Truth With Humor - John Cleese - The Advantages of Extremism
Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not true. Of course, none of 'us' fit his description, but some 'other' folks sure do.
As a side note, not all moderates smoke pipes. I only smoke one occasionally.
;-)
GAA good giggle with a treasure of truths hidden shall we say with humor. I noted it was from 16 years ago. Who was running for president then - McCain and Obama? A pivotal time in history as is 2020, right?
As an aside way back when in college for psychology 101, we were taught the easiest way to raise self-esteem is to compare yourself with someone else. I imagine that goes for group dynamics as well.
BTW . . . teach me sometime how to have the video image appear on the actual OP post. I know how to post a link for a video and a link for an image, which does show on the OP post, but not a video with an image.I include images by importing them (using camera icon). Get the image address by a right-click, "copy image link address" then paste it in the import URL space.
Or, if you want the whole screen image (or any part of it) - like an X post, use a screen-grabber tool. It's an extension for Chrome (
"UploadCC: Screen Capture Tool (Share or Save)"
This extension lets you define what you want to capture and download. Then you use the camera icon and choose "upload" image.
Frame the image text, [img]whatever URL[/img], with [url=]whatever URL and close with[/url] after the close image tag to make it clickable.
GA
What side do you belong to when you want to blame most of those listed on both of those lists?
You belong in the Middle if you think both sides are wrong. The Middle isn't a narrow band of the spectrum, it's the widest. It is the fringe extremes that are the narrow bands.
GAGA,
In today's political climate "the middle" has to be properly defined. Mr. Clease makes it appear as if the entire world is based upon ideological opposed extremes.
Acceptance of either extreme ideological pole is not true of most people. But by the choice of how many extreme position you take on either side, you begin to define yourself. As the vast majority do not accept the extreme of either pole. Like I said, there is not true "middle" that can walk in between the raindrops without getting wet. This "middle" has this sterile pretense and is basically non existent in today's world.
The idea of middle America presented by you and Ken, is not the middle but just more right wing advocacy, cleverly disguised as to not to be offensive.
AKA 'If you aren't with us you are against us!'Is that what I said?
Middle America is contrasted with the more culturally progressive, urban areas of the country, particularly, those of the East and West Coasts. The conservative values considered typical of Middle America (often called "family values" in American politics) are often called "Middle American values".[1][failed verification][2]
In the United States, the banner of "family values" has been used by social conservatives to express opposition to abortion, birth control, environmentalism, feminism, pornography, comprehensive sex education, divorce, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, civil unions, secularism, and atheism.
Not so much of a great fit for many of us, is it?Damn. I just paraphrased that. I didn't copy, I promise. I saw this afterward. ;-)
Ga
That's a bunch of malarky Cred. You won't let yourself see a "Middle" because you have chosen a side and if anyone isn't with you they are against you.
You fit Cleeses' 16-year-old point to a tee. What he said then is even more right now. Your repeated view that the Middle "walks between the raindrops' tells on you. It's not that we don't get wet, it's that we don't splash in the mud puddles.
You're right that I try not to be offensive, but it's certainly not because I am promoting cleverly disguised right-wing advocacy. Or because I am a right-winger. Yet, in your book, I am both because I disagree with you. Geesh, you still can't see the forest.
GAWell, excuse me for living….
Middle America is contrasted with the more culturally progressive, urban areas of the country, particularly, those of the East and West Coasts. The conservative values considered typical of Middle America (often called "family values" in American politics) are often called "Middle American values".[1][failed verification][2]
In the United States, the banner of "family values" has been used by social conservatives to express opposition to abortion, birth control, environmentalism, feminism, pornography, comprehensive sex education, divorce, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, civil unions, secularism, and atheism.
