Russell Brand: Fox News is ‘fanatical, terrorist, propagandist’ and ‘more dangerous than ISIS�

a reply to: MarlinGrace

And bombing them for me is fine. If I was there I couldn't stand by and watch as they kill indiscriminately

and let me ask you this. Would you have stood there and watch as that attack helicopter whilst it falsified claims that it was under attack itself and lied about men being armed with AK47s and indiscriminately killed 15 or so people and wounded children.

a reply to: purplemer

It has nothing to do with politics and you know it, other than the fact that politics are infested and controlled by the same evil Brand is.

Serpents, the eye of lucifer, upside down crosses, pentagrams and baphomet heads and you can't see what's going on? Sorry its nothing to do with "political dissent" You only need to look up these things for yourself. I showed you proof that he's in bed with satan, katy perry admits it her own damn self. So does Bob Dylan. You can deny it all you want, it's still there for all to see. So either you're here to deceive as well or you're honestly lost. Either way I'm truly sorry for you and many of you here. I'm not even very religious, but I know the difference between good and evil. There is not much good left in this world and ESPECIALLY not when you're looking to russel brand for guidance. Sorry mate, sorry you want to be on the side of evil, even sorrier if you don't know that you are. The only other way I can help you is to pray for you.

a reply to: Hiasyouwant

Thank you for your reply and trying to explain your view point to me. I really do not understand how someone trying to bring a message of peace is being demonic in nature.. Its great we all see the world differently though..


kind regards

purp...

I really hate Russel and im a bit ashamed for him to be in the states causing bother like piers morgan did, only with Russel as much as i dislike him he really gets it spot on some times and comes out with some rather interesting stuff.

a reply to: purplemer

If you need a constitution to give you your rights then so be it. I do not.

Erm.....yes you do....or are you saying you pay no heed to it and therefore some sort of closet anarchist? Just asking.

As to your post that this one is linked to....
Please show me where on this thread I have

defend bombing one of the oldest civilizations back into the stone age again

Please show me where on this thread I have.....

defended the hate being spilled out on our news channels

Please show me where on this thread I have.....

lets continue to demonise people who try and bring messages of peace.

And please do tell me where on this thread I have said....

Lets have another war and kill another million Iraq civilians

If that was just a general post you were making addressing all participants on this thread, then with all due respect you should not have linked to my post.

I would however like to address a few things you have said this morning.
You say you have no TV and wont have one. Well that's good in some respects.....but what are you actually trying to prove/say by revealing that, when you obviously have the internet and have stumbled across this footage from Fox news, and started a thread about it on a 'conspiracy' web site?...I'm a little confused here.....isn't that the same as having a TV anyway?

You said.....

and you want to bomb them again..? Cmon USA you are better than this..

That's a pretty damning, broad sweeping statement to make don't you think?
Most of the comments I have seen on here and other threads by Americans is that they DON'T want to be involved in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. So much for your utopia....we all have to agree and see things YOUR way do we?


Now, seeing as you linked your post to mine....
I said this.....

Krishnamutri like Brand makes a lot of logical sense...yes it would be lovely wouldn't it?

I'm sorry if you thought that was some sort of rhetoric or sarcasm, it wasn't, I actually agree with you UP TO A POINT.
That is why I qualified my statement, and added the vid.
You see, in my view, when you get the likes of Brand using the same 'labels' and words such as "terrorist", like the very people he is trying to challenge, then he is no better than them and will only on a grander scale encourage more divisions in society. The proof of that is right here in this thread.

Now if only he had listened to the video I linked, maybe he would have used different language, maybe then, within what he says, there would be answers and solutions to the state of the world. However, it does not need a celebrity to point out the changes that need to be made. It's clear from the multitudes of people who post on threads on subjects like this on ATS that we all know in our hears what needs to be done.........it starts with each and every one of us taking responsibility, and having mutual respect for others lifestyles, beliefs and their right to do so.

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
I'm a fan of Russell Brand's comedy but like any other entertainer that starts giving political opinions, they ruin their image in my eyes. Either you're an entertainer or your a pundit.

why not an entertainer who speaks the truth when on camera?

