The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[Wax Lion]

You've got a good point @Kromm, I've compared BLM's disruptive tactics to ACT UP but ACT UP had some specific goals and demands.

[ganesh]

The professor has been on before iirc. They need more people like her on regularly. I think theres a woman from cnn that's been on a few times.

[attica]

When Ta-Nahisi Coates wrote his piece on reparations, he explicitly stated he wasn't calling for a specific method or amount of said reparations, because that should be left to the policy makers and legislators and elected officials. Which I get, but: nothing came out of that. There were a couple of news cycles where it was discussed, and then, nothing. Same with OWS; they wanted to 'change the conversation', which did indeed happen: even repubs are talking about income inequality, however insincerely. And income inequality keeps growing because no practical steps to address it were championed.

 

SNCC and MLK, on the other hand, had specific goals: integrate lunch counters, integrate buses, expand voting for blacks. They wanted full equality, sure, but by starting with small, specific, attainable steps, the various civil rights legislations to follow could blossom. Likewise the protesters today agitating for minimum wage increases: they are seeing results all over the place.

 

Hillary's right: changing hearts is hard; changing policy not so much. I worry that BLM will fall prey to the thing that liberals always do: make Perfect the Enemy of Good. 

[dohe]

Can Calise Hawkins come back again soon?  Few have come close to touching on the lack of humanity in Donald's Trump's comments as Wilmore's opening segment did. 

[jeansheridan]

I have warmed up to Larry Wilmore. Now that he has relaxed a bit, his voice has improved. I found him too squeaky at first. And I love it when he lets his geekiness out.

I think the election will make him. It is great material. I like his race coverage too. Or appreciate it. He isn't super young which is nice. He has raised a family, succeeded in his industry, and he has a middle aged take on Ferguson and Baltimore. I like it.

[Kromm]

Yes, Larry has not only stepped up. but they've tweaked the formula and pacing enough that it works somewhat better. It's not perfect and they still screw up a lot with the panel guests, but it's tons more watchable than it was the first few months.

[ganesh]

Last night's panel wasn't good and the topic was tepid. They didn't really come at the topic except for the woman saying how about teaching your kids not to hit women? It's ridiculous that the media makes this guy's opinion have any weight on that alone. They also could have gone at the fact that taking 6 year old that winning is everything is kind of a bit much. Three comedians on the panel just doesn't work.

[attica]

I am amazed by how het up people get about participation trophies, as if they represent the Downfall of the Republic. "Not every one is a Winner!!" True. But since kids don't play outside anymore unless there is some orchestrated organized league, there's nowhere to play where the games' outcomes don't matter. For little kids, the games' outcomes just don't matter. I think it wouldn't matter if nobody got a trophy, honestly. That's where I stand (with absolutely no stake in the matter, so what do I know): nobody gets trophies or everybody gets 'em. Kids will be competitive soon damn enough.  

[The Luvly Junkie]

I will say after 100 episodes, I think Larry is improving, even though he hasn't reached the highest merits/credibility as Stewart or Colbert. From this week's episodes, he and his crew have been solid (but not perfect) in their topics. I agree the panels are still in need of tweaking, but the de-humaning of Trump (as well as the frequent use of the Troll Trump) and his contributors (particularly Mike Yard and Holly Walker) are really adding a distinct voice in TNS's commentary. And Rory Albanese, I just wanna cuddle him up for trying his hardest (please don't judge me).

 

If I had a resolution for TNS's future, I'm hoping Larry will do some show crossover with Trevor Noah. With Trevor's debut fast approaching, I feel like the new hosts will hopefully acquaint/interact with each other and perhaps find that special brotherly bond just like Stewart and Colbert. 

[marceline]

Larry did a nice interview with NPR's Fresh Air where they talk about the adjustments they've made to the show and how Jon helped him find his - and the show's - voice.

 

When Ta-Nahisi Coates wrote his piece on reparations, he explicitly stated he wasn't calling for a specific method or amount of said reparations, because that should be left to the policy makers and legislators and elected officials. Which I get, but: nothing came out of that. There were a couple of news cycles where it was discussed, and then, nothing. Same with OWS; they wanted to 'change the conversation', which did indeed happen: even repubs are talking about income inequality, however insincerely. And income inequality keeps growing because no practical steps to address it were championed.

