How about Geraldo sounding reasonable? Not sure if he has good enough karma to get through the pearly gates, but that showing didn't hurt him none.
I enjoy watching the spat between Brand and Hannity.
I highly dislike Hannity due to his "oh, I'm libertarian-minded", but really an authoritarian neo-con. At the same time, Brand (from having listened to quite a bit of videos by him) seems to me to be a social anarchist. I don't agree with neither of these positions.
However, it is refreshing to see Brand has an urge to learn, and if one tracks his progress, you can see that he is slowly but surely moving in the right direction. He has a very long way to go.
However, he is partially right on this whole Gaza situation, and that is more than I can say for most people in the media.
... how a recovering addict can make a better case for love, compassion and reason than a supposedly educated "Christian" (not to mention that hysterical woman... good grief, where did they find her?,) who comes across so hate-filled, biased and irrational. What have we become as a nation when a guy like Hannity has a following?
Fascists like Hannity have always and will always have a following because there is a demand for hate, and someone will always be there to get rich supplying it.
But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
was when he thanked his panel of Jesus, the Flowers and Gahndi at the end.
A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
I agree this was hilarious!
If someone you hold in high regard says 2+2=5, he is wrong, even if you really like him.
If someone you despise says 2+2=4, he is right, even if you really hate him.
Hannity is such scum, I love anyone that ridicules him.
“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus
most closely resemble that anchor head in the Movie "V for vendetta"!
That TV commentator is what I always think of when I watch the talking heads on Fox. That role in V was made to mock them perfectly, and it was funny that Russell was basically using that imagery when he asked Sean to "go home, look in the mirror..."
I love that movie. Probably my all-time favorite. And, don't forget that it was set in Britain...maybe another coincidence that Brand is British?
but it kind of irritates me how tries to take the moral high ground and criticizes Shaun for insults/making jokes/ taking things lightly ect... but then does the exact same thing. He calls shaun names, and was he being serious the whole time? If its such a serious matter why did he do the whole Jesus, flowers, gandhi thing.
I think his criticisms are correct, but he should also point them at himself.
While I am enjoying watching Brand's responses to Hannity (especially this one), I am of the opinion that he's nothing more than a socialist liberal. So far, all I've seen are videos of him attacking Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching/listening to people that point out the hypocrisy and/or stupidity of so-called "conservatives" but I dislike disingenuous liberals as much as I despise people like Levin, O'reilly, Buckley, etc. etc..
As of right now, I'm of the opinion that Brand is a flake liberal that spends his time attacking the right while ignoring the jerks on the left. How's that any different from what you can see every day on MSNBC or some of the other left-wing channels (except for the fact that Brand has a fantastic command of the English language and is pretty funny - you certainly don't see that on MSNBC)?
Am I wrong? Is there anything that you can point to that will correct my opinion of Brand? These questions are not rhetorical - I am certainly willing to look at anything you can offer to change my opinion.
If someone you hold in high regard says 2+2=5 then he is wrong, even if you really like him.
If someone you despise says 2+2=4 then he is right, even if you really hate him.
MSNBC has never been funny
I wrote that in my post...
exactly. where's the libertarian voice in this?
and I think myself in line with Ron Paul. It's about the issues and the message, not the personalities and the messengers. I face them one at a time, individually. Sure, I've heard some pretty rank stuff from Brand, not here though. Here he really shines like the son. Imagine just for a few minutes that this is the only Brand video you've ever watched. No, Brand's not great, but he can be great at times. I've also [certainly not often] found Hannity being great at times. Rivera was interesting. He paid tribute to his FOX paycheck for a few seconds, wisely giving the devil his due, and then resolutely moved on to being as sane as he could be. Don't you just love/hate Rivera? Probably always have, right? Brand and Hannity are no different in dynamic of how we react to their personas. At this moment Brand has the upper hand in the presentation of that which is sane. The fact that I am so damned entertained by this though, has me questioning my own sanity. :D
Hannity being great, but that aside I don't disagree with you take, and I can relate to your last sentence too!
My intent in posting this isn't to try to convince anyone that Brand is a libertarian, he's a lefty for sure, but that doesn't mean a lefty is not worth listening to on issues where his analysis is on target. And he destroys Hannity here, IMO.
