I just saw Huckabee on TDS. The guy's views are absolute demagoguery and John still didn't call him out on most of them.
Demagoguery doesn't mean whatever you think it means.
Stay calm, it does.
Har dee har har.
I already like you. We're going to have a great time together. Now, if you have a dictionary by hand, I'm going to start touching myself.
Look, puddles, demagoguery is a way of arguing, not a point of view. I apologize for thinking you were making a joke by acting like a demagogue. Apparently you do not possess the wit I had assumed.
dem⋅a⋅gogue
/ˈdɛməˌgɒg, -ˌgɔg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dem-uh-gog, -gawg] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -gogued, -gogu⋅ing.
–noun
1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object)
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object)
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.
Shut⋅The⋅Fuck⋅Up
/S,T-FU/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shut-tha-fuck, -up]
-verb
1. Shut the fuck up.
I already like you. We're going to have a great time together. Now, if you have a dictionary by hand, I'm going to start touching myself.
Mmm, Huckabee avoids discussing the real issue of legally recognized homosexual civil unions by talking about the meaning of the word marriage and whatnot while, ooo, Jon response was effectively that, uhhh, anyone against gay marriage is lacking in humanity, ungh!
Er, excuse me, gotta clean up...
Alternatively: Mentioning such a sexually wanton act in an otherwise family friendly thread should really put into doubt the accuracy of this degenerate's grasp of the english language. Don't let him pervert the meaning of demagoguery, people, or let him direct this discussion down deviate directions!
On a more serious note, what exactly about Huckabee's comments were playing more to prejudices and emotions than Jon's? Minus three points if you focus on the word prejudice, minus seventeen points if you imply that a [or both] side had no prejudices.
I already like you. We're going to have a great time together. Now, if you have a dictionary by hand, I'm going to start touching myself.
Mmm, Huckabee avoids discussing the real issue of legally recognized homosexual civil unions by talking about the meaning of the word marriage and whatnot while, ooo, Jon response was effectively that, uhhh, anyone against gay marriage is lacking in humanity, ungh!
Er, excuse me, gotta clean up...
Alternatively: Mentioning such a sexually wanton act in an otherwise family friendly thread should really put into doubt the accuracy of this degenerate's grasp of the english language. Don't let him pervert the meaning of demagoguery, people, or let him direct this discussion down deviate directions!
On a more serious note, what exactly about Huckabee's comments were playing more to prejudices and emotions than Jon's? Minus three points if you focus on the word prejudice, minus seventeen points if you imply that a [or both] side had no prejudices.
ITS GOING TO DESTROY THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE GUYZ!
I already like you. We're going to have a great time together. Now, if you have a dictionary by hand, I'm going to start touching myself.
Mmm, Huckabee avoids discussing the real issue of legally recognized homosexual civil unions by talking about the meaning of the word marriage and whatnot while, ooo, Jon response was effectively that, uhhh, anyone against gay marriage is lacking in humanity, ungh!
Er, excuse me, gotta clean up...
Alternatively: Mentioning such a sexually wanton act in an otherwise family friendly thread should really put into doubt the accuracy of this degenerate's grasp of the english language. Don't let him pervert the meaning of demagoguery, people, or let him direct this discussion down deviate directions!
On a more serious note, what exactly about Huckabee's comments were playing more to prejudices and emotions than Jon's? Minus three points if you focus on the word prejudice, minus seventeen points if you imply that a [or both] side had no prejudices.
ITS GOING TO DESTROY THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE GUYZ!
OMG THAT'S THEIR MESSAGE? MY GOD THOSE INHUMAM MONSTERS.
edit: I just noticed the typo, but it seems fitting enough.
"gays have cooties and make me feel funny" = emotion
Note: I have not seen this particular interview, but feel I can safely extrapolate from past Huck/Stewart exchanges.
