24: In order that a Bill (written by anybody) should become Law, it must be presented to Congress.

    Try not to confuse bill with law again.

  • @jhamm999 You cannot have an “intelligent debate” with anybody because you are a slow-witted cretin! To my knowledge, nobody here has maintained that any “group of unelected citizens [has] come into a legislature and writ[ten] a[ny] law.” That is your own fabrication. I certainly never said that SL 1070 was written by FAIR; I said that SB 1070 was written by FAIR, as it was. Your difficulty with cognitive skills may stem from the inbreeding having produced a bantam brain. Cubic capacity...

  • @jhamm999 I have few problems with strict regulation, per se. I bewail and deplore the engrossment of xenophobic odium in the law making process, and condemn it equally under FDR or Eisenhower or Reagan or Obama, ... Yet, this climate of bigotry is assiduously afoot each time Congress addresses our immigration policy. What is worse, once again, racism constitutes the chief motivating factor for drawing attention to the issue. Bigotry before justice, well-being or fair-play. WABOS! 

  • @jhamm999 WABOS! = What a bunch of shit!

    Your second question is premature. To my knowledge, you have not yet established that I do anything "automatically," let alone "assign insidious motives to people who simply want to control the border." To what people do you refer?

    If I had the power to write our immigration laws, I would first hold a series of public discussions to determine foundation. A nation of immigrants, the US, has a unique relationship with the dynamic that other nations do not.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @jhamm999 I call xenophobes and bigots xenophobes and bigots, so what? And I still “wonder [...] why [you] said what [you] said.” As I recall, you asked that we deal in facts but then provided none. Then, you asked for logic but offered only surmise, convulsive conjecture, obfuscation, and character assassination. You conclude without the benefit of evidence and change directions before any depth can be attained.

    BTW: You used a plural possessive with a singular antecedent, again.

  • @jhamm999 You should learn to read. It should be easy with all the posts in front of you. Your bigotry and your bantam brain seems to have trouble following a linear discussion. I thought that you did it deliberately before, in order prevent in depth treatment of a topic, so that you might follow up by calling my treatment of that topic superficial. However, now I believe that you are simply not smart enough to carry on a simple conversation or read and understand a simple post. Go join FAIR.

  • @jhamm999 I almost missed this. Somebody flagged it as spam. I hope it was an accident. Your posts are filled with betise, but they are certainly not spam.

    As fo my denials, all you have to do is produce evidence of your accusations. My posts are right in front of you. Until that time, keep ducking and dodging.

    Fact 25: FAIR founder, John Tanton, is a nativist whose bigotries are reserved primarily, though not exclusively, for Catholics, and Latinos, in general, and Hispanics, in particular.

  • @jhamm999 You forgot to mention which poll you are quoting. For all I know, you may be quoting your KKK poll. According to the poll conducted by the Behavior Research Center (BRC) in Phoenix, support for 1070 stands at 52 percent in favor to 39 percent opposed and 9 percent unsure. Among registered voters, 56 percent favor while 34 percent oppose the immigration law. Wow! You can't even do facts.

  • @jhamm999 Want me to say I’m sorry? Very well: I'm sorry that you're a xenophobe and a bigot. I’m sorry the mere mention of racial inequities sends your Anglo-centric persecution complex into a frenzy and, before looking into verity, you immediately circle the wagons of the Caucasian caravan. I’m sorry you find detestation preferable to amicability, and whipping boys to consorts. I’m sorry you feel that racism in a mob trumps virtue in a crowd. I’m sorry, mostly, for your lack of humanity.

  • @jhamm999 Don't try to bail now; that was a quote taken from your own post.

  • @jhamm999 White, Black, Brown, Red, or Yellow, your views are still bigoted and Anglo-centric. 

  • @jhamm999 Since you're anxious to make 1070 the topic, I’m happy to share my perspective. First, those involved with the bill forward —FAIR, Russell Pearce, J. T. Ready, et cetera— have deep racist roots. Second, 1070 did not go through alone but with a nimiety of other bills with divisive intentions, e.g.: the censorship of ethnic studies and the firing of teachers with accents, all sold after the murder of a rancher. Politicians incited a racist lynch mob, yet nobody knows who his killer is.