On the second paragraph, I conditionally support all of these things, yet all this is opposed by what is considered “Middle America”. Yes, when looking at the definitions, I have chosen a side. But beyond Petticoat Junction, is it really unreasonable in 2024?Yes, it is as unreasonable in 2024 as it ever was. That you are stuck on 'Mayberry' and 'Petticoat junction' points to you not understanding that. It's not about locales or times it's about values.
Did you really have to look up "Middle America" to know what it means to you? You shouldn't be so confident that Middle Americans oppose all on your list. We see a lot of middle ground on most of them. You don't see it because of that 'forest' problem you have. ;-)
GAIs it unreasonable in 2024? Well, I Say YES.
No one going to live under those terms anymore, it was interesting that under another thread I began to appreciate the fundamental differences between red and blue. You require voters to jump through your hoops as a precondition to a franchise that is their right as American citizens. There has to be some prequalification of merit for everything except for the 5 year old to get his first rifle.
I presented the definition, I suppose you can debate how inclusive it is, ad nauseam.
It is not that I resist your ideas because they are not mine, it is coming to a reality that you and Ken are on a different planet relative to my values and opinions. It is not likely that we will every see much from an eye to eye standpoint. Your so called middle is my muddle.
But That's OK. I am gracious enough to absorb it all."A prequalification of merit"
That doesn't sound like a bad thing. Achievement and advancement of anything probably include some effort of merit. Surely you don't disagree with that. Think of all the historical examples in your world alone.
However, my perspective of the right is that of a privilege to be appreciated, not an entitlement to be expected. I'm not asking anyone to be constrained by it. I think it would benefit us all if everyone did, but hey, it's a free country, right?
And it was 6-years-old. I was six before I got my first rifle. And I did have to earn it, there was some meritorious effort required—I had to follow the rules. Did you forget that part of the story? ;-)
GAI misspoke, merit is always and from my point of view the only justified prequalification for something that has to be earned. So, I don't disagree.
But the right to vote is not one them, and yes it is an entitlement for every American citizen over the age of 18, with an exception or two. It is benefit of your citizenship not a privilege.
Your right, it is a free country and I prefer flexibility in the ability of people to cast ballots consistent with efficacy of the process.
I am sorry that I cannot get my head around parents that give so young a child a dangerous and lethal weapon.
But again, that what I meant by differing worlds.Maybe our worlds aren't so different. Maybe we can knock down a tree or two with a little conversation.
Take a look at your 'voting is an entitlement' thought. Rhetorically, who gave you (generic) that entitlement - the government or the Constitution? I would say the Constitution.
(*I know that you know what this cut & paste says, I'm just adding it to avoid any misinterpretation of my intent)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . . "
The Constitution calls it a privilege.
The government's job is to maintain that right, but it also puts conditions on it. If something can be taken away, or bestowed, as in granted or not granted, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
Semantically, the Constitution's wording could meet your entitlement definition because it doesn't put conditions on the 'right', but our government does and that makes it a privilege.
Speaking of semantics, is a denied 'right' the same as a withheld privilege? Does allowing some the right and not others realistically turn that right into a privilege?
Now to the parents and lethal weapon thought. Could any details change your mind on that?
From the original tale: The gift was symbolic. For two years the gun was only 'mine' through direct supervision. I could see it in the racked gun case, but I couldn't touch it until my father or grandfather handed it to me at the shooting table. And for that first year, the shooting table was the only place I could hold it. *Remember, it was a single-shot bolt-action .22 that had to be manually cocked after the bolt was seated, and it only shot .22 shorts. It wasn't some kind of AR-15 killing machine.
The second summer, because I followed the rules the 1st summer, I was allowed to walk around to different shooting places (like in the woods or fields) with the gun, but also with direct supervision of my dad or pop walking with me.
It wasn't until the 3rd summer that I was allowed to 'possess' the gun as my own, semi-unsupervised, as in Pop or dad were in the general area within eyesight.
