« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | A Mug For You »

John Cleese Part 2

Posted by Norm on October 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Permalink

Comments

jillbryant2003 | October 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply

Wow - what a pleasure it is when you get to hear someone clearly say the emperor has no clothes.

Re: Palin, I realize Obama couldn't say much about Palin last night and I guess I'm glad he didn't, same with Biden during their debate but there really is this urge to say whattheh@ll lady? Who do you think you are trying to feed us this constant line of lies and why are you getting a walk from so many people. More than a walk - a bending over backwards can we help you prop up your little charade. Otherwise, the right saying things like Couric was hard on her - puh-leeze.....

And Cleese calling out Fox and the second Bush election - nice....and I really liked his poem, too. :)

Okay, good morning rant...

Oh - is it just me or did the interviewer seem uncomfortable with Cleese's forthrightness? In conjunction with the large disclaimer, I think they got a little more than they were looking for.

Norm replied to jillbryant2003 | October 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply

Jill,

I can't remember how long you've been a regular, but the interviewer is the guy who called himself vinvin and hosted the Bonjour America site in France. He's now moved to the United States.

Robinson replied to Norm | October 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply

Been around 1gm for a couple years and don't remember him myself. Is he a progressive then? He did look shifty and uncomfortable.

Vinvin replied to Robinson | October 16, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply

No, I was intimidated and listening... ;-)

(The shy Frenchie)

jillbryant2003 replied to Norm | October 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply

I think it was during the 2004 election --- but, I don't remember Bonjour America. Wasn't that during the whole insane manufactured Francophobia? :) Couldn't have been easy...Could we possibly be through with these gits? It almost seems possible.

Norm replied to jillbryant2003 | October 16, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/03/the_french_army.html

jillbryant2003 replied to Norm | October 16, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply

Oh yes!!!! I absolutely do remember that!! Very funny and smart. The name didn't ring a bell but the video certainly did...I think I emailed it around, too....

Oh - congrats VinVin! I looked at crunchbase about seesmic and it looks really interesting. Don't be shy - we (or maybe I should say I and not drag the rest of 1GM down with me) are suspicious after eight years+ of an incredible amount of duplicity...it's hard to know when to let your guard down...

Robinson | October 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply

This really is a pleasure to see. After the last 8 years I feel a tad insane for having the thoughts that I do. Getting an intelligent european perspective makes my inner child chortle.

re: Palin. Why can't Dems just go for the jugular. Sarah and her husband were members of the Alaskan Independence Party. A primary goal of the AIP is to gain independence from the USA.

You simply can't get more anti-American than that.

From their website: http://www.akip.org/goals.html

Goals

Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

In other words, they were forced to become a state and are unhappy about it.

Zaphod for President replied to Robinson | October 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply

Something to consider:

I loathe Palin. She has "activated" me to support Obama, despite some legitimate disagreements already discussed in prior threads.

However, this "Alaska Independence" movement is right up my ally. See also: the New Hampshire "free state" project. Yes, the goals are extreme, but the methods are peaceful and democratic. If someone is going to fight for a new Civil War of sorts, I'd rather see them try it this way, as opposed to open gunfights in South Carolina.

You call it "un-American". In my opinion, there is nothing MORE American than the pursuit of freedom, no matter how extreme others might view that pursuit. Case in point: traveling from Illinois to California via covered wagon is pretty extreme. Sailing from London to Boston in a steam-powered cargo ship is pretty extreme.

I think Obama is playing it very smart, re: Palin. Everyone knows the GOP loves to play the "victim" card, almost as often as the "liberal elite" card. Attacking Palin makes her the victim, while exposing Obama as an elitist for attacking a "soccer mom with a sick baby".

Last night, it was clear (to me at least) that Obama was trying to be polite, he just couldn't think of any substantive praise to offer. When McCain struggled to find a kind word for Joe Biden, it really drove this point home. Obama looked gracious, McCain looked desperate.

Robinson replied to Zaphod for President | October 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply

Thanks Zaphod!

I actually agree with you! The AIP is a party that works toward individual liberties, and 90% of their platform I agree with.

But, how can the Red Blooded NASCAR dads vote for a woman whose family wanted to leave the USA? (thus 'anti'-American) Not un-American, which is usually used to describe people taking advantage aspects of the Bill of Rights like Freedom of Speech.

