Cousin_Frothy wrote:
No, I slag off psychology. Learn to read. She isn't an "elite psychologist", far from it! I love her, not her field. It's fairly simple stuff this.

oioioi wrote:
oioioi let's get this straight, RB is going out of his way to slag off elite concentrations of money, he is now in a relationship with someone who has an elite concentration of money and from that type of society .

btw his last 3 gfs have all been millionaires.

It would be like someone slagging off the Royal family and then having a relationship with one of them, surely anyone observing such behaviour would think hypocrite?

He's a millionaire himself you duffer!

All your analogies so far have been very poor indeed, btw. Your last one is no exception. He's not blasting money, per se, is he! Try to comprehend the difference between that, and his criticism of how the government deals with the needy. It's not difficult.

RB is not slagging off money as he is not slagging of psychology, what he is slagging off is elites.
Now oioioi if you were to slag off psychologists and have a relationship with a psychologist it would be somewhat hypocritical but you could just avoid her work as a topic.

What RB is doing is using elite concentrations of money as a regular topic and it's not like he can ignore it when he visits her '' country house of Kiddington Hall near Woodstock in Oxfordshire for a reported £15 million''

Perhaps that's where he resides when he writes his articles about the unbalanced distribution of wealth all tipped towards the elited few?

Gilly wrote:
So it's all about money then.. money loves money.

Are we glossing over the sock talk by chance?



Bored arguing with Katy Perry's ex.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Employing further illogic, I see. Only paupers can argue for better treatment of the poor?

oioioi wrote:

Gilly wrote:
I repeat ''What RB is doing is using elite concentrations of money as a regular topic and it's not like he can ignore it when he visits her '' country house of Kiddington Hall near Woodstock in Oxfordshire for a reported £15 million''

Perhaps that's where he resides when he writes his articles about the unbalanced distribution of wealth all tipped towards the elited few? ''

I feel sorry for you, you've seemingly never been in love.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Yer not fekkin kidding!

oioioi wrote: I have, but If I fell in love with millionaire elites I would not spend much time going around the world slagging them off, he'd be better to lap it up and stop the counter argument of injustice, it's almost like RB is feeling guilty as his lifestyle goes against his Marxist political views.

That's the conflict that is masked with the veil of 'upper consciousness'
He agrees with Marx but loves the good life.... bless xx

Cousin_Frothy wrote:



Are you 11?

Just the laugh I needed to start my day with. Cheers.

Oh dear.

Frothers I don't mean to be rude but would you mind giving us an idea of your age?
Nothing too specific, just a range would be fine, y'know like:
5 - 7
8 - 10
11 - 13
14 - 16

kthnxbai

LOL
I swear on my kids Hugo posted that while I was typing my post.

What if..rather than Russell Brand being undermined by his relationship with JK, it is JK that is jeopardizing her status and her family's reputation by associating with Russell.

What if, rather than his decision to be published in New Statesman and appear on Newsnight undermining his sincerity, the time and space being allocated to the "pleb-turned-celeb" has damaged the two media organs' reputation for serious mainstream political coverage?

Cousin_Frothy wrote: As I said previously, I think it is not wise to go out with a Goldsmith. Surely pointing out some of the problems with the existing system is better than saying "well, I'm okay, so fuck everyone else", or even asking for more privileges, as the top banks and corporations do?

Also, as I said previously, if it was a tramp up there on Newsnight, all the people who are being critical of Brand would say "well, you're a tramp, of course you're pissed off with 'the system'". You really can't win either way.

I don't really have any faith in RB whatsoever, and I don't really trust anyone, but I don't really think it's fair to slag someone off because they've got money. I hang on to what money I've got, and I would like to think if I had the sort of money he had that I'd do something big to help the less fortunate, I do something small now, but I can't possibly claim that I'd give every penny away, and I doubt anyone else would either. That doesn't mean I don't want to see a more level playing field in society, in fact the existing society sickens me. If I appeared on Newsnight, would it be thrown back in my face that I have more savings than most people in Britain (not in itself difficult when the average household savings are about £1,500)? I can remember Chumbawamba being slated in the press for talking about social issues, while owning a house and apparently being 'middle-class'. Who exactly is entitled to an opinion?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Jeremy Clarkson

mikey mikey wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-24...thers-nightclub.html

Not all rich people are aresholes trying to snatch the food from the mouths of the poor. Some of them are perfectly delightful people for whom the system has worked to their advantage.Not all people born of privilege and wealth are arseholes either just as earning less than 10 grand a year or being on benefits does not automatically mean you are a decent and deserving person who has more right to air their opinions than someone else.

What I appreciate about brand is that he 'knows' himself, 'owns' his mistakes and does not attempt to remove himself from them or airbrush his flaws.

If nothing else he has gotten people thinking about and talking about issues on a scale that icke and others have not managed. For that alone he gets kudos from me.