..be such a refreshing change!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Celebrities and entertainers have been doing it since tv/films were invented. Chaplin was probably the first to do it with his 'Greatest speech ever made'....


Then we have the Carlins, Hicks and the very long list of Brits....including Spitting Image who have been saying and pointing out our own failures as human beings.......Brand is waaaay down that list....but that is just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it as much as anybody who would have him as #1 on their list.

Rainbows
Jane

If you are a democrat then you don't think highly of Fox. If you are a republican then you don't think highly of Cnn. So lets stay divided as a nation and see where it gets us. Its not gonna be pretty.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Erm.....yes you do....or are you saying you pay no heed to it and therefore some sort of closet anarchist? Just asking

Off to a bad start there.... If you are going to use the anarchist please use to correctly.. It is not a bad word... It is a form of ultra democracy...

Most of the comments I have seen on here and other threads by Americans is that they DON'T want to be involved in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. So much for your utopia....we all have to agree and see things YOUR way do we?

I understand that most Americans are not interested in war. I think you will find that a common trait among the human species. Governments on the other hand have no problem perpetuating war and the US government has been in an almost perpetual state of war since its foundation.

as for bombing a nation back into the stone age sorry I was answering someone else and managed to put it into your reply

I still dont get it as much as peeps want to put this man down. He is speaking from the heart and he is speaking of peace.. How is it that people get so much damnation for speaking of peace.

kind regards

purp.

a reply to: neo96

If you are a fan of O'reilly you might like this...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: nenothtu

It is granted to you by the government. See the government takes your rights away and then decides which ones you get back in things like the constitution.

Baloney.

Rights cannot be taken away. They can only be failed to be exercised. No government nor any other entity can take away a right - they can only try to convince you not to exercise them, in your case by convincing you that they have somehow issued them to you.

Privileges are issued. Rights are not. This is why I have no civil rights. It's an oxymoron - civil rights do not exist. If they are "civil", then they are issued by a government, and can be revoked at will by same. If they can be revoked, they are not "rights" at all, they are privileges.

The constitution issues NO rights at all - it is a contract guaranteeing your rights, not granting them, and binding the government against interfering in your rights... a contract which the government is in breach of. It's up to us, you and me, to enforce the contract on the government. We can do that simply by exercising our rights regardless of government malfeasance.

I am all up for people having free speech but corporations are not people nor or banks...

You'll have to take that up with the Founders. I didn't write the First Amendment, they did, and they worded it very specifically. Perhaps they had a notion that some day a guy would come along and want to silence the press... I hear Brits are bad about that, from King George right on down the line, apparently.

and no Free Speech in is not guaranteed to your press you have one of the most controlled free presses in the western world.

Of course it's guaranteed!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's right there, in bold black and white - "Congress shall make no laws..." and to the best of my knowledge, there are none in place.

You rank 47th next to Thailand.

Well, there are lies, there are DAMN lies, and then lowest of all, there are statistics.

I don't know what kind of freedom of press abridging laws are in place in Thailand, but I DO know what kind are NOT in place in the US.

If you think that is free speech you are mistaken. This is corporatism simply control what goes into the head and you will control what comes out the mouth.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It does not surprise me that a rag like the Daily Fail in a liberty-challenged nation like the UK, would come up with a twisted accounting like that. I read it, and could only laugh at the "misunderstanding" and outright lies it contained. A precipitous drop like that solely on account of OWS? Try again. "Freedom" doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want regardless - it means that you get to do whatever the hell you want that doesn't infringe on somone else. Occupy infringed the bejesus out of other folk' rights.

They were handled, and now the left wants to wring their hands and moan that "freedom" is lost? News flash: your rights end where mine begin, and that goes for OWS and the left wing, too. Mine end where there's begin as well. Its a two-way street, and "rights" are not the sole provenance of the left. They have no more sole claim to rights to my exclusion than I have a claim to rights to their exclusion. A concrete illustration would be that your right to swing your arms ends at my nose.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: nenothtu

We have the ability to think and problem solve that bees do not. Bees will fight when the resources are limited. Here on planet earth we have enough food to go round what we have is a resource allocation problem.

