|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 10:39:46 GMT
I've just watched him being interviewed outside his flat on "have I got news for you " and the daft cunt once again lived up to his reputation. Sorry to piss on his disciple , but he is one egotistical , thick hypocritical wanker of the highest order. I' ve SHIT better material than this useless plank. Don't take my word for , Google it. He is one arrogant arsewipe that anyone with half a brain cell can clearly see is only interested in self promotion. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. pretentious moi ? The end. Mumf (The snobby end of Fegg Hayes ) Wow Mumfy I don't even know where to start on this one you're so wrong. I can't find this interview you're talking about so if you could link it that'd be great because I'd very much like a debate with you on why what he's saying is wrong. I've asked on more than one occasion in this discussion to everyone who doesn't like him to put forward a reasonable argument as to why what he's saying is actually wrong, and not one person has managed to do this including yourself. Here's the thing right, I fully respect opinions like Salops because he's arguing its not what Brand is saying that's the problem, it's because he doesn't like with how its being delivered, which is down to personal taste and its a reasonable position to take. Whilst I wholeheartedly disagree with him, I can't possibly tell him he's wrong for saying it because he's entitled to his opinion. Putting all of that to one side for the moment, some of the absolute nonsense and vitriol you post is disgusting. I could respect your argument if you were actually capable of arguing in an informed, reasoned manner (which you aren't). Especially when you're saying ridiculous things like ' I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire'. Is there really any need for such comments, are you really so full of hatred, so lacking in compassion and respect that you have to resort to spouting such hyperbolic bullshit? and you cannot grasp the boy who cried wolf metaphor the majority of people will not listen to any message when the message boy is part of the issue. he says "profit is immoral", that may well be be the case, however: why isnt he standing up saying "film stars salaries are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he lives in a massive house in los angeles and earns millions for doing films why isnt he standing up saying "ticket prices for shows are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he charges £65 per ticket himself for his shows why isnt he standing up saying "tax avoidance schemes are immoral? i will tell you why, its because he is part of such schemes books, dvds, tv, rich girlfriends he is part of the capitalist nature he now apparently loathes but is only speaking out about the bits his grubby little hands are not in so yes i can listen to his message but coming from him, i cant take it seriously
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 9, 2014 10:44:25 GMT
If he has 8 million followers on twatter - that's depressing, he is a demogogue*. Fortunately he also has attention deficit disorder, which strikes everytime anyone else gets a word in, so he should get bored of politics any day now. * a big word for him which I used purely to make myself look clever... I'd stick to using simpler words if I were you because you've either used demagogue incorrectly or you've just got no idea about the arguments he's been raising. He's certainly tried to arouse arguments based on passion that's what all politicians do, but show me even just one of his arguments where his judgement is based on prejudice of any kind? I can guarantee you won't be able to, and you'll end up either ignoring this question or deflecting. You don't get irony do you ? hey ho, I'll leave you to continue your love in with him - I don't see you changing any hearts and minds on here.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 9, 2014 10:50:20 GMT
Without wishing to cause offence, I find Brand appeals to a certain type. He delivers compact, easily digestible commentary to people who can't/can't be bothered to work it out for themselves. Hes making a very good career out of it, but he's no visionary.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 11:29:32 GMT
In a world where former stockbroker and public school educated Nigel Farage is considered a political outsider, it appears Brand is a bit too outside the system for some people. Viva la political revolution - as long as it's delivered by a man in a nice suit, who makes a fortunate doing little in his role as MEP, and takes the odd bit of expenses as well as employing his wife with public funds. It's a brave new world.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 11:31:31 GMT
Without wishing to cause offence, I find Brand appeals to a certain type. He delivers compact, easily digestible commentary to people who can't/can't be bothered to work it out for themselves. Hes making a very good career out of it, but he's no visionary. Isn't that politics in a nutshell? You could say the same about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 11:32:27 GMT
Wow Mumfy I don't even know where to start on this one you're so wrong. I can't find this interview you're talking about so if you could link it that'd be great because I'd very much like a debate with you on why what he's saying is wrong. I've asked on more than one occasion in this discussion to everyone who doesn't like him to put forward a reasonable argument as to why what he's saying is actually wrong, and not one person has managed to do this including yourself. Here's the thing right, I fully respect opinions like Salops because he's arguing its not what Brand is saying that's the problem, it's because he doesn't like with how its being delivered, which is down to personal taste and its a reasonable position to take. Whilst I wholeheartedly disagree with him, I can't possibly tell him he's wrong for saying it because he's entitled to his opinion. Putting all of that to one side for the moment, some of the absolute nonsense and vitriol you post is disgusting. I could respect your argument if you were actually capable of arguing in an informed, reasoned manner (which you aren't). Especially when you're saying ridiculous things like ' I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire'. Is there really any need for such comments, are you really so full of hatred, so lacking in compassion and respect that you have to resort to spouting such hyperbolic bullshit? and you cannot grasp the boy who cried wolf metaphor the majority of people will not listen to any message when the message boy is part of the issue. he says "profit is immoral", that may well be be the case, however: why isnt he standing up saying "film stars salaries are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he lives in a massive house in los angeles and earns millions for doing films why isnt he standing up saying "ticket prices for shows are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he charges £65 per ticket himself for his shows why isnt he standing up saying "tax avoidance schemes are immoral? i will tell you why, its because he is part of such schemes books, dvds, tv, rich girlfriends he is part of the capitalist nature he now apparently loathes but is only speaking out about the bits his grubby little hands are not in so yes i can listen to his message but coming from him, i cant take it seriously You haven't been able to argue that the points/issues he's raising are incorrect. A lot of people like him, a lot of people are listening to him and because of this these issues (which are entirely valid points to make) are being heard by more people than ever before, as I've clearly explained the majority of the mainstream media and also the government aren't covering these points. I'll also make the point again that he doesn't have to be raising these issues, he could easily carry on living a celebrity lifestyle in Hollywood and keep his mouth shut but he isn't. Even when you don't like him he still deserves a bit of respect because what other celebrities are raising these issues. To give you an example one of his latest episodes on 'The Trews' he's highlighting the fact that the Irish government are trying to privatise the water, it's pretty clear that water is not a commodity so why are they trying to treat it like one and in effect getting the Irish people to pay for it twice because they are already pay for it with their taxes. This is one example of countless points that he's making (that not everyone has raised before) that are valid, sensible and well reasoned. And guess what, this topic hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. You can easily also easily discuss the immoralities of profits and the price of tickets and the amount film stars and footballers etc earn and they would all be valid arguments but here's where you completely miss the point. If you break those things down they can are luxuries that we choose to spend our excess money on and aren't being paid for out of our taxes. Now lets look at some of the issues that Russell Brand is highlighting and campaigning against. - people dying of starvation - inequality - banks being bailed out by taxpayers money (yet continuing to hand out ridiculous bonuses) - unaffordable housing - racial or any other forms of discrimination (in many cases perpetuated by some of the mainstream media like the Daily Mail, Fox News etc) - tax avoidance schemes (which he is standing up against) - free education (if Germany can scrap tuition fees why can't we) - corrupt politicians - false perceptions perpetuated by media for corporate interests or fear-mongering - or war mongering - transatlantic trade agreements that allow companies to avoid red tape Some of those above are basic human rights and they are basic requirements not being met by a system that is failing us, and its an ideological system that we as a society have put in place in order to represent us, and therefore it needs to change. I completely take on board the other immoralities you've mentioned but lets first (correctly) focus on the basics eh. Jesus Wept
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 11:35:05 GMT
I'd stick to using simpler words if I were you because you've either used demagogue incorrectly or you've just got no idea about the arguments he's been raising. He's certainly tried to arouse arguments based on passion that's what all politicians do, but show me even just one of his arguments where his judgement is based on prejudice of any kind? I can guarantee you won't be able to, and you'll end up either ignoring this question or deflecting. You don't get irony do you ? hey ho, I'll leave you to continue your love in with him - I don't see you changing any hearts and minds on here. Irony? Oh dear you don't even understand simple words do you? You've avoided/deflected by question just like I expected you to
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 11:50:17 GMT
and you cannot grasp the boy who cried wolf metaphor the majority of people will not listen to any message when the message boy is part of the issue. he says "profit is immoral", that may well be be the case, however: why isnt he standing up saying "film stars salaries are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he lives in a massive house in los angeles and earns millions for doing films why isnt he standing up saying "ticket prices for shows are immoral?" i will tell you why, its because he charges £65 per ticket himself for his shows why isnt he standing up saying "tax avoidance schemes are immoral? i will tell you why, its because he is part of such schemes books, dvds, tv, rich girlfriends he is part of the capitalist nature he now apparently loathes but is only speaking out about the bits his grubby little hands are not in so yes i can listen to his message but coming from him, i cant take it seriously You haven't been able to argue that the points/issues he's raising are incorrect. A lot of people like him, a lot of people are listening to him and because of this these issues (which are entirely valid points to make) are being heard by more people than ever before, as I've clearly explained the majority of the mainstream media and also the government aren't covering these points. I'll also make the point again that he doesn't have to be raising these issues, he could easily carry on living a celebrity lifestyle in Hollywood and keep his mouth shut but he isn't. Even when you don't like him he still deserves a bit of respect because what other celebrities are raising these issues. To give you an example one of his latest episodes on 'The Trews' he's highlighting the fact that the Irish government are trying to privatise the water, it's pretty clear that water is not a commodity so why are they trying to treat it like one and in effect getting the Irish people to pay for it twice because they are already pay for it with their taxes. This is one example of countless points that he's making (that not everyone has raised before) that are valid, sensible and well reasoned. And guess what, this topic hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. You can easily also easily discuss the immoralities of profits and the price of tickets and the amount film stars and footballers etc earn and they would all be valid arguments but here's where you completely miss the point. If you break those things down they can are luxuries that we choose to spend our excess money on and aren't being paid for out of our taxes. Now lets look at some of the issues that Russell Brand is highlighting and campaigning against. - people dying of starvation - inequality - banks being bailed out by taxpayers money (yet continuing to hand out ridiculous bonuses) - unaffordable housing - racial or any other forms of discrimination (in many cases perpetuated by some of the mainstream media like the Daily Mail, Fox News etc) - tax avoidance schemes (which he is standing up against) - free education (if Germany can scrap tuition fees why can't we) - corrupt politicians - false perceptions perpetuated by media for corporate interests or fear-mongering - or war mongering - transatlantic trade agreements that allow companies to avoid red tape Some of those above are basic human rights and they are basic requirements not being met by a system that is failing us, and its an ideological system that we as a society have put in place in order to represent us, and therefore it needs to change. I completely take on board the other immoralities you've mentioned but lets first (correctly) focus on the basics eh. Jesus Wept i really cannot be bothered to argue his points because he is a bit hypocritical making them. especially tax avoidance like i said yesterday if tony robinson made these points i will stand up listen and research what he says because the guy has a credibility about him, brand doesnt when brand gives up his life of debauchery does some good in the world, stops being an arrogant prick i will listen to his message until then no i dont know what you dont understand about this. i made a joke yesterday about the mccanns but its true, you wouldnt listen to parenting tips from them, nor would i listen to anti-doping rhetoric from justin gaitlain and i wont be listening to political rhetoric from brand
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 11:59:52 GMT
