FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Hypocrite
Hypocrite
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Who cares, I'd still shag him " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"He's a crack addict who had a book to sell & wanted publicity,you could not trust to ask him the time of day!. " | |||
"Hes vile...I wouldnt piss on him if he was in flames!" | |||
 | |||
"Hard to believe that Russell Brand has not only ditched his view that voting is a waste of time, but he is also telling us who to vote for. Call me cynical, but I suspect his whole revolution thing was a massive scam, and that he had planned this change of heart from the very start to maximise his own publicity. I hope people see through him. Never has the term hypocrite been more apt "not quite..... I hate sticking up for brand... but what he said is that he wouldn't vote... but would encourage those who are inclined to vote, to vote labour.... is that any more influencial than a newspaper endorsement???? really..... funny enough ed also did a youtube interview with a fashion video blogger called louise pentland... she has about a million and a quarter followers on twitter.... she says she hasn't voted since 18, and isn't planning on voting either.... so is she going to get the same amount of vile pointed at her as brand has.... | |||
" funny enough ed also did a youtube interview with a fashion video blogger called louise pentland... she has about a million and a quarter followers on twitter.... she says she hasn't voted since 18, and isn't planning on voting either.... so is she going to get the same amount of vile pointed at her as brand has...." No, people don't get to point their fingers at her and call her 'junkie'. If they can't demonise her then they'll leave her alone. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"He supports the said party because they confirm closest to his ideals. He doesn't agree with everything they say, however, he'd rather them than the elitist Tory government cutting away at the public sector and putting people out of work through the austerity that has shrunk our economy in real terms (growth was 0.19%, which is insignificant). Ed Miliband, an economics genius and a firm character can lead this country back to greatness." So when he said " I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites" he was not referring to Labour politicians? Maybe he should have been clearer
As for Miliband being an economic genius......  | |||
| |||
| |||
" So when he said " I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites" he was not referring to Labour politicians? Maybe he should have been clearer
"Who is an economic genius... I've tried going from Keynes to Von Mises..from communism to libertarianism...and I still don't know enough to be sure about any ideology... Brand has always come across as a socialist...it stands to reason he supports some of labours positions... I think, primarily, it's an "anyone but Tory" position at the moment... Time will tell if it's the right one. | |||
"Thinking a little more as I close my eyes to sleep.. I sympathise with him, as I do with many others including ukip voters... Lots of groups of people feel things are broken... Not many, including Brand have a solution it seems.... But at least they're trying....more than I am! Politics is about lobbying...that's what he's doing... I may be judging him wrong but I feel his heart seems in that right place...and so long as he is open to listening and learning, I'm hopeful good will come from his efforts. " I am just very cynical, he has always been very left wing, fine. However I suspect the past 2 years he has been arguing about not voting and there needs to be a revolution etc has been a sham. I suspect this sudden change of heart in election week was planned probably years ago with the Labour hierarchy. If so, I actually applaud them for some very forward thinking! | |||
"London School of Economics Masters of Science in Economics. Knows the mistakes made by the previous labour government as he was an aid inside the cabinet. I may be slightly biased, but I think someone from his background that has nothing to gain for himself financially is far better running the country than an elite few who manipulate our laws to ease the burden on their hedge funds." Economics is all about trying to drive a car by analysing what you have seen by solely looking through the rear view mirror! Academics are great, but particularly in the field of economics, invariably wrong  | |||
| |||
" I suspect this sudden change of heart in election week was planned probably years ago with the Labour hierarchy. If so, I actually applaud them for some very forward thinking! " I want a revolution...at least a paradigm shift in thought. To what, I don't know. Last time I voted lib dems..this time I'm likely to vote another way... Nothing good will come from your cynicism... If you want to make the world better...join an organisation whose views you support... Or start your own. Brand has...despite criticism. I'm going to let time judge him. I don't know more ...what id I know is that gut instinct can often be prejudiced. The market place for ideas is running short ... It's well stocked on cynicism and suspicion though! | |||
"I'm convinced... Labour all the way.. " Labour all the way would be bad enough, but survivable. What won't be is Labour + SNP with Ed scratching for approval and greasing up his butthole for the SNP anytime he needs his "coalition partners" to vote with him. SNP will have him well and truly by the short and curlies. They want to split the country and Ed is going to team up with them????? What sort of insanity is that - doing deals with the SNP devil. TREASON! | |||