The goal is truth and when someone speaks it, regardless who it is, that's a good thing to see and share.
I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein
For the most part, I agree with you. We should not only focus on/pay attention to "libertarians" but anyone that, even if briefly, supports any of our positions with clarity, rationality and truth. However, we must be very, very carful about who we choose to "prop up" or support. If we go up on the mountain and proclaim, "all yea, all yea, listen to and heed Russell Brand", even if it's related to only a single issue, we might inadvertently steer people to him and they may adopt the rest of his socialist positions.
Another example is Glen Beck. Often, I hear Glen Beck articulate a problem and think "he's nailed that one on the head" but when you listen to his explanations as to how we arrived at the problem and how to solve the problem, he's bat-shit crazy and will cite people like Alexander Hamilton or Abraham Lincoln (in a way in which he idolizes them).
Informing people with misinformation, myths and outright lies, is deadly to our cause (that cause being truth about history, the real root causes of our problems and the only valid solutions to achieve more freedom). An example of this is Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments". I read the book and found that his proposed amendments were sound and that he made very good arguments for them. However, there were two things that bothered me: He cited Federalists too much (and I believe they were mercantilist, big central government ass-hats) and, more importantly, he completely avoids/ignores the biggest problem with our system of government: the Federal Reserve Bank and monetary policy. I am extremely reluctant to recommend the book to anyone because his propositions only treat symptoms - they are NOT the cure.
In summary, there are many people out there that are just arriving into our camp. They lack background. They have been taught by the public school system and people like Hannity, Levin, Beck and, in many cases, the talking heads on the liberal networks. To quote Rush, "their heads are full of mush". Pointing them to someone like Brand can cause them to digress and confuse them. They need to be spoon-fed small doses of medicine from Dr. Paul, Lew Rockwell, the Von Mises Institute etc. and avoid the mind-numbing narcotics, even if laced with small amounts of truth, that Brand (no pun or malice intended - I promise) and so many of the other talking heads dispense.
WinM, you don't give your fellow libertarians enough credit. I have complete faith that DPers in particular are well able to distinguish between libertarian sources and those who are with us on some but not all issues.
There are plenty of the latter on MY twitter feed. Along with Brand, Glen Greenwald and Abby Martin are economic lefties who are with us on many issues like privacy and war and peace. From the right, neoconish Jim Rickards is the worlds best source for the machinations of central bankers, as is Chris Whalen on corporate banking foolishness.
Restricting yourself to only trusted libertarian sources risks viewing the world with blinders. You gotta look left and right at times, and as the Paul's - both father and son - practice and preach, we should be willing to form coalitions with those with whom we agree on specific issues even if we don't see eye to eye on everything.
You have failed to comprehend what I wrote. You accuse me of selling my "fellow DPers" short (not giving them enough credit). I clearly pointed out that I am mostly concerned with people that are just awakening to libertarianism and are still struggling with re-thinking concepts that they have been confused about all of their lives. Pointing the "newbies" that are still struggling against all of the misinformation and bad teachings to folks Russell Brand (without putting into context and helping guide the poor chaps) is not a good idea.
I, in no way, suggested that I restrict myself to only "libertarian sources". As a matter of a fact, I have pointed out that I read, listen to and watch many non-libertarians. Furthermore, I certainly do not believe that everyone should follow/listen to/read only "pure" content of good libertarians. That would be asinine.
You're going to have to slow down and re-read my posts several times (it seems) to ensure that you do not distort my positions again in the future.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this friend. Peace
Here's a video I found where Brand is responding to O'Rielly on a topic. Yea, it's funny but it's BAD! Brand suggests increasing taxes on the wealthy and redistribution of wealth as solutions to the high rate of poverty and unemployment.
We should avoid people like Brand AT ALL COSTS! He's poison! His wonderful command of language and humor can easily sooth less informed or weaker minded people into subscribing to his socialist "solutions".
your point, Brand isn't really a libertarian per se, but he does point to the hypocrisy posed by Vanity. I think we need to work on joining with liberals on certain issues, just as Dr Paul, joined with Kucinich, Frank, ect on issues he agreed with them on. If people listen to the those working the Bernays group control method of division, we will never make 'any' progress out of the false paradigm the country is brainwashed into following.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: