Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand

[turbobloke]

Mr Whippy said:

LucreLout said:

He's just another champagne socialist milking the right on crowd for all they're worth. Idiots, the lot of them.

Is the "right on crowd" really worth that much though?

As long as he is raising issues that people might care about that go against the moral grain of society, you can't knock him too much.

Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?

Dave

It's not just about relevance. Can you really tolerate more than a few seconds of listening to this guy in verbal diarrhoea reheat mode?

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

Mr Whippy said:

LucreLout said:

He's just another champagne socialist milking the right on crowd for all they're worth. Idiots, the lot of them.

Is the "right on crowd" really worth that much though?

As long as he is raising issues that people might care about that go against the moral grain of society, you can't knock him too much.

Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?

Dave

It's not just about relevance. Can you really tolerate more than a few seconds of listening to this guy in verbal diarrhoea reheat mode?

I like him, he's funny, he's charming, he's eloquent, intelligent and he has a story to tell (although to be fair that is wearing a little thin). His first bookie wookie was probably one of the best autobiographies I've ever read, certainly one of the few you can be sure is actually written by the subject.

What's not to like?

[legzr1]

FredClogs said:

I like him, he's funny, he's charming, he's eloquent, intelligent and he has a story to tell (although to be fair that is wearing a little thin). His first bookie wookie was probably one of the best autobiographies I've ever read, certainly one of the few you can be sure is actually written by the subject.

What's not to like?

Agreed.

I just wish some of the more prolific posters on here had 1% of his wit and humour.

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Mr Whippy said:

LucreLout said:

He's just another champagne socialist milking the right on crowd for all they're worth. Idiots, the lot of them.

Is the "right on crowd" really worth that much though?

As long as he is raising issues that people might care about that go against the moral grain of society, you can't knock him too much.

Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?

Dave

It's not just about relevance. Can you really tolerate more than a few seconds of listening to this guy in verbal diarrhoea reheat mode?

I like him, he's funny, he's charming, he's eloquent, intelligent and he has a story to tell (although to be fair that is wearing a little thin). His first bookie wookie was probably one of the best autobiographies I've ever read, certainly one of the few you can be sure is actually written by the subject.

What's not to like?

Anyone who uses big words with such a frequency, when small ones will do, is trying too hard. His rambling writing style mirrors this and gives the impression of a sixth-form over-achiever. In interviews it's a welcome break when the interviewer gets a word in, if you can last that long beyond the first question. There are enough champagne socialists peddling their wares to gullible wolfie smiths, and many of them (champagne socialists) are easier on the ear.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

FredClogs said:

I like him, he's funny, he's charming, he's eloquent, intelligent and he has a story to tell (although to be fair that is wearing a little thin). His first bookie wookie was probably one of the best autobiographies I've ever read, certainly one of the few you can be sure is actually written by the subject.

What's not to like?

Agreed.

I just wish some of the more prolific posters on here had 1% of his wit and humour.

Why on earth would you wish that level of drop in wit and humour on Eric Mc?

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

Anyone who uses big words with such a frequency, when small ones will do, is trying too hard. His rambling writing style mirrors this and gives the impression of a sixth-form over-achiever. In interviews it's a welcome break when the interviewer gets a word in, if you can last that long beyond the first question. There are enough champagne socialists peddling their wares to gullible wolfie smiths, and many of them (champagne socialists) are easier on the ear.

The lore of Farage is that? Pretend you're dafter than you are, call it plain speaking - remove the ambiguity of language, revert to communicating in monosyllabic grunts, let the working classes feel comforted by simple meaning - so as they don't get above their station?

I'll take someone daft pretending to be clever than the inverse any day of the week.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

Why on earth would you wish that level of drop in wit and humour on Eric Mc?

Irony is no replacement

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Anyone who uses big words with such a frequency, when small ones will do, is trying too hard. His rambling writing style mirrors this and gives the impression of a sixth-form over-achiever. In interviews it's a welcome break when the interviewer gets a word in, if you can last that long beyond the first question. There are enough champagne socialists peddling their wares to gullible wolfie smiths, and many of them (champagne socialists) are easier on the ear.

The lore of Farage is that?

WTF?

FredClogs said:

Pretend you're dafter than you are

FredClogs said:

call it plain speaking - remove the ambiguity of language, revert to communicating in monosyllabic grunts, let the working classes feel comforted by simple meaning - so as they don't get above their station?

Good old class warfare, typical toytown trot material - and it's still better not to sound like a sixth-former who's swallowed a thesaurus.

FredClogs said:

I'll take someone daft pretending to be clever than the inverse any day of the week.

Personally I'm not interested in fakery of any type, and find Brand's brand disagreeble, almost nauseating. You are of course free to enjoy any type of reproduction item

[LucreLout]

legzr1 said:

You should take the stage - you're far more interesting...

I'd rather take Katy Perry if that's an option.

[turbobloke]

LucreLout said:

legzr1 said:

You should take the stage - you're far more interesting...

I'd rather take Katy Perry if that's an option.

Me too if it was either Brand or her

[LucreLout]

Mr Whippy said:

Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?

I'm not aware that Brand has raised any issues in my mind, nor added any fresh perspective or intellectual content.
As far as I'm aware he's just reheating the same venal ste as the last champagne socialist to get the gig.

[TTwiggy]

LucreLout said:

Mr Whippy said:

Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?

I'm not aware that Brand has raised any issues in my mind, nor added any fresh perspective or intellectual content.
As far as I'm aware he's just reheating the same venal ste as the last champagne socialist to get the gig.

I thought the major issue he's been rasing is that the current crop of politicians we have (of all tie colours) are useless and out of touch with the electorate? I don't think that's a socialist standpoint but rather one that echoes the views of many on here who want a sea change in British politics.

[Tiggsy]

turbobloke said:

Anyone who uses big words with such a frequency, when small ones will do, is trying too hard.

or....

Anyone who uses big words a lot when small ones will do, is trying too hard.

I like his style and use of language, and he comes over as someone who just enjoys playing with it rather than showing off. Telling him to use smaller words is like asking a musician to wind back on the guitar solo.

Let him talk how he likes...makes a nice change to my ear.

[TTwiggy]

ash73 said:

A sea change to what, exactly?

Who knows? I just thought that Brand's 'non of the above' views might be shared by some on here.

[Zod]

I cannot believe that anyone is taking him seriously. Apart from anything else, his proposal to close down any company with a turnover greater than the GDP of the world's smallest country is preposterous.

He's just a posturing, empty vessel. You might like him as a comedian, but he has no credibility whatsoever as a political or economic authority.

[LucreLout]

TTwiggy said:

I thought the major issue he's been rasing is that the current crop of politicians we have (of all tie colours) are useless and out of touch with the electorate? I don't think that's a socialist standpoint but rather one that echoes the views of many on here who want a sea change in British politics.

I agree but its not a revelation or even a new take on an old issue.

[FredClogs]

Zod said:

I cannot believe that anyone is taking him seriously. Apart from anything else, his proposal to close down any company with a turnover greater than the GDP of the world's smallest country is preposterous.

He's just a posturing, empty vessel. You might like him as a comedian, but he has no credibility whatsoever as a political or economic authority.

Beware anyone who claims to be an authority - I don't think Brand ever has.

Why is his idea to limit the power of corporate business preposterous? I think it's a pretty good idea and absolutely perverse to think that companies many people have never heard of have the cash at hand (and power that goes with it) to buy nations.

If you believe in the idea of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of nation states (which I don't) you'd be a bit hypocritical to want to allow corporations the ability to overpower them with cash and influence.

[fido]

FredClogs said:

If you believe in the idea of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of nation states (which I don't) you'd be a bit hypocritical to want to allow corporations the ability to overpower them with cash and influence.

So what would you do with Apple, Google etc.? Break them up? It's easy to spout wordy sound bites masquerading as intellectual anti-Establishment political activism (as Brand does so well) but what would you actually do in practice - you know in terms of policies and making laws.

[mybrainhurts]

FredClogs said:

If you believe in the idea of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of nation states (which I don't) you'd be a bit hypocritical to want to allow corporations the ability to overpower them with cash and influence.

Which companies do you have in mind and which nations have they overpowered?

[mybrainhurts]

Zod said:

You might like him as a comedian,

Only if you've missed your medication.

Did you see his dire performance on Have I Got News For You?

Profoundly embarrassing.