Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This should be good.
Paxman would kick the shit out of her.
But no, its newsnight.
She said that children being given smiley faces for being friendly to the enviroment by bringing their lunch in a recycled bag rather than a lunchbox was a crazy religious belief.
Paxman was far too nice to her.
she's a bitch and she didnt seem to give him much respect -
"it's the best selling book in America so I cant be wrong".
He probably could have been a bit more forceful but I think just getting her to validate all her statements proved what a nutjob she is.
what?!?!?!? and creationism IS logical. fuck off you nut.
she's against recycling and safe sex?!
up her arse, tie blindfold her and make her run around london. TWAT.
I missed her on Newsnight, no doubt it'll be on youtube tomorrow
and why did pazman interview her......thats wrong by interviewing her he imbues her with a sense of gravitas and intellectualism.....ok so shes sold a lot of books....so did archer but, like her, he has no real thought processes with which to debate/interact with they are surely just showmen, or at best possessers of spectacularly outrageous opinion that passes for entertainment for us or wisdom for morons......Once again just like Melanie Phillips this makes me so f****king angry because I am not given a platform to offer my punditry.....why when these women already have fame and fortune and influence beyond the worth of their thought and opinion do the BBC insist on giving them even more airtime.....I wish that the BBC would someone like me.....or other disers....to go on question time or something......the best they normally do is some comedian (admitedly Mark ....out of Peep Show did rather well) who normally look totally cowed by the company that they are in, they normally only feel they can comment on some nice fluffy humanitarian subject, or the environment......come on the BBC non-celebrities have valid insightful thought too, why dont they ever ever have non-celebrities.....say attract viewers through the standard of debate.......they could argue that the panelists mostly represent people with mandates who thus get to answer/prove to the public their credentials/answer for their departments, but this hardly ever happens, politicians are so reluctant to further the debate at the risk of embarrising their department/party that it is often pointless....ARRRRRGRGRGRGRGGRGGRRHHHRGGRHHRHHRHRGGRHHHRGGRHHRGRHHRGGRHRHHRRGRHRHRGRHRHRGRRHRHRGRHRHRHRHRHRHRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
to Michael Moore, Al Franken etc etc
Right wing, left wing - they're all publicity hungry mongrels who write populist trash.
favourite coulter conversation:
interviewer - so you would be in favour of taking away certain constitional amendments?
coulter - yes of course
interviewer - what about the emancipation proclamation?
coulter - that would be a good start
proof that the christian concept of a 'god entity' cannot be true cos although he aint meant to intervene, if he chooses random 'deaths of people then surely by choosing these sort then overall people would be free'er to chose and follow their own free will.
Did Jeremy not try to take her to task on her being 'ungodly' and acting against the wishes of jesus.....I recon people like that could be broiught down more easily that way......I reckon I could take her out.....reduce her to a blubbering wreck by removing her 'faith' (couldnt do it publically though.....wouldnt want to upset other people)
need deconstructing demonstrably to themselves, yet the argument to do that is not true for all perspectives......(it will be the truth in respect to the dogma person). When your talking to loads of different people then you have to be more general, cos they are all in different places (not geographic places).
Although the literal meaning may be interpreted the same, many different people manage to fit the soundbite into their viewpoints (which are completely different)and thus mean different things, yet it seems that the politician/pundit that uses them is therefore wise......well they are in that they have picked an efficient utility soundbite, yet everyone credits them (or their advisors with more knowledge/wisdom).......Really the level of debate is appalling.......I love DIS though.......we often get tangled up and confused and get the wrong end of the stick etc, but we attempt to resolve this, someone often steps in as a mediator, and we have the excuse of not being able to hear verbal intonation or see body language
(Yesterday my manager said communication is 10% words, 30%intonation and 60% body language........of this may be 110% exagerrated management speak, but there is a good point to this).......
Sorry I know Ive gone off track, but this sort of subject makes me so mad.....I suspect that Paxman was under orders not to ridicule her, because she was relatively lightweight.....to save the savaging for politicians......I disagree with this softly softly approach though.....Opinion formers such as this Coulter, have an large and undue effect on the election process and therefore legislation formation, sych extreme opinions which are popularised influence opinions and laws and create scapegoats.....it is not unreasonable to conclude that predjudice vigilantes and beatings and even deaths can sometimes be attributable to such sort of extremism....therefore Paxman should lay into her, with extremeness, her opinions are not nicey nicey, they involve disenfranchising people, they involve comments that may help delay action on climate change and thus cause more deaths.......she is potentially evil, he should not tread softly with her, neither should anyone else, if she appears on question time why exchange pleasentries......would you do that with people you regards as evil or dangerously deranged?
If this woman appears on question time, expect me to storm the BBC to get let in.
Headline next day....."wishy washy liberal ejected from bbc studio for removing his trousers in obscure, pointless protest at US best selling author"
can anyone recommend me any website where I can go to vent my spleen......to a) ann coulter b) the bbc, c) Jeremy Paxman, d)Question Time Dimbleby (in anticipation)