I was almost 9 years old before I was allowed to hunt on my own with a rifle (but Pop or Dad were always still in the general area). It took three years to earn that privilege (I still couldn't get it out of the gun rack case without permission). Does that bear on your view that my parents just gave me a dangerous and lethal weapon at such a young age?
Just for kicks, I left out a detail about when I got to hunt alone that would really set you off. I'll tell you later. ;-)
GAI open to some exchange, lets have a look?
If you look at the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments to the Constitution it refers to voting as a right, not a privilege. How does that mesh with your argument?
As for the rifle, I know that in certain cultural milieus, being given a gun at a young age is a rite of passage. So you must have been raised as a country kid. I am certain that there was a great deal of supervision prior to your being allowed to access the weapon on your own. I would have expected no less, but the fact that the gun is "enshrined"....
I am a city boy, and guns were associated with tragic deaths and accidents. Grandmama, relatively young for being such, was recently divorced and kept in her company shiftless men and put on endless parties. Ray Charles 45s kept the music going. Her apartment was thick with cigarette smoke and the smell of whiskey and beer. She kept a .38 caliber handgun to deal with any of her guests that got out of hand. She was sick for a time during the period when me and my siblings were tweens.
Papa warned us away from a certain closet in the house, with the strap as the penalty. While the parents were away and Nosy kids that we were, we look into that forbidden closet and found grandmama's pistol, we backed away as we thought that it might go off if we got too close.
Our group had no hunting tradition, so much of what you are telling me is foreign and alien to my experience.The text of the Constitution wasn't my support, it was simply to note that it was also called a privilege. My support was that the government controls that 'right'. If one follows their rules they will allow you to exercise your right. Break a rule and the right is withdrawn. The Constitution says we still have the right, but the government has withdrawn its permission. Our right has become a privilege.
To the gun thing. It sounds like you no longer see a problem with my gun ownership story. And you see it wasn't a reckless or irresponsible thing, it was a "cultural' thing that was taken seriously. Your only problem was that a gun was involved and your reason for that was that you grew up in a different culture.
That doesn't sound like a good reason to make the automatic assumptions you make.
Just for the giggle of throwing more gas on the fire . . . The mentioned missing detail was that after my 3rd summer, the following November, My grandfather took me on a week-long bear hunting trip in the mountains of W. Virginia. I was 8 3/4 years old. There were 4 other adult men and my hunting rifle was a .30.30 lever-action Winchester model 94. A saddle gun, perfect size. I hunted my own 'hide' every day and didn't shoot myself or anyone else (or any deer either).
GAThe problems is that controlling that right has been abused by many states, thus the need for Voting Rights Act. I consider rights as sacrosanct not to be subject to manipulation as implied in the idea of privilege. Are the "rules" exclusionary and disenfranchising in themselves? If I went by the idea of the only right I have are the priveleges either given or withheld by the state, I would still be in chains. Does the "privilege" to vote as claimed by many so called states rights advocates include disenfranchising people? Who has the privilege to arbitrarily take away what I consider a right and under what circumstances? "Privilege" reflects on preference and anti-Democratic ideas.
We may to disagree on this one, driving is a privilege, to vote is not.
I don't need to make the automatic assumptions now that you have cleared it up, otherwise it would appear bizarre on the surface.
And from my perspective it is still bizarre, but I understand."And from my perspective it is still bizarre, but I understand."
That's the way good conversations end. We've ended more than one that way in the last decade. ;-)
This one prompted me to go back and reread the story about my first bear hunt with grownups—again. Which led me to read the others—again.
I know it is shameless self-promotion, but I think some might get a chuckle from most of the 'Pop Cliff' stories. They are real and I bet a lot of folks have similar ones.
'Pop Cliff — The Tree Line'
GA"And from my perspective it is still bizarre, but I understand."
That's the way good conversations end. We've ended more than one that way in the last decade. ;-)
----------
And oddly enough it can very well be the only way most of them can end.
