Armstrong and Getty play a video showing people trying to stop others from simply getting gas. Then they discuss how work environments are getting 1984’ish… with demand for an almost “Totalitarian” way of thinking (“total thought” – you are no longer an individual).
….These are the dirty dozen hallmarks of “white-supremacy culture” that school administrators are directed to avoid:
Perfectionism
Sense of Urgency
Defensiveness
Quantity over Quality
Worship of the Written Word
Only one right way
Paternalism
Either/or thinking
Power Hoarding
Fear of Open Conflict
Individualism
Progress is Bigger, More
Objectivity
Right to Comfort
Chancellor Carranza’s openly race-based perspective is explosive. His 14-point mandatory training program assumes “implicit bias” and “white privilege.” His directive creates reverse discrimination and a doctrine of “toxic whiteness.”…..
Do You Feel A Sense of Urgency? According to This Study, You Might Be A White Supremacist (TWITCHY)
Do You Strive For Perfection? You Too Might Be A White Supremacist (TWITCHY)
Cult Programming In Seattle: The City Is Training White Municipal Employees To Overcome Their “Internalized Racial Superiority” (CITY-JOURNAL)
The Characteristics Of White Supremacy Culture: From Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups, by Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun, ChangeWork, 2001 (SJW-WEBSITE)
Never in American history have politicians been more powerful than they are now.
Earlier today I posted this in response to a friend:
A friend noted the new FB button by saying,
“They give us a ‘care’ button, BUT THEY STILL NEVER GAVE US A DISLIKE BUTTON!”
I included my thoughts adding to her statement:
Tolerance used to mean a confirmation of disagreement. Now tolerance means “to celebrate.” It is a sort of forced unitarian thinking. Or, “total thought,” e.g., totalitarianism — by a mix of Brave New World and 1984
You see, by itself this is no big deal… but combined with the myriad of small and large ruminations (videos removed to “micro-aggressions”), it all adds up to people telling me that each of the single acts I can tell them about are “no big deal.” Never seeing the forest. But a better point comes from Dennis Prager’s article titled, “Our Dress Rehearsal for a Police State“
All my life, I have dismissed paranoids on the right (“America is headed to communism”) and the left (“It can happen here” — referring to fascism). It’s not that I’ve ever believed liberty was guaranteed. Being familiar with history and a pessimist regarding the human condition, I never believed that.
But the ease with which police state tactics have been employed and the equal ease with which most Americans have accepted them have been breathtaking.
People will argue that a temporary police state has been justified because of the allegedly unique threat to life posed by the new coronavirus. I do not believe the data will bear that out. Regardless, let us at least agree that we are closer to a police state than ever in American history.
“Police state” does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. In a totalitarian state, this article could not be legally published, and if it were illegally published, I would be imprisoned and/or executed. But we are presently living with all four of the key hallmarks of a police state:
No. 1: Draconian laws depriving citizens of elementary civil rights.
The federal, state, county and city governments are now restricting almost every freedom except those of travel and speech. Americans have been banned from going to work (and thereby earning a living), meeting in groups (both indoors and outdoors), meeting in their cars in church parking lots to pray and entering state-owned properties such as beaches and parks — among many other prohibitions.
No. 2: A mass media supportive of the state’s messaging and deprivation of rights.
The New York Times, CNN and every other mainstream mass medium — except Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (editorial and opinion pages only) and talk radio — have served the cause of state control over individual Americans’ lives just as Pravda served the Soviet government. In fact, there is almost no more dissent in The New York Times than there was in Pravda. And the Big Tech platforms are removing posts about the virus and potential treatments they deem “misinformation.”
No. 3: Use of police.
Police departments throughout America have agreed to enforce these laws and edicts with what can only be described as frightening alacrity. After hearing me describe police giving summonses to, or even arresting, people for playing baseball with their children on a beach, jogging alone without a mask, or worshipping on Easter while sitting isolated in their cars in a church parking lot, a police officer called my show. He explained that the police have no choice. They must respond to every dispatch they receive.
