Support NeoGAF

[quaere]

If you liked this segment you'll like Maher's ending monologue on every show. They are usually spot on and higher quality than the liberal echo chamber he often intentionally turns the panel segment into.

Probably because he can control the monologue and tries really hard to avoid any real challenge by the conservative guests that would require a thoughtful response during the panel.

 

[RedSwirl]

I still don't understand why people willingly call themselves "conservatives" or "liberals". To me it's like purposefully admitting you're old-fashioned or admitting you're into new shit because it's new shit. Maybe I'm just too hung up on semantics and the words mean different things to these people now.

 

[The Technomancer]

You could make a similar generalization about the left and people have. For instance, I was called an freedom hating, Marxist, idiot by my best friends father a few weeks ago. It pissed me off hearing that generalization just as Maher's statement would be for a conservative. The difference is the way each side generalizes and ultimately propagandizes the other side.

Except that nothing the Democratic party currently endorses resembles anything close to Marxism. Whereas a serious republican candidate for the presidential office explicitly said that he'd like to do things like annul all current gay marriages. There's generalizing a party based on a few radical members, and then there's generalizing a party based on their representatives who have seen substantial support and the two things are not the same.

 

[theBishop]

Dad and mom obviously helped. Come on dude. Get real.

Also, this is ripped off of one of the last kids speeches to the UN. pfft

NOT IMPRESSED

Next!

 

[Salsa]

go Maher.

 

[FieryBalrog]

That's an absolutely terrible equivalency. How many people on the left are actually Marxist (that was a rhetorical question and the number is exceedingly small)?

How many people on the right are concerned with preventing gays from marrying?

The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Until the Republican party evolves into something more sane, it simply should not be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of rationality.

Most of the world doesn't allow gays to marry and will actively oppose it to a far greater degree.

Most of the world is therefore insane/primitive/composed of trolgodytes?

We are on the cutting edge of morality. We scientifically determined that gay marriage is a fundamental human right and everyone who isn't on board in 20 years is clinically insane.

This sort of cocksure attitude, with no understanding for how people might not jump on board immediately, turns me off.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Most of the world doesn't allow gays to marry and will actively oppose it to a far greater degree.

Most of the world is therefore insane/primitive/composed of trolgodytes?

We are on the cutting edge of morality. We scientifically determined that gay marriage is a fundamental human right and everyone who isn't on board in 20 years is clinically insane.

This sort of cocksure attitude, with no understanding for how people might not jump on board immediately, turns me off.

We should build a TIME MACHINE and take you back in TIME so that you could support SLAVERY when that was the hot shit. God damn those were the days. Everyone was on board with that cheap labor. Fucking A man totally the way of the world aka awesome right thing to do!!!!!!

 

[Mully]

That's an absolutely terrible equivalency. How many people on the left are actually Marxist (that was a rhetorical question and the number is exceedingly small)?

How many people on the right are concerned with preventing gays from marrying?

The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Until the Republican party evolves into something more sane, it simply should not be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of rationality.

I totally agree. What I was saying is that one idealogy is trying to use actual intelligence to get things done while another is spouting things off like "Marxist" or "Maoist." It doesn't get much done if you're constantly trying to fend off the idiot who uses scare tactics to get votes instead of factual arguments.

 

[Srsly]

Most of the world doesn't allow gays to marry and will actively oppose it to a far greater degree.

Most of the world is therefore insane/primitive/composed of trolgodytes?

We are on the cutting edge of morality. We scientifically determined that gay marriage is a fundamental human right and everyone who isn't on board in 20 years is clinically insane.

This sort of cocksure attitude, with no understanding for how people might not jump on board immediately, turns me off.

Thanks for proving my point about "indepdents".

 

[UrokeJoe]

Most of the world doesn't allow gays to marry and will actively oppose it to a far greater degree.

Most of the world is therefore insane/primitive/composed of trolgodytes?

We are on the cutting edge of morality. We scientifically determined that gay marriage is a fundamental human right and everyone who isn't on board in 20 years is clinically insane.