 

SNCC and MLK, on the other hand, had specific goals: integrate lunch counters, integrate buses, expand voting for blacks. They wanted full equality, sure, but by starting with small, specific, attainable steps, the various civil rights legislations to follow could blossom. Likewise the protesters today agitating for minimum wage increases: they are seeing results all over the place.

 

Hillary's right: changing hearts is hard; changing policy not so much. I worry that BLM will fall prey to the thing that liberals always do: make Perfect the Enemy of Good. 

 

This. There's a time for activism and a time for politics. The activism feels good but the politics is what counts. This is something that liberals do to ourselves over and over again. I've been political all my life and it drives me crazy. I don't care about hearts and minds. I care about whether a cop is held accountable when they kill somebody and lie about it.

 

I was thrilled when Hillary said that. She was 100 percent right. When you've got face time with one of the most powerful people in the world don't waste time with the touchy-feely stuff. She asked what they wanted and they didn't tell her. (BTW, I've taken part on BLM protests so my use of "they" is about those specific activists and not the movement in general). I was just waiting for them to say something like "We want expanded de-escalation training and less money for military gear. We want independent civilian review boards. We want all police shootings to be handled by an independent prosecutor."

[Kromm]

If I had a resolution for TNS's future, I'm hoping Larry will do some show crossover with Trevor Noah. With Trevor's debut fast approaching, I feel like the new hosts will hopefully acquaint/interact with each other and perhaps find that special brotherly bond just like Stewart and Colbert. 

It sounds nice in theory, but Noah has done little to nothing (unlike Larry) for anyone to have any confidence in him. At this point he still just seems like a smirking know-it-all outsider waiting in the wings, waiting to comment from the outside super-judgmentally. That may not be the reality of what his show turns out to be, but he's done little so far to dissuade that impression.

Larry's earned his stripes. He's gained a certain amount of moral authority he's using well now. He's still making mistakes occasionally, true, but his hit rate is getting a lot better.

I was just waiting for them to say something like "We want expanded de-escalation training and less money for military gear. We want independent civilian review boards. We want all police shootings to be handled by an independent prosecutor."

And this is why they come off as rabble-rousers and not visionaries. A conclusion I HATE coming out with, because their core message is certainly correct, but the cracks show more for them than Hillary in what really WAS a revealing clip if you look at it close enough. Larry (unintentionally) did them no favor having them on his show either, because while they didn't do QUITE as badly face to face with him as they did Hillary, and he let them off the hook for some stuff some journalists might pound them on, they didn't really explain themselves that well either.

 

As I said before, if "call attention" is your main mission and you don't have more, by all means, that's fine. But if that's the case you'd better be careful about your appearances and statements, and they weren't.

[attica]

I was just waiting for them to say something like "We want expanded de-escalation training and less money for military gear. We want independent civilian review boards. We want all police shootings to be handled by an independent prosecutor."

 

Exactly! Let's face it, white people really really want the Race Problem to go away. It's so uncomfortable!!!  If you give them something to do to facilitate that, they are apt to do it, if only to shut everybody and not be so upsetting!

[gesundheit]

The BLM movement isn't monolithic and is taking some time to firm up what the demands are other than "be better about race," but they are definitely taking advantage of this endless campaign to start to change that and get far more specific: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/prominent-blm-activists-unveil-comprehensive-demands-for-stricter-us-policing-laws-as-political-reach-grows/

 

I get kind of annoyed when they do that "grab bag" thing they did on the panel last night, it doesn't let them get far enough with anything. Plus it's always much better when they have 3 people on the panel instead of 4. I like both Albanese and Yard, but they already had two outside guests so one of them didn't have to be there. 

 

I have to say that even though it was incredibly low-hanging fruit (sorry for the pun, I honestly didn't mean it but can't think of a better description), the Deez Nuts/Deez Titties sketch cracked me right up.