“And why are they dispatched to a person jogging on a beach or sitting alone in a park?” I asked.
Because the department was informed about these lawbreakers.
“And who told the police about these lawbreakers?” I asked.
His answer brings us to the fourth characteristic of a police state:
No. 4: Snitches.
How do the police dispatchers learn of lawbreakers such as families playing softball in a public park, lone joggers without face masks, etc.? From their fellow citizens snitching on them. The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, set up a “snitch line,” whereby New Yorkers were told to send authorities photos of fellow New Yorkers violating any of the quarantine laws. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti similarly encouraged snitching, unabashedly using the term.
It is said that about 1 in every 100 East German citizens were informers for the Stasi, the East German secret police, as superbly portrayed in the film “The Lives of Others.” It would be interesting, and, I think, important, to know what percentage of New Yorkers informed on their fellow citizens. Now, again, you may think such a comparison is not morally valid, that de Blasio’s call to New Yorkers to serve a Stasi-like role was morally justified given the coronavirus pandemic. But you cannot deny it is Stasi-like or that, other than identifying spies during World War II, this is unprecedented in American history at anywhere near this level….
YouTube censored an upload of mine twice (maybe a third now? (see the RUSH audio here) — and the ONLY reason I can think is that I noted the name of the non-whistleblower in the description. I say non because the statute nowhere forbids a name from being uttered. It merely protects the individual from harassment and firing at work. So legally, the statute does not protect a name from being “revealed.” Here is some quotes by Gregg Jarrett via TIGER DROPPINGS (see also, TWITCHY):
Good and accurate legal analysis of why this whole shitshow is a legal farce. Neither the president nor a call with a foreign leader falls under the ICWBPA act, an act which incidentally does not grant anonymity protection.
QUOTE:
nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else.
Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements.
However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.
QUOTE:
As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.
This was meticulously explained in an 11-page opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) when it issued the following opinion: “The president is not a member of the intelligence community, and his communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or other activity aided at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence.”
The OLC opinion made it clear that the complaint by the so-called “whistleblower” regarding Ukraine was so deficient that Congress should never have been notified. The acting director of national intelligence agreed with this assessment. The legal analysis and reasoning was sound.
In our constitutional form of government, the president is a unitary executive. He is not a member of any department or agency – they report to him.
To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information.
The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to bureaucratic employees. Indeed, the whistleblower law explicitly excludes a complaint involving “differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.”
So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.
Second, Adam Schiff released his name in a public transcript, as did the Mueller report. Here is a Twitter comment on the matter (NOQ REPORT):
Third, to be a whistleblower he — Eric Ciaramella — would have to have information related to his work. He merely passed along third-hand information… the statute (and the progression of the report up the chain of command ALL found this not to be a statute violate. GREGG JARRETT explains:
5. It appears the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) agrees with this assessment. His agency’s general counsel wrote a letter stating the complaint did not meet the ICWPA definition because it involved conduct “from someone outside the intel community and did not relate to intelligence activity”, according to a report by Fox News. This is why the DNI refused to forward the complaint to congress.
To put this in plain language, a spy who spied on the president does not have a legitimate whistleblower complaint against that president under the law…
To put this in plain language, a spy who allegedly spied on the president does not have a legitimate whistleblower complaint against that president under the law. The ICWPA is a mechanism to report alleged misconduct by members within the intelligence community, of which the president is not. Yes, the alphabet soup of intel agencies ultimately report to the president, but that does not make Trump a member of that community and subject to its rules of conduct.
So, it turns out that the “whistleblower” may not be a whistleblower at all. But you will not hear that from the mainstream media. They are too busy lighting their own hair on fire.
He also has DEEP ties to spreading lies about the Trump admin (a lie that Putin called Trump and asked him to fire Comey — um, can anyone say #fakenews?)
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
[….]