This sort of cocksure attitude, with no understanding for how people might not jump on board immediately, turns me off.

Fuck the rest of the world. The shit starts somewhere. let it flow on it's own. Right is right.

 

[quaere]

This is also why Jon Stewart is the fucking man. He has an open-minded fairness to him that many of similar political persuasion would do well to emulate.

Sometimes.

Stewart can debate, but too often he chooses not to and goes with the head in hands audience pandering I feel sorry for you because you don't agree with my correct liberal views act. Just like Maher, he does this all the time when a conservative attempts to make a more nuanced argument he can't just easily swat away.

 

[Mully]

I want to make this clear. I'm not saying Democrats are Marxists, I'm saying that each party could be generalized, but it's pretty obvious that Conservatives are using scare tactics and rhetoric from Fox News to scare people into voting for them.

I'm a Progressive so it's really annoying when I have to hear these generalizations on both sides of the aisle. Who cares? It's just more talking points for each side. I'd rather talk about marriage equality and the budget than have to engage in a conversation about which party is evil/stupid/uncompromising. It's useless, especially when all we have to do is vote them out of office and ignore the garbage that is spewed out.

 

[BravesCountry]

Oh, an "independent", like the kind that always place themselves on a pedestal because they're so unattached and rational minded. You're so cool and I wish I could be like you when I grow up. I wish I could be "in the middle" regardless of wherever the discourse ends up, no matter how much one party spreads divisive rhetoric and refuses to cooperate in any manner for the sake of political expedience. I can't wait to be an "independent" and go around telling everyone how I'm so much better than them.

No offense but regardless of who is right or wrong, you don't sound like a pleasant person.

 

[Srsly]

No offense but regardless of who is right or wrong, you don't sound like a pleasant person.

The truth isn't always pleasant.

 

[Enron]

hey look its a bit of dailykos right here on gaf! sweet!

 

[Dresden]

hey look its a bit of dailykos right here on gaf! sweet!

man I'm getting flashbacks to 2008 and shit

 

[Mully]

Sometimes.

Stewart can debate, but too often he chooses not to and goes with the head in hands audience pandering I feel sorry for you because you don't agree with my correct liberal views act. Just like Maher, he does this all the time when a conservative attempts to make a more nuanced argument he can't just easily swat away.

Stewart does do this, but it's only after a certain point where he just gives up. You can see it in most of his arguments with O'Reilly. Stewart will make a really good point, but O'Reilly will spin it. Stewart will then call him out, but will be cut-off by O'Reilly's lecture on why liberals are killing this country.

 

[FieryBalrog]

We should build a TIME MACHINE and take you back in TIME so that you could support SLAVERY when that was the hot shit. God damn those were the days. Everyone was on board with that cheap labor. Fucking A man totally the way of the world aka awesome right thing to do!!!!!!

uh OK

Thanks for proving my point about "indepdents".

I'm OK with gay marriage, I just happen to have the ability to understand and comprehend multiple points of view and find interesting things about them. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with points of view that are insufferably self-righteous, and that includes something like judgmental homophobia on the other end obviously.

Of course ability to navigate nuanced thought is not confined to independents.

The truth isn't always pleasant.

You really are "that guy", huh

 

[FieryBalrog]

Sometimes.

Stewart can debate, but too often he chooses not to and goes with the head in hands audience pandering I feel sorry for you because you don't agree with my correct liberal views act. Just like Maher, he does this all the time when a conservative attempts to make a more nuanced argument he can't just easily swat away.

I would agree with a twist: the main problem with Stewart is that when a conservative attempts to make a more nuanced argument he makes a joke to interrupt it. But it's a comedy show after all.

 

[Puddles]

In a liberal's eyes, conservatives are ignorant and uncompromising. In a conservative's eyes, liberals are evil and scheming to end America. Both are far from the truth, but an argument could be made that a conservatives generalization of liberals is much further from the truth.

Your hypothetical liberal's generalization of conservatives isn't far from the truth at all.