" Economics is all about trying to drive a car by analysing what you have seen by solely looking through the rear view mirror! Academics are great, but particularly in the field of economics, invariably wrong "It's all educated guess work then.. At least he's had an education in it. Someone...somewhen has to get it...even if it's by fluke! | |||
| |||
"Brand can change his mind if he wants. There are so many people disillusioned by voting. It's good to see people recognise it's importance, fame or no fame. As for who he's voting for? Miliband may have gain a few younger voters by this association." Quite a few even.  | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart! "Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us! | |||
"He supports the said party because they confirm closest to his ideals. He doesn't agree with everything they say, however, he'd rather them than the elitist Tory government cutting away at the public sector and putting people out of work through the austerity that has shrunk our economy in real terms (growth was 0.19%, which is insignificant). Ed Miliband, an economics genius and a firm character can lead this country back to greatness. So when he said " I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites" he was not referring to Labour politicians? Maybe he should have been clearer
As for Miliband being an economic genius...... "Maybe talking to Miliband changed his mind. People can change their mind without being a hypocrite can't they? | |||
"London School of Economics Masters of Science in Economics. Knows the mistakes made by the previous labour government as he was an aid inside the cabinet. " Not biased and a good point. " I may be slightly biased, but I think someone from his background that has nothing to gain for himself financially is far better running the country than an elite few who manipulate our laws to ease the burden on their hedge funds." Totally biased and not based on fact. You've no idea what Cameron's, Osborne's or anyone else's motivation is being in politics. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Why would anyone take his rambling on board anyway? He's like one of those d*unks down the pub who thinks everyone needs to hear what he has to say " | |||
| |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart!
Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us!"You make a good point, although of course you don't realise it. While Brand is a millionaire now, he knows what it is like to be poor. Now tell us about those billionaire newspaper owners again... | |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart!
Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us!
You make a good point, although of course you don't realise it. While Brand is a millionaire now, he knows what it is like to be poor.
Now tell us about those billionaire newspaper owners again..."It is interesting that people are happy to buy into a right wing conspiracy of power and influence, but seem to discount that the left wing may also engage in similar dark dealings! Funny how Blair has made several millions from his work with JP Morgan and with Murdoch since retiring from politics (although I will accept that while he was a Labour prime minister he wasn't left wing)
| |||
" It is interesting that people are happy to buy into a right wing conspiracy of power and influence, but seem to discount that the left wing may also engage in similar dark dealings! Funny how Blair has made several millions from his work with JP Morgan and with Murdoch since retiring from politics (although I will accept that while he was a Labour prime minister he wasn't left wing)
"I'm not sure that's true - hence the reason there's labour isn't dominating the polls... There are concerns that the political spectrum means very little now...ideologies mean little... Brand provides a voice for some...Farage for others...etc Either, both or neither may have selfish intentions... Time will judge... | |||
" I suspect this sudden change of heart in election week was planned probably years ago with the Labour hierarchy. If so, I actually applaud them for some very forward thinking! I want a revolution...at least a paradigm shift in thought. To what, I don't know. Last time I voted lib dems..this time I'm likely to vote another way... Nothing good will come from your cynicism... If you want to make the world better...join an organisation whose views you support... Or start your own. Brand has...despite criticism. I'm going to let time judge him. I don't know more ...what id I know is that gut instinct can often be prejudiced. The market place for ideas is running short ... It's well stocked on cynicism and suspicion though! " Paradigm shift is more British than a revolution. I agree. A part of me hopes tomorrow ends in a total mess, the kind of mess that will force changes to the profession of career politicians. . | |||