I only mentioned sort of an ethnic/cutural difference to explain my lack of familiarity with the hunting culture. But over the years my liberal proclivity provided other reasons as to why I resist the concept of hunting. While I know that hunting could well be justified if to keep certain species' population under control, I have trouble killing something merely for sport.
Live and let live, if there isn't a threat requiring protection or the need to survive, I say to the wildlife, "you are free to go". The fact that the Buffalo was callously slaughtered to near extinction weighs heavy upon my values.
I lived in rural Montana for 2 years, taking a job, being removed from the Los Angeles metro area by only a few months. The men planned on going hunting and said that they would take me along. I was grateful that they wanted to introduce me to their world. But, at 27, they gave me a .22, saying that I could not do too much damage. I did not see any of my companions "bag" anything from their trip. But I sure learned about the absolute delight of fresh caught trout, nothing could taste better. I could not believe that they could catch so much fish and nobody made anybody pay for anything.
Since we are swapping stories, a little more about extreme cultural and social differences.
https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Baby … s-BBC-1983
I lost a potential girlfriend who found out that I was anybody but Grizzly Adams. I was on my first real camping trip with a 20 pound pack, hiking in the mountainous forest areas a few miles to the west of Denver. She was an Amazon lady who could handle her "side of the log". She got real mad when she found out that I brought along a little chicken snack. She said that Bears could smell that for miles even though I wrapped it in cellophane. We could easily have become snacks for the bears.
But, back to the hunting thing. Here is this ruddy red state, I ask my neighbor why do you keep putting out poison for the raccoons? They are a harmless and quite clever mammal that lived amongst us. The mere fact that they are here and exist is not a reason. I asked him, What is it about you folks where you have to kill everything? He accused me of feeding them. And I said YES, I feed them, I liked them, more than I like you.
He said they were a nuisance. I ask him in what way. Has it ever occurred to him that from the raccoons standpoint, you are a nuisance? It is an attitude and culture where people want to test the means on annihilating the things that they are legally allowed to with either poison or firearms. The 79 year old man, from whom we bought our present home, could hardly walk but boasted about the arsenal he kept in his clothes closet.
But, I do have to admit your pops tendency for practical jokes, had a comic's timing.
But there again are the cultural differences.Your story was great, but . . . what the hell happened to you since then?
I was 'feeling for you' after your 'grandmother' story. It was great to see the change in the Montana story. It must have been your time in Hawaii that did it. ;-o
*as a side note, I didn't hunt for sport either. I hunted for the experience of a hunting trip. One of us always got a deer the first day and it fed us the rest of the trip. I'm sure one of the guys would have shot a bear if given the chance, but none of us put much effort into getting that chance. (a nap in a sunlit rock hide is golden)
Also, your Amazon girlfriend was right. Ask Google to show you some bear-invaded tents. (raccoons will also rip your gear trying to get to your snacks)
GAI was not even a teen ager during the situation with Grandmama.
Montana: Twenty years later is going to show the difference from an adult perspective rather than that of a child.
I lived in Hawaii thirty years after that, after so much time, is it reasonable to think people would not change? Haven't you?
Well, a least you did not kill and leave carcasses on the ground to rot. My wife has a Native American background, she would be pleased to hear that.
I would have had to shoot the bear if it presented a physical threat.
What change? I am consistent in my values, and if anything have become more liberal under the threat of Trump, MAGA and the danger that it represents. I have lived with traditional conservatives that at least did not pose a threat to our system of governance.
Raccoons are both clever and resourceful, but they don't deserve a death sentence for getting into my snacks.Through those travels and experiences, one would think it would become apparent after a while... that what makes sense in LA doesn't make sense for everywhere else... or that what is allowed in Montana might not work so well in LA.
Different States, different regions, different population density, makes for different realities, needs, and laws.
What works in some circumstances and some fields does not work for all.
