>"M-maybe once I get a N-Nobel prize then I'll

>people think about this kind of stuff
what are you doing with your life?

>>7738372
O'reilley is being a bit mean here, trying to bait him to get mad with that artful rhetoric. Academics, if they're good, shouldn't be good at rhetoric. Actually they should actively suck at rhetoric, because their habitual use of facts should be so strongly ingrained it gets in the way.

As an unrelated note, have you ever noticed how human faces are really small compared to our head size? (look at the area enclosed by the eyebrows and chin as one object, and rest of the head as another object, you'll see)

>>7738372
ITT: Anon tries to project his virginity

>>7738372
Bill O'Riley is actually very intelligent, he plays dumb for his audience like most tv personalities, but he's very good at what he does.

>>7738431
How can you be poor at communicating and be a political academic?

He's a professor, columnist and economic adviser. He's a failed adviser because he's never once been right about any prediction. He's a good professor because he doesn't have to take shit and its all Ph.D. and master's level work so the students kiss his ass instead of arguing what he teaches. Otherwise, they're doing their own research.

>>7738480
General communication skills and writing is not the same rhetor.

The other anon is right.

A large part of rhetoric is being able to deliberately obfuscate to make your points seem more persuasive.

It's the exact opposite way academics are supposed to think, ie. trying to find the truth through logic and humble clarifications.

>>7738480
But he's not a political academic. He's an economist.

>>7738456
Maybe because his audience is full of retards who think whoever screams the loudest wins the argument.

>>7738495
>Maybe because his audience is full of retards who think whoever screams the loudest wins the argument.
His audience isn't 90% of the population. And thinking whoever makes the loudest joke or empty parody wins is equally retarded.

>>7738495
muslim discussion technique <3

>>7738513
Thanks for proving my point, bigot retard