" I suspect this sudden change of heart in election week was planned probably years ago with the Labour hierarchy. If so, I actually applaud them for some very forward thinking! I want a revolution...at least a paradigm shift in thought. To what, I don't know. Last time I voted lib dems..this time I'm likely to vote another way... Nothing good will come from your cynicism... If you want to make the world better...join an organisation whose views you support... Or start your own. Brand has...despite criticism. I'm going to let time judge him. I don't know more ...what id I know is that gut instinct can often be prejudiced. The market place for ideas is running short ... It's well stocked on cynicism and suspicion though! Paradigm shift is more British than a revolution. I agree. A part of me hopes tomorrow ends in a total mess, the kind of mess that will force changes to the profession of career politicians. ." I'd like to think that things could be better, that we could have a more informed political debate about the benefits of socialism versus individualism, centralisation versus subsidiarity or nationalisation versus privatisation but it always seems to generate into a mud slinging contest about the motivation of those putting forward views rather than the merits of the actual arguments itself. However, despite its faults, I've not seen many, if any, other political systems around the world that seen significantly better than ours but I have seen many that seem far worse. Maybe we should look around at the sort of systems most of the rest of the world have to live with and then look again at are own.!! We should be careful what we wish for. | |||
"Why would anyone take his rambling on board anyway? He's like one of those d*unks down the pub who thinks everyone needs to hear what he has to say " | |||
"Who cares, I'd still shag him "LOL,,Yea id sit on his face no probs | |||
"Who cares, I'd still shag him " | |||
| |||
"However, despite its faults, I've not seen many, if any, other political systems around the world that seen significantly better than ours but I have seen many that seem far worse. Maybe we should look around at the sort of systems most of the rest of the world have to live with and then look again at are own.!! We should be careful what we wish for." True - however this should not be reason not to develop and improve, not least because our country ought to be at the forefront of developing democracy. But also because the world has changed massively in the past 20 years. We can communicate opinions, get information and make decisions as a society quicker than any time in history. Yet still people are posting their vote or popping them in a wooden box tomorrow. It seems outdated and irrelevant to me. What must it seem to an 18 year old? | |||
"However, despite its faults, I've not seen many, if any, other political systems around the world that seen significantly better than ours but I have seen many that seem far worse. Maybe we should look around at the sort of systems most of the rest of the world have to live with and then look again at are own.!! We should be careful what we wish for. True - however this should not be reason not to develop and improve, not least because our country ought to be at the forefront of developing democracy. But also because the world has changed massively in the past 20 years. We can communicate opinions, get information and make decisions as a society quicker than any time in history. Yet still people are posting their vote or popping them in a wooden box tomorrow. It seems outdated and irrelevant to me. What must it seem to an 18 year old? " I'm involved in the count tomorrow night and the process is incredibly protracted, archaic, expensive and vulnerable to human error. While the theatre of it is still enjoyable, I can't believe in 2015 there is not a more efficient and effective way to do this. | |||
| |||
"I've done the count before - do it wrong and you get overtime "We're on a flat fee, if the counters get it wrong I'm stuck there all night for no extra dosh! | |||
| |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart!
Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us!
You make a good point, although of course you don't realise it. While Brand is a millionaire now, he knows what it is like to be poor.
Now tell us about those billionaire newspaper owners again...
It is interesting that people are happy to buy into a right wing conspiracy of power and influence, but seem to discount that the left wing may also engage in similar dark dealings! Funny how Blair has made several millions from his work with JP Morgan and with Murdoch since retiring from politics (although I will accept that while he was a Labour prime minister he wasn't left wing)
"That's not true at all. Nobody would be surprised to learn that Blair is a neoliberal mercenary. It's clear to anyone who thinks about things, however, that the Right controls around 80% of the mainstream media, hence the protracted mocking of Brand. Heaven forbid anyone other than Tory party donors should be encouraging turkeys to vote for Christmas. It's a crooked system that should be highlighted at every turn. | |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart!
Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us!
You make a good point, although of course you don't realise it. While Brand is a millionaire now, he knows what it is like to be poor.
Now tell us about those billionaire newspaper owners again...
It is interesting that people are happy to buy into a right wing conspiracy of power and influence, but seem to discount that the left wing may also engage in similar dark dealings! Funny how Blair has made several millions from his work with JP Morgan and with Murdoch since retiring from politics (although I will accept that while he was a Labour prime minister he wasn't left wing)
"Thatcher said he was her greatest legacy. | |||
"Whatever you do people, don't listen to Russell Brand, his opinions are worthless! Instead, listen to all the newspapers owned by billionaires who want you to vote Tory - they are the people who really have your interests at heart!
Yeah listen to Russell Brand he's just a regular old millionaire like the rest of us!
You make a good point, although of course you don't realise it. While Brand is a millionaire now, he knows what it is like to be poor.
Now tell us about those billionaire newspaper owners again...
It is interesting that people are happy to buy into a right wing conspiracy of power and influence, but seem to discount that the left wing may also engage in similar dark dealings! Funny how Blair has made several millions from his work with JP Morgan and with Murdoch since retiring from politics (although I will accept that while he was a Labour prime minister he wasn't left wing)
That's not true at all. Nobody would be surprised to learn that Blair is a neoliberal mercenary.
It's clear to anyone who thinks about things, however, that the Right controls around 80% of the mainstream media, hence the protracted mocking of Brand. Heaven forbid anyone other than Tory party donors should be encouraging turkeys to vote for Christmas.
It's a crooked system that should be highlighted at every turn."I'm always amazed how both overly committed supporters of both Labour and Conservative, plus some others like UKIP, always accuse the media of being biased. I don't suppose it occurs to them that maybe the media is just doing its job of exposing the faults and fallacies in the various parties arguments. Just because the media does not agree with your point of view doesn't mean it's biased. The way I see if both sides are complaining about media bias then the media has probably doing it about right. | |||
| |||
"However, despite its faults, I've not seen many, if any, other political systems around the world that seen significantly better than ours but I have seen many that seem far worse. Maybe we should look around at the sort of systems most of the rest of the world have to live with and then look again at are own.!! We should be careful what we wish for. True - however this should not be reason not to develop and improve, not least because our country ought to be at the forefront of developing democracy. But also because the world has changed massively in the past 20 years. We can communicate opinions, get information and make decisions as a society quicker than any time in history. Yet still people are posting their vote or popping them in a wooden box tomorrow. It seems outdated and irrelevant to me. What must it seem to an 18 year old? I'm involved in the count tomorrow night and the process is incredibly protracted, archaic, expensive and vulnerable to human error. While the theatre of it is still enjoyable, I can't believe in 2015 there is not a more efficient and effective way to do this. " There are other ways but do we really want to get into ' hanging chad ' scenarios like in Florida with Bush. At least the current method of counting is both reliable and trusted by most. And I've been to more counts than I care to remember. | |||
"I think he's a cock and take no notice of him, I did once and thought 'you dont half talk shit you wanker'" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Brand can change his mind if he wants. There are so many people disillusioned by voting. It's good to see people recognise it's importance, fame or no fame. As for who he's voting for? Miliband may have gain a few younger voters by this association." Yes Brand can change his mind, still a bit silly of him to tell others to vote Labour (particularly the young) long after the deadline time to register to vote had closed. | |||
"This cynical publicity stunt looks to have spectacularly back fired. I just wonder how many votes this cost the Labour party." Cause or correlation..? Meanwhile, back to austerity and increasing the national debt some more? | |||
"This cynical publicity stunt looks to have spectacularly back fired. I just wonder how many votes this cost the Labour party. Cause or correlation..? Meanwhile, back to austerity and increasing the national debt some more? " It was a spectacular own goal which probably didn't on its own lose votes, but it was a further sign of Miliband abdandoning the centre ground and the electorate has rejected it. | |||
| |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. " He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. | |||
"Brand can change his mind if he wants. There are so many people disillusioned by voting. It's good to see people recognise it's importance, fame or no fame. As for who he's voting for? Miliband may have gain a few younger voters by this association. Yes Brand can change his mind, still a bit silly of him to tell others to vote Labour (particularly the young) long after the deadline time to register to vote had closed." But if he'd have done it sooner he risked picking the winning party. He needed to pick the losing side to maintain his rebel angle and not to get caught up in "you told us to vote for these people, you said they were different but they haven't done anything you said they would" issue. Now he can happily sit on the side lines slinging mud. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. " Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. " I would have more respect for him if he acknowledged what he is, a strong left wing activist. He was always going to come out in favour of Labour, so why go through the charade of writing a book, spouting on about Revolution and the importance of not voting only to change his views in the last week of a general election. It was pre-planned, it treated the electorate as stupid, and has back fired. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. I would have more respect for him if he acknowledged what he is, a strong left wing activist. He was always going to come out in favour of Labour, so why go through the charade of writing a book, spouting on about Revolution and the importance of not voting only to change his views in the last week of a general election. It was pre-planned, it treated the electorate as stupid, and has back fired." Your reading far too much into it, he's just a bloke who's not happy with the way things are, like most of us. He ultimately bumbled his way into supporting labour. There is no conspiracy here. He still doesn't support our current political system and never did, but until the alternative presents itself labour was the pragmatic choice. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. I would have more respect for him if he acknowledged what he is, a strong left wing activist. He was always going to come out in favour of Labour, so why go through the charade of writing a book, spouting on about Revolution and the importance of not voting only to change his views in the last week of a general election. It was pre-planned, it treated the electorate as stupid, and has back fired. Your reading far too much into it, he's just a bloke who's not happy with the way things are, like most of us. He ultimately bumbled his way into supporting labour. There is no conspiracy here. He still doesn't support our current political system and never did, but until the alternative presents itself labour was the pragmatic choice. " You have your view, I believe it to be one of the most contrived episodes of this election and I really think it did Miliband no favours at all. As a leader his principles were questioned as a result of the leadership battle with his brother, and by pandering to Brands sideshow, an individual who showed himslef happy to abandon his principles, it caused more harm than good. | |||
| |||
" You have your view, I believe it to be one of the most contrived episodes of this election and I really think it did Miliband no favours at all. As a leader his principles were questioned as a result of the leadership battle with his brother, and by pandering to Brands sideshow, an individual who showed himslef happy to abandon his principles, it caused more harm than good." People give brand far too much credit as some kind of evil political genius, when in actual fact he is just politically quite ignorant. He wants a fairer system, and more equality. His sentiment basically translates to: proportional representation rather than FPTP, no second jobs for sitting MP's, more referendums, the dissolution of media monopolies, and a higher degree of state regulation. Don't see how anyone can argue against those things.. Well I suppose they can't, that's why they pick faults with the mans character. | |||
| |||
"Don't think he ever really meant don't vote. Just that it's pointless to vote and I can't say I disagree. I vote because my nan was a suffragette and went through a lot for the right to vote, not because I believe politians really represent what I want. " He did mean it, but changed his mind as all humans can and do. Your nan would be out in the streets protesting now by the sounds of it. Can't rest on our laurels, progress is perpetual. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. " Nope he's exactly like her the only difference is you agree with him. | |||
" Nope he's exactly like her the only difference is you agree with him. " Mate i can't be arsed. You are purposely miopic where it suits your argument, it is blatantly obvious that Russel Brand's level of celebrity is not even in the same ball park as Katie Hopkins.. | |||
| |||
" You have your view, I believe it to be one of the most contrived episodes of this election and I really think it did Miliband no favours at all. As a leader his principles were questioned as a result of the leadership battle with his brother, and by pandering to Brands sideshow, an individual who showed himslef happy to abandon his principles, it caused more harm than good. People give brand far too much credit as some kind of evil political genius, when in actual fact he is just politically quite ignorant. He wants a fairer system, and more equality. His sentiment basically translates to: proportional representation rather than FPTP, no second jobs for sitting MP's, more referendums, the dissolution of media monopolies, and a higher degree of state regulation. Don't see how anyone can argue against those things.. Well I suppose they can't, that's why they pick faults with the mans character. " The only issue I have with his character is his willingness to abandon his principles, urge people to vote having spent a lifetime advocating that voting is pointless, then tell people who they should vote for, and then revert back to "voting is pointless" when the election delivers an outcome he doesn't like. | |||
"He cant be all bad Katy Perry shagged him so I will always be jealous" I just hope Katy got herself tested down the GUM clinic afterwards! | |||
" The only issue I have with his character is his willingness to abandon his principles, urge people to vote having spent a lifetime advocating that voting is pointless, then tell people who they should vote for, and then revert back to "voting is pointless" when the election delivers an outcome he doesn't like." I voted, nonetheless, I fully sympathise with Brand's position. It's not unique to him. Many 'ordinary' people feel that their views aren't represented and they are powerless once an election is over. Many feel that since only two parties can realistically win, and there isn't a massive difference between them, since both have long left the ideologies they were founded in...their vote means little more than a choice between two 'evils'. The government can abandon manifesto promises and folk can but watch...unless you're amongst the influential who is able to lobby by making donations, threatens or whatever else powerful people do to encourage favours. The election is over, and Brand is still donating time and money (including proceeds from his book), to support causes that are personal to him. If more of us did that...perhaps the world would be a little bit better. | |||
