Russel Brand nobbled for being a hypocrite
Discussion
Guam said:
Are you trying to incite violence?
Why on earth would I do something like that?
I don't know, do you think I could be successful with a single cheap quip on a forum? Are you that easily swayed?Why on earth would I do something like that?
I don't know why you'd go off and kill him. It seems like a silly idea to me. However if your view is that Russell Brand has to get rid of his house before he can criticise housing, what is it that you feel compelled to do before you can criticise Russell Brand?
Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 2nd December 12:26
Guam said:
Indeed that is exactly the hypocritical stance I referred to, however he is a hero of the uber left innit, so he cant be described in any negative terms 
He and Blair should be in adjoining mansions
Whereas any poor person is just jealous.He and Blair should be in adjoining mansions
If you have to attack someone's background, it heavily implies you can't attack their actual argument. I'm far more likely to "support" him now I know how the people who oppose him behave.
Also: anyone who believes the mail is a bigger moron than anyone who believes Brand. Link to an actual source of journalism next time.
trashbat said:
However if your view is that Russell Brand has to get rid of his house before he can criticise housing, what is that you feel compelled to do before you can criticise Russell Brand?
That's not what happens though. From the article:-Pointing at Number 10 Downing Street the actor said: 'There is no greater and more expensive piece of real estate in London than that one'.
Mr O'Brien responded with: 'I'd say your house is probably on a par' and Mr Brand said: 'Well it is rented. We don't know the value. You'd have to ask my landlord. Blessedly I can afford my rent and I'm prepared to stand up for people who can't'.
He's a professional rabble-rouser - this isn't about him giving a f8ck about poor people, but making himself popular by pointing out that Cameron lives in a nice house when he lives in an equally nice house. Still it worked in 1918 and [some of us] haven't moved on intellectually.
paranoid airbag said:
Whereas any poor person is just jealous.
If you have to attack someone's background, it heavily implies you can't attack their actual argument. I'm far more likely to "support" him now I know how the people who oppose him behave.
Also: anyone who believes the mail is a bigger moron than anyone who believes Brand. Link to an actual source of journalism next time.
I'd stop short of calling anyone a moron here, even if they fit all the characteristics, yet wilful obtuseness on an issue when the debate is easily found in any major news outlet seems to lead to the conclusion that some just want to fit any issue at all to their personal view of the world. To wit: Make things, buy things, sell things etc. etc.If you have to attack someone's background, it heavily implies you can't attack their actual argument. I'm far more likely to "support" him now I know how the people who oppose him behave.
Also: anyone who believes the mail is a bigger moron than anyone who believes Brand. Link to an actual source of journalism next time.
Guam said:
That makes absolutely no sense at all, come back when you have a point that makes sense and I can address it.
I didn't mention the housing you did, I referred to his general tendency to supposedly sympathise with the poor whilst behaving like a t
t and telling us whats wrong with capitalism and yet hangs onto his dosh as fiercely as the supposed capitalist freeloaders he complains of.
So again, Russell Brand has to get rid of all of his money before he's allowed to criticise capitalism.I didn't mention the housing you did, I referred to his general tendency to supposedly sympathise with the poor whilst behaving like a t
t and telling us whats wrong with capitalism and yet hangs onto his dosh as fiercely as the supposed capitalist freeloaders he complains of.I'm just suggesting that, under these new rules of yours, you need to silence Russell Brand - permanently - before you can come back and complain about him. Otherwise you're not really trying.
But if you're not willing to put your murder where your mouth is, that's OK. I just think you're a bit of a hypocrite.
We are almost at the end of 2014.
So the validity of the existing contract is only valid for one more year, I don't see that the new owners of the property can redevelop the accommodation and expand it much within a year, so is this just more about the residents realising that they have been getting their rents below market value for some time and thinking st, we need to blame this on someone?
Presumably at £168 per week in London someone is subsiding their rent also?
So the validity of the existing contract is only valid for one more year, I don't see that the new owners of the property can redevelop the accommodation and expand it much within a year, so is this just more about the residents realising that they have been getting their rents below market value for some time and thinking s
t, we need to blame this on someone?Presumably at £168 per week in London someone is subsiding their rent also?
fido said:
He's a professional rabble-rouser - this isn't about him giving a f8ck about poor people, but making himself popular by pointing out that Cameron lives in a nice house when he lives in an equally nice house.
I'd say the two(rabble rousing, concern for the poor) aren't mutually exclusive, and neither should be complaining about something that you also engage in. I don't have that much time for Brand personally FWIW, being as he is a sort of shallow clown, but then it's interesting to see where the criticism comes from.trashbat said:
So again, David Cameron has to live in a bedsit in Tower Hamlets before he's allowed to decide policy that affect poorer people.
Turned it around for you. If Brand could make his points without sounding like Citizen Smith then I'd have a bit more time for his rabble-rousing.trashbat said:
o again, Russell Brand has to get rid of all of his money before he's allowed to criticise capitalism.
He seems to use the instruments of capitalism for his own earnings quite efficiently though, perhaps if he IS saying genuinely capitalism is wrong he should lead by example? For me, his arguments and rantings are far too uncoherant and badly put forward to really know what he is doing. He seems slightly unhinged actually, I would not be the first person to say that. Guam said:
the mail is not behind a pay wall which is why it gets cited,
Neither is the Guardian. If you thought in more than binary, your black & white view of the world may open up a little. Black & white by the way is carefully chosen wording - it represents the false choices you offer. It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position. So, there's one of two possibilities, you either don't understand that in which case I feel a small degree of pity for you, or you wilfully choose to ignore it, in which case I don't.
Ether way, you don't emerge looking very smart.
Stevanos said:
He seems to use the instruments of capitalism for his own earnings quite efficiently though, perhaps if he IS saying genuinely capitalism is wrong he should lead by example? For me, his arguments and rantings are far too uncoherant and badly put forward to really know what he is doing. He seems slightly unhinged actually, I would not be the first person to say that.
I agree with the last bit. I don't agree with the first. If you really wanted to overthrow capitalism, why wouldn't you use the resources of it against it?A less revolutionary parallel might be charities. You could give £10 to a charity that works with a cause you care about, and complain that only £5 of your specific donation went directly towards that cause. However if that other £5 went towards a newspaper advert that led to a net donation of £1m from people finding out about the cause, you probably wouldn't be so grumpy.
Edit: I'm also not suggesting that that is what he does. For all I know he's amassing a personal fortune to buy a private island. I'm just pointing out that it's not inherently wrong.
Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 2nd December 12:45
Stevanos said:
Abagnale said:
He didn't lose his temper, the reporter was rude to him & the issue at hand is the shoddy treatment of the New Era estate residents at the hands of an investment consortium prepared to discard 90+ families in pursuit of profit. That you focus entirely on the personality of one person you don't like leaves me wondering exactly where you got the word class from in the first place, since your powers of analysis seem to lack it in spades.
I felt he did lose his temper actually, it also looked like he went on rant mode (he does that quite well). t about the topic at hand, you just rant and shout over your opponent until they give in. Works for those pedaling AGW.As an aside, square rooting jack s
t (or sod all), which we'll assume to be a small number much < 1, would actually come out at a higher value than jack st. So not sure why people use the phrase "square root of sod all"I'm not sure I'd want Russell Brand championing my cause. Whilst he does seem to get the column inches the debate always seems to end up being about Russell Brand - witness this thread.
By the time you get round to the problem beneath it all (excluding a generic "capitalism is bad" theme) everybody's in a lather about what RB is or isn't.
I think he's just too much of a Marmite figure to be an effective front man.
By the time you get round to the problem beneath it all (excluding a generic "capitalism is bad" theme) everybody's in a lather about what RB is or isn't.
I think he's just too much of a Marmite figure to be an effective front man.
If the tenants are facing eviction from a social housing project in order to raise rental income for a US based owner - then that would be a disgrace worthy of significant ire.
It appears that this is not the case currently. If in the future this transpires, then it will still be a disgrace worthy of ire.
As for Brand?
He's just going through a mid-wife crisis.
It appears that this is not the case currently. If in the future this transpires, then it will still be a disgrace worthy of ire.
As for Brand?
He's just going through a mid-wife crisis.
Stevanos said:
trashbat said:
If you really wanted to overthrow capitalism, why wouldn't you use the resources of it against it?
Erm, because for most people that would be seen as double standards at the very least. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff