By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
He was doing fairly well in the first half of that interview. Making it seem like he's raising some valid points for people who have conservative views. Then his more unsavoury views come out and he starts looking for an out.
Accusing Neil of trying to make money off him because he is famous was brilliant. Genuine lol moment.
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 17:46 - May 10 by J2BLUE
He was doing fairly well in the first half of that interview. Making it seem like he's raising some valid points for people who have conservative views. Then his more unsavoury views come out and he starts looking for an out.
Accusing Neil of trying to make money off him because he is famous was brilliant. Genuine lol moment.
Yes and anyone that knows me on here know's I am right of centre at least economically but I hate Shapiro. He used to go at it with Morgan on CNN as well.
[Post edited 10 May 2019 18:17]
0
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 17:52 - May 10 with 4846 views
I hadn't heard of Andrew Neil before this interview. I had heard of Ben Shapiro although I know very little about him.
I completely disagree with the OP view "Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil ". When you "own" someone in the context the OP intended, it means you make a series of points, or one very strong point, to which your opponent has no reply.
What we saw here was Andrew Neil nitpicking and taking the new petulant interview line, akin somewhat to Cathy Newman (although Andrew doesn't come across anywhere near as astoundingly stupid as the Channel 4 interviewer, ref. Jordan Peterson), where the basis of the debate is un-researched whataboutery. Andrew was caught out as ill-prepared and uninformed when he asked about the titles of the YouTube videos in an accusatory fashion. "Who wrote the titles for those videos?" "I don't know". WTF? Cop on, Andrew!
I felt the abortion question could have been explored in more depth here. I've read a couple of articles about how some in the Democrats are trying to allow abortions up to the last minute, when there is no medical need. I personally think that abortion is wrong "after a certain point", but I don't even know what point that is. Viability (20 weeks?) seems late. 38 weeks is certainly too late. 2 days, maybe even two weeks, seems early enough so that you're only removing a clump of cells with gestational potential. A debate around that would have been useful.
In my opinion Andrew Neil failed in his job as an interviewer on this occasion, and he failed because he took the BBC-default-bias approach. The BBC is meant to be unbiased. I pay them to inform me in an unbiased way. I wouldn't even call their politics "left". The "left" vs "right" arena is getting increasingly clouded by ignorant and shouty bigots from all corners of the overall scope of opinion. The BBC basically takes whatever seems "socially virtuous". Feminazis rule, and holier-than-thou notions of what constitutes racism need to be more honestly examined.
It's becoming a joke of an organisation and I don't see why I should pay them one-third of a license fee for the nonsense they serve (house sharing in London with two other humans and one TV!).
I have no idea where the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" comes from, but this interview is a worthy example of "the pot calling the kettle a cookware item of colour" (heaven help us, even if we're agnostic!) in the sense that Andrew comes across as the exact same type of antagonist that he might claim Ben to be. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on anyone.
-4
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 18:48 - May 10 with 4683 views
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 18:45 - May 10 by wellhungphil
I hadn't heard of Andrew Neil before this interview. I had heard of Ben Shapiro although I know very little about him.
I completely disagree with the OP view "Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil ". When you "own" someone in the context the OP intended, it means you make a series of points, or one very strong point, to which your opponent has no reply.
What we saw here was Andrew Neil nitpicking and taking the new petulant interview line, akin somewhat to Cathy Newman (although Andrew doesn't come across anywhere near as astoundingly stupid as the Channel 4 interviewer, ref. Jordan Peterson), where the basis of the debate is un-researched whataboutery. Andrew was caught out as ill-prepared and uninformed when he asked about the titles of the YouTube videos in an accusatory fashion. "Who wrote the titles for those videos?" "I don't know". WTF? Cop on, Andrew!
I felt the abortion question could have been explored in more depth here. I've read a couple of articles about how some in the Democrats are trying to allow abortions up to the last minute, when there is no medical need. I personally think that abortion is wrong "after a certain point", but I don't even know what point that is. Viability (20 weeks?) seems late. 38 weeks is certainly too late. 2 days, maybe even two weeks, seems early enough so that you're only removing a clump of cells with gestational potential. A debate around that would have been useful.
In my opinion Andrew Neil failed in his job as an interviewer on this occasion, and he failed because he took the BBC-default-bias approach. The BBC is meant to be unbiased. I pay them to inform me in an unbiased way. I wouldn't even call their politics "left". The "left" vs "right" arena is getting increasingly clouded by ignorant and shouty bigots from all corners of the overall scope of opinion. The BBC basically takes whatever seems "socially virtuous". Feminazis rule, and holier-than-thou notions of what constitutes racism need to be more honestly examined.