"What are the grounds for your cynicism? What does Brand stand to gain? Other than higher taxes for himself? He already has the publicity, he is a Hollywood star lol. He needs to stay in the headlines continually to remain a marketable product. Same as Katie Hopkins she's needs to piss people off regularly to maintain her career. Nothing at all like Katie Hopkins. Your summary of her is apt, doesn't fit Brand at all. People disregard him due to circumstances surrounding his life, or because they are second guessing his motives. Nobody ever challenges the content of what he says. " On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them." His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? " The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks." That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? " I'm not a great fan of the celebrity culture that we seem to live in these days but I'm not sure you can really blame the media. I think it tends to feed people what they want rather than lead them. There have been articles on TTIP in The Independent, Independence Business Times, The Economist, The EU web site, That government web site, Unison web site and many others. But I agree, it's not made the front page of The Sun or The Mirror. Do you really expect it to? A lot of information is available about TTIP but the reality is most people aren't overly bothered, probably because the intricacies of the details of a free trade agreement between North America and the EU are both boring and complex. Clarkson, like him or hate him, is neither complex or boring. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? " That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it." I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. " Not sure what this has to do with hypocrisy so don't want to hijack this thread too much but, as you've asked I'll give my 2 pence worth but after that, if you want to carry this discussion on, I think you should start a thread in TTIP. TTIP would boost trade at a time of continuing economic crisis. That means more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs. Lower prices, a wider variety of products to choose from and confidence that products and services from both sides of the Atlantic meet the highest safety standards possible. It would also contribute to the prosperity of over 800 million EU and US citizens Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement requires countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes: ? public health ? state education ? public transport ? water collection, purification, distribution and management. In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that. Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government. If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. TTIP WILL NOT ALLOW COMPANIES TO SUE GOVERMENTS FOR LOST PROFITS. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. Not sure what this has to do with hypocrisy so don't want to hijack this thread too much but, as you've asked I'll give my 2 pence worth but after that, if you want to carry this discussion on, I think you should start a thread in TTIP. TTIP would boost trade at a time of continuing economic crisis. That means more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs. Lower prices, a wider variety of products to choose from and confidence that products and services from both sides of the Atlantic meet the highest safety standards possible. It would also contribute to the prosperity of over 800 million EU and US citizens Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement requires countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes: ? public health ? state education ? public transport ? water collection, purification, distribution and management. In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that. Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government. If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. TTIP WILL NOT ALLOW COMPANIES TO SUE GOVERMENTS FOR LOST PROFITS. " New thread started | |||
"Hes vile...I wouldnt piss on him if he was in flames!" | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. Not sure what this has to do with hypocrisy so don't want to hijack this thread too much but, as you've asked I'll give my 2 pence worth but after that, if you want to carry this discussion on, I think you should start a thread in TTIP. TTIP would boost trade at a time of continuing economic crisis. That means more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs. Lower prices, a wider variety of products to choose from and confidence that products and services from both sides of the Atlantic meet the highest safety standards possible. It would also contribute to the prosperity of over 800 million EU and US citizens Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement requires countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes: ? public health ? state education ? public transport ? water collection, purification, distribution and management. In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that. Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government. If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. TTIP WILL NOT ALLOW COMPANIES TO SUE GOVERMENTS FOR LOST PROFITS. New thread started "I'm off on Holiday for a week so I may not post back for a while. | |||
"Hes vile...I wouldnt piss on him if he was in flames! "Who? | |||
"Hes vile...I wouldnt piss on him if he was in flames!
