• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Official Daily Show Thread with Jon Stewart

S

SouthernDragon

Member
nyong said:
Right or wrong, that's the way things typically work. Politics is a lot like warfare.
Click to expand...

So then what issue do you have with Obama claiming that the filibuster is being used to block progressive legislation today just as it was in the 60s.
 
N

nyong

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
erm, did you skip over where he acknowledged that the dems (and he, himself, in fact) had abused the filibuster during the Bush administration? You can't be this fucking stupid, can you?
Click to expand...

He was paralleling his progressive agenda with the Civl Rights Act: i.e. both in terms of his agenda's importance, and also condemning those who stand against it.


EDIT: This is an incredibly superficial reading of his statements. It's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw, and I'm not sure why you're taking such issue with it. He acknowledged that the Democrats had abused the filibuster in the past--he had to--but he quickly undermined the notion that their abuse was comparable to what we see now. Then he drew an explicit parallel between his agenda and the Civil Rights Act, also drawing a parallel between the Republicans in lockstep against him and those who filibustered civil rights.

It doesn't matter which party originally filibustered civil rights. All that matters is that the Republicans of now are the ones being compared to those who did it in 1964.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
nyong said:
He was paralleling his progressive agenda with the Civl Rights Act: i.e. both in terms of his agenda's importance, and also condemning those who stand against it.
Click to expand...
USH36.jpg
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
nyong said:
He was paralleling his progressive agenda with the Civl Rights Act: i.e. both in terms of his agenda's importance, and also condemning those who stand against it.
Click to expand...

He'd have a better comparison if his legislation had rights for gays, but other than that, what's he's accomplished is pretty historic.

Sorry if you disagree. The Civil Rights Act was also bitterly opposed at the time, easy to forget with how OBVIOUS it is today that it should have been passed. Same goes for Glass-Steagall Act separating banking activities, or Social Security, or women's rights.

Progressive legislation; taking you to a better, more enlightened society, one screaming, dragging person at a time.
 
G

giga

Member
nyong said:
Well, that comment was pretty ridiculous and damaged an otherwise outstanding conversation. Labeling Republicans as racist is a debate tactic I would expect to see here, but not from the president.
Click to expand...
How quickly the goal posts move!
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
nyong said:
He was paralleling his progressive agenda with the Civl Rights Act: i.e. both in terms of his agenda's importance, and also condemning those who stand against it.


EDIT: This is an incredibly superficial reading of his statements. It's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw, and I'm not sure why you're taking such issue with it. He acknowledged that the Democrats had abused the filibuster in the past--he had to--but he quickly undermined the notion that their abuse was comparable to what we see now. Then he drew an explicit parallel between his agenda and the Civil Rights Act, also drawing a parallel between the Republicans in lockstep against him and those who filibustered civil rights.

It doesn't matter which party originally filibustered civil rights. All that matters is that the Republicans of now are the ones being compared to those who did it in 1964.
Click to expand...
Why is it "republicans" being compared to "those who did it in 1964?" Why can't it just be "Those who are doing it now" being compared to "those who did it in 1964?"

And you're still missing the fucking point and moving the goalposts. You said obama tried to paint republicans as racist. Now you're trying to make it into a topic about the filibuster and how it's unfair for obama to turn it into a partisan issue (WHICH HE FUCKING ISN'T).

Earlier: Obama's calling the republicans racist!
Now: Obama's being a partisan leftist asshole!

Just admit you were fucking wrong, that you're still fucking wrong, and shut up.
 
N

nyong

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Why is it "republicans" being compared to "those who did it in 1964?" Why can't it just be "Those who are doing it now" being compared to "those who did it in 1964?"
Click to expand...

....because "those who are doing it now" are the Republicans and everyone knows it? You can change "Republicans" into any relative pronoun of your choosing, but its antecedent is obviously "Republicans" for anyone who has been paying attention.

And you're still missing the fucking point and moving the goalposts. You said obama tried to paint republicans as racist.
Click to expand...

Connecting the Republicans to those who filibustered Civil Rights--even indirectly--is playing off common misconceptions of the right on the left. I don't think he used that example only incidentally. Even if you want to discount the connection to racism (I don't) the connection to Civil Rights was slightly beyond-the-pale.

