Sooooooo…
Straw:Shit::New Iskander:GWB
Sooooooo…
Straw:Shit::New Iskander:GWB=Strawalicious!
While your amusing asides are fun, New Iskander, have you rethought your position on Colbert’s balls? Taking into account that a) it’s a main theme of his show pretty well covers why everyone is referring to them in the media and elsewhere, and b) talking about his ballsyness is a part of his character, designed to make him appear pompous and full of himself, and thus we are laughing with him instead of at him.
I’m loving your assertation that we’re all lovingly cleaning his balls with our tongues, worshipping his genitals with our fawning liberal servitude (especialy given your… praise of Bush in the past) but surely you must admit that all this balls-talk is just in fun. It’s a character.
I’d very much like to see how you respond.
We polish them too, so the brass is all shiny.
Well, I’m just a simple man (and not that smart) so perhaps you had me there. Still, I have few doubts remaining, maybe you can disperse them.
So it’s all a character, you say? Very well, let us consider the character, fairly and impartially. Apparently, that character is the caricature of assembled right-wing personalities, ratcheted to the point of complete absurdity. No person like this exists in reality but many traits are recognizable.
This character is not just ignorant and misguided, but brazenly so, and the more wrong he is the more obnoxiois he gets; instead of correcting himself, he goes on ‘take no prisoners’ rampage against his opponents. Because all of this character notions are steeped in deep ignorance and misconceptions, everything he utters is richly ironic. Thus we have ‘truthiness’ for truth, etc. And this character doesn’t talk about mere courage and bravery, but prefers to talk about ‘balls’
Yeah, I think I heard that a lot over on the right side, previously. On Colbert’s show the term ‘balls’ aquires meaning of doing something in complete mockery of common sense and public opinion (like some Fla. politician not giving a hoot about the opinion of his constituency, etc).
So, now strictly the facts: this character is brought in front of Bush and gets to speak his piece in his face. After that, Jon Stewart says that ‘Comedy Central’ crowd is proud of Colbert and calls his performance ‘balls-a-liscious’. Now you are telling me that it was merely a playful reference to Colbert’s routine. But considering that ‘balls’ in Colbert’s routine stand for combination of cluelessness and conceit, what am I to think (remember, I’m not that smart)? Was Stewart saying that Colbert was full of shit?
And what do you make of all this:
Are they all saying that Colbert is full of shit? I’m just a simple man (and not very smart), but I understand irony (I think). But when you can start mounting ironies upon ironies, like heaping Pelion upon Ossa, I concede, my head spins.
And last by not least, what do you make of that:
Pardon me, but if Bush “The Deciderer” doesn’t stand for anything clueless and arrogant around here, then the whole joke falls apart, no?
So help me, please. Disperse my confusions. Help me to set my mind at ease.
It’s all a CIA plot.
Quick everybody, act surprised…
No, by adults.
I thought that just you and I were having this discussion? Where’re the rest of 'em hiding?
Come now. I feel silly arguing about what, exactly, this term relates to in the vast pantheon of oral sex, but it’s hardly “wrong” to point out another viable slang meaning. It makes as much sense to say that the guy or girl who is using their mouth as a ‘cup’ is the one who is inolved in ‘tea bagging’ someone, as the application of their oral abilities makes the sex act what it is, simply slapping someone in the face with some big ol’ sweaty balls doesn’t fit the definition, as far as I’m aware. So, fine, there are other meanings to the same phrase, and that’s neat and all… but saying that one of them is ‘wrong’ seems silly.
And I’m not sure how much else there is to say on this topic.
Anyone who believes, or takes seriously, anything that comes out of Bill O’relilly’s mouth is a fucking moron. Colbert deals in ridicule and satire. Sometimes that requires some dim awareness of fact vs. spin, truth vs. truthiness. He started truthiness, he invented the word. For those too fucking stupid to puzzle it out, it means lies that are massaged to sound almost true. One of his “stances” is, giving the news and not letting reality get in the way. As he puts it, who needs any liberal crap like reality. Plus, it’s on Comedy Fucking Central.
