Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

When I see Russell Brand on the opposite side of mine, I know I'm on the right side of an issue! :lol:

I look at the issue first and then decide based on that. Do you want to be on the opposite side of this one? Are you on the side of Fox news?

Posted

http://rt.com/usa/168704-russell-brand-fox-news/

Against Fox News of course but that being said, nearly half of Americans have no difficulty in the least with Fox News and it's message of hate. It just needs RT news to pick up on it.

You mean like MSNB's hateful bits, including a tweet they had to pull.

Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province

Posted

When I see Russell Brand on the opposite side of mine, I know I'm on the right side of an issue! :lol:

When I see you make ad hominem arguments after calling people out for them, I have to laugh. :lol:
Posted

When I see you make ad hominem arguments after calling people out for them, I have to laugh. :lol:

:lol:

Really we're suppose to take this moron claiming that Fox is worse than a terrorist group seriously? Even you can't be serious about this. Anyways, this is all the time I'm spending on this absurdity.

Posted

He doesn't sound American.

That is because he isn't. Even monty16's article proved that in the second paragraph.

"The 39-year-old British stand-up comic-turned-actor is now making headlines for the video footage, which was uploaded to his personal YouTube channel on Tuesday this week under the title: Is Fox News More Dangerous than Isis? "

Posted

As an actor and humourist, he makes a compelling case that the world is screwed up. But in the end, we knew that, so this is just more of what he's good at - entertainment.

When we have reached the point where arguing about our problems for entertainment is more desirable than fixing them, well... maybe that means our problems aren't as big as we think they are. Or maybe it means we're in denial.

What we can't deny is that the lens which with we see the world, collectively, is changing so it's difficult to say what is new information and what is a new perspective. As I have said, we can set up publics to provide feedback to those in power and use facts to direct ourselves in our affairs.

Most of what is argued about, in the end, is numbers: taxation, costs, economics in general. That in the end is just a negotiation, a collective haggle. Shouldn't be that hard to work out, but we'd prefer to argue about that then just settle it.

Posted

Perhaps what the was trying to say was the Fox news female journalist said to bomb them, bomb them, that is the terrorists, and by doing so, its as bad as the terrorist themselves because one won't be peace by killing each other. The question remains do the US and the NATO countries really want peace and if so, when...when they have total control over the Middle-East??? The greed for money (oil) and world power is getting out of control.

Posted

Seems to me that this guy Brand is spewing as much invective or more than the commentator, he’s just as sensationalist.

She’s getting the 60% increase from here I guess.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20140131-report-60-percent-increase-in-terrorism-in-arc-of-instability-across-north-africa-sahel

Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province

Posted

I agree with scriblet. Saying it's bad to call for the indiscriminate bombing of a country is just as bad as calling for it.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

Russell Brand can say what he pleases too. Funny how that works.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

And what is stupid about those laws again?

The US has them, albeit under more stringent controls.

But any speech advocating for harm to another is punishable in the States.

Fred Phelps, no.

Civil Rights Act 1964 ....yes.

Hes just being a ***** in this thread. Aint no surprise now is it?

Posted

The US has them, albeit under more stringent controls.

But any speech advocating for harm to another is punishable in the States.

Fred Phelps, no.

Civil Rights Act 1964 ....yes.

Hes just being a ***** in this thread. Aint no surprise now is it?

Not even slightly.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,898
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Flora smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...