Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 19 of 41 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

npn Crowborough 04 Dec 14 3.02pm
Quote nickgusset at 03 Dec 2014 5.10pm Quote npn at 03 Dec 2014 5.06pm Interesting how hijacking Brand at an unrelated event is somehow cheap journalism, but hijacking a politician seems to be fair play. It seems that Brand wants to be seen as some sort of political messiah with the answer to all life's ills when it suits him, but to be able to retreat into being a 'celebrity' when he doesn't want to be distracted. Actually, reading that back, I may be being a little harsh, but he's a total ct so I really don't care. Is he a c* for raising awareness of an issue where people are being stitched up, and as a result probably helped them to a victory? No, he's a c**t for a multitude of other reasons (Misogynist, delusions of grandeur and self importance, arrogance, hypocracy, generally unpleasant, odious little turd, and I've probably missed a few)
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 04 Dec 14 3.02pm

Quote nickgusset at 03 Dec 2014 5.10pm

Quote npn at 03 Dec 2014 5.06pm

Interesting how hijacking Brand at an unrelated event is somehow cheap journalism, but hijacking a politician seems to be fair play. It seems that Brand wants to be seen as some sort of political messiah with the answer to all life's ills when it suits him, but to be able to retreat into being a 'celebrity' when he doesn't want to be distracted.

Actually, reading that back, I may be being a little harsh, but he's a total c**t so I really don't care.

Is he a c*** for raising awareness of an issue where people are being stitched up, and as a result probably helped them to a victory?

No, he's a c**t for a multitude of other reasons (Misogynist, delusions of grandeur and self importance, arrogance, hypocracy, generally unpleasant, odious little turd, and I've probably missed a few)

Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 3.05pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm Did you read my post? I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end. Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer. I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond. Let me put it in as few words as possible: ---- People who do stuff for charity = good Motivation for doing so = not that relevant ---- People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm) But you may as well be telling me you like apples. If you prefer people who approach helping others in a certain light then great. I'm not talking about how people subjectively 'feel' about Brand, I'm pointing out that the act of helping the new era estate residents benefits their lives despite the overwhelming negatively circling around it from the press and others. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck

04 Dec 14 3.05pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm

Did you read my post?

I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.)

But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion.

I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses.

I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so.

And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.

Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer.

I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond.

Let me put it in as few words as possible:

----

People who do stuff for charity = good

Motivation for doing so = not that relevant

----

People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person

Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant

Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance

Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant

Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm)

But you may as well be telling me you like apples. If you prefer people who approach helping others in a certain light then great. I'm not talking about how people subjectively 'feel' about Brand, I'm pointing out that the act of helping the new era estate residents benefits their lives despite the overwhelming negatively circling around it from the press and others.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 3.11pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.05pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm Did you read my post? I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end. Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer. I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond. Let me put it in as few words as possible: ---- People who do stuff for charity = good Motivation for doing so = not that relevant ---- People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm) But you may as well be telling me you like apples. If you prefer people who approach helping others in a certain light then great. I'm not talking about how people subjectively 'feel' about Brand, I'm pointing out that the act of helping the new era estate residents benefits their lives despite the overwhelming negatively circling around it from the press and others. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm) Do you think he's being charitable? I think he's being political. ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 04 Dec 14 3.11pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.05pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm

Did you read my post?

But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion.

I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses.

And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.

Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer.

I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond.

Let me put it in as few words as possible:

----

People who do stuff for charity = good

Motivation for doing so = not that relevant

----

People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person

Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant

Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance

Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant

Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm)

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm)

Do you think he's being charitable?

I think he's being political.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 3.18pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 3.11pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.05pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm Did you read my post? I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end. Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer. I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond. Let me put it in as few words as possible: ---- People who do stuff for charity = good Motivation for doing so = not that relevant ---- People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm) But you may as well be telling me you like apples. If you prefer people who approach helping others in a certain light then great. I'm not talking about how people subjectively 'feel' about Brand, I'm pointing out that the act of helping the new era estate residents benefits their lives despite the overwhelming negatively circling around it from the press and others. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm) Do you think he's being charitable? I think he's being political. Yes, but we've already established that you'll throw anything at him to convince yourself that this is an entirely binary situation. "Oh don't you know who his ex is, and he's a lefty" like some kind of old gossipper in a cafe . Again, I'm not bothered about what his motivation is where he has helped people. We're all hypocrites, none of us are saints. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.25pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck

04 Dec 14 3.18pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 3.11pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.05pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.58pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm

Did you read my post?

But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion.

I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses.

