Russell Brand V Peter Hitchens On Drug Addiction

[Henry]

He went to work dressed as Osama Bin Laden the day after 9/11. I think he's great.

 

I think that's a bit insensitive of the Oz-based mod prick.

[The Boofon]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha I feel a very large Pot Calling Kettle Black there gadjee.

 

You take great pleasure at pickling folks brain's fan they're in a dialt mess.

[boboisared]

Like all good men, he's made mistakes. The Sachs thing with wanker Woss was a shambles.

 

Men are not defined by their mistakes but by their reactions to them.

 

Fuck me I'm full of it today. Anyone seen my wisdom robe?

 

EDIT: it's ok. Silly me. I'm wearing it.

I never said it was a mistake!

[Guest]

I never said it was a mistake!

I never said you said he had.

[daytripping]

I have no opinion on either of them to be honest.

 

Brand is a good actor though.

[Pash]

 

he talks a good game, but what does he actually do about it? It's all self-promotion, by the king of self-promotion.

 

Does he really need to promote himself though? Everyone knows of him through his comedy act or his films or for putting his willy inside Katy Perry. He realises he has a voice that can be heard because he is famous and he is just saying what a lot of us think but would never get the chance to say it.

[Pash]

His views or Heroin and Methadone are spot on too imo. My cousin is in ARI being pumped full of methadone as we speak.

[StandFree1982]

He argues his views very well and he doesn't say anything that I can disagree with.

 

However, until this "revolution" actually happens he's just spouting what most people are already thinking, change needs to happen.

 

Aberdeen winning a cup final will spark a revolution.

[tup]

I've never actually heard him speak.

 

I've just decided I dont like the look of him.

[Ke1t]

 

Why debate someone like Hitchens on a purely 'intellectual' level? Why should people conform to some "norm" when discussing political issues when they are both trying to get their points across? It is the same norm that has led us to where we are today - fucked. If opponents throw their arms up and say "fuck this shit!", surely he's doing something right?

 

Genuinely interested as to your views on the Paxman video.

 

You debate people on an intellectual level because that's where genuine debate is done. This is why we don't see the clowns from Billy Smart's Circus discussing shit like nuclear proliferation.

 

I'm not saying you can't be facetious or didactic, fuck, look at drunken comedian Doug Stanhope. That guy has done probably as much pharmaceuticals and alcohol as Brand, but in debate he talks like an adult, not like a 12 year old who thinks farting is hilarious.

 

There was a moment near the end of the Paxman interview where Brand dropped the idiocy for about 60 seconds, and the impact of his message during those 60 seconds simply blew away the previous 15 minutes of animated clowning that had preceded it. He looked Paxman straight in the eye, spoke like an adult, and in those moments his point was made. He could have simply not have bothered talking for the majority of the interview, because amused as Paxman was, I don't think he was taking Brand seriously., and understandably so.

 

At some point he'll realise that there's a time for goofing around and there's a time for acting like a grown up. When he has a handle on when to do what he'll find he has a lot more impact in debate.

[tup]

I think he's a

[tommo1903]

 

You debate people on an intellectual level because that's where genuine debate is done. This is why we don't see the clowns from Billy Smart's Circus discussing shit like nuclear proliferation.

 

I'm not saying you can't be facetious or didactic, fuck, look at drunken comedian Doug Stanhope. That guy has done probably as much pharmaceuticals and alcohol as Brand, but in debate he talks like an adult, not like a 12 year old who thinks farting is hilarious.

 

There was a moment near the end of the Paxman interview where Brand dropped the idiocy for about 60 seconds, and the impact of his message during those 60 seconds simply blew away the previous 15 minutes of animated clowning that had preceded it. He looked Paxman straight in the eye, spoke like an adult, and in those moments his point was made. He could have simply not have bothered talking for the majority of the interview, because amused as Paxman was, I don't think he was taking Brand seriously., and understandably so.

 

At some point he'll realise that there's a time for goofing around and there's a time for acting like a grown up. When he has a handle on when to do what he'll find he has a lot more impact in debate.

 

I also am a fan of Stanhope. Brand's humour, IMO, is very clever. I think he's very good at getting a complicated point accross to the idiots of the world (the majority).

 

Thats not the first time Paxman has interviewed Brand, I think they have a mutual respect.

 

As a side note, I think all debates should be carried out by people dressed as clowns. Cos why the fuck not

[dervish]

 

I also am a fan of Stanhope. Brand's humour, IMO, is very clever. I think he's very good at getting a complicated point accross to the idiots of the world (the majority).

 

Thats not the first time Paxman has interviewed Brand, I think they have a mutual respect.

 

As a side note, I think all debates should be carried out by people dressed as clowns. Cos why the fuck not

 

Yes I'm sure. Paxman said to him "You are a very trivial man" (3.45ish). You might want to actually listen to what Paxman said and more importantly what he meant (he is only meant to ask questions).

 

Origin:

1400–50; late Middle English < Latin triviālis belonging to the crossroads or street corner, hencecommonplace, equivalent to tri- tri- + vi ( a ) road + -ālis -al1

Related forms

triv·i·al·ly, adverb

su·per·triv·i·al, adjective

un·triv·i·al, adjective

un·triv·i·al·ly, adverb

 

Synonyms

1. unimportant, nugatory, slight, immaterial, inconsequential, frivolous, trifling. See petty.

 

Antonyms

1. important.

[Guest]

How it is said is often more important than what is said.

 

One would need to be able to recognise this. The literal rigid thinkers don't.

 

Paxman likes Brand. He said trivial man with great fondness. Brand's response was brilliant, as was his depiction which drew those words from the "interviewer".

 

The most brilliant part for me was "gimme a chance, Jeremy, I've had a lot on me plate". That cracked me up.

 

The polarised need to understand their contempt, confusion or even their antipathy towards Brand. The polarised need to understand themselves. They are unable to articulate their opinion of him because they don't know from whence their scepticism comes. From a less than open mind obviously, but the precise articulation is beyond them.

[tup]

He looks like a jakey, sounds gay, and is a posh English twat with poor personal hygiene.

 

Apart from that I'm sure he's, pardon the pun, brand new.

[Sonoftherock]

The fact that he polarises opinion so extremely says everything about the polarised, not the subject.

 

People hate qualities in others that they will never have but subconsciously covet, without them even knowing it.

 

Fleet Street built an industry on this majority sickness within the human condition.

 

Surprised at you, sotr, twice. Your issue is charisma. Plus a bit of ignorance, being young.

 

I don't follow?

 

 

Does he really need to promote himself though? Everyone knows of him through his comedy act or his films or for putting his willy inside Katy Perry. He realises he has a voice that can be heard because he is famous and he is just saying what a lot of us think but would never get the chance to say it.

 

Egomaniacs can never have enough publicity. That's not my point though. The bottom line is that I just think talk is cheap. I don't think he's genuine.

 

IMO, if he does care that much, he'd do something about it, rather than spending his time churning out shit movies. A man of his talent, ability and global profile could achieve a lot towards the cause.

[dervish]

How it is said is often more important than what is said.

 

One would need to be able to recognise this. The literal rigid thinkers don't.

 

Paxman likes Brand. He said trivial man with great fondness. Brand's response was brilliant, as was his depiction which drew those words from the "interviewer".

 

The most brilliant part for me was "gimme a chance, Jeremy, I've had a lot on me plate". That cracked me up.

 

The polarised need to understand their contempt, confusion or even their antipathy towards Brand. The polarised need to understand themselves. They are unable to articulate their opinion of him because they don't know from whence their scepticism comes. From a less than open mind obviously, but the precise articulation is beyond them.

 

What did he ask him after he said that and what was the answer?

 

My contempt for him, in this context (talking about politics), is he has no idea what he is talking about and his 'contribution' to the debate could be summed as "this is shit".

[tommo1903]

 

 

Yes I'm sure. Paxman said to him "You are a very trivial man" (3.45ish). You might want to actually listen to what Paxman said and more importantly what he meant (he is only meant to ask questions).

 

Origin:

1400–50; late Middle English < Latin triviālis belonging to the crossroads or street corner, hencecommonplace, equivalent to tri- tri- + vi ( a ) road + -ālis -al1

Related forms

triv·i·al·ly, adverb

su·per·triv·i·al, adjective

un·triv·i·al, adjective

un·triv·i·al·ly, adverb

 

Synonyms

1. unimportant, nugatory, slight, immaterial, inconsequential, frivolous, trifling. See petty.

 

Antonyms

1. important.

 

 

Say your pal met you in the pub (I am of course, assuming you have pals) and said, "arite, ye cunt!" , would you therefore believe that your pals (hypothetical or otherwise) believe you are indeed, a cunt?

[The Boofon]

 

I also am a fan of Stanhope. Brand's humour, IMO, is very clever. I think he's very good at getting a complicated point accross to the idiots of the world (the majority).

 

Thats not the first time Paxman has interviewed Brand, I think they have a mutual respect.

 

As a side note, I think all debates should be carried out by people dressed as clowns. Cos why the fuck not

No he isn't. He speaks too much for idiots to understand. All he spews in that interview is juvenile crap.

[Bluto10]

i think brand, even stoned out his face, is probably more articulate than almost everyone on here

[tommo1903]

No he isn't. He speaks too much for idiots to understand. All he spews in that interview is juvenile crap.

 

OxyMORON

 

copyright MT.

[terenceandphilip]

Russel is eloquent enough in the interview with Paxman, but just kind of gibbers loads of teenage angst and undergraduate clobber. I'd rather live in the this world than Russel's new or imaginary 'revolutionary' one - I could just imagine how that would work out.

[Guest]

Russel is eloquent enough in the interview with Paxman, but just kind of gibbers loads of teenage angst and undergraduate clobber. I'd rather live in the this world than Russel's new or imaginary 'revolutionary' one - I could just imagine how that would work out.

 

It wouldn't be "Russell's" brave new world post revolution. He is just putting on the table a concept beyond the imagination of most.

 

How can you imagine that HIS world would be worse when he's not standing for election? What world is this you speak of?

 

You may be one of the masses who doesn't comprehend the concept of revolution but as you obviously have a robustly-functioning imagination, to impune Brand with a new world order despite his never offering one, imagine this: -

 

What possibly was he talking about? Revolution? Against what? What does he, and many others in a small minority, find revolting?

 

Just cos we're doing alright - and Russell is doing more alright than the most of us - this doesn't mean we behave like self-serving cunts.

 

Do you have any concept of why he's talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about, when you imagine this fabrication?

[Guest]

 

Brand has something to say. He came across as 'muddle-headed' but I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Can't say I'm a big fan of him as a performer but admired him in this interview and I'm pretty sure Paxman did too. I liked the bit when he basically said to Paxman you've wasted a whole career interviewing complete fuckwits (politicians). I notice Jeremy didn't bite back.

 

I'm the same. In fact I'm so much a non-fan of his stand-up that I can't watch it. I think it's utter shite.

 

But a man can wear many hats. If he gets paid to appear and express his views, why the fuck not? Some people are obviously interested in what he's got to say and given both his style and content, he is refreshingly honest and incisive, as well as coming out with some funny as fuck shit.

[tup]

Man is a disheveled arse bandit, I cant take a word he says at face value.

[Guest]

Don't like the cunt he's a jakey.

 

 

He's one of those pretentious posh cunts who thinks his opinion is important.

 

Its no more important than that of the tramp lying buckled at the arse end of the Trinity centre.

 

He's irrelevant.

 

 

I've never actually heard him speak.

 

I've just decided I dont like the look of him.

 

 

I think he's a

 

 

He looks like a jakey, sounds gay, and is a posh English twat with poor personal hygiene.

 

Apart from that I'm sure he's, pardon the pun, brand new.

 

 

Man is a disheveled arse bandit, I cant take a word he says at face value.

 

Might I suggest a strategy change?

 

The consistency of your one dimensional approach is failing to get the reaction you crave.

[tup]

Damn it

 

I was hoping you would go off on one.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Russell Brand = Uber twat.

 

He needs a good wash, a haircut and a shave.

 

Then he needs to consider his general conduct.

 

Its just heartbreaking to see him appear on "serious" programs, discussing politics or whatever. It completely strips the proceedings of credibility.

 

The guy is a celebrity - an act - not a serious commentator FFS.

[tommo1903]

Russell Brand = Uber twat.

 

He needs a good wash, a haircut and a shave.

 

Then he needs to consider his general conduct.

 

Its just heartbreaking to see him appear on "serious" programs, discussing politics or whatever. It completely strips the proceedings of credibility.

 

The guy is a celebrity - an act - not a serious commentator FFS.

 

Why is credibilty defined by appearance?

[Bluto10]

 

Might I suggest a strategy change?

 

The consistency of your one dimensional approach is failing to get the reaction you crave.