You haven't been able to argue that the points/issues he's raising are incorrect. A lot of people like him, a lot of people are listening to him and because of this these issues (which are entirely valid points to make) are being heard by more people than ever before, as I've clearly explained the majority of the mainstream media and also the government aren't covering these points. I'll also make the point again that he doesn't have to be raising these issues, he could easily carry on living a celebrity lifestyle in Hollywood and keep his mouth shut but he isn't. Even when you don't like him he still deserves a bit of respect because what other celebrities are raising these issues. To give you an example one of his latest episodes on 'The Trews' he's highlighting the fact that the Irish government are trying to privatise the water, it's pretty clear that water is not a commodity so why are they trying to treat it like one and in effect getting the Irish people to pay for it twice because they are already pay for it with their taxes. This is one example of countless points that he's making (that not everyone has raised before) that are valid, sensible and well reasoned. And guess what, this topic hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. You can easily also easily discuss the immoralities of profits and the price of tickets and the amount film stars and footballers etc earn and they would all be valid arguments but here's where you completely miss the point. If you break those things down they can are luxuries that we choose to spend our excess money on and aren't being paid for out of our taxes. Now lets look at some of the issues that Russell Brand is highlighting and campaigning against. - people dying of starvation - inequality - banks being bailed out by taxpayers money (yet continuing to hand out ridiculous bonuses) - unaffordable housing - racial or any other forms of discrimination (in many cases perpetuated by some of the mainstream media like the Daily Mail, Fox News etc) - tax avoidance schemes (which he is standing up against) - free education (if Germany can scrap tuition fees why can't we) - corrupt politicians - false perceptions perpetuated by media for corporate interests or fear-mongering - or war mongering - transatlantic trade agreements that allow companies to avoid red tape Some of those above are basic human rights and they are basic requirements not being met by a system that is failing us, and its an ideological system that we as a society have put in place in order to represent us, and therefore it needs to change. I completely take on board the other immoralities you've mentioned but lets first (correctly) focus on the basics eh. Jesus Wept i really cannot be bothered to argue his points because he is a bit hypocritical making them. especially tax avoidance like i said yesterday if tony robinson made these points i will stand up listen and research what he says because the guy has a credibility about him, brand doesnt when brand gives up his life of debauchery does some good in the world, stops being an arrogant prick i will listen to his message until then no i dont kow what you dont understand about this. i made a joke yesterday about the mccanns but its true, you wouldnt listen to parenting tips from them, nor would i listen to anti-doping rhetoric from justin gaitlain and i wont be listening to political rhetoric from brand In the previous post you said Brand hasn't stood up for tax avoidance. Show me the evidence that Brand has avoided tax? Show me evidence of where exactly he's being hypocritical? You won't be able to and its because you don't know what you're on about. Your argument can be summarised as 'Yeah he's got a point but because he's been a former drug addict, because he's slept with lots of women, because he's famous and has made a lot of money then I'm not prepared to listen to him'. You don't have to have led a squeaky clean life and gone to Oxford, and given all your money away to charity to make sense and campaign against clear injustices against basic human rights in society. Your argument is utter rubbish. He's clearly made mistakes and people can change and learn from those mistakes for the better. If the McCans were to offer any advice on parenting to anyone they would probably say 'Don't make the same mistake we did and leave kids unattended' and guess what that advice (even though most would consider it common sense) would be the right advice that people should take on board. You need to make your points better
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 9, 2014 12:08:03 GMT
You don't get irony do you ? hey ho, I'll leave you to continue your love in with him - I don't see you changing any hearts and minds on here. Irony? Oh dear you don't even understand simple words do you? You've avoided/deflected by question just like I expected you to I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are him. Or maybe you just like the idea of a comedian trying to run the country, and even that is nothing new. italy
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 12:10:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 12:13:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 9, 2014 12:25:07 GMT
ps. Mr Edge...
in an earlier post you wrote:-
"Here's the thing right, I fully respect opinions like Salops"
but in your last post response to salop it was:-
"Your argument is utter rubbish."