FlightOfHeaven said:
Why is it beyond the pale?
Click to expand...

Why do some people feel that comparing gay rights with the civil rights movement is inappropriate?
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
nyong said:
....because "those who are doing it now" are the Republicans and everyone knows it? You can change "Republicans" into any relative pronoun of your choosing, but it's antecedent is obviously "Republicans" for anyone who has been paying attention.



Connecting the Republicans to those who filibustered Civil Rights--even indirectly--is playing off common misconceptions of the right on the left. I don't think he used that example only incidentally. Even if you want to discount the connection to racism (I don't) the connection to Civil Rights was slightly beyond-the-pale.
Click to expand...
But he didn't compare republicans. He didn't mention them. He just referred to those who filibustered the respective bills in a general sense. The issue here is that you didn't have a fucking clue until it was pointed out to you by myself and others over the last hour or so that the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

He took party politics out of his discussion, and you injected it back in during your interpretation of his statement, and then blamed HIM for being partisan, when your ignorance and injection of identity politics is why you became so "angry" with him about his perceived attack on the right.
 
Freshmaker

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
nyong said:
....because "those who are doing it now" are the Republicans and everyone knows it? You can change "Republicans" into any relative pronoun of your choosing, but its antecedent is obviously "Republicans" for anyone who has been paying attention.



Connecting the Republicans to those who filibustered Civil Rights--even indirectly--is playing off common misconceptions of the right on the left. I don't think he used that example only incidentally. Even if you want to discount the connection to racism (I don't) the connection to Civil Rights was slightly beyond-the-pale.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_3_n_733565.html

Seems kinda on the nose, don't you think?
 
N

nyong

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
The issue here is that you didn't have a fucking clue until it was pointed out to you by myself and others over the last hour or so that the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

I was, as I still am and forever will be, aware that whoever filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964 is a moot point. I already stated why this is so and have no intention of repeating myself.
 
N

nyong

Banned
Freshmaker said:
Seems kinda on the nose, don't you think?
Click to expand...

DADT isn't even a partisan issue. The inclusion of the Dream Act may have been the catalyst for this particular filibuster. Not that it matters considering a judge quickly decided it was unconstitutional, to which Obama said, "not so fast, let's keep DADT a bit longer..."


EDIT: Sorry, should have been an edit not a new post. It's getting late....
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Also, nyong, it isn't really playing off misconceptions: The people on the social right were responsible for the fillibustering of both the civil rights act and the health care legislaation. They just happend to be in different political parties for the two bills. :p
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
FlightOfHeaven said:
Nyong, I'm genuinely curious; why is it beyond the pale?
Click to expand...
You're supposed to let up and allow him to conveniently "forget" to address your question when he wakes up in the morning with a fresh, clean slate :D
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
I mean, we can argue who Obama was talking about all night; yes, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act, but he was also clearly tying Republicans to that playing on preconceptions of how Republicans lean.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? Why is it wrong to compare x party filibustering to y party filibustering on issues a and b, respectively?
 
N

nyong

Banned
FlightOfHeaven said:
But that doesn't really matter, does it? Why is it wrong to compare x party filibustering to y party filibustering on issues a and b, respectively?
Click to expand...

It's not, not necessarily. However, some people might take issue with the statement that a=b, especially if a=civil rights act, and b=job bill. Or that x=y, when x=civil rights detractors, and y=job bill detractors.

It's arguably beyond the pale.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
nyong said:
It's not, not necessarily. However, some people might take issue with the statement that a=b, especially if a=civil rights act, and b=job bill. Or that x=y, when x=civil rights detractors, and y=job bill detractors.

It's arguably beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
USH36.jpg
 
T

Thunder Monkey

Banned
Personally, I'm appalled that Obama attacked conservatives for something Democrats did.

And if Stewart had any scruples he would have demanded to see his long form birth certificate. I'm not saying the tea party patriots are right, but it's a legitimate concern.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Thunder Monkey said:
Personally, I'm appalled that Obama attacked conservatives for something Democrats did.

