I got that - amigo.

Buddy Guy.

Being listening to him more of late.

Good wordplay.



Here's my contribution...

Not your 'pal', Son.
Go back to your House.

Quite interesting. I've never seen towing like that before.

Love the wordplay in the title. That alone gets my vote.

BTW, in the past day or two Eric Idle released his 'Sortabiography' called 'Always Look On The Bright Side of Life'. I'm only two chapters in, but if you like Rutles-style wordplay, then you'll love those two chapters (and probably the rest of the book, but I can't vouch for that quite yet).

I am happy to discuss this poem at any length. This collaborative work is a symphony of wordplay and meaning, operating on several levels at once. Ultimately, I just want to know what you think.

That's great stuff. I was thinking of doing some transcription/translation, but couldn't do the wordplay justice.

I think the presentation is universal enough that the intention comes across regardless of locality; unfortunately this is also true of the subject matter.

Looking around on Irish forums, I see a fair few accusations of click-bait, heavy handedness, and reliance on tropes. From what I can tell, though, the accusations are mostly from people far removed from the situation by class and gender, as so often happens, and is pretty much directly referenced in the poem.

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

No wordplay? Should I assume pun is not intended because punishment? IKEA little problem with this, so please take a seat. I have a problem with IKEA - everything in the showroom is meant to be for sale but the curtains were drawn. I have lots of jokes about IKEA, but I won't furnish Videosift with them: they're inside jokes.

At least they're real historical figures (terminator vs robocop...). That was some damn fine wordplay, glad to see they're still able to produce quality stuff

I struggled with The Office, mainly because I've worked for people very much like David Brent and couldn't see the funny side. But I've just started watching his latest series Derek and it's completely changed my view of him. It's amazingly well written. He manages to get The most immature dick jokes in there, racist or obscene jokes, physical comedy, clowning, subtle puns and wordplay but all in a plot that is one of the most touching and heartfelt I've seen for a long time, comedy or not.

Great british comedy, like Only Fools and Horses, or Open All Hours, are all about compassion and love. They're funny, but the characters are so well written you really care for them. The writers of Only Fools and Horses managed to write an episode about one of the main characters having a miscarriage. There were jokes throughout the hospital scenes but somehow they didn't stop it being truly tragic, they didn't trivialise it. It was devastating, but funny at the same time.

I'm not sure Derek is quite that level, but it's getting there. It's made me laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. He's undoubtedly a very clever man and going up in my estimations all the time

Well, I am completely confused now.

I'll just say that my use of the word "outing" was meant to be mildly amusing wordplay. I'm vocally supportive of gay rights and marriage equality -- never occurred to me that it would be interpreted any other way.

Not sure where we are right now with this, since I am confused. Just so long as you don't confuse with myopic people, I'm happy!

Immature wordplay always tends to make me laugh.

I didn't see any complexity, just an attempt to make a poorly reasoned point via wordplay, uncharismatic people and editing. Do you really think that reproductive rights has anything at all to do with toxic manufacturing materials? If I support abortion, does that mean I can't have an opinion on pollutants? If I try to link these issues by saying 'light bulb choice', does it make it any more relevant?

The far right has never been able to get over the success that women's rights activists had with the smart use of the frame 'choice.'

"The question on everyone's lips..." SMOOTH WORDPLAY, SIR

1. An "eternal first cause" and/or "creator" does not in any way by default = a degree of intelligence and/or act of deliberate purpose and/or 'living' entity/mechanism.

2. Every-time an argument asserts the idea of an "eternal first cause" and/or "creator", said assertion holds no relativity to the likelihood/plausibility of a God.

KCA.. really?

"The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe".
No it doesn't. It's wordplay, deception and confusion/delusion, the only tools in which theological arguments have EVER been viewed as to hold a degree of legitimacy until met by intelligent humans who can see the patterns of speech. The use of formulated distractions in an attempt to validate an invalid proposition is deceit.
~Even if disputed, refer to 1st point. There is no argument for God's existence here.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause

The argument follows the following structure:

- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y

But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCA.

Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth

OR

- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong

OR

- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see what just happened?

Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y, X, therefore Y", they are complete nonsense....

... because the words 'lying', 'right' and 'bright' change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.

And this is exactly what is happening in KCA with the terms 'begins' and 'began'. The difference between 'i'+'S' and 'a' has a value that those who make this argument either try to pretend isn't there, or have simply been fooled by it themselves due to their lack of interest/attention of the subject or their desperation to justify their preference for psychological comfort in the face of human minds not having had the pressures to evolve to properly comprehend self-termination, due to their being no continuation of processing once the engine stops and the lights go out.


To explain the deception within KCA further and more specifically..

The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.

In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
E.g. things like cars, people, trees etc etc

Whereas.....

in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"

just like our examples above.......
'lying' as in deceiving somebody VS 'lying' as in lying down on a bed.
'right' as in what is correct VS 'right' as in which side of the road you drive on in the USA.
'bright' as in giving off light VS 'bright' as in being smart.

and..

'Begins' to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS 'began' to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.

The shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.

Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.

i.e.
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.

Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA



For those who prefer visual explanations: 3:56 Mins/Secs (+ some decent music imo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYkFw2X4mY

Note: The 6th description that gets dropped into the William Lane Craig description is meaningless in this video. Likely thrown in as a 'let's just give it to the believers-without-testable-evidence for the analysis' as often there's an attempt to claim 'morals' as God-dependent.. despite that small/large societies would have struggled to properly form in hunter+gather days AND hold long term stability without such a balancing mechanism being evolved along with them, to which is still evolving today in the political form of 'human rights' and 'humanitarianism'.

Credit for most of this breakdown of KCA to Mutantbass, used because it was articulated well with simplicity.
Modified for personal tastes and elaborations:
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=13352.0