We're talking about the way the ideas were discussed, so you really do need to see the interview. No one here is (or should be, anyway, as this thread is not the place for it) actually discussing whether homosexual civil unions should or shouldn't be recognized, just how 'appealing to the emotions and prejudices' the two men were in that interview.
Though like EmperorSeth mentioned, the horridness of Prop 8 passing kinda has some folks getting quite reactionary whenever the 'definition of marriage' topic gets mentioned, so it's hard to talk about the manner and method of a conversation that included said topic.
"gays have cooties and make me feel funny" = emotion
Note: I have not seen this particular interview, but feel I can safely extrapolate from past Huck/Stewart exchanges.
"30 states voted it down in the last election."
"30 states voted you down in the last election."
"Under US law, marriage is a privilege, not a right."
"Okay, then let's stop Hispanics from voting."
Yeah... not really John's most convincing arguments.
Which is at least part of why he isn't a politician or running to become a politician that makes legislative decisions based on those kinds of arguments.
"gays have cooties and make me feel funny" = emotion
Note: I have not seen this particular interview, but feel I can safely extrapolate from past Huck/Stewart exchanges.
"30 states voted it down in the last election."
"30 states voted you down in the last election."
"Under US law, marriage is a privilege, not a right."
"Okay, then let's stop Hispanics from voting."
Yeah... not really John's most convincing arguments.
Which is at least part of why he isn't a politician or running to become a politician that makes legislative decisions based on those kinds of arguments.
It doesn't make him a particularly efficacious political satirist either.
Am I the only one missing the outrage Jon seemed to have? It seemed like a pretty amiacable debate between two people with different viewpoints to me.
He wasn't mad or anything, but I've never seen Jon lose composure during an interview (that I can remember). It was definitely an undercurrent, though. He pretty clearly thought that Huckabee's opinions were fucked up, regardless of how well he was able to show it (this extends to his questions as well, as people have pointed out). Not his best interview, or anywhere close, but he definitely wanted to show how fucked up Huckabee's social views are.
It sucks that Riggle is leaving. It seemed like he took a long time to really get gold, but in the last year or so, he's been probably the second or third best correspondent. There are a lot of great moments, but the hippie anti-army piece was probably me favorite of his ('HIPPIES!!!!"). Sam Bee has been kind of dull recently, so I'm not to broken up about it. They can probably find another "asshole correspondent" like Jones, so whatever. But the Riggle is the real loss here.
At least John Oliver is so physically unappealing that he'd never get his own sitcom...so he should be on the show for a looooong time. Yay!!!
I'm guessing the new year is going to bring a whole lot of new correspondents trying to fill the three leaving ones' gaps.
EDIT: oh man, that Colbert noisemaker mishap cracked me up far more than it should have. Maybe it's the alcohol.
Omeks on
Online Info (Click Spoiler for More): |Xbox Live Tag: Omeks |PSN Tag:Omeks_R7 |Rock Band:Profile|DLC Collection
For the Huckabee/Stewart interview, Huck probably thought it would be a lighthearted visit like his appearances on the Colbert Report.
Or like Stewart generally gives to guys like Huck.
No dice, though.
I wonder if the interview was originally scheduled to take up two segments, or just ran long so they cut other stuff.
Nah, other stuff would involve writing and it seems like they didn't want to do much this week. Interviews, Tek Janson, and the Riggle piece take up time that would normally require coming up with something better. Granted Blago gave them their material on a silver platter, but you can't plan for that.
moniker on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Posts
I already like you. We're going to have a great time together. Now, if you have a dictionary by hand, I'm going to start touching myself.
Look, puddles, demagoguery is a way of arguing, not a point of view. I apologize for thinking you were making a joke by acting like a demagogue. Apparently you do not possess the wit I had assumed.
/ˈdɛməˌgɒg, -ˌgɔg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dem-uh-gog, -gawg] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -gogued, -gogu⋅ing.
–noun
1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object)
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object)
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.
Shut⋅The⋅Fuck⋅Up
/S,T-FU/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shut-tha-fuck, -up]
-verb
1. Shut the fuck up.
Er, excuse me, gotta clean up...
Alternatively: Mentioning such a sexually wanton act in an otherwise family friendly thread should really put into doubt the accuracy of this degenerate's grasp of the english language. Don't let him pervert the meaning of demagoguery, people, or let him direct this discussion down deviate directions!
On a more serious note, what exactly about Huckabee's comments were playing more to prejudices and emotions than Jon's? Minus three points if you focus on the word prejudice, minus seventeen points if you imply that a [or both] side had no prejudices.
"this is a denial of civil rights" = logic
"gays have cooties and make me feel funny" = emotion
Note: I have not seen this particular interview, but feel I can safely extrapolate from past Huck/Stewart exchanges.
ITS GOING TO DESTROY THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE GUYZ!
edit: I just noticed the typo, but it seems fitting enough.
We're talking about the way the ideas were discussed, so you really do need to see the interview. No one here is (or should be, anyway, as this thread is not the place for it) actually discussing whether homosexual civil unions should or shouldn't be recognized, just how 'appealing to the emotions and prejudices' the two men were in that interview.
Though like EmperorSeth mentioned, the horridness of Prop 8 passing kinda has some folks getting quite reactionary whenever the 'definition of marriage' topic gets mentioned, so it's hard to talk about the manner and method of a conversation that included said topic.
"30 states voted it down in the last election."
"30 states voted you down in the last election."
"Under US law, marriage is a privilege, not a right."
"Okay, then let's stop Hispanics from voting."
Yeah... not really John's most convincing arguments.
Which is at least part of why he isn't a politician or running to become a politician that makes legislative decisions based on those kinds of arguments.
It doesn't make him a particularly efficacious political satirist either.
Sam and Jason are probably also leaving relatively soon too. All three of them are working on various upcoming sitcoms.
KA-POW!
He wasn't mad or anything, but I've never seen Jon lose composure during an interview (that I can remember). It was definitely an undercurrent, though. He pretty clearly thought that Huckabee's opinions were fucked up, regardless of how well he was able to show it (this extends to his questions as well, as people have pointed out). Not his best interview, or anywhere close, but he definitely wanted to show how fucked up Huckabee's social views are.
At least John Oliver is so physically unappealing that he'd never get his own sitcom...so he should be on the show for a looooong time. Yay!!!
I'm guessing the new year is going to bring a whole lot of new correspondents trying to fill the three leaving ones' gaps.
EDIT: oh man, that Colbert noisemaker mishap cracked me up far more than it should have. Maybe it's the alcohol.
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
For the Huckabee/Stewart interview, Huck probably thought it would be a lighthearted visit like his appearances on the Colbert Report.
Also, woot, clip from CBC on the threat down.
I"M A WINTER!
I'M A WINTER!!!!
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
Or like Stewart generally gives to guys like Huck.
No dice, though.
I wonder if the interview was originally scheduled to take up two segments, or just ran long so they cut other stuff.
Nah, other stuff would involve writing and it seems like they didn't want to do much this week. Interviews, Tek Janson, and the Riggle piece take up time that would normally require coming up with something better. Granted Blago gave them their material on a silver platter, but you can't plan for that.
Convincing? Probably not?
Reflective of how I feel about those who want to deny marriage to gays? Definitely.
I think it's just you, he might not be the best actor, but Jon can fake that
Especially with the follow up, with the "more you know Star"... what was it again?
The first time it happened was the best, though.
'It's our secret'.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It was "Suck on that" yesterday.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Oh my god. I'm still laughing.
Azulan Saul Tigh
I wasn't expecting that. I mean the humor seemed like it was thrown in out of obligation.
Yeah, that felt more like a real spiritual crisis to me to.
Speaking of crises, what happened to the new Tak Jensen?
Yeah, best moment of the week, easily.