And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.

Now there's a man with his mind made up. Let's hope Brand doesn't start raising money for kids with cancer.

I don't think you're actually reading my posts before you respond.

Let me put it in as few words as possible:

----

People who do stuff for charity = good

Motivation for doing so = not that relevant

----

People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person

Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant

Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance

Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant

Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm)

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.10pm)

Do you think he's being charitable?

I think he's being political.

Yes, but we've already established that you'll throw anything at him to convince yourself that this is an entirely binary situation. "Oh don't you know who his ex is, and he's a lefty" like some kind of old gossipper in a cafe .

Again, I'm not bothered about what his motivation is where he has helped people. We're all hypocrites, none of us are saints.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 3.25pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 04 Dec 14 3.51pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.17pm) Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm) Obviously nobody is 'pure as the driven snow' but some people (and I would include Russell Brand) care more about trumpeting to the world how amazing and charitable they are than the actual cause itself. You might argue that it's fine as long as good deeds are done. But I prefer people who just quietly get on with it. 'Charity vaunteth not itself and is not puffed up' and all that. I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place. That's the crux of my annoyance with him. He's not saying antything you wouldn't hear in any student union bar the length and breadth of the country, yet because it's coming out of his intensely irritating gob, it's newsworthy, and treated as some revelation of great truth (or shot down - two sides of the same coin)
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 04 Dec 14 3.51pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm

I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites.

It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle.

National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.17pm)

Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq?

I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them.

But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips.

I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood.

Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)

Obviously nobody is 'pure as the driven snow' but some people (and I would include Russell Brand) care more about trumpeting to the world how amazing and charitable they are than the actual cause itself. You might argue that it's fine as long as good deeds are done. But I prefer people who just quietly get on with it. 'Charity vaunteth not itself and is not puffed up' and all that.

I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person.

But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place.

That's the crux of my annoyance with him. He's not saying antything you wouldn't hear in any student union bar the length and breadth of the country, yet because it's coming out of his intensely irritating gob, it's newsworthy, and treated as some revelation of great truth (or shot down - two sides of the same coin)

Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 4.13pm
Quote npn at 04 Dec 2014 3.51pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.17pm) Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm) Obviously nobody is 'pure as the driven snow' but some people (and I would include Russell Brand) care more about trumpeting to the world how amazing and charitable they are than the actual cause itself. You might argue that it's fine as long as good deeds are done. But I prefer people who just quietly get on with it. 'Charity vaunteth not itself and is not puffed up' and all that. I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place. That's the crux of my annoyance with him. He's not saying antything you wouldn't hear in any student union bar the length and breadth of the country, yet because it's coming out of his intensely irritating gob, it's newsworthy, and treated as some revelation of great truth (or shot down - two sides of the same coin) But are the views of the likes of Cameron and co truly a cut above? Or is it more relevant and acceptable for posh boys pushing their own agendas through to have a voice rather than someone with a bit of passion from a working class background? Maybe we should pay no attention to Brand, but there's a long, long line of people in front of him, who we should also pay no attention to. People are clearly disenfranchised right now and that's why UKIP is on the rise, that's why people like Brand are getting more attention. Perhaps he is self serving but he shows a bit of backbone during a time where seemingly the British attitude to anything and everything is 'don't make a fuss'. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 4.14pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck

04 Dec 14 4.13pm

Quote npn at 04 Dec 2014 3.51pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm

I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites.

National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.17pm)

Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq?

But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips.

I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)

I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person.

But are the views of the likes of Cameron and co truly a cut above? Or is it more relevant and acceptable for posh boys pushing their own agendas through to have a voice rather than someone with a bit of passion from a working class background?