It's clear you're getting confused/rattled/unhappy that we don't share your idolisation - may I suggest you might have more success on another site, there are plenty out there specially set up for the blindly sycophantic followers of self important no-mark celebs.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 12:27:11 GMT
Irony? Oh dear you don't even understand simple words do you? You've avoided/deflected by question just like I expected you to I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are him. Or maybe you just like the idea of a comedian trying to run the country, and even that is nothing new. italyYou make it so, so easy for me to continue making you look daft. I've never suggested or promoted Brand for Prime Minister (and neither has he). I've simply been suggesting that the points he's making are relevant and a fair reflection of the current injustices currently taking place in society (no one has been able to correct me on this) and therefore the points he's making (because they aren't being made by the majority of the mainstream media) are worth listening to because more and more people are becoming politically engaged and aware as a direct result of promotion. Would the journalism crews have turned up to the New Era estate protest if Brand wasn't promoting it? I highly doubt it. Some of you smug know-it-alls have heard it all before etc, but some people, including a lot of younger people previously disengaged by politics are getting involved and joining the debate. The more people that join the debate, the more its talked about, the more ideas are put forward by a wide range of thinkers (not just Brand), then its more likely change (which is definitely required because the current system doesn't work) is going to happen. Those who are criticsing Brand for voicing his opinions and raising awareness (because he can, because he has a large target audience) I'd love to know what constructive things you've all been doing in order to make our society a better place?
|
|
|
Post by kidcrewbob on Dec 9, 2014 12:38:01 GMT
'kin 'ell - Student Grant still at it ??!!!! 10/10 for effort lad BUT WHY!!!! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 9, 2014 12:43:04 GMT
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sean-howlett/russell-brand_b_6183536.html - If Brand was serious, he'd give up his wealth tomorrow, distribute it to those he deems to be suffering and run for public office. Any less and he cannot be taken seriously - namely because what he's advocating is so disruptive he needs to show he's willing to take equivalent risks and put his money where his mouth is. - Oh, and I forgot to add: Russell Brand's film company is funded by JP Morgan Chase and other venture capitalists through a tax avoidance scheme! Sean Howlett is the chairman of the UKIP Youth Independance - he somehow fails to mention that in his story doesn't he? Seems he's been learning a thing or two from Brand about pulling the wool over people's eyes. seanhowlett.co.uk/
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 12:44:53 GMT
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sean-howlett/russell-brand_b_6183536.html - If Brand was serious, he'd give up his wealth tomorrow, distribute it to those he deems to be suffering and run for public office. Any less and he cannot be taken seriously - namely because what he's advocating is so disruptive he needs to show he's willing to take equivalent risks and put his money where his mouth is. - Oh, and I forgot to add: Russell Brand's film company is funded by JP Morgan Chase and other venture capitalists through a tax avoidance scheme! Sean Howlett is the chairman of the UKIP Youth Independance - he somehow fails to mention that in his story doesn't he? Seems he's been learning a thing or two from Brand about pulling the wool over people's eyes. seanhowlett.co.uk/no-one is to be believed then we are all fucked
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 12:47:09 GMT
ps. Mr Edge... in an earlier post you wrote:- "Here's the thing right, I fully respect opinions like Salops" but in your last post response to salop it was:- "Your argument is utter rubbish." It's clear you're getting confused/rattled/unhappy that we don't share your idolisation - may I suggest you might have more success on another site, there are plenty out there specially set up for the blindly sycophantic followers of self important no-mark celebs. Redstriper give it up mate you clearly don't understand 'context' either. I made a very clear point about respecting Salops opinion in relation to him not liking the way Brand is delivering his points, I can't argue with that its personal taste. The argument I'm currently disagreeing with him over is the idea that Brand is somehow a hyprocrite. His argument is poorly constructed and doesn't make sense. Russell Brand isn't the reason any of the injustices that he is talking about are taking place, its down to government, corporate and media agendas so he cannot possibly be a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 12:52:30 GMT