[ganesh]

Deez Nuts rules. Dat Ass is a better follow up joke though imo. 

 

Yard is probably the staff member who is the best panelist, but give the guy a break. He already did a bit in the opener. He didn't need to be on the panel too.

 

Maybe BLM needs to consolidate and be more of a singular movement rather than just disrupting stuff then. While they might not be ready for policy specifics, putting together a manifesto might be a good idea too. Or actually meet with candidates and endorse one. They need a leadership board.

[attica]

I agree the 2 segment panel is less than ideal, but it did allow them to reintroduce the Incognegro!  God help me, I love that.

[gesundheit]

I agree the 2 segment panel is less than ideal, but it did allow them to reintroduce the Incognegro!  God help me, I love that.

Me too! Though it was weird that they then seemed to act like it's totally okay to pretend to be black if you're not. Or rather... I don't know, I felt like the white people at the table were a lot louder on that topic and that made me uncomfortable. (I think Shaun King is pretty different from Dolezal, though, and the jury's still out on him, but the argument of "but they're just white people trying to help black people, what's so wrong with that?" was missing the point... that's NOT all they are, and that's not why anyone's criticizing.)

 

Also: nothing wrong with painted boobs in Times Square from where I sit! (Which is next to Times Square, I might add.)

[attica]

I don't quite get all the hubbub about the TS boobs. Naked boobs are legal in NYS, and painted boobs aren't as naked as naked can be, so...  Is it because women are the ones making money off of it? (yes, probably.) (which is typical pearl-clutching.) (nobody has complained about Naked Cowboy in decades.) Yeesh. Nothingburgers for everyone!

[gesundheit]

I don't quite get all the hubbub about the TS boobs. Naked boobs are legal in NYS, and painted boobs aren't as naked as naked can be, so...  Is it because women are the ones making money off of it? (yes, probably.) (which is typical pearl-clutching.) (nobody has complained about Naked Cowboy in decades.) Yeesh. Nothingburgers for everyone!

Exactly. I have to look at the Naked Cowboy's ass cheeks and barely concealed nutsack daily and he is celebrated. (Which is fine, but the double standard.... nope)

[Kromm]

Naked Cowboy is still hanging out there (literally) in Times Square? I'd have thought he'd have packed it in by now (after those stunts he had running first for Mayor, then for President, as a Tea Partier). 

[gesundheit]

Naked Cowboy is still hanging out there (literally) in Times Square? I'd have thought he'd have packed it in by now (after those stunts he had running first for Mayor, then for President, as a Tea Partier). 

He sure is. I feel like his ass cheeks would've aged out by now but they've held up well.

[ChelseaNH]

Cultural taboos are inherently arbitrary.

[revbfc]

"Deez Nuts"<- Funny

"Deez Tiddaes"<- Not so much

Maybe it's just the society we live in, but "Tiddaes" are usually a pleasant thing to contemplate, whereas bringing up your testicles kind of bums people out.

Edited August 21, 2015 by revbfc

[Kromm]

I get kind of annoyed when they do that "grab bag" thing they did on the panel last night, it doesn't let them get far enough with anything. Plus it's always much better when they have 3 people on the panel instead of 4. I like both Albanese and Yard, but they already had two outside guests so one of them didn't have to be there. 

To make a bad panel setup even worse, one of those two outside guests was Chris D'Elia. Who as many of you might know from the discussions we have about him being on @midnight... sucks.  I mean he's horrible. 

[shok]

Me too! Though it was weird that they then seemed to act like it's totally okay to pretend to be black if you're not. Or rather... I don't know, I felt like the white people at the table were a lot louder on that topic and that made me uncomfortable. (I think Shaun King is pretty different from Dolezal, though, and the jury's still out on him, but the argument of "but they're just white people trying to help black people, what's so wrong with that?" was missing the point... that's NOT all they are, and that's not why anyone's criticizing.)