  • @jhamm999 What? "...because you saw them standing next ro a person in a neo-nazi meeting." I do not remember ever having said such a thing. I do not remember your ever even asking. Just the latest attempt to speak for me, pulled right out of the trailer court air. What a bloody coward you are. And don't think I didn't notice how far off topic this stupidity is taking us. You whine because we are not talking about 1070 but, when we do, you change the subject. Haven't gotten to the law itself yet.

  • @jhamm999 I never sent you any link; all my posts are right in front of you, illiterate moron. "Finally"? WABOS! All you had to do is ask, instead of claiming to have made it a topic without ever truly having done so.

    The final form of 1070 is far less overtly racist than the first drafts submitted, nevertheless, much racism remains. Let's go to page 6 where the document says that race may not be the ONLY factor. That leaves only 1%; which could come from anything, 1%. Invitation to abuse!

  • @jhamm999 You wouldn't recognize a rational debate if it were implanted into your inbred brain. And what the hell is an "oliar"?

  • @jhamm999 For somebody who was so anxious to talk about 1070, you certainly jumped off that ship in a hurry! And we hadn't even gotten to the part of the bill/law that compares the undocumented to a "rat infestation." What a bloody hypocrite you are!

  • @jhamm999 Why should that particular question interfere with our discussion of 1070? What have they to do with 1070? I understand those words perfectly. Wouldn't it be nice if 1070 used them. Instead, it says "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin" as I have already pointed out.

  • @jhamm999 ...and again, and again...

    p.6

    28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county

    29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,

    30 color or national origin.

    That illiterate Klan tutor of yours did your reading skills way too much damage.

  • @jhamm999 Well, you stayed on topic, for once. After that, you are as full of shit, as ever. I took nothing out of context and I think, this time, even you know it. That may be why you try so hard to obscure meaning behind your "out-of-context," "in-other-words," and "sounds-to-me-like" dodges. Also, you have misread, misinterpreted, misquoted, misinformed, and misdirected so much that any attempt you make interpret anything is absurdly transparent. 1070 is an invitation to abuse, as I said.

  • @jhamm999 Now, that is not exactly true, is it? I did not use four words but rather twenty words. And, I gave you the exact page and the lines, which means that I gave you the entre context. But, your tactic to isolate or bury according to your need is especially misinformed on this occasion. Out of those twenty words, I was highlighting just one: "...solely..." as I explained earlier. Your efforts to isolate 1070 here, and bury its treatment of race there, expose your racist agenda, yet again.

  • @jhamm999 I believe you mean: "those two words on line 28 DO not tell ..." Your syntax is as bad as your logic.

    Find another dog for that bone! The only two parts of that bill/law that discuss race were not hidden well enough nor disguised well enough to obscure the racist intentions of the bill/law's proponents. Heap the whole 16 pages onto your context pile. The racism still stands out. You should have thought of this dodge before maintaining that 1070 prohibits racial profiling.

  • @jhamm999 ... What is more, you lied —as usual— when you claim that I said that 1070 is a racist law. I said that the immigration issue is about race and that the term "illegal" has become a codeword for "spic" and "beaner" and other slurs for Hispanic people, and that 1070 is evidence of that racist energy. I did not isolate it, as you have tried to do, but, rather, grouped it together with other bills/laws moving AZ, piece-meal, toward their desired form of Apartheid.

  • @jhamm999 Facts, foreign to me? As I recall, I lead you in facts 25-0. Calling FAIR a hate group is not slander, it is documented fact. And Russell Pearce has racist connections a mile long. If this is the direction you plan to take, you are in big trouble, quicksand-like trouble. Your Klan tutor should teach you a bit about research, because you suck at it!

  • @jhamm999 How did Tupac Enrique get into this? I offered to help him write his speeches once. If you have heard him talk you can tell that he, obviously, did not take me up on the offer. I guess he thought it would make him sound too scholarly.

  • @ginesdepasamonte just browsing your channel. it gave me a good insight into your thinking.

  • @jhamm999 For better insight, you should hear the one by Dr. Matthew Whitaker. He and I come about as close to thinking the other's thoughts as anybody else.