|
watt par posted:That's not really a good comparison. Bush is a New England WASP blueblood through and through, but Palin genuinely is a provincial backwoods rube. Her word salad ramblings are an honest picture of her internal thought processes. I grew up around enough of them and know plenty still. Her ignorance is the real deal.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I think Cain's just a guy who has simply fallen for GOP politics hook line and sinker, but is a decent guy over all. Contrast with Palin who's fallen for it hook line and sinker and isn't a decent person at the core of it. Huckabee is the best example of what happens when a "nice" person believes in reprehensible poo poo. You get a guy who will explain why he pardoned a rapist over a Clinton conspiracy theory, or why Sandy Point was atheist's thought, all while wearing a nice smile and talking like a sane man instead of a standard raving lunatic. He's a side effect of the annoying Calvinist idea of people being good or evil instead of their actions, but I'm uncertain of how to get away from it since everyone in the US has been indoctrinated with it since an early age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Huckabee is also weird in the sense that as far as I can tell from his interviews he actually seems to care abut poor people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Huckabee is nothing more than a slimy opportunist with no moral core, and certainly no true believer in anything other than self-aggrandization. I realized this after his last appearance on the Daily Show when he glibly shat all over one of the core tenets of his religious faith trying to defend some stupid ad he made. Didn't even bat an eye when he did it. For a Baptist minister to do that is beyond imagining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
watt par posted:Huckabee is nothing more than a slimy opportunist with no moral core, and certainly no true believer in anything other than self-aggrandization. Beyond imagining? More like par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
watt par posted:Huckabee is nothing more than a slimy opportunist with no moral core, and certainly no true believer in anything other than self-aggrandization. Do you remember the specifics of what he said that conflicted with sola fide?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Do you remember the specifics of what he said that conflicted with sola fide? It's this dumb commercial. http://hereiblog.com/did-mike-huckabee-warn-voting-obama-send-hell/ And the equally dumb criticism is that he quotes 1 Corinthians 3:13 "his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work." when sola fide is "God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as excluding all "works", alone." Basically he says your actions matter when a core tenet of his faith is that actions really don't ultimately matter if you believe. He also mistakenly quotes it as 1 Corinthians 10 on The Daily Show, which talks about something else entirely. I don't want to start a religion argument in the thread, but basically this post sums it up well. greatn posted:Beyond imagining? More like par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Do you remember the specifics of what he said that conflicted with sola fide? This video http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-12-2012/mike-huckabee-pt--2 from the beginning. He talks about how 1 Corinthians 10 involves "your works being tested by fire". Doesn't sound too sola fide to me. IMO it's an awful idea in the first place, but tossing the theological point of the reformation away as a footnote seems pretty self-serving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
The thing that always bugged me about his interview on the Daily Show was that he defended his commercial by saying it was a smithing metaphor, burning away the dross and leaving behind steel. I don't think it really works that way; you actually want to melt the dross into the iron to get steel, which probably wasn't his intended message for same sex marriage. Burning away the dross just leaves you with brittle, easily corroded iron. Hell, isn't the American melting pot->alloys are stronger? Unless it's some kind of secret trolling? That he's actually in favor of same sex marriage for a stronger nation? I wonder how the percentage of same sex individuals stacks up with the percentage of carbon needed for good steel? And what would chrome be? Polygamy? The thing about sola fide versus salvation through good works; I thought that sola fide ended up meaning that you are saved through faith, but you probably don't want to hang around with those not doing good works? Or that good works are a natural expression of faith? Or is that getting back towards Catholicism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure most Protestants believe in something along the lines of "If you're saved, you will behave a certain way" as like a sign of salvation. Not that your works are what get you there, but that your faith makes it so. So that if you, like, get drunk on Sundays and beat your wife, odds are you're not saved because being saved means giving up drinking. Evangelicals aren't necessarily dogmatic, though, so some people might elide sola fide a bit more than others. Like if you approached Huckabee like "Hey aren't you basically saying 'through works you can be saved' and isn't that against the principals of the Protestant reformation?" he'd probably have an internally consistent response that is acceptable to Evangelical taste so to speak. Also he's a media consultant and former presidential candidate, I'm going to assume his knowledge of smithy is lacking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
To them, getting saved kinda gives one divine inspirations like to quit drinking, study the bible, and stop doing horrible things. I don't know if there is any effectiveness to this idea (mentally obviously) but it's what people like to think or even claim happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:The thing about sola fide versus salvation through good works; I thought that sola fide ended up meaning that you are saved through faith, but you probably don't want to hang around with those not doing good works? Or that good works are a natural expression of faith? Or is that getting back towards Catholicism? In the Calvinist sense along with predestination (or double predestination in terms of the Baptist concept of the elect) you have no choice in whether or not you're saved; God alone gets to decide. Works are meaningless in that regard. Theologically it's all as stupid as it sounds. /derail rkajdi posted:This video http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-12-2012/mike-huckabee-pt--2 from the beginning. He talks about how 1 Corinthians 10 involves "your works being tested by fire". Doesn't sound too sola fide to me. IMO it's an awful idea in the first place, but tossing the theological point of the reformation away as a footnote seems pretty self-serving. Sucks Jon Stewart isn't a scholar of the New Testament else he could've come back with Ephesians 2:8-10 which would've shut that slimy gently caress down for good, but either way this is getting away from the bigger point which is Huckabee's a giant pile of human feces given voice and a weekend talk show where he jams on the bass to Def Leppard. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Also he's a media consultant and former presidential candidate, I'm going to assume his knowledge of smithy is lacking. Haha, yeah, but I just find taking the metaphor to a pedantic extreme to be funny, especially when it seems to mean the opposite of what he intended. Speaking of pedantry, apparently 3.5% carbon would make cast iron, not steel, but then again, I suppose dross could refer to other elements. watt par posted:Sucks Jon Stewart isn't a scholar of the New Testament else he could've come back with Ephesians 2:8-10 which would've shut that slimy gently caress down for good, but either way this is getting away from the bigger point which is Huckabee's a giant pile of human feces given voice and a weekend talk show where he jams on the bass to Def Leppard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:36
|
|
watt par posted:In the Calvinist sense along with predestination (or double predestination in terms of the Baptist concept of the elect) you have no choice in whether or not you're saved; God alone gets to decide. Works are meaningless in that regard. Theologically it's all as stupid as it sounds. /derail What if he responded with James 2:1-26? Or James 2:17? 17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:What if he responded with James 2:1-26? Like I said, it's all theologically suspect because the scriptures are so self-contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
watt par posted:In the Calvinist sense along with predestination (or double predestination in terms of the Baptist concept of the elect) you have no choice in whether or not you're saved; God alone gets to decide. Works are meaningless in that regard. Theologically it's all as stupid as it sounds. /derail You can see this in Calvinist Geneva, which was basically populated by insane neurotics who were always on edge about ever slipping up in being good Christians, ever,because if you slipped up it meant that God knew you would slip up, and therefore God didn't love you, and you wouldn't be one of the saved. It also made everybody scrutinize everybody else to see if they could catch them slipping up, like some sort of Orwellian nightmare where people would tattle to God instead of Big Brother.  In actuality I'm being really simplistic and unfair to Geneva, but reading about how people were ostracized and dragged before the city-fathers for lighting a candle by their sick wife's bedside, since that was obviously "papist idolatry", really gives the feeling that it was a hosed up place to live. Always made me wonder if part of the reason nobody in "good" Christian communities always pretend like nothing's wrong even if they know the priest is raping kids or that Joe down the street is beating his wife, since admitting that something is wrong would be admitting that God might not love them and that they were hell-bound. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:It also made everybody scrutinize everybody else to see if they could catch them slipping up, like some sort of Orwellian nightmare where people would tattle to God instead of Big Brother. 'God and the Gods were apparitions of observation, judgement, punishment...God was a dream of Good Government.' - Deus Ex
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:As I recall, my impression of that episode wasn't particularly great; I don't know much about Huckabee, but neither of them seemed to be on top of their game. Stewart is IMO a pretty bad interviewer, or at least plays a poor one on TV. I've never seen him really rip someone's rear end open and bring anything up in way that could actually ruin them. Hell, he let Yoo off the hook with his lawyer speak when the fucker was literally condoning torture. The fact that he let some rape apologist off when he comes on to huck his book isn't surprising. Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are funny, but neither are anything resembling actual journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Stewart is IMO a pretty bad interviewer, or at least plays a poor one on TV. I've never seen him really rip someone's rear end open and bring anything up in way that could actually ruin them. Hell, he let Yoo off the hook with his lawyer speak when the fucker was literally condoning torture. The fact that he let some rape apologist off when he comes on to huck his book isn't surprising. Look up his interview with a clown in a bow tie