When the extremely powerful, the likes of Larry Fink, Bill Gates, and other incalculably rich individuals are supporting the implementation of DEI, CRT and other such measures, its a good thing to contemplate why... what are their real goals and hoped for outcomes?
Do you really think they would support something that would put their privileged lives, wealth and power at risk?"Through those travels and experiences, one would think it would become apparent after a while... that what makes sense in LA doesn't make sense for everywhere else... or that what is allowed in Montana might not work so well in LA."
That is why we have differing states, county and municipal governments. Southeast Montana was nothing like LA. I did not see any of their lifestyles being adversely affected by the existence of an LA, New York, etc.
But when it comes to electing a president, majority rules, allowing, of course, for the slight of hand known as the Electoral College.
Let's not leave out Musk and Trump among your incalculably wealthy individuals.
I remember the Kennedys and Roosevelt's who used their vast wealth to improve the lives of regular citizens, instead of just enriching themselves. When in positions of power, they governed accordingly. But those are Altruistic examples that are obviously a thing of the past.
This country has a history of intolerance and race based injustice. And that while at a somewhat lesser extent, still pervades today. CRT is far more correct than it is otherwise. Systematic racism has been part and parcel of American life. Why does the Right work so feverously to dismiss that fact?The WORLD has a history of intolerance and race based injustice.
Much of the WORLD is still intolerant and race based. China for example treats Non Chinese as lesser, just ask the Uyghurs, or Africans.
Israel is showing some intolerance right now, based on religion more than race... religion in some parts of the world vilifies opposing religions just as cruelly as race ever was.
Racism, and slavery, if not for the US of A, and to a lesser degree nations like the UK, Sweden, etc. would be thriving and used to base laws off of... Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity all created by the US of A and its Constitution.
The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War (from the halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli) and the Barbary Coast War, was a conflict in which the United States and Sweden fought against Tripolitania it was a war against Slavery, as well as piracy and pillaging.
The Barbary slave trade involved the capture and selling of European slaves at slave markets in the Barbary states. European slaves were captured by African Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to the Netherlands, Ireland and the southwest of Britain, as far north as Iceland and into the Eastern Mediterranean.
No one is free from racism, today's racism and vilification is merely targeted at white males. Decades ago it was black men, decades from now it will be someone else... probably anyone who is not Chinese will be considered lesser. Who knows?
No country has been more accommodating or made more available to other races and cultures than America, the last 50 years especially.
It is almost a good thing that we are working with great haste to deconstruct what America has always stood for and to neuter the Constitution.
Once that work is done, we can get busy to with a world that allows for servitude and slavery... we can get back to the smartest and most deviant and diabolical of men controlling those less capable and doing what they want with them. Hundreds of Billions can be made by the Cartels in sex trafficking alone.
It is estimated that human trafficking, both sex trafficking and forced labor, generate more than $150 billion in illicit profit for the traffickers and those who help facilitate the crime each year.
And those figures are prior to 2022... who knows how lucrative it has been in 2022 and 2023 with Biden's open border, free air fair, policies.
And then there is organ harvesting, blood harvesting, the wealth that can be made if we continue on this path can't be ignored.
https://www.statista.com/topics/4238/hu … icOverview
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/fir … g-n1195551
“A lot of criminal groups are mutating,” says Santigo Nieto, head of Mexico’s financial intelligence unit. Sex trafficking may be the country's third-largest criminal activity.
Mexico is an origin, transit and destination country for human trafficking, a global business estimated to be worth $150 billion a year.America with all of its vaunted claims of Democracy and the rights of man, comes off as the most hypocritical for submitting so many people to so much terror for so long a time.
Tribalism and racism may well be a trait of humanity, I don't know.
White people control 86 percent of this nation's wealth, hardly an oppressed class, don't you think? That talk about whites being on the back side of discrimination and such is just more red herring for those that should choose to listen.
------
"Racism, and slavery, if not for the US of A, and to a lesser degree nations like the UK, Sweden, etc. would be thriving and used to base laws off of... Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity all created by the US of A and its Constitution."
Yes through the consistent use of both the gavel and bayonet, as it obviously wasn't seen by the general populace as something of any concern.
---------
The real neutralizer of the Constitution is a man and movement that thinks that it can arbitrarily change the rules of our governance without my permission ( popular vote, or otherwise proscribed in the Constitution itself).
So, sorry, Ken. I don't buy it.You should at least try a few sample bites. Before jumping to how evil America and its white-man-facilitated slavery is, what about Ken's international points? Do you see any validity?
It prompted a quick look (I asked Google) to find that Britain only abolished its slavery in the 1840s. A centuries-old nation only evolved to societal prohibition against it 25 years before we did and we were less than 100 years old.
Most other European nations (Spain (1817), Sweden, France, et al.) were the same. Their ending dates ranged from 1830 - 1860. The details may be a little off, but the point is there. Compare the 76 years it took us, to the years (centuries?) it took other more developed and mature nations. Does any of that bear on your condemnation of the U.S.?
I think I recall you noting that you were a 'student of history,' The point of tribalism and racism being a built-in human trait is vividly recorded in society's development. Revered philosophers have examined it and opined about it. Modern scholars have studied and published about it—from ancient times to modern ones, yet you still don't know?
You can see the truth of the point and still hold on to your condemnation of America. But without at least a nod to the scope and scale of our progress, your condemnation seems unreasonable.
GASo, you have decided to come out of hiding?
I don't condemn America just those that fail recognize its history for what is, and insist on lying to me about it.
It may just be another form of accommodation. Regardless as to how it appears, I don't know how permanent that progress is, it may well just be an accommodation that will work as long as the "man" does not feel that his ultimate status and power are threatened. To me, progress in these matters has always been on precarious ground. Such is the very foundation of the Trump phenomenon in my opinion.
While tribalism and racism may be a built in trait, civilization in the interest of peace and harmony is required to pursue a higher standard especially in the realm of government. So, we all need to do better if in the interests of our ultimate survival, if nothing else. What kind of lack of civility is involved when after lynching a man, you dismember him and sell parts to on lookers, for example? What kind of people do things like that? I am pretty sure such stark examples of terror did not occur after the British freed its slaves. Just one example where the worse side of human nature needs to be controlled, as I control mine.
After manumission of slaves in the British empire, were those living in England subject to daily terror, state sanctioned segregation, afterwards? In an imperfect world, there always will remain a matter degree in evaluating the similarities and differences in these matters. Britain abolished its slavery but only in America was a Civil War required to abolish it here.
I don't dismiss Ken's views an international examples of exploitation and abuse, but that does not absolve America.
Yes, when I study American history, I recognized the good but there was a lot of bad as well, let's keep in mind that improvement is to be a constant work in progress and we do not revert to Cro-Magnon.You started right off with the America stuff. It wasn't until you found a way to sneak Trump in that you spoke to the human trait stuff. Even then you jumped right back to the atrocities of our acts.
As for the Civil War point, you should give it another look. Yeah, Britain reached an evolved level that voted to abolish slavery, it only took them 8 centuries (or 241 years from a United Kingdom).
We did it in 76 years. Barely a couple of generations. That doesn't mean we 'fixed it', but at least we recognized it as unacceptable and were willing to go to war for that principle.
That was the point of asking to address the non-America stuff first. Relative to the point of making a change compared to other developed nations, I think we did pretty good. By nation, a comparison to the other nations should at least get us a nod, but you couldn't go there.
I'm stuck with no starting point.
Ga"By nation, a comparison to the other nations should at least get us a nod, but you couldn't go there."
From my point of view, you are missing the big picture, GA.
