What Does It Say That Young People Carried Out The Politicallyincorrect Attack In Philadelphia

What do you think about the lack of civility in US politics today?

Despite of what you may hear or think, this garbage has been going on since the founding of the country. Several early U.S. politicians were involved in duels to the death - not really what we’d call “civil”.In 1798, Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont on the House Floor (then located in Philadelphia’s Congress Hall). Incensed that the House failed to expel Lyon for spitting tobacco juice at him on January 30, 1798, Griswold sought justice against the “gross indecency” by caning Lyon on the House Floor. Lyon defended himself with a pair of fire tongs. Both Members were separated, and a resolution to expel them was defeated handily, 73 to 21. One contemporary cartoon depicted both Members jousting with cane and tongs in what the cartoonist described as “royal sport.”n 1805, two Jeffersonian Republicans, Nicholas Leib from New York and Joseph Nicholson from Pennsylvania, set the record—that undoubtedly still stands—for the longest fist-fight in the House lobby. The brawl started when Leib called Nicholson a liar and it lasted for an hour and seventeen minutes. The brutal and exhausting match left both men bloody, broken and bruised.During a discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska Act—a law that allowed the citizens of those territories to vote on whether they would allow slavery—abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner gave a fiery speech in which he branded South Carolina’s Andrew Butler a “zealot” who was enamored with the “harlot” of slavery. The words came as a grave insult to Preston Brooks, a proslavery congressman who also happened to be Butler’s nephew. Just three days later, Brooks confronted Sumner in the Senate chamber and assaulted him with a metal-topped cane, repeatedly bludgeoning him over the head until the stick splintered into pieces.The cane attack left Sumner so badly injured that he was forced to spend over three years in recovery. Brooks, meanwhile, was fined for assault and put under congressional investigation, but a measure to expel him from the House of Representatives failed to gather the required two-thirds majority. He voluntarily resigned in July 1856, only to be re-seated by his constituents a few days later. In a preview of the divisions that would lead to the Civil War, the scandal saw Brooks simultaneously denounced in the North and hailed as a hero in the South. Supporters even sent him replacement canes, including one inscribed with the words “Hit Him Again.”

Why do people say blazing saddles couldn’t be made today when so many other films have surpassed it in regards to vulgarity & offensive content?

I have to agree with those who have cited the Politically Correct Nazis as the reason. Sure, some of the coolest jokes are low key, but badly dated; Howard Johnson for example.But, most of the vulgarity is of a sophomoric nature, such as men eating beans and farting around the campfire.Mel Brooks addresses some of the issues on the commentary track of the DVD. He says that all of the complaints received were from white folk, and this had the studio suite very worried, that is until they realized that Mel’s movie was making money for the studio; funny how that works.Perhaps another reason that that movie could not be made today is because of the style of humor. Mel—can I call him Mel, as if I knew him? Hey! I bought all of his DVDs, a couple of them twice! He owes me!Mel’s style of humor had its heyday with the birth of the variety shows on TV, and the style has sort of died out. What tended to be in your face humor back then is now considered to be more silly and nonsensical than in your face. Take the series Laughin for example. Sure there is a bit of nostalgia there for those of us who lived that era. But, today the humor is a bit lame. Back then it was cutting edge!Today it is important not to use the word nigger, but it is very important to use the word fuck as often as possible, almost as if the word has just been invented. Now, my grandmother—seriously—would not have known what the word meant, but she died over 50 years ago, so she had a good excuse. Back then, you could not even say God on TV unless you were one of the Sunday preachers on Sunday morning TV.I hope the don’t try to remake Blazing Saddles. They’ll just screw it up like they have all the other reimagined box office bombs.

Is Starbucks too political for its own good?

The person who asked this question also answered it.I love Starbucks coffee and, in recent months, stopped going there because its identity politics are against my values.Well, isn’t that interesting. First off, they like mediocre, mass market coffee. Many people have little aesthetic sense when it comes to coffee, so this is unsurprising. They probably also enjoy a nice pod coffee.But identity politics. What exactly does that mean?Hmm… So. Starbucks had a huge problem recently. One of its baristas racially profiled a couple of innocent black guys and called the cops on them. The cops handcuffed the random innocent guys who were waiting for an acquaintance before buying a coffee.Starbucks was understandably appalled with their employee. Starbucks understandably took action, apologizing to the customers, making explicit their policy of welcoming everybody and taking half a day to make it clear to every single employee that race is not a reason to serve people coffee. What a concept. They said racism is unacceptable. And did a couple of things about it that inconvenienced everyone equally for half a day.Apparently it’s identity politics to realize that alienating 13% of your customers for completely innocent behavior is a bad idea. It’s almost like the person who asked the question is a white supremacist who thinks that it’s acceptable to profile black people. It’s almost like the person thinks that being white and considering that their identity a reason to attack others isn’t identity politics.But that couldn’t possibly be true. Because they are white. And therefore without sin, malice, idiocy or lack of insight.

Why did Britain lose the American War of Independence/Revolutionary War?

The British were not yet an unstoppable empireSome ice, some desert, and a small slice of India     In 1776, the British were one of several Great Powers in Europe who were all roughly equal in power. These were them, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia.  Below them were a few middle powers including Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal.  Out of these strong nations, the British were known for their naval prowess but had one of the weaker and smaller ground armies - France was the expert here.  As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, the British were forced to ship soldiers 3,000 miles away and feed and supply them - no mean feat back then - to fight in an environment they were not experts in, ground wars.  So this explains why they had difficulty against just the colonists alone.  Now let's look at the international situation.     13 years before the Revolution, Britain and Prussia defeated France, Russia and Austria (there were also smaller allies on both sides) in the 7 Years' War.  In the aftermath, French colonies from North America to India were seized by the British, which upset the balance between the Great Powers, frightening much of Europe.  The British also spent a huge pile of money, which started them on the path of taxing the colonies which started the war in the first place.  As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, France was eager for an opportunity to even the score with their rival.  Soon after the war began, France was bankrolling the American bid for independence. In the first year, France supplied enough muskets and uniforms for 30,000 soldiers (Larger than the initial size of the Continental Army) and 10 pounds of gunpowder per soldier.  Then, France joined in the war openly with a navy that was at the time, roughly equal to the British one.  They were eventually joined by the Spanish and Netherlands who brought even more money and soldiers to the table.tl;dr The British Army was never that strongIt was half of Europe and the USA vs Britain