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Or Jim Cramer from Mad Money (I assume the interview with a clown in a bow tie is Tucker Carlson)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Their confrontation interviews aren't amazing, but their coverage of various legislative events and world events is both incisive and informative. And interviews with authors who have books of substance are quite good. Take a look at some of Colbert's coverage of super Pacs, it is really good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Boon posted:Or Jim Cramer from Mad Money (I assume the interview with a clown in a bow tie is Tucker Carlson)? Yep. Who else could it be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Stewart is IMO a pretty bad interviewer, or at least plays a poor one on TV. I've never seen him really rip someone's rear end open and bring anything up in way that could actually ruin them. Hell, he let Yoo off the hook with his lawyer speak when the fucker was literally condoning torture. The fact that he let some rape apologist off when he comes on to huck his book isn't surprising. I feel like its an unrealistic measurement of good journalism to "rip someone's rear end open" on a topic. I don't think the effectiveness of an interviewer is assessed by his ability to decimate his enemies. What Stewart does is essentially hold people to a level of discourse above soundbite journalism. His job isn't to destroy someone, and I don't think it should be. His job is to create an environment in which ideas are explored in depth. If any idea is terrible or reprehensible, it will be destroyed simply by a level of rational discourse. An interviewer should be a referee, not an opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
greatn posted:Their confrontation interviews aren't amazing Oh, but lest we forget, there's Laura Ingram's "Obama Diaries". Where she literally wrote a book from Obama's perspective using "I sho' be lovin' that chicken!" style racist caricatures, so Colbert pretended that he actually believed Obama actually wrote it and feigned amazement at how horribly written and offensive the book was. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343110/august-03-2010/laura-ingraham
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
The thing I love about Colbert is that there are people that take his character seriously. Like they'll watch his show and just not get that it's a shtick at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:The thing I love about Colbert is that there are people that take his character seriously. Like they'll watch his show and just not get that it's a shtick at all. It's bizarre - they understand that it's funny, but they don't understand why. Like, they get that the character is supposed to be over the top and self-centered, but they think it's some good-natured ribbing of right-wing talk show hosts. They think that the right-wing zingers are funny because they're correct, not because they're obviously and hilariously wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:I feel like its an unrealistic measurement of good journalism to "rip someone's rear end open" on a topic. I don't think the effectiveness of an interviewer is assessed by his ability to decimate his enemies. What Stewart does is essentially hold people to a level of discourse above soundbite journalism. His job isn't to destroy someone, and I don't think it should be. His job is to create an environment in which ideas are explored in depth. If any idea is terrible or reprehensible, it will be destroyed simply by a level of rational discourse. An interviewer should be a referee, not an opponent. I seriously disagree here. Realistically, all the people on both sides of the political divide who show up in major office are garbage-- it's a self-selecting group of wannabe great men who've been through several levels of selection to assure us that only the most amoral and awful people are left. Anything that moves the debate away from hagiography of them is a good thing, and the only realistic way to do this is to rip the emperor's clothes off at every opportunity and show that they aren't just like us-- they're worse. EDIT: I think what might be getting missed here is that I'm talking the difference between the person and the ideas they are putting forward. The ideas should be debated on their own merits, but the people themselves should be torn down pretty completely. Half the reason that the current meritocratic nightmare we have going on is allowed to exist is because the average person out there actually thinks his leaders are somehow better and more worthy people then him. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
I can't find it off hand (yay cell phone posting), but there was a poll showing that conservative leaning people expressed the thought that Colbert deep down is sincere about what he's saying. The phrasing was basically "Colbert is joking, but we know he believes what he's saying."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Phone posted:I can't find it off hand (yay cell phone posting), but there was a poll showing that conservative leaning people expressed the thought that Colbert deep down is sincere about what he's saying. There's a serious group who think he's some sort of stealth conservative double agent. It's entertaining in how incredibly dumb it is-- wouldn't you try to do a bad job of skewering the thing you actually support? Like a bunch of crazy conspiracies, this doesn't stand up to the light of day too well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Huckabee and Cain aren't evil, they're just idiots. [quote="Zuhzuhzombie!!" post=""411909165"I also [i"]kinda[/i] like Huckabee in the same way that you described. He's a bit more poisonous, but in that "I just believe this stupid poo poo" kinda way and not a "how do I get on top of this pyramid scheme" kinda way.[/quote] No, no no, no, no. Huckabee, for all his "folksiness" is just as much of a piece of poo poo as any other right wing personality. He's that guy that you see in the movies all the time. You know, the pastor who seems all friendly and cordial, but when nobody's looking he indulges in every form of depravity imaginable. He's given several nods to the birthers throughout the years, as well as making other typically racist comments about Obama. Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
greatn posted:Their confrontation interviews aren't amazing, but their coverage of various legislative events and world events is both incisive and informative. And interviews with authors who have books of substance are quite good. I thought the interview of Betsy "Death Panels" McCaughey was pretty entertaining if not a straight-up 'confrontation' interview. She came out with her big binder of Obamacare expecting everyone to be impressed and ended up looking pretty drat foolish. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:No, no no, no, no. I remember when I saw Huckabee for the first time - it was back in '07, and he was giving a speech where he talked about how bad the estate tax was. And the speech was folksy as all hell - he was saying how "the government taxes you when you're alive, and then they tax you again when you die!" (At this point, he started to mime digging a grave.) That's Huckabee in a nutshell: folksy demeanor, horribly regressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
In my opinion anyone who supports forcing religious dogma on children who don't know any better, thus compromising their confidence in science in their formative years (i.e. the teaching of creationism in public schools), cannot be anything other than a piece of poo poo by default. So based on that criterion alone: gently caress Huck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Mike Huckabee presents: Learn Our History http://youtu.be/U5RbQYEX1-U Reagan über alles. http://youtu.be/Qjf2VsIfH6Y British bad. http://youtu.be/0vCiqK29W6M Fundamentalism good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Mike Huckabee presents: Learn Our History God, I heard of these before. I remember one were they end up fighting skinheads during WW2. hey, Huckabee made a cameo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnxBK4M3vuA Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I seriously disagree here. Realistically, all the people on both sides of the political divide who show up in major office are garbage-- it's a self-selecting group of wannabe great men who've been through several levels of selection to assure us that only the most amoral and awful people are left. Anything that moves the debate away from hagiography of them is a good thing, and the only realistic way to do this is to rip the emperor's clothes off at every opportunity and show that they aren't just like us-- they're worse. Totally agree. An interviewer's job is not, in any sense, "to be a referee" or an arbitrator. I'd say their role is to be more along the lines of a job interviewer or, more accurately, a cross-examining lawyer; someone who examines a person's resume or job history and ask relevant questions that can confirm those things or, occasionally, to rebut those assertions with verifiable information. I don't know what "hagiography" means but I'm pretty sure I'm against it too, if I can derive its meaning from the content of your post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
It means that you ignore a persons defects and treat them like they are perfect. Look at a lot of biographies of historical figures for kids or any book that shows King Leopold in a positive light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Yeah, that sums it up pretty nicely. And this is demonstrably false. I've had three close family members die over the last two years and wasn't taxed on jack poo poo (life insurance, bank accounts, homes, anything) since none of them were multi-millionaires. The only thing they'll tax me on (at capital gains rates at that) is if I sell any stock I inherited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:It means that you ignore a persons defects and treat them like they are perfect. Look at a lot of biographies of historical figures for kids or any book that shows King Leopold in a positive light. Specifically, the word itself means the study of the lives of saints. Hagio is a transliteration of the Greek word for "holy" or "Saint". The context makes it obvious why Hagiography is a bad thing in modern discourse.  . The Petraeus book by Paula Broadwell is a good example from recently that I think fits the bill
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Specifically, the word itself means the study of the lives of saints. Hagio is a transliteration of the Greek word for "holy" or "Saint". The context makes it obvious why Hagiography is a bad thing in modern discourse. Realistically, this is the way we treat every politician ever. W without position and money would just be another ne'er-do-well drunkard with a past full of failures. Clinton without position would just be a another serial philanderer and harasser. But because these people are considered Great Men we overlook the actual person and create a saint. This is also neglecting the flawed personality it takes to want to grab for power in the first place-- the people who want power seem to be even more broken than the standard man on the street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 21:52
|
|