Maybe we should pay no attention to Brand, but there's a long, long line of people in front of him, who we should also pay no attention to. People are clearly disenfranchised right now and that's why UKIP is on the rise, that's why people like Brand are getting more attention. Perhaps he is self serving but he shows a bit of backbone during a time where seemingly the British attitude to anything and everything is 'don't make a fuss'.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 4.14pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 4.28pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.18pm Yes, but we've already established that you'll throw anything at him to convince yourself that this is an entirely binary situation. "Oh don't you know who his ex is, and he's a lefty" like some kind of old gossipper in a cafe . Again, I'm not bothered about what his motivation is where he has helped people. We're all hypocrites, none of us are saints. Please elaborate on what you mean by "binary situation". We've established that I don't like Russell Brand. I also think his political agenda is nonsense. (We can go into my reasons for this in more detail if you like.) But - please pay attention here - I don't think his agenda is nonsense because I don't like him. The two are completely separate. My reasons for condemning his political views are based on those views, not on my view of him. Are we clear on this now? I think his political agenda is given an exorbitantly disproportionate amount of coverage. I think this is primarily because of who he is, and only secondarily because of what he says (which, let's be honest, you can read anywhere else on one of Gusset's two bit blogs.) Therefore it is relevant that he is an alleged comedian who sleeps with celebrities. Not because I think it discredits him, but because it dramatically over-inflates the importance of what he says, by giving it so much coverage. (Possibly Mr Brand is not to blame for this and is the mere victim of our shallow, gossip-hungry mass media. However, I believe he could avoid getting so much coverage fairly easily if he wanted to. That he doesn't speaks volumes. Well it does to me, anyway.) Please also elaborate on exactly where "he has helped people". As far as I can tell, he's peddling a particular political view and all his recent actions which have been covered in the media are to further his political aims. I'll certainly retract this if there is evidence to the contrary. ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 04 Dec 14 4.28pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 3.18pm

Again, I'm not bothered about what his motivation is where he has helped people. We're all hypocrites, none of us are saints.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "binary situation".

We've established that I don't like Russell Brand.

I also think his political agenda is nonsense. (We can go into my reasons for this in more detail if you like.)

But - please pay attention here - I don't think his agenda is nonsense because I don't like him. The two are completely separate. My reasons for condemning his political views are based on those views, not on my view of him. Are we clear on this now?

I think his political agenda is given an *exorbitantly* disproportionate amount of coverage. I think this is primarily because of who he is, and only secondarily because of what he says (which, let's be honest, you can read anywhere else on one of Gusset's two bit blogs.)

Therefore it *is* relevant that he is an alleged comedian who sleeps with celebrities. Not because I think it discredits him, but because it dramatically over-inflates the importance of what he says, by giving it so much coverage.

(Possibly Mr Brand is not to blame for this and is the mere victim of our shallow, gossip-hungry mass media. However, I believe he could avoid getting so much coverage fairly easily if he wanted to. That he doesn't speaks volumes. Well it does to me, anyway.)

Please also elaborate on exactly where "he has helped people". As far as I can tell, he's peddling a particular political view and all his recent actions which have been covered in the media are to further his political aims. I'll certainly retract this if there is evidence to the contrary.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 4.36pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm But are the views of the likes of Cameron and co truly a cut above? Or is it more relevant and acceptable for posh boys pushing their own agendas through to have a voice rather than someone with a bit of passion from a working class background? Ha ha ha! Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!? The views of Cameron as a person are only of value if they have proper substance. The views of Cameron as prime minister are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election. Which is my entire point about Russell Brand. Either you have a legitimate platform for your political views - eg, several million votes for the organisation you lead. Or you have a particularly insightful, scholarly or intellectually substantial take on the world (eg, Thomas Piketty). Brand has neither. ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 04 Dec 14 4.36pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm

Ha ha ha!

Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!?

The views of Cameron *as a person* are only of value if they have proper substance.

The views of Cameron as *prime minister* are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election.

Which is my entire point about Russell Brand. Either you have a legitimate platform for your political views - eg, several million votes for the organisation you lead. Or you have a particularly insightful, scholarly or intellectually substantial take on the world (eg, Thomas Piketty).

Brand has neither.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert a moderator to this post

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 04 Dec 14 7.30pm
I must congratulate Russell Brand on the award that he won yesterday. The award was for talking Gibberish. The judges said he was way out in front this year as not only did they NOT know what he was on about but HE also did not know himself what he was talking about. In their words "We have no idea what you are talking about and we're not sure you do either!" I had to laugh when I read this and the judges were absolutely spot on with this one. Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.
Alert a moderator to this post

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 04 Dec 14 7.30pm

I must congratulate Russell Brand on the award that he won yesterday. The award was for talking Gibberish. The judges said he was way out in front this year as not only did they NOT know what he was on about but HE also did not know himself what he was talking about. In their words "We have no idea what you are talking about and we're not sure you do either!"

I had to laugh when I read this and the judges were absolutely spot on with this one.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 04 Dec 14 7.54pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 04 Dec 2014 11.47am Quote matt_himself at 04 Dec 2014 5.19am Russell gets asked by a reporter about his rent being paid to a Virgin Islands shell company and calls the reporter a 'snide' for asking this. Interesting... [Link] That's the rest of his credibility gone....... what was left of it. Smacks of Bono-esque hypocrisy! Oh dear, Hoof talking 'credibility' yet he can't differentiate between one wealthy chap who constantly asks for your money and...........Russell Brand?
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 04 Dec 14 7.54pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 04 Dec 2014 11.47am

Quote matt_himself at 04 Dec 2014 5.19am

Russell gets asked by a reporter about his rent being paid to a Virgin Islands shell company and calls the reporter a 'snide' for asking this. Interesting...