And how do you propose to resolve that problem? Surely not socially... like, for instance, by legislating "equal allocation of resources" or "redistribution of wealth"...

I am not a socialist nor am a capitalists both are evidently failed systems. It is about time you stopped looking at the world through that old paradigm unless you think we are doing a good job and want things to continue the way they are..

I'm way ahead of you, bro. You will notice, with a careful re-reading of my posts, that I accused NO ONE of being a "socialist". The term I used was far more appropriate and descriptive of the situation - I said "collectivists", which is precisely why the hive reference came up. I don't view the world through the socialist-capitalist paradigm. I view it as a collectivist - individualist dichotomy. Economic systems don't enter the picture much at all. I don't care how you get your money or what you do with it after you get it - it's not mine to concern myself with. I Do care what you would try to force me into economically, but it's not a matter of the economics of it, it's a matter of the politics of it - which of MY rights you intend to attempt to infringe in order to make YOUR utopia happen.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: nenothtu

If it was a right then the US then it would not be handed to you in your constitution. If you need a constitution to give you your rights then so be it. I do not.

Each for their own I guess..

Nothing is handed to us in the constitution, nothing is issued to us, nothing is granted to us. You misunderstand the US constitution, but that's understandable - you ain't from around here. I explained it to you a couple of posts up - not my problem if you fail to comprehend still, after reading the explanation. You probably shouldn't apply for citizenship here - we already have enough people around who think their rights are somehow government-issue.

They don't grasp the constitution very well, either, but as I recall there is a test on it for citizenship and naturalization, so you probably ought not to waste your time applying.

It's sad when most immigrants have a firmer knowledge of constitutional matters than many natural born citizens do.

Russell, Russell, Russell .... FOX isn't nearly as bad as ISIS. Nor is the other end of the extreme - MSNBC (even though you failed to include them in your tirade I'll do it for you.) Silly boy.

a reply to: beezzer

Thats the thing though who's opinion is that The Judge jeanine or is it fox networks opinion?
it would appear that who ever wrote it fox are ok with calling for the bombing of other nations
would you see any other news network cry out for the death of other humans ?

In this case asking for people to be killed on a major news network is wrong , advocating for the death of other humans on national television is wrong she is basically asking for people to die because she doesnt like them
neither does her network.
Forgive me if Im wrong but if you or I were to say I want John Smith to be bombed to death , we would end up in jail

Yeah, we dont need Brand telling us something we already know.


Fox News is nothing but tabloid style right wing extenstion, inteded to make sure its viewers are scared of everything outside their fence.

Its working of course. They are the "News" choice of 50% of the country.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Russell, Russell, Russell .... FOX isn't nearly as bad as ISIS. Nor is the other end of the extreme - MSNBC (even though you failed to include them in your tirade I'll do it for you.) Silly boy.

Is that the best you can do for a reply. Maybe you should try watching the video first then replying. See she replaces one kind of religous extremism with another. Calls for death on a large scale. Fails to comprehend the reason that ISIS are there in the first place. Not understanding the implications that bombing a nation as the US did caused these problems in the first place and calls for more bombings..

Only a moron would support such rhetoric...

kind regards

purp..

a reply to: sapien82

It is the opinion of the news channel. They are actors the whole thing is rehearsed in advanced..

a reply to: nenothtu

Dont tell me it is I that fails to understand. Maybe its you that needs to understand that everytime a law is passed another right is taken away from you.

If you wish to give a government such authority and power over you then so be it...

I would rather remain a free thing...

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: beezzer

Thats the thing though who's opinion is that The Judge jeanine or is it fox networks opinion?
it would appear that who ever wrote it fox are ok with calling for the bombing of other nations
would you see any other news network cry out for the death of other humans ?

In this case asking for people to be killed on a major news network is wrong , advocating for the death of other humans on national television is wrong she is basically asking for people to die because she doesnt like them
neither does her network.
Forgive me if Im wrong but if you or I were to say I want John Smith to be bombed to death , we would end up in jail

So we shouldn't be allowed to offer our opinions.

Just keep silent?