 

 

I didn't watch the show but please tell me they weren't joining in the malicious attack on Shaun King started by the slimy RWNJs from Breitbart.  There is absolutely nothing similar about him and his background and that Dolezal person and if they insinuated there was, I hope they have Shaun King on soon to set them straight and that Larry apologizes profusely. Here is Shaun's story about how they have made his life hell.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413881/-Race-love-hate-and-me-A-distinctly-American-story

[possibilities]

Larry said that there was some dispute about whether or not King was actually a poseur like Dolezal, but that he wanted to talk about the larger issue of whether it's okay for white people to pose as Black people. They did not at all get into the Breitbart issue, which seems to be kind of par for the course with this show, i.e. they are not the least bit interested in actual research and prefer to give us half-formed gut reactions to headlines, off the cuff, rather than bothering to gather facts and take a considered point of view. The show always seems way less considered than it could be, like they throw it together over drinks, and present it half in the bag.

[shok]

 

Larry said that there was some dispute about whether or not King was actually a poseur like Dolezal

 

Thanks for the explanation of what went on but this infuriates me. There is NO dispute! There are a few slimy right wing idiots spreading lies hoping it will tarnish the efforts of Black Lives Matter but for gods sake, Shaun King knows who he is and who he has always been. I agree with you and it's shameful how so many other media outlets run with anything that's shiny and sparkly without doing proper research, especially when the shit they repeat affects peoples' lives so grevously.

[Easyspreestep]

Larry did a nice interview with NPR's Fresh Air where they talk about the adjustments they've made to the show and how Jon helped him find his - and the show's - voice.

 

 

This. There's a time for activism and a time for politics. The activism feels good but the politics is what counts. This is something that liberals do to ourselves over and over again. I've been political all my life and it drives me crazy. I don't care about hearts and minds. I care about whether a cop is held accountable when they kill somebody and lie about it.

 

I was thrilled when Hillary said that. She was 100 percent right. When you've got face time with one of the most powerful people in the world don't waste time with the touchy-feely stuff. She asked what they wanted and they didn't tell her. (BTW, I've taken part on BLM protests so my use of "they" is about those specific activists and not the movement in general). I was just waiting for them to say something like "We want expanded de-escalation training and less money for military gear. We want independent civilian review boards. We want all police shootings to be handled by an independent prosecutor."

This is the problem I have with Hilary's candidacy I am a die hard Democrat and her response does not sit well with me.  It is not the job of the people to come up with laws and to appropriated the funds correctly.  Is this not why we elect/hire the politicians.  They reason why I vote for a particular politician is because I have identified a problem in my community and a particular politician tells me to vote for them because they have the solution.  This protest was planed and Hilary knew what the group was about she should have been prepared with ideas for the group of how she as the candidate will fix things and WHY the black community should feel comfortable voting for her because she gets it.  Not tell me what you want me to do, if that is the case then someone from BLM should run.

[Kromm]

It is not the job of the people to come up with laws and to appropriated the funds correctly.  Is this not why we elect/hire the politicians.  They reason why I vote for a particular politician is because I have identified a problem in my community and a particular politician tells me to vote for them because they have the solution. 

That's one view of politicians, but another is that they're simply our proxies voting in our interest.   They're supposed to find ways to implement things, but coming UP with those things, those solutions, isn't necessarily always in their bailiwick. 

 

Given the narrow background of most politicians (lawyers typically), it's not like they typically even have the education to address most problems with their own solutions. Are they Economists? Engineers? Psychologists?  Doctors?  Not usually (or not more than one of them at most) and yet they're meant to figure out and implement laws about all of these things.

[Hanahope]

More catch up:  Re girl gamers.  I'm a girl gamer, have been for 30 years.  I will say that when I started gaming and going to gaming cons in Los Angeles being a girl gamer was like that guy said.  All the boys kindof didn't know what to do at first and then they fell over themselves trying to help me, seemingly so happy that a girl was interested in gaming. It was rather endearing and certainly helped my ego/confidence.   It seemed to still be that way when I started playing on-line games, Everquest, WoW. 

 

Now I haven't played as much in the last 5 years, been busying being a parent as well as having a full time job, so maybe things have changed for 'girl gamers.'  My daughters haven't experienced any 'gamergate' type actions of which I'm aware when they play Minecraft, and they play with some boys all the time.

 

I never paid attention to labels when I took my kids to the toy stores or toy sections.  They did tend at first to gravitate to the dolls, but they also love Legos.

 

Its great for the family leave from Netflix, though I wish it was a bit more universal to their employees.  Still, gotta start somewhere.

[Easyspreestep]

Given the narrow background of most politicians (lawyers typically), it's not like they typically even have the education to address most problems with their own solutions. Are they Economists? Engineers? Psychologists?  Doctors?  Not usually (or not more than one of them at most) and yet they're meant to figure out and implement laws about all of these things.

 

 

 

On issues such as climate change and building bridges I expect them to consult with others.  If a group of scientist were protesting about climate change, I would not expect someone running for office to say well what do you want me to do.  I would expect them to say, while I don't fully understand the complexity, I understand the broader issue  and here are my solutions, can you expand or offer different advice.  I don't expect them to go into a meeting with an organization ill prepared, Hilary could have had some suggestions and been less combative.  

[ChelseaNH]

I would not expect someone running for office to say well what do you want me to do

 

I think it's reasonable for a politician to ask for specific objectives.  (Although "stop killing us" is pretty specific, it's not clear what is the best way for a politician to bring that about.)  There's also the history of the white savior trope -- that black people are helpless on their own and need a white savior to fix their problems.  So standing up and saying, "I've got the answer" is maybe not so politically great for her, after all.

[Kromm]

I think it's reasonable for a politician to ask for specific objectives.  (Although "stop killing us" is pretty specific, it's not clear what is the best way for a politician to bring that about.)  There's also the history of the white savior trope -- that black people are helpless on their own and need a white savior to fix their problems.  So standing up and saying, "I've got the answer" is maybe not so politically great for her, after all.

I'm no Hillary defender overall, but I think we do have to recognize the no-win situation implied here. If she tries to be directive and be "the boss", she's that annoying Great White Savior. If she insists she needs answers about what people from that community want, she's "passing the buck". In other words, there's no way she can't come off as the bad guy.

[possibilities]

I think what you're supposed to do when running for or holding office, is pay attention to issues, do your research, know what the leaders of movements are asking for, and show that you are on board. I think that by the time you are meeting with people who have been in the news for months, you should know what their demands are, and be prepared to either tell them you understand and support them and show what you intend to do (or have already done) about it, or you should be prepared to tell them you do not support them, and are ready to face the backlash.

 

Hillary seemed to be saying that she thought the BLM movement has an accurate analysis of the problem but has made no specific recommendations, and that until they come up with some, she can't be bothered. I agreed with her "hearts and minds vs resources and regulations" statement, but I also understand why she comes off as pissy and dismissive when she acts like no one has been saying anything specific. I'm not running for office, but the demands for police to be held accountable have been very specific.

 

She could have said:

 

"I agree with your analysis and when I am President it will be a priority that police behave fairly, servin and protecting rather than harassing communities of color and all Americans. I will advocate for body cameras, I will send the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations, and I will veto funding for police departments that fail to meet standards for training and accountability in behavior. There is no excuse for Americans to fear the police, and when I am President, I will be sure that this situation is addressed through vigorous enforcement of existing laws and changes in policy that force resources to be redirected from the provision of military equipment to the provision of oversight that prevents abuses of power. I will increase staffing so that civil rights investigations are conducted thoroughly and quickly, and the penalties for violations will be serious and unforgettable for all those responsible for violations. We may not be able to change the hearts and minds of everyone, but we can for sure regulate their behavior, let them know we are watching, and prevent them from killing more innocent people. In my administration, this will be one of my highest priorities, and you can count on my support."

 

How hard was that?

Edited August 25, 2015 by possibilities

[Kromm]

How hard was that?

Possibly pretty hard if you had to come up with it on the spot, without edit time or consideration, while people who have made it clear they're somewhat hostile to you are sitting there staring at you.

 

I mean she definitely could and should prep on the overall issues (and probably did), but was probably NOT expecting a turn in the conversation where they demanded answers from HER.  That's generally not how these conversations go with activists and political action groups. They usually come in all too happy to give what they think the answers are and push for them.

Also, I think we have to suppose the Hillary who doesn't know she's being filmed (what's the story behind that again?  I never even thought about that...) is going to be different from the one who does. In a way that caused her to be far more honest in her answer--even if it's instead coming off as blunt.

[Rai]

All I'm going to say about the part on the Ashley Madison hack segment -- god, no, women can't get it whenever they want with whoever they want.  Unless I've been denied my birthright my entire life (j/k).  And also women will find those forums too.

 

Just tired of the false narrative that women don't want sex but that they can just beckon anyone over whenever they want.  It doesn't help anything at all.

[wknt3]

So last night's show was the perfect example of the strengths and weaknesses of the show right now. The first bit was great - passionate, incisive, funny. It was the takedown that is so necessary when modern day bigots try to claim the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. The second bit was uneven. It was funny in spots, had some great ideas and was well executed, but seemed unfocused and a bit lazy in accepting the conventional wisdom being peddled by the media. It just seemed like they didn't really have anything to say beyond the same jokes about Hillary that have been done to death. But reading the emails aloud was really funny. As for the panel Larry is a better moderator than he was at the beginning, but the show has too many young comedians trying to break out and monopolizing the conversation. Mike Yard was funny as always though.

Edited September 10, 2015 by wknt3

[ganesh]

The Clinton email case is just typical news, and it's just not the strength of the show. Kim Davis is right in the show's wheelhouse. One thing Larry missed though: this is a total scam. She had been talking to right wing religious groups and planning this. Which speaks to a larger issue about how the more people say they have "deeply held religious beliefs" the more they are just frauds. 

 

I can get why the white guy on the panel was frustrated, but I just don't like the panelists who come on to 'do material'. The woman has always been good and she didn't talk much at all. 

[mariah23]

That bitch planned this?! Where's the link to the article you found this info on, ganesh?

[possibilities]

I think Kim Davis was elected, so to say she's "working for the government" is not exactly clarifying what the problem is in terms of holding her accountable. It's not like she's a civil service hire or an appointee who serves at the pleasure of the higher ups.

 

Locking her up or holding her in contempt is nice, but as long as she continues to be re-elected, the only way to strip her of her job is to impeach or recall her, or make her ineligible to run, depending on the local laws. In the meanwhile, she can continue to obstruct and bottle up the process, and may well be using this as a wedge to drum up support for her re-election bid. She can now go on the speaking circuit and make a living as a professional Victim of Tolerance, even if she loses her battle to block marriages in KS.

 

Kim Davis: Jesus Clerk ( http://www.autostraddle.com/kim-davis-jesus-clerk-episode-101-recap-eye-of-the-tiger-306347/) points out that Biblical marriage often included one man and quite a few women... among other things.

Edited September 9, 2015 by possibilities

[ganesh]

There's some articles floating around about how there was contact with her and these evangelical organizations prior. I reeks of a con to me. That was the first thing I said when I saw this on the news. I don't think she's remotely serious about her deep seeded religious beliefs. The state are the ones on the hook for this really because she should have been impeached as soon as she was found in contempt. She's been collecting pay the whole time and gaining fame. Now, she might be a pawn in a larger game by the eval groups, but either way it's a con.  

[dohe]

Mike Yard's work last night was some of his best.  The shame was that young comic almost single-handedly ruined the panel.  The insults of Kim Davis's looks are the weak path to take.  Yard cutting through everything and just getting down to what Kim Davis and her supporters are about, bigotry, is the far better path to take. His bluntness is so welcome. 

[monakane]

Buzz Freakin' Aldrin!   Larry is right.  Buzz is the most interesting man in the world.  That's how you do 85 years old.  I loved that he gave away the corn field segment.

[Hanahope]

Hasn't there already been law/cases that held that if your religion wants you to do something that violates the laws of this country, then the religion loses?  I mean, various religions can't use certain drugs, can't kill animals, can't have multiple wives, because such is against the laws of this country.  So what's the difference now when Davis claims her religion says she can't support gay marriage, but the law of this country says that she has to issue a marriage license?

[Muffyn]

On the Kim Davis episode, that young male comic was atrocious.  There are many criticisms that can be made against Kim Davis.  Going after her looks, reeked of misogyny.  The absolute bullshit of calling her a lesbian was so uncalled for.  so he finds her unattractive, therefore she must be a lesbian.  Nice.  Way to make sure we know he finds the G important in LGBT but the rest of us don;t meet his standards.  Using an excuse of he gets to say it because he was looked down upon does not forgive this type of talk.    If anything, that should give him a better understanding that people who do not fit the proposed normative ideals of gender presentatioin are looked down upon.  Instead he heaps on the insults.  Mike Yard did get to the heart of the matter - bigotry is the root cause.  Countering bigotry with more bigotry does not help.  There is just not enough shut up in the world for that comic (using the term loosely). 

 

On a lighter note, Holly running through the cornfield last night was great.  She was so funny.  It was a perfect send up of the silliness of the original report.  

Edited September 11, 2015 by Muffyn

[ganesh]

So what's the difference now when Davis claims her religion says she can't support gay marriage, but the law of this country says that she has to issue a marriage license?

 

They're (incorrectly) claiming that there isn't an actual law, like specific statute. 

 

Huckabee is on record today saying that there's isn't a specific law that overturned Dred Scott. Discounting that in both cases, the 13th/14th amendment specifically addressed Dred Scott and any similar cases, and the court confirmed this year that the legal protections of the 14th extended to any form of civil union. Given that the constitution is literally, the law of the land, when we say 'rule of law', we mean inherently common law is derived from the constitution. 

 

They're acting like bratty teens who when you tell them to clean their room, they just shove everything into the closet. "Why didn't you clean the closet too? I wanted you to clean your room." "You didn't say *closet*, you said to clean the *room*.'

 

And that's how these people should be treated; like bratty teens. Don't give credence to this garbage.

[Kromm]

They're (incorrectly) claiming that there isn't an actual law, like specific statute. 

 

Huckabee is on record today saying that there's isn't a specific law that overturned Dred Scott. Discounting that in both cases, the 13th/14th amendment specifically addressed Dred Scott and any similar cases, and the court confirmed this year that the legal protections of the 14th extended to any form of civil union. Given that the constitution is literally, the law of the land, when we say 'rule of law', we mean inherently common law is derived from the constitution. 

 

They're acting like bratty teens who when you tell them to clean their room, they just shove everything into the closet. "Why didn't you clean the closet too? I wanted you to clean your room." "You didn't say *closet*, you said to clean the *room*.'

 

And that's how these people should be treated; like bratty teens. Don't give credence to this garbage.

Fuckabee was always ridiculous, but the last few years it's gone to a new level.

Just wait and see how long it is before he breaks out the swastikas and stiff arm salutes.

[ganesh]

Since Obama took office, there's been a growing extremism. It started with congressional leaders flat out saying they were going to block everything he supported. So it's not surprising that this trickled down into the culture with the rise of the tea party. Someone like Huckabee is typically going to oppose women's choice, marriage equality, etc., but if this was 2000, there's no way he'd be this extreme. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's a post modern snake oil salesman. It's not like if these people vote for him, he's going to be in a position to all of a sudden wipe away all the social progress we've made. So, I think he's smart enough to not break out a swastika and just provide enough kindling to stoke the flames of hate.

[formerlyfreedom]

Let's get back to the discussion of the show and the panel discussions. We're crossing over into political discussion that isn't related to the show, and if you haven't seen this before now, well, it's a good time to see it. Kim Davis as she relates to the panel discussion the other night is fine. Beyond that, we'll be deleting or removing posts that are off topic going forward.

 

Thanks, all!

 

[attica]

I was particularly impressed that Holly delivered all of that dialogue while running. That's a woman in good shape!

[Hanahope]

I loved the clip of Dick Cheney in 1994 saying how bad it would be to take out Saddam, that it would totally mess up Iraq, and 10 years latter, he does just that.