So, according to your own standards, James Carville, HuffPost and Huffington specifically are correct in whatever they say and can’t be refuted? Or were you just full of shit?
Of all the talking heads, Bill is closet to being a fucking nutcase. Rush and Hannity are relatively sane.
Could he go nuts?
I dunno. You ever try to convince someone they should have sex with a falafel?
(I think he means loofah, to be honest.)
Apparently I do.
You see, when **Clothy **does it, it’s hyperbole. When Democrats do it, it’s ad hominem.
I call it the “Rush-Limbaugh-Retard-Satire-Syndrome.”
Or Clothahumpin’ for short.
-Joe
On a personal note, I hate the posting of dictionary definitions as if they prove some sort of point. Its like a Retardo Digest Word Power, except that every reader already knows what the fucking word means!
Tremble and obey!
e·lu·ci·date
/ɪˈlusɪˌdeɪt/ Show Spelled [ih-loo-si-deyt] Show IPA verb,-dat·ed, -dat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make lucid or clear; throw light upon; explain: an explanation that elucidated his recent strange behavior.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to provide clarification; explain.
Use elucidator in a Sentence
See images of elucidator
Search elucidator on the Web
Origin:
1560–70; < LL ēlūcidātus (ptp. of ēlūcidāre) enlightened, equiv. to ē- e- + lūcid(us) lucid + -ātus -ate1
—Related forms
e·lu·ci·da·tor, noun
Give it up, Jack. You can’t win this one.
Was Obama literally giving Biden a handjob? No. Hyperbole.
Are liberals making an issue out of Beck’s barking and calling him crazy instead of listening to the points that he was making and debating him on those points? Yes. Ad hominem.
Thanks for chipping in and supporting what I said.
So if I said in Great Debates that “Clothahump blows goats”, that would be hyperbole and not an ad hominem attack? That makes Great Debates a whole lot more interesting.
Ad haedum, I think.
To be snottily pedantic, yes. An ad hominem is an attack on the argument, to the effect that the person making the argument cannot be making a valid case because of who (or what) he/she is. It is often confused with simple insult, but it is not the same. To be ad hominem, there must be the suggestion that the argument made is not valid due to the nature of the person making the argument.
“Clotty is a Cretan, and Cretans always lie, therefore his argument is a lie.”
I am personally unfamiar with Clotty’s sexual predilections, and will do my very utmost to remain so.
Why bother? Everything he says boils down to the same thing really…
Evrything is terrible. We’re all doomed. The bad people are gonna get us. Be afraid.
Beck is a freak show. So why even pretend to take him seriously? There are far better commentators, and far more skillful hacks even, on both sides of the aisle.
The dude is at least moderately convincing in the sense that I am unsure if he believes what he is saying. Hannity, for example, is just a salesman who knows what he is selling and likes the paycheck. He’s a nihilist mercenary, with no real values driving his actions. Beck (as seen in that CPAC speech) may actually believe the shit that he is shoveling. I understand from watching him how people could find him compelling, and I find that a little bit frightening.
I imagine it’s how Beck’s fans look at Obama from a strictly presentational perspective- he seems an effective presenter, though of course I think that Obama has some substance behind his rhetoric and is not simply looking only for an all-purpose populist effect (at least, not anymore).
I don’t know what to think of Beck anymore.
I think Beck thinks he’s the next Benjamin Franklin, when in reality he’s the next Morton Downy, Jr.
Maybe the next Howard Beale, but with a lot less class and style?
Looks like Beck is starting to ruffle a few feathers that don’t take kindly to being ruffled. Click here to find out who said the following about Beck’s CPAC speech:
I thought the rodeo clown had already gone nuts & that’s what we’re watching. Beck isn’t pre-meltdown Howard Beale, he’s post-meltdown, right? Right? :eek:
Beck’s still at the top of his game in ratings and popularity, but I think he’s also at the apex of his fame and he’s more likely to take a topple down the Gemonian stairs than descend leisurely down the hillside. Rush speaking against him, even if not that vehemently yet, is a precursor. No question that Rush is even more of a Nazi than Beck but he’s also more intelligent (Goebbels as opposed to Streicher) and a lot more sane and very jealous and the second he sees Beck as a threat to his popularity or a liability he’ll give the signal. His fall may not come this year but I doubt it will be that far away and it’s gonna be a good 'un.
Ideally: He makes a comment so stupid and so openly racist or otherwise offensive on air that not even Fox can spin it and they suspend him and bring him back only as a commentator. He tries to regain his popularity by being even more incendiary, essentially appealing to the KKK element of his fanbase, and even Fox disowns him and the Mormon Church excommunicates him (especially since his tithe isn’t what it once was). An IRS problem and a headline making divorce deplete his fortune.
He ends up as a morning DJ in Guam until he’s fired for sexually harassing a desk chair. Ends up on Celebrity Rehab where he cries and says “Sometimes I just want to cut my wrists” and Dr. Drew says “Trust your feelings Luke” while Erin Moran pees on his lap and Danny Bonaduce bitchslaps him for taking airtime from him.
Well it probably won’t go down that way, but I can dream. And he is going down, you can mark my words on that one. Sejanus sejanus sejanus…
Or if you want the short version of what Sampiro said : Sic transit gloria mundi