But, beneath the satire is truth, That truth is, people ARE sio fucking stupid that they believe blowhards like Bill O’Reilly. His many lies have been beaten to death right here on the Dope. So Iskander, why do you defend such a pathetic scumbag? Is it because you are fucking stupid?
Woohoo! Charlie Daniels graces us with his presence!
So, think he can go ahead and a-straighten us out on evil-oution?
-Joe
If’n he cain’t, I reckon that there Toby Keith cain.
Sigh. You had to bring up that knuckle dragging cretin. My email just had a Charlie Daniels “letter” that’s making the rounds, instructing all of us how we should feel about the Mexicans. Needless to say he tried to wrap it in the flag and patriotism.
Am I a bad person for wanting to punch that bitter miserable old fart in the mouth?
Only in that you don’t always get what you want.
If Bush reveals that it’s all been an ACT these six years, I’ll advocate vehemently his inclusion in the Hall of Men With Metallic Genitalia.
Until then, I’m afraid you’ve quite missed the boat.
It’s a ballsy performance because he performed it in front of the man who, not only it is mocking, but who happens to lead the free world. That’s got to be a little intimidating, yes, even for someone as well versed in the manners at High Court as a professional comedian.
That takes real ‘balls’, and it ties in neatly with the schtick that Mr. Colbert happens to perform, in which he has an obsession with the … testicular region.
Too much for you?
from here:
To wit: the owner of the “sac” does the “bagging”. So in this case, Colbert tea-bagged POTUS’N’Friends.
Right.
Eh. Kind of. On his show, for example, he has a list of people to watch out for, but these often aren’t actual enemies that he brutally (and comedically) mocks; usually bears are in there - it’s less actual attacking and more comedic, over-the-top reactions to what he percieves as slights or bad behaviour. I don’t think he’s ever IMHO actually really ripped into someone (though this Bush thing may count).
Truthiness refers to our “gut feeling” of rightness; so while I, a normal person, may use facts and figures to make my arguments, all Colbert-the-character needs is his gut feeling that he’s right. Balls-wise, yep, that’s pretty much it.
Sort of. Usually he suggests people have balls if they, as you say, do something foolish, but that that foolish thing was done bravely. And that brave thing is not extreme; more a kind of above-the-norm but not fantastic courage.
Well, balls in Colbert’s show stand for bravery in doing something stupid (or, being brave enough to do something stupid). I’d certainly think mocking the President was a pretty brave thing to do; he’s a powerful man, and as we’ve seen the media may show their disapproval. Arguably, for the same reasons, it was a pretty stupid thing to do; mocking the most powerful person in the world, to his face, is not exactly smart.
Seems that old joke about Americans and Irony may be the case ;). Seriously, though, it’s like people have said; he did do something brave, and it the smartest course of action. Just think, if he had given a fawning performance, he could have made a new friend! 
That actually wasn’t a joke, and you’ve in fact utterly stripped the meaning from my post by excising the rest of that sentence. If I may;
(my bolding*) He hasn’t done anything ballsy here. He acted just as many people would when confronted with a roasting; disapproval. Nothing stupid there, nor brave.
Besides what Bush stand for “around here” has little bearing on what I say, unless i’m making a joke (which this was not). So the majority of people think he’s an idiot and a loon. Fair enough. I don’t. I don’t like the guy, from what I’ve seen of him, but i’m not prepared to write him off as an imbecile just yet. You should really check to see what people’s actual opinions are and not just assume we conform to the sizable Bush = idiocy group.
I’m sure you’re not exactly losing sleep over any of this. 
And you, Madam/Sir, “should really check to see” what my real opinions are, before saying things like,
. That is, if you have any balls/ovaries, of course!
Look, get a clue, we already came to the conclusion: it was an act, a comic performance. He was hired to perform in critical and mocking vein. And he was paid for it.
…New Iskander is a tool.
Wrong again. I am not a tool. I know exactly what I’m doing. I was promised the seat in that black helicopter that hovers silently above your head at all times, always maneuvering precisely to stay exactly in your blind spot, and by golly I’m gonna earn that seat!