Brand v Paxman

Trusty · 25 Oct 2013 at 20:19

This is it, he pigeon holes a lot of bad things that are happening on the system we have in place. The idea that our system is broken is so subjective. If went back to Labour when we had bodies piled up in the street and 99% taxation, you'd say we have it pretty good. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Can we do more as whole? yes, we probably can. Fortunately technology allows us to now...

Hades · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:00

Genuine question... Brand must be quite well off with the fees he charges. Does anyone feel uncomfortable with that? is he one of the rich people he complains about?

AndrewNR · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:07

Russinating said:
People need to realise that eloquence != intelligence. It's far harder to make a good point using clear, basic English than to shroud it in unnecessary vocabulary like a cheap magic trick.

This. Got to 1:30 of the clip and couldn't put up with him any longer.

I quite enjoyed his appearance on Question Time recently, mind.

AndrewNR · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:09

Hades said:
Genuine question... Brand must be quite well off with the fees he charges. Does anyone feel uncomfortable with that? is he one of the rich people he complains about?

He's probably got more money than Cameron, but unlike him (majority of MPs) I doubt he was born into wealth and given an easy ride to success.

Wikipedia says "Russell Edward Brand was born in Orsett Hospital in Grays, Essex, England. He is the only child of photographer Ronald Henry Brand and Barbara Elizabeth Nichols.[4] Brand's parents divorced when he was six months old, and he was raised by his mother. He has described his childhood as isolated and lonely.[5] When he was seven, a tutor sexually abused him.[6] When Brand was eight, his mother contracted uterine cancer and then breast cancer one year later.[7] While she underwent treatment, Brand lived with relatives.[7] When he was 14, he suffered from bulimia nervosa. When he was 16, he left home because of disagreements with his ill mother's live-in partner.[7] Brand then started to use illegal drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, LSD, and ecstasy.[7]"

So, I guess, good for him.

Freefaller · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:37

I still find it funny that people think this was an interview that was "won" by Brand. A lot of shouting and postulating with absolutely no capability to affect the things he's so "passionate" about. He'll soon move over to another subject that he wants to further extend his publicity to.

Theophany · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:47

CREATIVE!11 said:
ITT dudes (specifically I find always mostly dudes...) hate on Russell brand cause he's more charismatic, way more intelligent, way funnier and gets way more woman.

ITT........

what's new?!

Or maybe the fact that somebody who is as wealthy as he is loses the moral authority to blast people who earn a lot of money because it appeals to his target audience - the lowest common denominator.

easyrider · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:47

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/25/tory-...lowing-paxman-interview-4161644/?ITO=facebook

Freefaller · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:52

Theophany said:
Or maybe the fact that somebody who is as wealthy as he is loses the moral authority to blast people who earn a lot of money because it appeals to his target audience - the lowest common denominator.

And speak a lot of words and say very little.

Theophany · 25 Oct 2013 at 21:56

Freefaller said:
And speak a lot of words and say very little.

It all felt a little bit forced, really, didn't it? Like he was compensating for the lack of substance by using overly long words in what I suspect was an offensively two-dimensional ploy to make morons think "Russell Brand is well smart, int he? Did you hear what he said on that interview thing on Youtube?"

CREATIVE!11 · 25 Oct 2013 at 22:17

Freefaller said:
I still find it funny that people think this was an interview that was "won" by Brand. A lot of shouting and postulating with absolutely no capability to affect the things he's so "passionate" about. He'll soon move over to another subject that he wants to further extend his publicity to.

Jelly?

Russinating · 25 Oct 2013 at 22:21

Precisely. The 'people' he's attesting to be on the side of will have no idea what he's talking about but unlike a politician will therefore 'side' with him no-matter what. Hell I had no idea what he was talking about half the time - 50% because he was using totally unnecessary vocabulary and 50% because he was talking a load of crud.

Trusty · 25 Oct 2013 at 22:59

Mr Joshua said:
It isn't about punishment, or at least paying your dues and owning up to your responsibilities to the society that has afforded such lavish lifestyles shouldn't seem like a punishment.

Punishment was the wrong word really. Who are we talking about when you say paying your dues? Politicians? Corporations?

Freefaller · 25 Oct 2013 at 23:12

CREATIVE!11 said:
Jelly?

Yes totally. I'm beyond green with envy.