 

[Oblivion]

Sometimes those liberal fanatics will kill people to shut down labs that provide life saving medicine for all species. Oh, you thought all of this medicine only helps humans?

And liberal zealots can always be characterized as lazy sloths that demand equal pay and treatment compared to people who busted their ass and went through hell to get where they are.

And here comes the false equivalency train, right on time!

The people who you mentioned in the first part of your post don't really make up a signficant portion of the democratic public, or the democratic congress. Whereas the pernicious flat earthers described by Maher DO make up a significant portion of the Republican electorate/congress.

Not even gonna bother with the second part of your comment.

 

[Mully]

Your hypothetical liberal's generalization of conservatives isn't far from the truth at all.

Of course not.

 

[Srsly]

uh OK



I'm OK with interracial marriage, I just happen to have the ability to understand and comprehend multiple points of view and find interesting things about them. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with points of view that are insufferably self-righteous (such as those who find that people who oppose interracial marriage are abhorrent), and that includes something like judgmental racism on the other end obviously.

Of course ability to navigate nuanced thought is not confined to independents.



You really are "that guy", huh

Does that sound right?

 

[RiccochetJ]

And here comes the false equivalency train, right on time!

The people who you mentioned in the first part of your post don't really make up a signficant portion of the democratic public, or the democratic congress. Whereas the pernicious flat earthers described by Maher DO make up a significant portion of the Republican electorate/congress.

Not even gonna bother with the second part of your comment.

You have to be fucking kidding me.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Does that sound right?

Interracial marriage is culturally quite common. Even so the drive to control the extend of marriage is understandable, but the particular conditions in the US (and in the West in general regarding race) was taken to an aberrant extreme that well beyond any healthy tribal behavior.

It's not going to be a one word answer, it's a different, and not entirely equivalent, topic. Same thing if I brought up polygamy and why isn't it legal. This isn't even going into the issue of the purpose and history of marriage as a societal sanction for heterosexual relations and procreation.

 

[Oblivion]

If you liked this segment you'll like Maher's ending monologue on every show. They are usually spot on and higher quality than the liberal echo chamber he often intentionally turns the panel segment into.

Probably because he can control the monologue and tries really hard to avoid any real challenge by the conservative guests that would require a thoughtful response during the panel.

That's incorrect. Maher constantly begs right wingers to come on his show, but many of them tend to find him too scawy.

 

[Srsly]

Interracial marriage is culturally quite common. Even so the drive to control the extend of marriage is understandable, but the particular conditions in the US (and in the West in general regarding race) was taken to an aberrant extreme that well beyond any healthy tribal behavior.

It's not going to be a one word answer.

Oh, I can guess: it's nuanced.

Get over yourself.

I re-read it and your answer sounds pretty racist.

 

[Chumly]

You have to be fucking kidding me.

Truth hurts

 

[RiccochetJ]

Truth hurts

You in pain?

 

[Oblivion]

Sometimes.

Stewart can debate, but too often he chooses not to and goes with the head in hands audience pandering I feel sorry for you because you don't agree with my correct liberal views act. Just like Maher, he does this all the time when a conservative attempts to make a more nuanced argument he can't just easily swat away.

Nah, I like Stewart, but his problem is that he tends to be too congenial. He'll corner one of his guests with a great point, and far too often instead of going for the kill, he'll make some random joke which allows his guest to suddenly move the topic to something else.

Though he's been thankfully been getting more aggressive in the past few months (see his interview with Ed Gillespie).

 

[FieryBalrog]

That's incorrect. Maher constantly begs right wingers to come on his show, but many of them tend to find him too scawy.

No one really wants to come on your show to be mocked by your supremely close-minded audience.

 

[Enron]

Why the hell would a conservative show up on Maher's show? There's no point. All they will do is get yelled and berated. It's the same reason you don't see liberal guests lining up to get on conservative talk radio - they aren't interested in a fair discussion or a debate, they just want to scream at you.

