BAMFollow

Right, because comedians on comedy shows are behooved to exhibit proper debate technique.

Next you'll be crying that John Stewart isn't fair and balanced.

www.dictionary.com

I just need to put that link in my signature since it seems to apply almost everytime I post. Just call me the Spelling ****.


Edited, Wed Jan 4 17:33:49 2006 by chrisisanangel

BTW it's not a link if you can't click it moran.

I knew you'd throw your little $.02 in there eventually. You are so freakin easy...

If you will so kind as to reread the text, David tries to debate, then realizes he's a fuc[b][/b]king idiot and is going to get embarassed, so he resorts to joking. So he tries, flounders, then retreats with some lame slander. So you are correct, comedians shouldn't attempt to exhibit anything but humor.

It's a common tactic, I'm sure you're familiar with. Liberals love it.

I'm broken-hearted.

Not.

I'm not sure... but I think someone called you a man-*****.

$5 enough?

***** off you little bastage!

Getting accused of being a sock and saying I ain't is my shtick. Hands off!

I think Tricky pretty much covered it. However I will go into detail and reiterate.

1 - Letterman is a comedian. Not a debater.

2 - O'Reilly is a professional hack.

Now O'Reilly (as well the greater majority of the right) have taken up a rather subjective form of being objective. When called on it they try to make the argument "if you are going to make an argument about my objectivity cite an example".

This is the hinger.

Once an example is shown they will try to discredit the information or the source of the information rather than disprove it (yes there is a difference). It usually comes in a scattershot approach throwing as much ******** at it as possible and hoping that some of it somehow sticks. Also the method of asking for an example. Example is cited and they proceed to fling sh'it like the simians they are until the argument is ground to a halt then ask for another cite and proceed over and over.

Anyone that has watched the game long enough can see the play used ad nauseum. Letterman a bright man in his own right (or he wouldnt be where he is) going to fall into that same cyclical trap of endless arguments? No he just a) burns the guy by saying I dont find your show worth watching b) therefore I cant cite c) what I will tell you is that I think you are full of bullsh'it.

He dodges O'Reillys only rhetorical defense and lays down a ***** slap. To some how say "OMG he admitted ignorance therefore his point is null" only shows how that you are uncapable of grasping the game of rhetoric being played.

Edited, Thu Jan 5 15:41:04 2006 by bodhisattva

Edited, Thu Jan 5 15:38:15 2006 by bodhisattva

Which leads us back to where Tricky left off.

Expecting a comedian to logically argue point for point rather than just slam the guy with a joke only further shows how much of a stupid sh[b][/b]it you are.

I think it could more fairly stated that he tried to argue rationally with O'Reilly and when O'Reilly had to revert back to his schtick that is when Letterman reverted back to his schtick.

Either way O'Reilly was clearly the one emasculated.

Is there anything else you need me to explain for you? If anything goes over your head just stop me and I will draw you a f[b][/b]ucking diagram.

[quote=NephthysWanderer the ****************** O'Reilly did nothing more than he does everyday.[/quote]

Wouldn't that technically be his schtick then?

Just sayin bro'

Edited, Thu Jan 5 16:32:36 2006 by bodhisattva