Shocky-FM · 25 Oct 2013 at 23:13

SMN said:
I agree, he uses too many pointlessly complex words .

If you've seen Brand speak in interviews before you will notice he does this allot and it's usually the same words.

Mr Joshua · 26 Oct 2013 at 01:42

Trusty said:
Punishment was the wrong word really. Who are we talking about when you say paying your dues? Politicians? Corporations?

The excessively wealthy, where that level is set is another matter. At present we have a situation where the hard working poor are having to go cap in hand to the government for state benefits (income support etc.) as they are not paid enough and yet the CEO can be earning 400x as much as the people at the bottom.

Now I would imagine this situation suits corporations nicely as paying a fairer wage to those at the bottom would be more costly to them than having all taxpayers subsidise their business.

Trusty · 26 Oct 2013 at 02:15

Mr Joshua said:
The excessively wealthy, where that level is set is another matter. At present we have a situation where the hard working poor are having to go cap in hand to the government for state benefits (income support etc.) as they are not paid enough and yet the CEO can be earning 400x as much as the people at the bottom.

Now I would imagine this situation suits corporations nicely as paying a fairer wage to those at the bottom would be more costly to them than having all taxpayers subsidise their business.

How many people are really talking about though? I don't think the system is as broke as your making out. I think a bigger part of the problem is catering for an exploding population. The world has gone from 2 bil to 7 bil in like 30 years, madness!

Combat squirrel · 26 Oct 2013 at 02:19

Freefaller said:
I still find it funny that people think this was an interview that was "won" by Brand. A lot of shouting and postulating with absolutely no capability to affect the things he's so "passionate" about. He'll soon move over to another subject that he wants to further extend his publicity to.

Rubbish. He made his points and made them well.

Further he skillfully answered or dealt with Paxman's daft answers and pointless questions.

He has the entire country talking about it now, and your saying he has no capability to affect the issues? :confused:

Well that entirely shows you didn't really listen to what he said.....no one person can do anything but the entire nation can......a revolution is indeed needed to the current POINTLESS system.

What's your opinion on politics BTW?

Hicks · 26 Oct 2013 at 03:53

Freefaller said:
I still find it funny that people think this was an interview that was "won" by Brand. A lot of shouting and postulating with absolutely no capability to affect the things he's so "passionate" about. He'll soon move over to another subject that he wants to further extend his publicity to.

Oh dear...

He was interviewed and answered questions.
This only shows that you have never really paid any attention to him before. He hasn't changed in his views whatsoever. You think he needs to do an interview with Paxman for publicity??
It also shows that you didn't actually listen to what he said.

There are an awful lot of males that don't like him and they are usually males that like to think they are 'alpha' in some way and react the same when another 'alpha' is present. (Sorry to say but yeah, it's jealousy) The others are usually people of the 'right wing' persuasion

He's said all this before.

RoganTheGypo · 26 Oct 2013 at 06:35

Personally I think there should be change, maybe not in the way Brand thinks it should happen but certainly in some form. He is at least a voice to the youth and as Lustig's article explains it’s a dangerous road, without a method you simply have madness.

Would full socialism even work in the UK? We've been semi-socialist, semi-capitalist for so long we expect and depend on a certain way of life; going full either way would be a massive adaption for a population and would take generations to achieve.

We will never be a happy population as there is no pleasing the masses, but we are British so let’s just get on with it. If it wasn't for the fact Brand has probably done Katy Perry up the stinker I'd be calling him a Capitalist pretending to be a Socialist but because of the KP thing I'll hear him out.

RoganTheGypo · 26 Oct 2013 at 06:42

Combat squirrel said:
Rubbish. He made his points and made them well.

Further he skillfully answered or dealt with Paxman's daft answers and pointless questions.

He has the entire country talking about it now, and your saying he has no capability to affect the issues?

Well that entirely shows you didn't really listen to what he said.....no one person can do anything but the entire nation can......a revolution is indeed needed to the current POINTLESS system.

What's your opinion on politics BTW?

Sorry but its stupid that you allow a Socialite to send you off to put your Che Guevara T-Shirt on. Do you even understand the type of devastation and recovery that go hand in hand with a revolt? Even worse a revolution? Do you even know the difference? Who exactly will be in power once we successfully over throw parliament?

There are better answer than taking to the streets and throwing stones. Why not protest for a early vote? No ******** to it lets petrol bomb the rozzers and their oppressive high vis jackets!