And if Stewart had any scruples he would have demanded to see his long form birth certificate. I'm not saying the tea party patriots are right, but it's a legitimate concern.
Click to expand...
For the love of god....

I already addressed that Obama was attacking the use of the filibuster, not the people who used it.

And the state of Hawaii does not produce long form birth certificates. You are fucking retarded.
 
Freshmaker

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
Thunder Monkey said:
Personally, I'm appalled that Obama attacked conservatives for something Democrats did.

And if Stewart had any scruples he would have demanded to see his long form birth certificate. I'm not saying the tea party patriots are right, but it's a legitimate concern.
Click to expand...
:lol Mmmm that's some good trolling.
 
T

Thunder Monkey

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
For the love of god....

I already addressed that Obama was attacking the use of the filibuster, not the people who used it.

And the state of Hawaii does not produce long form birth certificates. You are fucking retarded.
Click to expand...
You're silly.

Freshmaker said:
:lol Mmmm that's some good trolling.
Click to expand...
I owe it too ManOdorMachine(I think) for the inspiration.
 
B

BigJonsson

Member
ROFL @ Steph Colbert's Hobby Hovel because fear was killed by audience chanting on Saturday :lol


And after a montage of CNN and FOX Colbert has been restored :lol
 
V

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
"Back of the bus"

Are you serious. I can't even believe that shit is on TV.
 
J

Jintor

Member
BigJonsson said:
ROFL @ Steph Colbert's Hobby Hovel because fear was killed by audience chanting on Saturday :lol


And after a montage of CNN and FOX Colbert has been restored :lol
Click to expand...

I normally think Mr Rogers is immune from parody (at least I think it was Mr Rogers), but that was pretty good
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Veidt said:
"Back of the bus"

Are you serious. I can't even believe that shit is on TV.
Click to expand...
What annoyed me most of all was Hannity, acting like he ewas quoting obama when he was paraphrasing, thanks to ambiguity in our language.

(Hannity's statement was "Obama said Republicans need to get to the back of the bus," but the way it was said, you interpret it as "Obama said, "Republicans need to get to the back of the bus," which is a fabricated statement.)

That kind of deceit should fall under libel laws, in my opinion. It is clear from the context of the statement that he was going for the second meaning (that is, a direct quotaiton, instead of his own paraphrasing/interpretation).
 
A

adamsappel

Member
nyong said:
It's arguably beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
"Beyond the pale" is pretty loaded language. You're either referring to areas in Ireland outside English rule (therefore uncivilized and unsafe), or segregated land in Russia where Jews were forced to live. I don't understand why you hate those who aren't British and/or Jews. Explain yourself!
 
D

Drkirby

Corporate Apologist
adamsappel said:
"Beyond the pale" is pretty loaded language. You're either referring to areas in Ireland outside English rule (therefore uncivilized and unsafe), or segregated land in Russia where Jews were forced to live. I don't understand why you hate those who aren't British and/or Jews. Explain yourself!
Click to expand...
This is America.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
YoungHav said:
anyone have a link to the whole rally to restore sanity? I only saw clips on comedy central.

Olivia Munn sucks
Click to expand...
Oh, thank fuck I'm not the only person who thinks that! All the other roving "reporters" have their quirks that I like... she's just annoying :/
 
S

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Shaneus said:
Oh, thank fuck I'm not the only person who thinks that! All the other roving "reporters" have their quirks that I like... she's just annoying :/
Click to expand...

She is a terrible reporter, but I don't care because she is beautiful. Beautiful people like us get free passes.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Was anyone else totally expecting at the end of the John McCain "It Gets Worse" video to have them get George Takai to call him a douchebag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Gematsu] TGS 2023 official live stream program schedule announced
News
3
1K
ElCasual replied
Tokyo Game Show 2024 will run from September 26 to 29 at Makuhari Messe in Chiba, Japan | Main Visual also unveiled
News 2
98
5K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
“It‘s kind of depressing”: WB Discovery pulls indie game for “business changes” | Dev makes Small Radios Big Televisions free to download in response
News
15
2K
mckmas8808 replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Top Bottom