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
Now, China has removed all (I mean ALL — like 1984 stuff) references to South-Park and Winnie the Poo — MIC:
After airing an episode called “Band in China,” South Park has been, well, banned in China.
[….]
After “Band in China” aired, government censors quickly and aggressively scrubbed every trace of South Park from the Chinese internet, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Gone was every single mention of the show from the Twitter-like social media site Weibo. Links to every clip, episode, and full season of South Park on streaming service Youku, owned by Alibaba, were dead. Each thread and subthread about the show on Baidu’s Tieba, China’s Reddit-esque discussion platform, had evaporated. If visitors manually typed in the URL for what used to be a South Park forum, they got a message stating, “According to the relevant law and regulation, this section is temporarily not open.”
Larry Elder (listen to the first 2-minutes):
… this is getting concerning that FaceBook, Google, and YouTube would scrub mentioning a public, political name.
Crazy!
This was the original description on YouTube:
(This deserves a “Bwahahaha!”) MUST LISTEN TO Rush Limbaugh — who reads from Rep. Lee Zeldin’s questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor. The media went with the Democrats summary of the witness testimony — so the media [in other words] didn’t report just how horrible the witness was. As usual, it took a couple minutes to cut through the muck by a Republican. TWITCHY notes some of the devastating “fact” witness B.S. (LINK). More RUSH STUFF:
➤ Whistleblower’s Lawyer Admits It’s a Coup! (LINK) ➤ Pencil Neck Outed Eric Ciaramella in Transcript Release (LINK)
George Orwell’s fictionalized world where Big Brother reigns supreme is no longer a figment of the imagination, but a prophetic vision of present-day threats. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, explains how and why Big Tech is making Orwell’s 1984 a 21st century reality.
OLDER POST…. (1/2016)
Someone recently said:
Why is it that the left loves to rewrite history? My theory is that to them the end justifies the means ironically in history that has led to genocide here and there.
To which I replied, “I agree.” (And I continued, as I am wont-to-do):
In reading an excellent book, early on there was this nugget:
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture…. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
However, outside of this smaller percentage who is feeling the [sarcasm] equality of State [/sarcasm], there is a much larger percentage who do not want to be bothered as they amuse themselves to death (totalitarian bents ignored in political theories).
They do not want to be bothered by what would have in our history brought people to arms. All they care about is the next text on their iPhone or another round online with friends playing Call of Duty, or who got injured in the last NFL game that impacts the chances of their team winning. THESE people who have replaced worldviews with entertainment will one-day get a rood awakening when their toys are gone.
Liberals — especially — want this amusement to curtail knowing about history so they can get another radical candidate in office who likewise thinks the Constitution is a living/breathing document.
Grad student Lindsay Shepherd of Wilfred Laurier U. was dragged before a kangaroo court for showing a Dr. Jordan Peterson video in class. Demand that Laurier dismiss the Orwellian complaint against her, apologize, and reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom.
assiduity (ăsˌĭ-do͞oˈĭ-tē, -dyo͞oˈ-)► n. Persistent application or diligence; unflagging effort. n. Constant personal attention and often obsequious solicitude. Often used in the plural.
“The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources.” — Obama
What is funny is that Obama made this interview partly about “fake news,” which is ironic. THE BLAZE explains why:
…Obama then continued:
Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone. The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions. It’s making people exaggerate or say what’s most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it’s not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it’s going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models.
Absent from Obama’s take on “fake news” was the fact that the very magazine he was speaking to had just been found guilty of, in fact, publishing fake news. Earlier this month, the very same magazine Obama dubbed as “good journalism” was found guilty of defamation for an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
Her article titled “A Rape on Campus,” appeared in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone and centered around a woman named “Jackie” and an account of a vicious gang rape at the University of Virginia. The story unfortunately turned out to be, well, fake news. The jury in the case found the story was written with reckless disregard for the truth and that Erdely was guilty of false reporting. Rolling Stone and Erdely were ordered to pay $3 million in damages to an administrator at the school who filed the suit….
