John Cleese talks about political extremism in old British election broadcast

[Greeby]

Run time: 09:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKp7HDv01hk   Posted on YouTube: October 16, 2006 By YouTube Member: michtyme3 Views on YouTube: 36827   Posted on DU: February 23, 2007 By DU Member: Greeby Views on DU: 1600

 
John Cleese makes some very relevant points about extremism in the party political broadcast he did in 1987 for the SDP/Liberal Alliance (who got slaughtered in the election and went on to become the Liberal Democrats)

[Lerkfish]

1. I would point out that moderates have never been agents of change

so in those systems that need change, extremists are necessary.

[cosmik debris]

2. Nonsense!

Was Lyndon Johnson an extremist when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? I have never heard anyone (before you) describe Lyndon Johnson as an extremist.

[Lerkfish]

3. I mentioned Lyndon Johnson?

I guess I have tourettes and alzheimers, because I dont' recall barking that strawman.

but since you brought him up...did he march on Selma? Did he refuse to sit at the back of the bus?
Did he do any of the activism and mass demonstrations that made him arrive at that point?


it STILL took extremists to make him arrive at that point of change.

[cosmik debris]

4. Your exact quote

"moderates have never been agents of change"

Lyndon Johnson was a moderate.

Lyndon Johnson was an agent of change.

Your statement "moderates have never been agents of change" is a lot of nonsense.

[Lerkfish]

5. did you even read my post?

was johnson the agent of change in that instance?

in other words, since you seem to have problems with "words", if there had not been a march to selma, a civil rights movement, MLK, Rosa Parks, and others, Johnson would have never needed to sign the bill.

not sure how to explain that any better, sorry. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

and frankly, your transitive property logic leaves a lot to be desired.

[cosmik debris]

6. Are you actually arguing that signing

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a change, or are you arguing that Lyndon Johnson was not the one who signed it?

You made an unequivocal statement: "moderates have NEVER been agents of change"

And now you seem to be arguing that there were no moderates at all in the Civil Rights Movement. You should have been there, you would know better.

Your position is nonsense.

[Lerkfish]

7. you do not understand what I mean by "agent" of change, apparently.

I'm talking the first cause, the catalyst, that which gets things moving towards the conclusion.

are you are being intentionally obtuse? Do you think you could stop putting words in my mouth I never said?


still smarting from that time I put you on my ignore list? :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

8. So will you re-define every word until

You torture the definitions to fit your original statement?

Agent comes from the latin verb meaning to do or act, it has nothing to do with the first cause. You are making shit up so that you won't look so nonsensical.

Remember your quote "moderates have never been agents of change"

In plain English that means that moderates never acted for change. That is a nonsensical statement. You can make up new definitions and add extraneous arguments all you like, but it is still nonsense.

From Webster:
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead
1 : one that acts or exerts power
2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result
4 : one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent> b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY <secret agent> c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent>
5 : a computer application designed to automate certain tasks (as gathering information online)

[Lerkfish]

9. may I suggest decaf? I meant what I meant, and what I meant originally, I'm not redefining

we have a misunderstanding of terms.

we can agree to leave it at that, or you can keep going if you like.


I'll give you the next post free, and then we're done. Last word to you.

[cosmik debris]

10. If you would learn English this would not be a problem. n/t

[donco6]

11. I wouldn't call Johnson an "agent of change".

I agree with Lerkfish on this one. Johnson's hand was forced because of the actions of "extremists" (which I think is a misnomer as well - these were people who were just plain ol' FED UP.)

[cosmik debris]

13. Read the definition of agent.

It is NOT what lerkfish seems to believe it is.

"1 : one that acts or exerts power"

Do you believe that LBJ did not "act or exert power" for change when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? How can this possibly be?

This is the most absurd surreal debate I've ever had on DU. It seems to me that anyone who understands the meaning of the words lerkfish used would know right away that it is an absurd statement. Nonsense, just nonsense.

[donco6]

15. If THIS is the most absurd debate you've had . . .

you haven't been around nearly long enough.

And I stand by my original statement. Johnson had no choice but to sign the legislation. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[cosmik debris]

16. It doesn't matter that he had no choice

He acted for change. That clearly contradicts the statement by lerkfish. You can make extraneous arguments but they are irrelevant. He acted and exerted power for change. I am sorry you are insufficiently literate to read a definition of "agent". Perhaps ESL courses are in your future.

[donco6]

17. Not at all.

It's not an action when it's the ONLY action. And you can save the snark.

[cosmik debris]

18. Either he acted or he did not act

You seem to be saying that signing a bill into law is not an action. Don't you see the absurdity of that position? Your argument is absolutely incomprehensible in the terms of the English language.

[donco6]

19. You're right! Lyndon Johnson was the agent of change for the

Civil Rights era!

I wonder why no one knows that?

[cosmik debris]

21. People who got the right to vote in 1965 DO know that.

That is why I found this so absurd, because everyone who was of voting age in 1965 knew that this was an act for change. Apparently a lot of people have forgotten the significance of LBJ. Maybe instead of ESL you need to study American History.

[donco6]

23. And when's the LBJ day ceremony?

I don't seem to recall it. Is it right next to . . . oh . . . MARTIN LUTHER KING Day?

[cosmik debris]

24. When you lose the argument, change the subject

It won't keep you from looking foolish, but it may get you some distraction credit.

[donco6]

25. It's directly to the point. However,

Puesto que usted insiste en ser tal asno, soy seguro que usted se placerá saber que usted está ahora en mi "no hace caso" de la lista. Cuando usted viene abajo de sus meds, charlaremos quizá otra vez.

[cosmik debris]

26. But where were you in 1964

And why do you disparage the vital contribution of LBJ.

And being on the ignore list of someone who can't remember history or read a dictionary is an honor.

[cosmik debris]

20. On second reading

You say it is not an action when it is (the only) action. You are destroying your own argument. You have admitted that it was indeed an action, and therefore it fits the definition of "agent" unless you are going to re-define "agent" the same way lerkfish did. So tell me, what definition are you going to pull out of your ass for "agent"?

[donco6]

22. Never you mind, sweetie.

I already conceded. You win! Yay!

[Lerkfish]

14. true: "fed up" is a better term!

its time we all got a little "fed up"

[Redstone]

12. Relevant, twenty years on? Oh, yes.

Some things never change.

Redstone