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sean-howlett/russell-brand_b_6183536.html - If Brand was serious, he'd give up his wealth tomorrow, distribute it to those he deems to be suffering and run for public office. Any less and he cannot be taken seriously - namely because what he's advocating is so disruptive he needs to show he's willing to take equivalent risks and put his money where his mouth is. - Oh, and I forgot to add: Russell Brand's film company is funded by JP Morgan Chase and other venture capitalists through a tax avoidance scheme! Sean Howlett is the chairman of the UKIP Youth Independance - he somehow fails to mention that in his story doesn't he? Seems he's been learning a thing or two from Brand about pulling the wool over people's eyes. seanhowlett.co.uk/Russell Brand been very vocal of in his criticism of both the Daily Mail and UKIP so its no surprise that they would try to discredit his arguments. If you're going to get some 'evidence' at least make it objective and unbiased so it can be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 12:53:45 GMT
ps. Mr Edge... in an earlier post you wrote:- "Here's the thing right, I fully respect opinions like Salops" but in your last post response to salop it was:- "Your argument is utter rubbish." It's clear you're getting confused/rattled/unhappy that we don't share your idolisation - may I suggest you might have more success on another site, there are plenty out there specially set up for the blindly sycophantic followers of self important no-mark celebs. Redstriper give it up mate you clearly don't understand 'context' either. I made a very clear point about respecting Salops opinion in relation to him not liking the way Brand is delivering his points, I can't argue with that its personal taste. The argument I'm currently disagreeing with him over is the idea that Brand is somehow a hyprocrite. His argument is poorly constructed and doesn't make sense. Russell Brand isn't the reason any of the injustices that he is talking about are taking place, its down to government, corporate and media agendas so he cannot possibly be a hypocrite. i did not say he was the reason for the injustices, i did suggest he is part of it though corporate through his enterainment companies, encourging tax breaks for investment, going on newsnight plugging his £20 book and he is a media figure using that to plug himself too so yes he can be considered a hypocrit, and wether people agree or disagreee that part does make sense
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 13:02:18 GMT
Sean Howlett is the chairman of the UKIP Youth Independance - he somehow fails to mention that in his story doesn't he? Seems he's been learning a thing or two from Brand about pulling the wool over people's eyes. seanhowlett.co.uk/Russell Brand been very vocal of in his criticism of both the Daily Mail and UKIP so its no surprise that they would try to discredit his arguments. If you're going to get some 'evidence' at least make it objective and unbiased so it can be taken seriously. ukip, yougov, the mail, accountancylive so if the info doesnt come from a source you are comfortable with it is to be discredited ffs, how can you be serious, evry inch of the media has biased to one particular side, there is plenty watered down reports in the left wing press detailing his business affairs the title of this thread is russell brand - there is no disputing some of the issues you have mentioned are a cause for concern and worthy of debate but please you wont make me believe that russell brand is this straight talking ethical political firebrand to spread the message, - he does not fully practice what he preaches countless famous people are more ethical about who, what issues they will get involved in and will drop them like a stone if they contradict what said famous people believe in, it appears russell brand is not one of them
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 13:05:55 GMT
Redstriper give it up mate you clearly don't understand 'context' either. I made a very clear point about respecting Salops opinion in relation to him not liking the way Brand is delivering his points, I can't argue with that its personal taste. The argument I'm currently disagreeing with him over is the idea that Brand is somehow a hyprocrite. His argument is poorly constructed and doesn't make sense. Russell Brand isn't the reason any of the injustices that he is talking about are taking place, its down to government, corporate and media agendas so he cannot possibly be a hypocrite. i did not say he was the reason for the injustices, i did suggest he is part of it though corporate through his enterainment companies, encourging tax breaks for investment, going on newsnight plugging his £20 book and he is a media figure using that to plug himself too so yes he can be considered a hypocrit, and wether people agree or disagreee that part does make sense If the tax loopholes are closed as they should be then nobody (including Russell Brand) will continue to benefit from it and he seems just fine with that idea. Doesn't make him a hypocrite, he would only be a hypocrite in this sense if he wanted tax breaks for himself but then said no-one else is allowed them. You've also brought up 'plugging' his £20 book, well as I've mentioned previously he has not made any money from the book, he's given it to charitable causes so again he's not a hypocrite. So I'm sorry your argument doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 13:19:09 GMT
