Brand v Paxman
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
He agreed with the elite view but not in the voting or lack of
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,746
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Paxman was on a chat show last night but I can't think of the hosts name.
Anyway, Paxman said he agreed with a lot of what Brand was saying.
I didn't see the interview so I can't comment.
Anyway, Paxman said he agreed with a lot of what Brand was saying.
I didn't see the interview so I can't comment.
eh? You didnt see it ?
a lot? which bit?
I watched it (norton) and he skipped over 99% of what brand said...
Dont fluff it up to be anymore than covering his ass on twitter
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,746
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
eh? You didnt see it ?
a lot? which bit?
I watched it (norton) and he skipped over 99% of what brand said...
Dont fluff it up to be anymore than covering his ass on twitter
Who's arse on Twitter?
I don't know, I didn't see Norton or the original interview but just glanced over to my wife's TV and heard Paxman say that he agreed with a lot of what Brand said.
That is all so don't pull me into Politics, I've never voted either.
Well basically, there is more parties than just the big 3, and people often just vote the big 3 mainly because others do, which bumps their votes higher up the ladder to make those other parties pretty pointless in terms of numbers, just so they can just be apart of the voting without actually looking into it properly and selecting one that matches their values correctly. what is the point in voting for many people? if they dont actually look properly at all the parties thoughourly? surely you cannot base a vote on something without actually knowing the full agenda?
a lot bash russell for his big words, but why isnt he allowed to use them? he learnt them? theyre real words? think a lot of people are just ignorant because they dont know those words. if you cant understand him, pause the video and look up the word, just like he had to do when he sat down and learnt them.
he had an intrest in big words, granted many dont understand a lot of them, but why does that make him wrong for actually using them, in their proper way?
i used to dislike the guy but ive got a pretty good respect for him. not everything he says is correct, as each has their own personally views and intrests but he does speak good points and he is an intelligent man. hes not wrapped up in fakeness either he actually speaks what he feels regardless of whom he may offend.
also just because someone is rich and bashes those in his same group, doesnt mean he has to donate all his money to charity to make a point thats just dumb and stupid. the same as how he needs to come up with all the answers to something there and then to bring to attention or make a point that things arent working out / something needs changing
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,746
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
And that's why I never discuss Politics because I have no right so don't post your childish smilies at me.
It would be very easy for me to post the same smiley back at you because you do vote and what has it ever done? **** all.
You keep voting for people who keep telling you lies and I'll just sit here with my head in my hands knowing that if I vote nothing changes.
Because without action or actual conviction, they are simply words. I don't believe for one minute that he truly believes in what he is saying. This is a man who's whole livelihood depends on being on the front cover of newspapers and magazines and saying things that will get his fanbase on his side.
A man sitting there criticizing western democracy and corporations for making huge profits and damaging the environment whilst he takes huge pay packets from corporations such as Universal, buys million dollar homes, drives highly polluting cars, has lavish weddings in India at the expense of local wildlife and environmental protection rules ,clearly doesn't deserve anyone's time.
I implore you not to believe a word of it. He is a very clever man, but not in the way you think.....
He can't win, if he was poor and not a wealthy celebrity people would be saying that he is just jealous of those who have worked hard for their wealth bla bla bla, nobody can ever criticise the status quo without there being a simple argument to discredit them. Does that mean we should just go back to sleep?
This is quite a good take on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/russell-brand-robert-webb-to-help-dispossessed
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/russell-brand-robert-webb-to-help-dispossessed
His wealth isn't really that relevant, but he has previously stated that he was embarrassed when confronted about it at the Occupy demos.
Suggests he's just as full of **** as the politicians, tbqfh.
the problem is she ays "oh yes i'd give up my money, IF someone had already created this perfect system". see the problem is he's not actually acting. he could use a small portion of his money and his massive influence/publicity/contacts to find a or found a group with those ideals and actually start a real change. hell given how **** our populace is atm, a political party full of celebrities would probably get an insane amount of votes.
but he wont as he'd have to "give up some of his baboules" on a gamble.
Then stand for government.Do something rather than moan like a big girl
lol like anyone can just get up and go stand for goverment
yup that's kinda the whole point of the system we have....
Yep, of course you can. All you need is 10 people to initially back you and £500 (refundable deposit) and you're up and running.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,746
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I don't moan about or discuss Politics because I know nothing about it.
All I know is that over the last 55 years I've heard everybody else moan about what goes on and nothing changes no matter who you vote for.
Well yes we can but since I don't want to play their mind games it's pointless.
Personally I would like to see all the different parties come together (even the BNP & EDL) and sit in a room with other influential people and work out a plan.
They do. It's called the House of Commons (political parties) and the House of Lords (other influential people). The only difference to your request above is that only elected members get to sit in the house of commons, but that's reasonable since they are the people elected to represent their views. Otherwise, you couldn't fit everyone in.