oioioi wrote:
No oioioi imo you would not be a hypocrite for that.
But you would be a hypocrite if you then participated in the back slapping ceremony of the money men.

Lets look at a bit closer oioioi
The credits

CEREMONY BEGINS: 9pm

ENDS: Midnight

COST: £20 million. The artists are being paid a token £1 to appear, for contractual purposes

TICKETS: £20.12 to £1,500

CAST: 4,100 performers, including 3,880 adult volunteers and 380 schoolchildren from the six London Olympic boroughs

WORLDWIDE TV AUDIENCE (ESTIMATED): One billion

DIRECTOR: Kim Gavin (producer for Take That, Robbie Williams tours)

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Hours)

MUSICAL DIRECTOR: David Arnold (five Bond films, Björk, Shirley Bassey)

PRODUCTION DESIGN: Mark Fisher (stage design for Pink Floyd’s The Wall, the Rolling Stones, U2)

DESIGNER: Es Devlin (Lady Gaga, Royal Opera House)

SOUNDTRACK: Following the ceremony the soundtrack will be released for sale as an iTunes download.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/94693...-of-British-pop.html

It has no relation to winning medals it's all about spectacle .

''Featured pop acts will include Adele, the Beatles, Pet Shop Boys, One Direction, Liam Gallagher, David Bowie, Brian May, Elton John, Queen, the Rolling Stones, and the Clash. Some artists will perform cover versions of pop classics, such as John Lennon’s Imagine – with Ed Sheeran singing a duet of Pink Floyd’s Wish You Were Here with a member of the original band. Others will sing their own songs. ''

Who gets a medal there then ?

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Well when you find that footage we can test your hypothesis.

oioioi wrote:
Well on most alternative websites, political programming etc.... often politicians are subject to their inconsistencies ...''you said this but then did that''

Surely you don't need me to refer you to particular instances do you?

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Since you can't refer me to particular instances of MP's declaring they have 'woken up' let's not do "Ifs" then eh? There's enough factual stuff to argue the toss over.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
So if I stood in the Stretford End singing my heart out for the lads would I be a part of the spectacle?

oioioi wrote:
Woken up, is RB's term for 'changed my mind'...Is he actually trying to tell us that he's been asleep all his life and then all of a sudden he's become a 'consciousness guru'.

Wow RB's done fab, from snoring to Guru in one quick step.

''So if I stood in the Stretford End singing my heart out for the lads would I be a part of the spectacle? ''

No ioioio you'd be cheering you team on and joining in the atmosphere, and enjoying the 'sport'.
What if a lot of famous musicians were playing a spectacular gig organized by the money men that you disagree with at your teams ground,
If you disagree with the money men but turn up to their back slapping gig as a participant then you would be a hypocrite.
oioioi it doesn't matter, I don't want to fall out with you from one poster to another, it's only different opinions about the same thing.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
If we ignore the fact he was documenting the BNP before anyone had heard of him then you may have a point.

So RB has been some sort of guest writer for the New Statesman newspaper.....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

It was founded by the Fabian Society
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Here's a blog quote about the Fabian society
I also find it interesting that his latest girlfriend is Jemima Khan....The most interesting thing is his new girlfriend Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith), Jemima's father was Sir James Michael Goldsmith a billionaire financier. Jemima has two brothers; Zac Goldsmith Tory MP who is married to Alice Rothschild, and another brother called Ben Goldsmith, who up until last year was married to Kate Rothschild.

angelchemuel wrote:
Mr media hates the media

The same 'The New Statesman', that John Pilger writes for?

I'm related to someone who worked G4s.

What points are you trying to make here, specifically?

The point is that Brand cannot be taken seriously because of his profession or associates. Even his girlfriend's relations.

Is this scrutiny universally applied to all people with the chance to speak out?

Not in my experience.

So why Brand and not Ayn Rand? After all, a novelist is no more "qualified" than a comic, documentary maker and actor?

Why was Charlie Chaplin forced to flee the USA under accusations of communism?

Why is Ron Paul hailed as "fighting the system" when he is a politician and millionaire?

Why was Reagan, Schwarzenegger , Eastwood, Fred Thompson or Jesse Ventura not taken to task on their film and TV careers?

Are bodybuilders and wrestlers any more qualified than comedians?

What do Chaplin and Brand have in common other than their careers?

Perhaps what they are saying?

I think maybe because some are more eloquent and can present some sort of solution even if you don't agree with it perhaps?

As to Ayn Rand.....seriously Mikey?
As you requested a separate thread over on the TPP thread, would you care to start what would be a very interesting debate on the pro's and con's of Ayn Rand?

angelchemuel wrote:
Reagan, Schwarzenegger , Eastwood, and Jesse Ventura are more eloquent than Brand.
angelchemuel wrote:
It was a valid comparison. And no, not really.

mikey mikey wrote: Eloquent maybe not, depending on your view point, but at least they all offered solutions and stood up to be counted with an 'x' whether you like what they offer or not. I see neither eloquence or solutions offered by Mr Brand....that's all I'm saying.
The phrase "Empty vessels make more noise" jumps to mind.

Those characters will have had people writing them scripts, and with some exceptions, still couldn't achieve eloquence.

I remember Reagan eloquently addressing Princess Diana as 'Prancess David' (that's not a typo).

angelchemuel wrote:
Which "solutions" were those? Other than a solution to their failing Hollywood careers?
angelchemuel wrote:
Well he makes career on being witty and eloquent A for solutions..well he doesn't see the solution in the present political one-party-disguised as-two system. So his "solution" is to address that problem first. .And boy has this started some backlash.
That was you and the "X" remark btw

Sounds familiar...

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/n...and-right-revolution
angelchemuel wrote:
But don't bomb 10000 Nicaraguans

frothy wrote:
Waking up isn't changing your mind in the classic sense. Changing your mind is altering your conclusion to a question or series of questions.
Waking up is seeing that you have indeed been living in a dream, blind to the 'realities' of the World.
There is an ocean between the two states of mind

As for the second bit of the quote....if you drop the guru slur from it, I'd say the answer would be yes.

I see a lot of spite and resentment but it ain't coming from Russel.

How they loved him when he was a fuck up, eh?

But now he's clean and lucid, they have lost an object of delight in the misery of others.

"Beware the humourless" has never been truer. And the Toryagraph is piling on the hatred. I hope my criticism of that rag does not start a forum war btw

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompso...s-marcus-brigstocke/

"Do comedians lose their touch when they get “a little bit political”, to quote Ben Elton?" the column asks.

Well the answer is called "political satire"



And so

angelchemuel wrote:
I've only seen solutions offered by Fresco and TVP.
There's no-one else anywhere afaik thats even touched it beyond vote for this or that.