It's becoming a joke of an organisation and I don't see why I should pay them one-third of a license fee for the nonsense they serve (house sharing in London with two other humans and one TV!).
I have no idea where the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" comes from, but this interview is a worthy example of "the pot calling the kettle a cookware item of colour" (heaven help us, even if we're agnostic!) in the sense that Andrew comes across as the exact same type of antagonist that he might claim Ben to be. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on anyone.
You haven't heard of Andrew Neil?
Shapiro has made a career of "burying the left" . If you knew more about him you'd enjoy this more.
[Post edited 10 May 2019 19:03]
0
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 19:02 - May 10 with 4634 views
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 18:45 - May 10 by wellhungphil
I hadn't heard of Andrew Neil before this interview. I had heard of Ben Shapiro although I know very little about him.
I completely disagree with the OP view "Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil ". When you "own" someone in the context the OP intended, it means you make a series of points, or one very strong point, to which your opponent has no reply.
What we saw here was Andrew Neil nitpicking and taking the new petulant interview line, akin somewhat to Cathy Newman (although Andrew doesn't come across anywhere near as astoundingly stupid as the Channel 4 interviewer, ref. Jordan Peterson), where the basis of the debate is un-researched whataboutery. Andrew was caught out as ill-prepared and uninformed when he asked about the titles of the YouTube videos in an accusatory fashion. "Who wrote the titles for those videos?" "I don't know". WTF? Cop on, Andrew!
I felt the abortion question could have been explored in more depth here. I've read a couple of articles about how some in the Democrats are trying to allow abortions up to the last minute, when there is no medical need. I personally think that abortion is wrong "after a certain point", but I don't even know what point that is. Viability (20 weeks?) seems late. 38 weeks is certainly too late. 2 days, maybe even two weeks, seems early enough so that you're only removing a clump of cells with gestational potential. A debate around that would have been useful.
In my opinion Andrew Neil failed in his job as an interviewer on this occasion, and he failed because he took the BBC-default-bias approach. The BBC is meant to be unbiased. I pay them to inform me in an unbiased way. I wouldn't even call their politics "left". The "left" vs "right" arena is getting increasingly clouded by ignorant and shouty bigots from all corners of the overall scope of opinion. The BBC basically takes whatever seems "socially virtuous". Feminazis rule, and holier-than-thou notions of what constitutes racism need to be more honestly examined.
It's becoming a joke of an organisation and I don't see why I should pay them one-third of a license fee for the nonsense they serve (house sharing in London with two other humans and one TV!).
I have no idea where the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" comes from, but this interview is a worthy example of "the pot calling the kettle a cookware item of colour" (heaven help us, even if we're agnostic!) in the sense that Andrew comes across as the exact same type of antagonist that he might claim Ben to be. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on anyone.
Phil, right now.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Well at least up until the part where Shapiro terminated the interview.
Quite a meltdown at the end there.
SB
[Post edited 10 May 2019 16:51]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's always interesting how these 'government shouldn't interfere in peoples' lives' wonks get very interested in interering with the lives of peopel who happen to be women, gay, poor or non-white.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 19:12 - May 10 by BlueBadger
Mate, Phil's citing the 'last minute abortion' myth and used the word 'feminazi'. I don't think he's interested in nuanced and balanced debate.
[Post edited 10 May 2019 20:03]
You got one thing right.
You don't think.
FYI bozo, I've had two encounters with women where they ended up having abortions and in both cases I agreed with and supported that. One was a ridiculously careless fling and the other the start of a ten year relationship. The ability or the will to think objectively doesn't come about by the likes of you generalising anyone.
Make another couple of moronic presumptions about me there and demonstrate what an utter fool you are.
Do you consider yourself "left" leaning, or a "progressive"? Stop reciting daft incantations of indoctrination and start thinking for yourself, and objectively too.
You seem really rather dim to me and not worth much more than an "F-Off". Write something intelligent next time you write to me or about me if you want a reply.
-4
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 20:01 - May 10 with 4398 views
Ben Shapiro owned by Andrew Neil on 19:59 - May 10 by wellhungphil
You got one thing right.
You don't think.
FYI bozo, I've had two encounters with women where they ended up having abortions and in both cases I agreed with and supported that. One was a ridiculously careless fling and the other the start of a ten year relationship. The ability or the will to think objectively doesn't come about by the likes of you generalising anyone.
Make another couple of moronic presumptions about me there and demonstrate what an utter fool you are.
Do you consider yourself "left" leaning, or a "progressive"? Stop reciting daft incantations of indoctrination and start thinking for yourself, and objectively too.
You seem really rather dim to me and not worth much more than an "F-Off". Write something intelligent next time you write to me or about me if you want a reply.
Oh Phil, Oh Phil. You're my new favourite TWTD loon.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