i did not say he was the reason for the injustices, i did suggest he is part of it though corporate through his enterainment companies, encourging tax breaks for investment, going on newsnight plugging his £20 book and he is a media figure using that to plug himself too so yes he can be considered a hypocrit, and wether people agree or disagreee that part does make sense If the tax loopholes are closed as they should be then nobody (including Russell Brand) will continue to benefit from it and he seems just fine with that idea. Doesn't make him a hypocrite, he would only be a hypocrite in this sense if he wanted tax breaks for himself but then said no-one else is allowed them. You've also brought up 'plugging' his £20 book, well as I've mentioned previously he has not made any money from the book, he's given it to charitable causes so again he's not a hypocrite. So I'm sorry your argument doesn't make sense. would he get the investment without the tax breaks? are all his investors in it for the "artistic value"? so russell brand doesnt like tax avoidance but sees it fine to continue using it while its there, and that is not hypocritical - that is the most rubbish thing you have put on here. carry on fella
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 13:23:45 GMT
left leaning prospect magazine on brands ramblings Russell Brand lives the lifestyle of the international party class, and he wants you to know it. His first mention of attending the Oscars is ten pages in—but don’t worry, they were “fucking boring.” This example of the humblebrag gone wild is combined with total hypocrisy. In parts of the book he writes as if totally detached from the rest of civilisation. “When travelling in impoverished regions in galling luxury, as I have done, you have to undergo some high-wire ethical arithmetic to legitimise your position. If you can’t separate yourself from poverty geographically then you have to do it ideologically. You have to believe inequality is okay.” Unless you’re Russell Brand, obviously. Flailing to defend himself, Brand says giving away his vast wealth would be pointless without systemic change. Tell that to the poor and needy people his millions could set free www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/no-russell-brand-youre-no-noam-chomsky
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 13:40:35 GMT
If the tax loopholes are closed as they should be then nobody (including Russell Brand) will continue to benefit from it and he seems just fine with that idea. Doesn't make him a hypocrite, he would only be a hypocrite in this sense if he wanted tax breaks for himself but then said no-one else is allowed them. You've also brought up 'plugging' his £20 book, well as I've mentioned previously he has not made any money from the book, he's given it to charitable causes so again he's not a hypocrite. So I'm sorry your argument doesn't make sense. would he get the investment without the tax breaks? are all his investors in it for the "artistic value"? so russell brand doesnt like tax avoidance but sees it fine to continue using it while its there, and that is not hypocritical - that is the most rubbish thing you have put on here. carry on fella Is he personally avoiding tax? I haven't seen any proof that he is, the best The Sun could come up with was to call him a hypocrite because his landlord avoids tax, which is a nonsense argument and holds no ground whatsoever and the same can be applied to his investors that avoid tax. And like I said previously he doesn't want anyone to avoid paying tax so he cannot possibly be a hypocrite unless proven otherwise. Can I just also just drop this in here www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/03/front-page-logic_n_6260364.html?utm_hp_ref=twalong with a few other comments I think are relevant 'The Sun’s line is - if you’re a millionaire who doesn’t give a toss about the less privileged, then fine. If you do care, you’re a hypocrite' and 'Whole community being evicted by predatory landlords. You edit The Sun. Do you a. Attack landlords or b. Attack someone trying to stop it?' He's clearly not a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 13:47:53 GMT
left leaning prospect magazine on brands ramblings Russell Brand lives the lifestyle of the international party class, and he wants you to know it. His first mention of attending the Oscars is ten pages in—but don’t worry, they were “fucking boring.” This example of the humblebrag gone wild is combined with total hypocrisy. In parts of the book he writes as if totally detached from the rest of civilisation. “When travelling in impoverished regions in galling luxury, as I have done, you have to undergo some high-wire ethical arithmetic to legitimise your position. If you can’t separate yourself from poverty geographically then you have to do it ideologically. You have to believe inequality is okay.” Unless you’re Russell Brand, obviously. Flailing to defend himself, Brand says giving away his vast wealth would be pointless without systemic change. Tell that to the poor and needy people his millions could set free www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/no-russell-brand-youre-no-noam-chomskyAgain Salop this is really poor, he's not bragging about living the lifestyle of the international party class he's saying he's been a part of it and that the lifestyle isn't all its cracked up to be. It's not Russell Brands job/responsibility to help the poor and needy, its the responsibility of the system we've set up to do this, and its failing.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 13:55:02 GMT
If we follow your logic then Edward Snowden must be a hypocrite because you know, he used to work for and be part of the issue he exposed. Except he isn't is he, he's just someone who did what he thought was the right thing just as Russell Brand is doing now.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 14:11:52 GMT
