An interview with Steve Carell:
L: There was a segment where you and Stephen Colbert go to the bar and get drunk; did you actually get drunk?
SC: Yeah, I did (laughs). That was one of my biggest regrets ever! That was my idea too. I thought it would be really funny to do one of these reports where the correspondent takes it upon himself to show the effects of alcohol, but takes it to the extreme. After the cameras stopped rolling I got so sick! I threw up out of Stephen’s car on the way home. It was probably one of the top two drunken moments in my life. It was horrendous. It was really one of the worst nights of my life. You could not pay me enough to do that again.
L: And it’s on television for everybody to see.
SC: And it didn’t matter because most people thought I was just acting anyways. So it didn’t even matter that I was really drunk. People ask me if I was really drunk all the time, so obviously it didn’t read either way so I could have just acted it out. That was a huge one, which was a huge mistake.
L: I saw you were drunk; it touched some people out there.
SC: Well, if I can get just one person to never drink again, that person is me.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA STEVE CARELL I LOVE YOU
HE IS MY HERO
Truth through comedy: Occupy Wall Street
they probably don’t even masturbate to the constitution
Be scared of these protestors, you guiz!! They’re secretly proto-Nazis.
DID YOU JUST CALL PROTESTERS MUGGLES?!
BROTESTERS ASSEMBLE!!!
Seriously, though - God bless Jon Stewart for existing.
Well said, Jon Stewart.
I love every single fucking thing this man chooses to be. Every. Single. Thing.
![wrongturnintoyesterday:
Jon: Stephen, as a legal scholar - which we’re gonna pretend that you are - surely you can appreciate the irony here of a liberal court using Bush v. Gore, a case which went for the Republicans as its primary precedent for its ruling.
Stephen: Actually, Jon, if you look closely at the case you’ll discover the real precedent being cited is Tit for Tat.
Jon: You mean like the saying?
Stephen: No, I mean like the landmark 1874 case Tit v. Tat. It was a civil (case) in which Ephraim Tit sued Jedediah Tat.
Jon: Why did Tit sue Tat?
Stephen: Because first, Tat sued Tit. You know it’s funny, not many people talk about Tat v. Tit. That’s, uh, that’s just lost to the ages, I guess. But the countersuit Tit v. Tat, they’re still talking about that one.
Jon: Stephen the basis of this ruling -
Stephen: Bet you didn’t know that.
Jon: The crowd here, I believe, just likes hearing the word “tit”, quite frankly. Yeah… I think we know the level.
Stephen: ME LOVE TIT! *claws* That was not going through your face, by the way. Lower.
[They went on and off script on this one. Link to whole thing!]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfyfsvcLmf1qbr2jco1_500.gif)
Jon: Stephen, as a legal scholar - which we’re gonna pretend that you are - surely you can appreciate the irony here of a liberal court using Bush v. Gore, a case which went for the Republicans as its primary precedent for its ruling.
Stephen: Actually, Jon, if you look closely at the case you’ll discover the real precedent being cited is Tit for Tat.
Jon: You mean like the saying?
Stephen: No, I mean like the landmark 1874 case Tit v. Tat. It was a civil (case) in which Ephraim Tit sued Jedediah Tat.
Jon: Why did Tit sue Tat?
Stephen: Because first, Tat sued Tit. You know it’s funny, not many people talk about Tat v. Tit. That’s, uh, that’s just lost to the ages, I guess. But the countersuit Tit v. Tat, they’re still talking about that one.
Jon: Stephen the basis of this ruling -
Stephen: Bet you didn’t know that.
Jon: The crowd here, I believe, just likes hearing the word “tit”, quite frankly. Yeah… I think we know the level.
Stephen: ME LOVE TIT! *claws* That was not going through your face, by the way. Lower.
[They went on and off script on this one. Link to whole thing!]
(Source: wrongturnintoyesterday-)