[Link]

That's the rest of his credibility gone....... what was left of it.

Smacks of Bono-esque hypocrisy!

Oh dear, Hoof talking 'credibility' yet he can't differentiate between one wealthy chap who constantly asks for your money and...........Russell Brand?

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 04 Dec 14 8.18pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 4.36pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm But are the views of the likes of Cameron and co truly a cut above? Or is it more relevant and acceptable for posh boys pushing their own agendas through to have a voice rather than someone with a bit of passion from a working class background? Ha ha ha! Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!? The views of Cameron as a person are only of value if they have proper substance. The views of Cameron as prime minister are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election. Which is my entire point about Russell Brand. Either you have a legitimate platform for your political views - eg, several million votes for the organisation you lead. Or you have a particularly insightful, scholarly or intellectually substantial take on the world (eg, Thomas Piketty). Brand has neither. I figured that highlighting many issues that the 'established media' for some reason avoid(?) would be a legitimate platform? Or do you just not like the cut of his jib and can't see past the bravado and take the time to listen to the message? Jeez, I just realised that I'm talking to a chap who believes 'Call me Dave' and his several million votes automatically means that he is worth listening to. What next, he has 'insight and a substantial intellect'? Cough cough splutter. Edited by TUX (04 Dec 2014 8.44pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 04 Dec 14 8.18pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 4.36pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm

Ha ha ha!

Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!?

The views of Cameron *as a person* are only of value if they have proper substance.

The views of Cameron as *prime minister* are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election.

Brand has neither.

I figured that highlighting many issues that the 'established media' for some reason avoid(?) would be a legitimate platform? Or do you just not like the cut of his jib and can't see past the bravado and take the time to listen to the message?

Jeez, I just realised that I'm talking to a chap who believes 'Call me Dave' and his several million votes automatically means that he is worth listening to. What next, he has 'insight and a substantial intellect'?
Cough cough splutter.

Edited by TUX (04 Dec 2014 8.44pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 8.49pm
Quote TUX at 04 Dec 2014 8.18pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 4.36pm Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm But are the views of the likes of Cameron and co truly a cut above? Or is it more relevant and acceptable for posh boys pushing their own agendas through to have a voice rather than someone with a bit of passion from a working class background? Ha ha ha! Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!? The views of Cameron as a person are only of value if they have proper substance. The views of Cameron as prime minister are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election. Which is my entire point about Russell Brand. Either you have a legitimate platform for your political views - eg, several million votes for the organisation you lead. Or you have a particularly insightful, scholarly or intellectually substantial take on the world (eg, Thomas Piketty). Brand has neither. I figured that highlighting many issues that the 'established media' for some reason avoid(?) would be a legitimate platform? Or do you just not like the cut of his jib and can't see past the bravado and take the time to listen to the message? Jeez, I just realised that I'm talking to a chap who believes 'Call me Dave' and his several million votes automatically means that he is worth listening to. What next, he has 'insight and a substantial intellect'? Cough cough splutter. Edited by TUX (04 Dec 2014 8.44pm) Thanks, you saved me writing this. If the comeback is "David Cameron represents those voting for him" well we already know that's not true, hence people jumping ship to UKIP in their droves. Much like Lib Dem voters haven't been represented by their party and so on.. This guy just loves his binary way of looking at the world "You're either this, or you're that". Ermm no, it's a bit more complex than that mate. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 9.08pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

sanitycheck

04 Dec 14 8.49pm

Quote TUX at 04 Dec 2014 8.18pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 4.36pm

Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 4.13pm

Ha ha ha!

Now who's judging people on the personal and not on the substance of their views!?

The views of Cameron *as a person* are only of value if they have proper substance.

The views of Cameron as *prime minister* are frankly more relevant than those of some bbc three celebrity. He is leader of a governing party which received over 10 million votes at the last election.

Brand has neither.

Edited by TUX (04 Dec 2014 8.44pm)

Thanks, you saved me writing this. If the comeback is "David Cameron represents those voting for him" well we already know that's not true, hence people jumping ship to UKIP in their droves. Much like Lib Dem voters haven't been represented by their party and so on..

This guy just loves his binary way of looking at the world "You're either this, or you're that". Ermm no, it's a bit more complex than that mate.

Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 9.08pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 19 of 41 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors