[imagine an increasingly higher tone]
Maybe the MSM needs to do an expose of all the anti-American Senators and Congresspeople. Hmm? That sound like a plan? Get some reporters together and investigate our elected officials in D.C. to find out which ones are anti-American? A scathing expose of all those who hate America? Who just happen to run for national political office because they hate the country so much?

ahoy! i replied scathingly to you anti-america comment. ... nevermind; i softened it down after seeing your profile.


In reply to this comment by netean:
america, this is why we hate you..

to lazy (or too fat) to take your dog for a walk - never mind, buy a treadmill for it!

>> ^dannym3141:
Because afaik the opinion on him is that he's often too interested in trying to be scathing to actually concentrate on the stuff that's being said.


I would describe repeating the same question over and over until the interviewee stops dodging it precisely as "concentrating on the stuff that's being said" (even though, yes, that makes him look somewhat scathing).

I wouldn't classify him as a legend at all. Perhaps you come from the same town as him? Because afaik the opinion on him is that he's often too interested in trying to be scathing to actually concentrate on the stuff that's being said.

edit:
"don't listen to this" - great one there son, you really tore my comment up.

This guy is FAR too interested in his persona as a "scathing interviewer". As has been said - repeating the same thing over and over till he gets an answer is concentrating on what's being said and it's scathing too.

However, the number of times i've seen Paxman try his best to be scathing and end up looking like more of a fool himself, i'm surprised he hasn't had MORE successes. The law of averages surely is on his side.

Posting videos and/or quoting times when he's had a good moment is a statistical anomoly, who the fuck is going to remember and/or quote from all the times he's actually just been a gigantic dick? Highlight reels are awesome. You're gonna tell me "Big Brother" adequately depicts people without an agenda too, aren't you?

I was and am a regular watcher of Paxman. And i still say he's too motivated by his own persona, whether you say "don't listen to this" or not. Instead say "Go and watch a good cross-section of his entire work, and make your own mind up." Then i'll give your comment the plaudits it deserves.

You can't be atheist AND agnostic. That's just downright silly. I say this in the kindliest way possible.

But, seriously, Ace, I like you. You give me a good challenge. I was delighted to see that you lost your faith because of the age-old "problem of evil," which is the name for the whole hell+justgod=wtf? phenomenon you described. I wrote a ridiculously long paper on JUST THAT TOPIC about a year ago. Did you know that Mormon theology actually solves that problem? This is what got me so into that book, Mormon Doctrine. I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING. It's crazy! I can send you my paper sometime if you want.

The dilemna is:

1. All-good
2. All-powerful
3. Evil exists

Does that look familiar? Man, I love this stuff. I don't want to convert you or anything, I just find it incredibly interesting to talk about. We should chat.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
I left this response recently on pinky's page in response to her critique on http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Mormon-Theology-Is-Really-All-About-1975 and thought it was applicable to the thread so I am pasting it.

"After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly."

My response to this is/was:

Come back to me with this argument when you've found better sources. A lesson about church doctrine: You cannot believe that Mormons believe it unless you get it straight from the source. That is, it has to come from canonized scripture, church lesson manuals, or at least General Conference talks from the 12 apostles or the prophet. Someone with authority has to have declared that it is doctrine in order to claim that it is doctrine. Okaybee? Wiki does not count. I'm not talking history here. History can be filtered by the church and you can't neccesarily get all of the information from their sources. But doctrine, yes. BECAUSE IT IS ONLY DOCTRINE IF THEY SAY IT IS DOCTRINE, NOT IF YOU SAY IT IS DOCTRINE! Why don't people understand this about religion? Catholics are often the victims of this, too. You can site as many sources as you want, but it isn't church doctrine unless it is official church doctrine. I can't stress this enough. And I have a feeling some people will still fail to understand it.

>> ^theaceofclubz:
I left this response recently on pinky's page in response to her critique on http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Mormon-Theology-Is-Really-All-About-1975 and thought it was applicable to the thread so I am pasting it.
"After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:
Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.
The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.
On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:
Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm
Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage
I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly."

Come back to me with this argument when you've found better sources. A lesson about church doctrine: You cannot believe that Mormons believe it unless you get it straight from the source. That is, it has to come from canonized scripture, church lesson manuals, or at least General Conference talks from the 12 apostles or the prophet. Someone with authority has to have declared that it is doctrine in order to claim that it is doctrine. Okaybee? Wiki does not count.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly.

Keep in mind that this theology rests on top of the church history, which is also more shockingly ridiculous then the general joe on the street has any idea of.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Wow. This is extremely inaccurate. I don't even know where to begin. Lies, people. Don't believe a word of it!!!

I left this response recently on pinky's page in response to her critique on http://www.videosift.com/video/What-Mormon-Theology-Is-Really-All-About-1975 and thought it was applicable to the thread so I am pasting it.

"After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly."

After watching the video it was my intention to write a scathing refutation of the blasphemy. However, after doing a little web searching I found the facts weren't going to support me. First the only glaring inaccuracies I found in the video were:

Mormons don't believe that physical sex took place between Mary and Heavenly Father. Jesus was definitely the son of the father and impregnation occurred somehow but the Mary is a virgin thing is still in effect so I think it rules out a physical union. I'm not completely 100% on this though, so I'm going to ask my mom tomorrow.

The quote at the end by Joe is almost certainly fake, but I have no proof of this and may be wrong.

On the more shocking theology that isn't necessarily broached in Sunday School:

Elohim - Yup, thats Gods name. It also refers to the belief in multiple gods that aren't worshiped or thought to have any relevance in earth life. see
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Elohim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Elohim_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Kolob - Yes, there is literally a freakin' star in the universe that you could literally point to and say "thats where god lives." (Heavens Gate creepy) Its exact location is disputed and not addressed by church authorities, try a search for "Kolob constellation"
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Kolob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Literal_reading
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm

Celestial Polygamy - It was my understanding when in the faith that Polygamy was a celestial practice that had be suspended during our time on earth due to prophetic revelation, and that when you do get in heaven men can marry multiple wives, but women can only marry one man. The whole prophetic revelation occurring at the same point in history that the US government made the ultimatum that Mormons had to give up polygamy before they would receive statehood is just seen as a coincidence. (seriously) After searching a little though a guess there is a little dispute over it.
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Celestial_polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

I'd say that anything not outlined in this message is about 95% accurate, and certainly presented in the most sensationalist fashion.
I wasn't aware of most of this theological stuff while in the church and can understand when Mormons claim its inaccurate. However, if you believe church doctrine to be true then you sort of carry the theology indirectly.

Keep in mind that this theology rests on top of the church history, which is also more shockingly ridiculous then the general joe on the street has any idea of.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Wow. This is extremely inaccurate. I don't even know where to begin. Lies, people. Don't believe a word of it!!!

Bollocks! I was going to make some scathing comment about parents pushing their kids into competition and blah-dee-blah and it was going to be epic and genius! But then I heard it was for charidee... fuckin do-gooders. Cute though

>> ^Farhad2000:
As I remember the reviews were scathing because the requirements were pretty high and it wasn't exactly Elite done in better graphics.


Well, yeah, they kinda touted it as being Elite, when it wasn't really that open, but the reviews I was referring to are recent ones, so no system requirements come into it these days.

As I remember the reviews were scathing because the requirements were pretty high and it wasn't exactly Elite done in better graphics.

Guess whose wrong.

There is a interesting post by Kevin Drum:

END OF AN ERA?....David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:

When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — "and now I feel estranged," he said. "I just don't feel it's exciting, I don't feel it's true, fundamentally true." In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed "true." Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. "American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn't a big one," he said. "The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don't know if they can." He added, "You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they're fucked. They have that sense. But they don't know what to do. There's a hunger for new policy ideas."

The great liberal wave that lasted from the 30s through the 70s was fundamentally based on three things: middle class wage growth, the construction of a social safety net, and the individual rights revolution. Its other pathologies aside, liberalism's big problem by the end of the 70s was that it had essentially won most of these battles. Not all of them. No movement ever wins all its battles. But once you win two-thirds of them, it's hard to sustain the kind of momentum it takes to win the rest.

Conservatives are in the same boat today, except worse. Modern movement conservatism was also fundamentally based on three things: low taxes, anti-communism, and social traditionalism. ("Small government" was never more than a fig leaf.) Today communism is gone (and Islamofascism has failed to rally the troops in the same way), taxes literally can't be lowered any more, and sex-and-gender fundamentalism has become an albatross that's rapidly producing a generation of young voters more repelled by conservatism than any generation since World War II. Even in the late 70s, there were still plenty of traditionally liberal goals still to be fought for. Not enough to build a winning coalition around, but still something. Modern conservatives don't even have that. The culture war is pretty much all they have left, and its clock has run out.

They won't be willing to say this during a presidential campaign, but there are at least half a dozen smart Republican senators who understand this and don't really want to go down with the ship. So even if Democrats don't win a filibuster-proof majority in November — as they almost certainly won't — it's likely that there will still be enough survival-inspired GOP senators around to give Barack Obama the votes he needs to make a difference. If that's the case, and if Obama has the courage of his convictions, his first two years could be historic.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

dag: Indeed.

The main problem I see with religion is that it wants to be taken as seriously as science, or rather replace science, which it has no basis for doing.

Doc_M: It was probably good I lost half my message because of notepad; the first version was quite a bit more scathing, but in retrospect there is no reason for any animosity as such, our mindsets are just different, I suppose.

Hehe, this was good. A scathing review of a three year old, it's like stealing candy from a paraplegic baby.