* Love this quote: “Her claims to be a ‘queer Muslim’ are probably part of an act designed to fit into as many victim categories as humanly possible,” Adams elaborates. “Sometimes I wonder whether LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Thespian. So much drama, so few letters in the alphabet.”
Or the Washington Post (WaPo) publishing an article on Thursday on how the Russians used American websites to push anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda in the 2016 election. The problem was, however, the the source for their story admitted to lying:
Within a day of the article coming out, PropOrNot’s story is already unraveling. The group admitted to lying about its partnering organizations and refuses to disclose why its media blacklist of “Russian agents” contains some of the best journalists in recent history: Robert Parry (who helped break the Iran-Contra scandal), Robert Scheer (who helped expose CIA funding of student groups in the 1960s as editor at Ramparts) and Yves Smith (the fearless founder of an invaluable and respected financial blog, nakedcapitalism.com). It’s shocking and disturbing that WaPo would smear respected journalists as traitors with no evidence.
Details about this group continue to emerge. It appears there’s a chance that PropOrNot is connected to groups funded the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spinoff that manages the U.S. government’s foreign propaganda division. If true, that would make PropOrNot’s activities illegal — in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States. Creating blacklists of American journalists, labelling them as traitors and then circulating this information to American newspapers would certainly fall into that category.
Maybe Russia has the means to “hack” America’s elections, but it’s hard to talk about it without real evidence. Sure, Russia’s been getting into the psyops game much more lately — with fake and biased news, comment trolls and Twitter bots. It’s cheap and effective, and good at exploiting people’s increasing lack trust in their country’s institutions and political process. But in reality it seems to have very little penetration of America’s media landscape. Let’s face it: life is miserable and getting more miserable by the day for most Americans — and no one in power seems to care one way or another. Americans don’t need a Russian Twitter bot to undermine their trust in the Democratic Party.
Or how bout when the L.A. Times knew about John Edwards affair while running for President, but kept the story bottled up:
The mainstream media’s near-silence about a tabloid report that former presidential candidate John Edwards had an extramarital affair with a campaign worker ended abruptly Friday when he admitted the relationship to ABC News.
The cable news networks pounced on the story, broken by the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer last year but largely unaddressed by major news organizations until Edwards’ admission.
Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all had extensive coverage of the scandal throughout the afternoon, and the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post quickly posted stories on their websites.
Several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. But the burst of attention after he confirmed a romantic relationship with Rielle Hunter, who produced video documentaries for his campaign website, was in marked contrast to the way those news organizations had tiptoed around the original reports….
Or NPR’s bias of omission with 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments (CAMERA). Or, as the WASHINGTON TIMES notes, mainstream media outlets advocating certain outcomes:
“The study found a huge disparity in the airtime devoted to advancing more gun control versus arguments in favor of gun rights.,” he continued, noting that the time spent in favor of more gun control was 65 minutes, compared to eight minutes spent on Second Amendment rights and other pro-gun issues.
“CBS was the most stridently anti-gun rights network. By a whopping 10 to 1 ratio, CBS devoted more time to arguing in favor of gun control (30 minutes, 40 seconds) to time that supported gun rights (2 minutes, 56 seconds),” Mr. Dickens noted.
NBC followed with nine times as much airtime for anti-gun rights arguments, with ABC in third place with a 4 to 1 ratio.
“When it came to spokesmen, viewers were far more likely to hear from gun control advocates like liberal Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than Second Amendment defenders like GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump or Republican Senator James Inhofe,” Mr. Dickens stated. “Anti-gun spokesmen were aired three times as frequently as pro-gun ones (57 to 19), while 27 spokesmen were neutral.”