Who?"Russel I'm guessing. Have a crack on tother thread before you go, I'm interested to hear your opinion before it gets high jacked by a load of opinionated bigots sprouting rehearsed and received rhetoric. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. Not sure what this has to do with hypocrisy so don't want to hijack this thread too much but, as you've asked I'll give my 2 pence worth but after that, if you want to carry this discussion on, I think you should start a thread in TTIP. TTIP would boost trade at a time of continuing economic crisis. That means more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs. Lower prices, a wider variety of products to choose from and confidence that products and services from both sides of the Atlantic meet the highest safety standards possible. It would also contribute to the prosperity of over 800 million EU and US citizens Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement requires countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes: ? public health ? state education ? public transport ? water collection, purification, distribution and management. In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that. Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government. If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. TTIP WILL NOT ALLOW COMPANIES TO SUE GOVERMENTS FOR LOST PROFITS. New thread started
I'm off on Holiday for a week so I may not post back for a while."Anywhere nice? Or is it work | |||
"I've voted differently in at least two elections. Does that make me a hypocrite?" I think it's more his 'turn on a dime' U turn that is upsetting people. | |||
" On most issues his opinion is irrelevant. He's just a comedian after all. On other issues, such as drug abuse and addiction, he provides, through his own personal experience, a useful insight and a lot of people have engaged with him on that subject. Of course engaging with someone is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with them. His opinion is irrelevant yes. However he provides plenty of irrefutable fact which the mainstream media for some reason are not reporting. Jeremy Clarkson front page news. TTIP, what's that again? The difference is that when Clarkson says something he doesn't except it to be taken seriously, although some people do, he says it almost tongue in cheek. Sometimes it may be insightful but he doesn't pretend to be saying it for any other reason other than for his own publicity. Brand is the complete opposite of that and I've no more interests in his views on trade agreements than I do in the colour of his socks. That's not the point. More people are bothered about Clarkson than real serious issues, something's not right. The media is giving the wrong things far too much attention. How can a deal which gives corporations the powers to bully nation states possibly be a good thing? That's not what TTIP is all about. Research the other side of the argument also. TTIP has become a bogy monster for a lot of people who are just anti-capitalist any how. This warps their analysis and comment on it. I know exactly what it is about. £120 bil economic growth for Europe, but who actually sees that money? Estimates of around 15p per day to the average household.. yay. Business wants it. Farmers want it so they can sell inferior beef, pharmaceuticals want it so they can sell under tested drugs. I'm always open minded. If you have any insight as to the benefits to ordinary people, then i welcome the knowledge. Not sure what this has to do with hypocrisy so don't want to hijack this thread too much but, as you've asked I'll give my 2 pence worth but after that, if you want to carry this discussion on, I think you should start a thread in TTIP. TTIP would boost trade at a time of continuing economic crisis. That means more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs. Lower prices, a wider variety of products to choose from and confidence that products and services from both sides of the Atlantic meet the highest safety standards possible. It would also contribute to the prosperity of over 800 million EU and US citizens Neither TTIP nor any other EU trade agreement requires countries to liberalise, deregulate or privatise public services at national or local level. This includes: ? public health ? state education ? public transport ? water collection, purification, distribution and management. In its trade agreements, the EU always underlines its commitment to protecting public utilities at all levels of government, including the local level. Any decision to liberalise, deregulate or privatise such services is entirely up to national governments and local authorities. Trade agreements will not change that; TTIP will not change that. Nor will TTIP require EU governments or public health services to put anything out to private contract. Some EU countries have chosen to allow firms from countries outside the EU to provide private education and health services; others have not. This is entirely a choice of each national government. If an EU government decides to renationalise a service that it or a previous government had privatised or contracted out to a private company, it is free to do so. It would, of course have to respect its own national laws and EU law - for example, by paying compensation for expropriation. TTIP WILL NOT ALLOW COMPANIES TO SUE GOVERMENTS FOR LOST PROFITS. New thread started
I'm off on Holiday for a week so I may not post back for a while.
Anywhere nice? Or is it work"Stag do in Benidorm. Not sure if I'd call Benidorm 'nice' but it's quite often fun. | |||
| |||