 

[Mully]

Sometimes those liberal fanatics will kill people to shut down labs that provide life saving medicine for all species. Oh, you thought all of this medicine only helps humans?

And liberal zealots can always be characterized as lazy sloths that demand equal pay and treatment compared to people who busted their ass and went through hell to get where they are.

Can I just point this out to you?

Millions of Americans work two jobs and still can't earn enough to buy a home or properly take care of their children. They bust their ass each day and go through enough shit to probably write a book about it all; if they have time between taking care of their kids, paying the mortgage, and working two jobs. They feel entitled to an easier life as the rich people who "earned it." Sure their are people who made it from the bottom to the top, but that should not make them exempt from being taxed at a higher rate because of how hard they worked.

Hard work is working as hard as you can by following the rules. Cheating is working the system hard and I'd say about 40-50% of rich Republicans did exactly that.

 

[MyAbsolution]

No one really wants to come on your show to be mocked by your supremely close-minded audience.

Close minded audience.

Like Fox news audience equivalent?

 

[FieryBalrog]

Nah, I like Stewart, but his problem is that he tends to be too congenial. He'll corner one of his guests with a great point, and far too often instead of going for the kill, he'll make some random joke which allows his guest to suddenly move the topic to something else.

Though he's been thankfully been getting more aggressive in the past few months (see his interview with Ed Gillespie).

Stewart isn't about "going for the kill". The congenial thing is what makes him tick, he loves finding middle ground and compromise and trying to understand what's going on, so while he will go into the debate swinging, he always tries to rein it in. He only "goes for the kill" rarely and with particular guests.

Close minded audience.

Like Fox news audience equivalent?

yes, like the fox news audience

 

[Oblivion]

You have to be fucking kidding me.

All right, chief. Tell us what part you disagree with.

No one really wants to come on your show to be mocked by your supremely close-minded audience.

I will somewhat concede that you're right, but the audience rarely if ever, boos the conservative guest. They do spend most of their time cheering for Maher and other liberals on the panel, however.

 

[FieryBalrog]

All right, chief. Tell us what part you disagree with.



I will somewhat concede that you're right, but the audience rarely if ever, boos the conservative guest. They do spend most of their time cheering for Maher and other liberals on the panel, however.

It basically amounts to the same thing, because your guest makes one point, you make a counterpoint, and no matter how dubious a zinger it is, your audience will the cheer the shit out of you as if you just pwned some n00bs.

 

[quaere]

That's incorrect. Maher constantly begs right wingers to come on his show, but many of them tend to find him too scawy.

I meant how he runs the panel, not who he gets to come on. But...

Why the hell would a conservative show up on Maher's show? There's no point. All they will do is get yelled and berated. It's the same reason you don't see liberal guests lining up to get on conservative talk radio - they aren't interested in a fair discussion or a debate, they just want to scream at you.

This is a total false equivalency. Maher does love to set up his conservative guests with pre planned gotcha moments. But he does also let them talk and is way more respectful than any popular conservative media I'm aware of is to their liberal guests.

 

[Oblivion]

It basically amounts to the same thing, because your guest makes one point, you make a counterpoint, and no matter how dubious a zinger it is, your audience will the cheer the shit out of you as if you just pwned some n00bs.

Fair enough, and I agree with you on that point for the most part.

But it should be mentioned that at least Maher (despite his reputation for dickishness) is extremely cordial with letting his guests speak and argue their points.

 

[Mully]

Kind of OT, but does anyone else hate it when a host will constantly stop a discussion to get their point across or their story. I understand it's their show, but the host had invited this guest for a reason. If you're not going to give the guest ample time to speak, what's the point in having a guest?

Maher, O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Cenk Ugyur, all of them do it.

 

[XMonkey]

I'm in complete agreement with Maher when he refers to "sane" republicans of the past. I might actually consider myself Republican to a degree if that was how they were represented during modern times. But the repubs got hijacked by dumbfuck idiots. Total batshit party they are now.

Yup. The problem was made so much more obvious after 2008 because the crazies in the GOP started taking over and the sane republicans didn't take the initiative to do something about it. That's why I can't take Republicans seriously. No one in their ranks is willing to stand up against the people driving the party hard right.

 

[UrokeJoe]

Kind of OT, but does anyone else hate it when a host will constantly stop a discussion to get their point across or their story. I understand it's their show, but the host had invited this guest for a reason. If you're not going to give the guest ample time to speak, what's the point in having a guest?

If they don't they are an idiot. Totally hate it, pretty much why I can't watch any of it anymore.

I'm that pussy on the roller coaster holding the bar knowing it's on track and I can't change its direction, but I still can't put my hands up and cheer.

 

[RiccochetJ]

All right, chief. Tell us what part you disagree with.

That the majority of republican representatives in congress consist of right wing zealot creationists.

Chief huh? You going there?

 

[kehs]

"187 to Fuck You."


god damn.

 

[Oblivion]

Kind of OT, but does anyone else hate it when a host will constantly stop a discussion to get their point across or their story. I understand it's their show, but the host had invited this guest for a reason. If you're not going to give the guest ample time to speak, what's the point in having a guest?

Maher, Cenk Ugyur, all of them do it.

Not to appear biased or nuthin, but those guys don't do what you claim.

That the majority of republican representatives in congress consist of right wing zealot creationists.

Do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that the current crop of Republicans would vote for a creationist bill of some kind? I'm 99% sure some type of bill HAS been brought to the floor that got majority support in the past.

 

[Mully]

Not to appear biased or nuthin, but those guys don't do what you claim.

I do not watch Maher a lot. However during the times that I have watched, he would just kind of bring his hand forward to signal the person to stop talking and then he would talk for a few minutes with everyone just saying "Uh huh" while he talks for three minutes. Cenk has definitely calmed down a bit since his TYT days, but there are still points where you can see him just jumping out of his chair to get his point across.

In general though, I just hate news talk shows. Just give me the news and the sources and I'd like to dig on my own. That's why I love GAF so much. Someone brings up a news event, and then people will contribute five to ten different versions of the news story and I'll take it from there.

 

[Slavik81]

I wasn't too fond of the insult to Republicans rooted on the assertion that young people cannot possibly have meaningful political opinions.

He went beyond stating that those particular kids held terrible beliefs and stated that they all are incapable of reasoned political discourse.

I'm sure that's more commonly true of young people, but it seriously pains me to see massive generalizations like that being taken to such an extreme.

 

[Puddles]

That the majority of republican representatives in congress consist of right wing zealot creationists.

Chief huh? You going there?

Perhaps they aren't zealot creationists.

However, it is 100% accurate to say that the majority of Republican representatives in Congress are economic illiterates. This is indisputable.

The debt ceiling debacle was caused by one party. The high end Bush tax cuts are still in effect because of one party.

That party wasn't the Democrats.

 

[Lich_King]

And democrats are 12-year olds who get bullied by those 14-year olds and then post angry statuses on facebook.

The tragedy of modern politics.

 

[Oblivion]

Man, Mort Zuckerman was useless on the panel tonight. Didn't say shit.

I do not watch Maher a lot. However during the times that I have watched, he would just kind of bring his hand forward to signal the person to stop talking and then he would talk for a few minutes with everyone just saying "Uh huh" while he talks for three minutes. Cenk has definitely calmed down a bit since his TYT days, but there are still points where you can see him just jumping out of his chair to get his point across.

In general though, I just hate news talk shows. Just give me the news and the sources and I'd like to dig on my own. That's why I love GAF so much. Someone brings up a news event, and then people will contribute five to ten different versions of the news story and I'll take it from there.

Well, I'm just saying from what I've observed, and I've seen Real Time and TYT for the past 3 years, that both Maher and Cenk actually like debating people. Sure, every so often they may get stumped, but the vast majority of time they let their guests speak unless it becomes clear that they're just rambling and stonewalling. Or unless they're pressed for time and have to move onto the next segment.