How bout the medias tendency to not be fair and balanced, thus, guiding public opinion in some way (stories linked in graphics):
Some older examples from ABC, NBC, CBS that include some stats on story imbalances…. as IF they are trying to advocate for something… hmmm:
So all the recent “HUB-BUB” in regards to “fake news” is really an attempt to control the news by corporate news interests. If you do not know WHY this is not a good thing, please read 1984 again. And this bias is not conspiratorial as much as a worldview issue that cause it’s adherents not to lie or conspire about slanting stories as much as a form of group-think. (ALTHOUGH THIS “CONSPIRING” DOES HAPPEN.) Often times this “group-think” is ripped from it’s context to say people are involved in a giant conspiracy.
The media as a whole is said to be in a giant conspiracy to overthrow America or conservatives by a designed plan.
No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates truth to them.
Many people think there is a nefarious cabal of bankers, CFR and Bilderberger types, controlling human affairs on such a level that World Wars were started and guided by these people.
No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates a border-less society with all being equal… “just ‘some’ more equal than others” (Animal Farm).
I often hear people mention that “how could scientist all agree then with evolution? Are you saying there is a giant conspiracy? If you are, I am through listening to you, being that you are crazy.” [BTW, one can substitute “climate change” issues with evolution.]
No… groupthink…
And this is the crux of the matter… No matter if there is a conspiracy or not, the goals are the same. BUT — and this is an important BUT — how one responds and interacts with society is impacted… greatly. In other words if you tell people of these “grand conspiracies” or “meta-narratives” you will not change anyone’s mind but harm your position. However, if you talk about worldviews and group-think, you will impact minds on the matter, thus, fortifying the case trying to made in regards to media bias.
Hugh Hewitt talks about a time he got to speak to a graduating class of journalists at [I think] Columbia University School of Journalism. He asked the crowd some questions and asked them to separate themselves to one side or the other of the auditorium ~ (questions like: are you pro-life or pro-choice?… are you pro 2nd amendment of for gun control? etc., etc.). By the end of the 5-questions, only a handful were left on one side… all the liberal/progressives were packed into one side of the auditorium. His point was to show this graduating class that what they believe now will impact their work, and that they should be aware [self-aware] of their own biases and try to be reporters, not “change” agents.
(Link to Wikileaks emails showing collusion with Hillary and the Media)
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)
Dennis Prager reads from a National Review article about “hurtful words” and the cream-puffs it is meant to protect. (I use “cream-puffs” NOT to insult gays, but to include ALL [straight or otherwise] who are soo damned sensitive that their world falls apart upon hearing the English language.)
A guide titled “Words That Hurt” on the website of the University of California, Davis, warns students to avoid using the phrase “you guys” — because, apparently, that’s really harmful or something.
“You guys [e]rases the identities of people who are in the room,” the guide states. It “generaliz[es] a group of people to be masculine.”
The purpose of the guide, which is published on the school’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual Resource Center, is to remind students that “sometimes we say words without realizing the impact they may have on others.”
Sorry, but . . . no. If someone is actually “hurt” by hearing another person walk into a room and say, “Hey you guys!” then that person is the one with the problem…
[….]
The list also includes the words “lame” and “crazy.” Now, to me, saying “wow, this concert is lame” or “wow, this storm is so crazy” seems like, you know, fine. The guide, however, insists that doing so “targets mental, emotional, and physical disabilities as objects for ridicule.”
The guide also claims that calling someone “ugly” is not only mean, but also a term that “can be connected back to white supremacists standards of beauty.”…
I would like to sit-in on a movie night with these people watching classic 80’s movies with all these words bleeped out. It would be surreal.
“Political correctness is a bit like granny or your maiden aunt arriving at a party when you’re all having a good time,” John Cleese said.
“She comes in and they all start buttoning up and becoming self conscious and behaving properly and then when she leaves you can have fun again.
“Well a lot of humour is just about enjoying life, it’s spontaneity. We’re always teasing each other. It’s with affection. It’s nasty teasing we don’t want. There’s certain jokes that are mean and actually not funny.”
Dennis Prager comments on a case where a disgruntled woman has to ruin it for everyone else. And yet… people still vote Democratic.
____________________________________
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/ ~ see also: http://www.prageruniversity.com/
