Russell Brand May Have Started a Revolution
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Russell Brand is a disgusting, foul, foul-mouthed, obnoxious piece of left wing scum, the lowest and scummiest of all low-life scummy lefties - which is why the BBC, the New Statesman and the Guardian love him so much - and BBC's Newsnight has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left wing bible The Guardian (the paper which the left wing BBC buys more copies of than any other) ever since the show's editor Ian Katz and political editor Allegra Stratton were recently recruited from the Guardian.
This piece of left wing scum lost all credibility the minute he and fellow BBCer Jonathan Ross left a series of foul-mouthed, depraved and digusting prank phonecalls during their BBC radio show to the answering machine of actor Andrew Sachs - who played Manuel the waiter in Fawlty Towers - in 2008 in which they said things like "he ****ed your granddaughter" which quickly descended into farce, with, for example, Brand singing to Sachs: "It was consensual and she wasn't menstrual".
And yet, for some reason, the left still adore and look up to drug-addled Brand and see him as some sort of messiah and see his silly and bizarre utterances as words coming from some sort of wise man.
Read more: ROSS CLARK: Russell Brand and how Newsnight's become the Guardian's TV lapdog | Mail Online
This piece of left wing scum lost all credibility the minute he and fellow BBCer Jonathan Ross left a series of foul-mouthed, depraved and digusting prank phonecalls during their BBC radio show to the answering machine of actor Andrew Sachs - who played Manuel the waiter in Fawlty Towers - in 2008 in which they said things like "he ****ed your granddaughter" which quickly descended into farce, with, for example, Brand singing to Sachs: "It was consensual and she wasn't menstrual".
And yet, for some reason, the left still adore and look up to drug-addled Brand and see him as some sort of messiah and see his silly and bizarre utterances as words coming from some sort of wise man.
Read more: ROSS CLARK: Russell Brand and how Newsnight's become the Guardian's TV lapdog | Mail Online
Last edited:
I watched Cliffy’s “emotional porn” on youtube and found it interesting that the comedian felt that revolution will bring about the necessary change to fix the problems of society and at the same time did not believe in voting to create change.
Forced change seldom creates good change long term just because of greed, power and money.
US of A are a good example of the spoils of a successful revolution where they are worse off than before.
It’s too bad that this comedian does not believe that voting is a good thing.
Voting is a controlled revolution with specific rules of engagement that comes with a safety factor of no lives lost just bruised egos where candidates can talk about their ideas of a better society and a day of reckoning or voting day where majority rules.
Voting day is the only day that keeps greed, money and power at a minimum so that important decisions can be made by a population that has so much to gain.
.
.
Forced change seldom creates good change long term just because of greed, power and money.
US of A are a good example of the spoils of a successful revolution where they are worse off than before.
It’s too bad that this comedian does not believe that voting is a good thing.
Voting is a controlled revolution with specific rules of engagement that comes with a safety factor of no lives lost just bruised egos where candidates can talk about their ideas of a better society and a day of reckoning or voting day where majority rules.
Voting day is the only day that keeps greed, money and power at a minimum so that important decisions can be made by a population that has so much to gain.
.
.
He makes a good point.
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about the government you ended up getting.
Bullcrap! The system is corrupt beyond repair and needs to be replaced with something that represents people, not corporations. A quiet revolution is necessary for that to happen. Voting for the same ol, same ol' is just contributing to the madness.
I can complain any time I think the gubmint is wrong and, even though I always vote, I give everyone the right the complain all they want, voters and non-voters alike. I don't like arbitrarily taking liberty away from citizens. Besides, in our system, no one is supposed to know if you voted or not; let's keep it that way.
Of course the guy has the right to complain but the solution is not to stop voting, it's just strengthening communication, transparency, the democracy itself yada yada yada
Honestly I would love to vote; I did actually. Once. That will likely be the only time as there's really no one worthy of voting for in my area anyway and the fact I don't like how our system works. If a spoiled vote counted somehow - say as a visible objection to the idiots seeking power and the system at large - and led to a total change of the system I'd vote and spoil. Until then, I will stay home.
It's the same BS no matter what party you vote for anyway.
It's the same BS no matter what party you vote for anyway.
This is just the same old left wing claptrap and codswallopishness that Brand spouted.
Maybe you should become a Guardian journalist. You certainly sound like one.
In Australia it's actually compulsory to vote. It's illegal not to.
Well unless alien's abducted me between work and home and transported me without my realizing it, I'm still in Canada where it's legal to not vote.
What Aussie-land does law wise means diddly-squat to me as I don't intend to go or live there.
To put it another way - what's Australia got to do with this?
What's Canada got to do with this?
Brand wasn't talking about a revolution in Canada. I don't even think he once said the word "Canada".
I think it's a matter of refinement, not reform.
We are noticing that politics is now having to account for the strength of social media and parties are doing their research to get votes. The accountability of governments is also an issue of refinement as technology begins to allow people more involvement in the political process.
The criticism against him seems to boil down to 'do things the way I do them, or you're wrong'.
There's no law that says he has to vote. An informed decision to not vote, and speak loudly about why not, is worth much more than an uniformed ballot being cast. Democracy is best served by education and discussion amongst the people, rather than the spoon fed crap the politicians feed us (much of it now simply slander against one another), or a check mark made poorly informed for a politician you don't actually want to vote for.
Democracy is not benefitted by mandating people vote for politicians they do not want representing them.
Political apathy is what we are attempting to battle when we encourage voting, and Brand would appear to be anything but apathetic.
There's no law that says he has to vote. An informed decision to not vote, and speak loudly about why not, is worth much more than an uniformed ballot being cast. Democracy is best served by education and discussion amongst the people, rather than the spoon fed crap the politicians feed us (much of it now simply slander against one another), or a check mark made poorly informed for a politician you don't actually want to vote for.
Democracy is not benefitted by mandating people vote for politicians they do not want representing them.
Political apathy is what we are attempting to battle when we encourage voting, and Brand would appear to be anything but apathetic.