If we follow your logic then Edward Snowden must be a hypocrite because you know, he used to work for and be part of the issue he exposed. Except he isn't is he, he's just someone who did what he thought was the right thing just as Russell Brand is doing now. edward snowden gave up his life as he knew it for his beliefs next
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 9, 2014 14:26:40 GMT
for a left winger wizzard you speak a small bit of sense sometimes
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 9, 2014 14:56:09 GMT
You haven't been able to argue that the points/issues he's raising are incorrect. A lot of people like him, a lot of people are listening to him and because of this these issues (which are entirely valid points to make) are being heard by more people than ever before, as I've clearly explained the majority of the mainstream media and also the government aren't covering these points. I'll also make the point again that he doesn't have to be raising these issues, he could easily carry on living a celebrity lifestyle in Hollywood and keep his mouth shut but he isn't. Even when you don't like him he still deserves a bit of respect because what other celebrities are raising these issues. To give you an example one of his latest episodes on 'The Trews' he's highlighting the fact that the Irish government are trying to privatise the water, it's pretty clear that water is not a commodity so why are they trying to treat it like one and in effect getting the Irish people to pay for it twice because they are already pay for it with their taxes. This is one example of countless points that he's making (that not everyone has raised before) that are valid, sensible and well reasoned. And guess what, this topic hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. You can easily also easily discuss the immoralities of profits and the price of tickets and the amount film stars and footballers etc earn and they would all be valid arguments but here's where you completely miss the point. If you break those things down they can are luxuries that we choose to spend our excess money on and aren't being paid for out of our taxes. Now lets look at some of the issues that Russell Brand is highlighting and campaigning against. - people dying of starvation - inequality - banks being bailed out by taxpayers money (yet continuing to hand out ridiculous bonuses) - unaffordable housing - racial or any other forms of discrimination (in many cases perpetuated by some of the mainstream media like the Daily Mail, Fox News etc) - tax avoidance schemes (which he is standing up against) - free education (if Germany can scrap tuition fees why can't we) - corrupt politicians - false perceptions perpetuated by media for corporate interests or fear-mongering - or war mongering - transatlantic trade agreements that allow companies to avoid red tape Some of those above are basic human rights and they are basic requirements not being met by a system that is failing us, and its an ideological system that we as a society have put in place in order to represent us, and therefore it needs to change. I completely take on board the other immoralities you've mentioned but lets first (correctly) focus on the basics eh. Jesus Wept Tony Benn has being making these points for over 30 years (before he passed away earlier this year) and a lot more. Why have you not been on here praising his visionary comments? (like I have done and accepted the abuse that goes with it) Because Politics and Personality are inextricably linked. Do you not understand that? Man alive Few points to make If the topic of thread was politics in general I'd be citing a wide range of my influences, Russell Brand isn't the only one, I just like what he's got to say and think it's relevant and the thread is about Russell Brand. Russell Brand is relevant to our time now, I'm making an assumption here but I think it's fair to say that due to the rise in social media and platforms like YouTube and Twitter the views of Russell Brand are far more likely to be heard and listened to because of Brand's status. Tony Benn's views would have had to go through the mainstream media (for which the majority of them don't talk about these issues) or through his publications so unfortunately his views probably went largely unnoticed. Basically Brand has a larger audience and a more direct means to communicate with them than anyone else who has ever discussed this topic and therefore the more such views get aired, the more people that engage and debate these views the more likely it is that we can make changes that benefit society. Personality and politics are inextricably linked I understand that clearly, but just because you and others don't like Brand it doesn't mean there aren't many others that do like him. Like I've mentioned before he's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, more than David Cameron, Ed Milliband and more than any other British politician or journalist you can possibly think so whether like it or not he's a very influential figure and people are listening to him. No-one on here has been able to put any successful argument that what he's saying is incorrect, so as far as I'm concerned if even the people who dislike him can't find fault with what he's actually saying then that's good enough for me.
|
|