Zaphod for President replied to Robinson | October 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply

I mentioned this is another thread. It's either Orwellian, or proof of extreme stupidity:

McCain / Palin keep describing themselves as "Federalists" in the context of wanting "more state rights" (e.g. abortion). However, it was the anti-Federalists (Madisson, Jefferson) who fought for states rights the hardest (i.e. Amendment X). Hamilton was the Federalist- pro central bank, pro national debt. Bush's neocon movement are largely comprised by textbook Federalists.

Clearly, Palin is NOT a Federalist. She once advocated the exact opposite. So why do they say Federalist when they clearly intend to say anti-Federalist? Is it stupidity, or doublethink? I really can't tell anymore.

Also: I think secession of Alaska or Hawaii makes more sense than the secession of, say, Illinois, simply due to the geography and history involved. See also: Puerto Ricans retain great nationalism, despite being American citizens.

Zaphod for President replied to Zaphod for President | October 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply

Oops, I pulled a Palin- and didn't answer the question.

Re: NASCAR dads- they ain't all bad. See also:

http://rednecksforobama.net/

As for the rest of them- if they don't understand what the word "Federalist" means, I don't expect them to Google anything else. And obviously they can't read newspapers because, as OReilly explains, they are all run by George Soros, especially the WSJ and Post (which Murdoch owns).

Are CNN and Fox discussing the AIP? Because if not, they will never hear about it.

Zaphod for President replied to Zaphod for President | October 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply

Waiting for a phone call, so I'll keep babbling-

If I were Obama, I would have answered the Palin question like so:

"Obviously, it is not the choice I would make. Rather than insult her abilities, I will trust the voters to make the right decision."

That has a bit more "bite", without offering a soundbite for the right-wing radio shows to use the next morning.

gypsy sister replied to Zaphod for President | October 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply

Hey, thanks for the link. I especially enjoyed looking over the why mccain gets low ratings from vets link.

As for confusing Fderalist and anti-federalist, I will posit that the neo-cons have gotten locked into double-speak mode and they don't really know when they've made an error any more.

Zaphod for President | October 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply

Correction: you used the phrase "anti-American", not "un-American"

Robinson | October 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply

I'm sorry, this is WAY off topic, but I am disturbed.

I just received a spammed email from a relative in Oklahoma. Can you f#@king believe this?

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: FW: WHOA ;>} Ante UPPED ;>} New category added to threat is in CAPS(ouch).. ;>}

This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military

action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off

America 's supply of convenience store managers and POSSIBLE

CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT of the United States.. And if this action does

not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by

AOL customer service reps, and then Motel 6 managers.

ITS GONNA GET UGLY !!!

fatWally replied to Robinson | October 16, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply

It's just a bad, racist joke.

It is also impressive in its ignorance. The Taliban is in Afghanistan, not Pakistan.

The guy/gal who wrote this joke may also be prone to saying things like "All them ragheads look the same to me anyways."

And then somebody else altogether may have inserted the "possible candidates for president.." line.

IMO.

gypsy sister | October 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply

As for John Cleese, it's nice to hear from him again. He wrote some great missives when Bush instigated the Bush Doctrine then acted on it by going into Iraq.

I still have a hard time believing that we out and out elected Bush a 2nd time much less a first time, but the fact remains that W has served 2 terms. And it's nice that he says that Europeans wouldn't accept Sarah Palin as a country leader, but he's preaching to the choir: neo-cons don't give a damn what other countries think of us, even if it's out allies offering an opinion.

Michael Palin's still the funniest Palin - cause we laugh at things he makes up, not just "at" him.

Abhilash Nambiar | October 16, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply

What does John Cleese mean by 'the world used to think'. World does not think people do? So maybe it is short for world view. Well in that case whose world view? His own? Then he could have said, 'I used to think'. Unless he thinks it is the world view of all people in the world, which he has no way of knowing, although he could be referring to the world view of people who appreciate his work.

He could have said 'I used to think', his opinion can stand on its own merit.

Robinson replied to Abhilash Nambiar | October 16, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply

I've spoken to many people from around the world and gathered a consensus. I think this is the kind of generalization he is talking about.

jillbryant2003 replied to Robinson | October 17, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply

or just a common wisdom statement....

catcubed | October 17, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply

Wish I could watch this but this flash movie player is crap. Or at least it is on my computer. The video can't keep up with the sound for the life of it.

quarkdoll replied to catcubed | October 17, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply

Ya - i concur.. please, please, please never link to that crappy seesmic content ever again - the unusable streaming makes me want to rake my eyes out.