No, I can't go there. Sorry to leave with you with no place to begin. You ignore the big picture of the years of terror after the slaves were free. That was totally unjustified. America is hardly innocent, were we not involved in the slave trade in both the 18th and early 19th centuries? People that were capable of that much violence and injustice will always be suspect by me as to their motives, then and now.I always have a tough time equating your position, as expressed here, with the fact that you think Woodrow Wilson was a good President.
Without any doubt, Wilson did more to bring back that terror, that injustice, that divide than anyone in the 20th century. He pushed his racist ideals into every nook and cranny of government he could... similar to how DEI and Equity is being forced into every nook and cranny today by the Biden Administration.
Promoting one race or sexual identity over another... punishing and limiting others on behalf of such is the epitome of bad government.
A good government allows for opportunity based on merit, not on sexual identity or quotas... not on dividing its people into groups and categories but ensuring justice and opportunity are blind to them.
The country is not going as astray today as during Woodrow Wilson's time, but the current Administration is giving good effort to get that bad.I hear you, Ken, and I want to remind you and GA, that I am stimulated by our debates and discussions. They are therapeutic.
America is one of the few that codified bigotry and intolerance. The apartheid South African regime might come to mind, Even the Nazi came here to learn from the "master" to better deal with its own undesirables.
Being a good or bad President has many aspects, Wilson gets credit for many things, race relations simply was not one of them. I was dealing with just a bigoted Virginia Southerner who was simply a reflection of his peers and his times.
It is a false equivalence to compare Wilson and his bigotry to the commitment that this nation should have that all are treated equally and judged according to merit and that as that has always not been the case. Your government's structural racism as perpetrated on so many for so long has created the initial imbalance that has to be or should be corrected. That explains why 86 percent of this nation's wealth belongs to white people. Who would suspect that I would be blind and ignorant to that reality?
I prefer the status quo and the constant effort to make the so called America creed more than just mere words, over reintroducing authoritarian and intolerance once again under Trump and MAGA.
GA, I could so see you taking on the role of John Cleese and reenacting this!
Extreme ↔️ Wishy-Washy
This made me smile.Thanks??? (not sure about the "wish-washy" part.
GA ;-)
He did provide some good food for thought.
I would like to point out the fact that this was made 16 years ago speaks to its brilliance.
It illustrates an old saying that goes, "Time Change but people don't"Funny how time changes things, according to the video.
Now Left and Right enemies: judges, various newspaper owners
Now Right: public school
No longer Right: Russia
Related Discussions
- 30
Who Is The Majority - NRA Ad From NC City Council Citizen Speech
by ga anderson 5 years ago
We seem to be presented with only a binary choice; for or against Trump.But, is that what Middle America sees?Here is a N. Carolina City Council meeting speech made by a citizen that was turned into an NRA ad campaign.If you can, put aside the NRA part of the equation, (Mr. Robinson had no NRA...
- 37
Coronavirus Humor
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Come on folks, it's just for grins and giggles. (I tried to pick the least political)[i]*Images courtesy: [url=https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/coronavirus-humor-3/} Dan Mitchell - International Liberty[/url]GA
- 79
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?
by Dwight Phoenix 8 years ago
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?If Hilary wins america would have traveled back in time to the 1990s (bill clinton) and you'll probably be lied to everyday.If Trump wins he could start a War.Choose wisely..........................
- 81
Who has better family values? Republicans or Democrats?
by William R. Wilson 14 years ago
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =126653602Turns out the states that vote Republican have higher rates of divorce and teen pregnancy. They also consume more porn, according to another study. The author that is interviewed says it's because people in Blue states wait...
- 373
The GOP wants to ban critical thinking...
by Sophia Angelique 12 years ago
I kid you not. Republicans want to ban critical thinking so that children will not question the beliefs imposed by their parents.Read it here...http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/ne … -thinking/In addition, they have suggested the following for party policy...– Abstinence-only sex ed...
- 7
Is extremism is allowed in any religion...?
by Nouman Shehzad 6 years ago
Is extremism is allowed in any religion...?my question is all about extremism...