 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> No argument with any of that (you'll never see ME arguing the case that a show "ought to be banned" rather than "just turn the channel on it" so the off button is the completely appropriate (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) Probably so, but it's not really a debate. There's historical fact and then there's popular misconception. It's a weakness I have as a history major. (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) So...why did this come to o-t.debate? There's nothing with which to argue. Chris (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) context (...) bartender. (...) Hunh? Chris (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Star Wars 2003
|
|
(...) He did because he had magic powers. He also had weapons. He hides them in his beard. Much like Marge hides the x-mas money jar in her hair. Also his hat responds to his commands and produces items that are useful for fighting injustices. Much (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) to (...) Well, it seems that I did exactly what I was trying to avoid doing, which was coming in in the middle of another thread given a new header. (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Y'know, let's get away from Jefferson. If we are going to discuss legislative intent in the Constitution we can refer to the Federalist Papers and the many debates that were had state by state. Some of the quotes I provided last time were from (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Heehee. I should have picked a more hypothetical example! See, my biggest problem is that I agree with you, but something's not sitting right with me about it. Not with the right itself, which I honestly think is pretty straightforward, but (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) That's fine. I have nothing against Moe's poignancy. And while Moe may have very valid opinions about the role of firearms in modern society, I value the writings of the people who wrote the constitution, more than I trust Moe's opinion -- (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Jeez, Dave!... I agree that we can revisit a given question. I agree that the historical meaning of the 2nd and 9th Amendments only get at the legislative intent and do not go to stare decisis or what we may do now or in the future (through (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) And, again I agree that appealling to those more intelligent and well versed than ourselves to aid in our defense of a particular point can be a good thing. But if Moe the bartender said something poignant, insightful and relevant to the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) That's a *fantastic* example, and it dovetails nicely with my point in an earlier debate. Mike P is now off the hook for using the false Brady quote: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) But if we're talking about gun control and you say "in 1780, Jefferson wrote x in a letter to the Virginia assembly about the meaning of militia" and it turns out that the quote was actually written by Sarah Brady in 1989, the quotation is not (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) The funk, as I recall, was that we were hearing about the scandal to the exclusion of all else, as though it, more than anything else, actually mattered to the state of the union. Granted, Clinton is no moral giant, but neither is Gingrich, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I keep coming back here for the sheer entertainment value. Is better than tv! At least there's "dem dar edumicated talking" going on here... ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) People do lots of weird stuff for sake of amusement. Is amusing yourself (and others) a waste of time? Chris (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) And I agree with everything you have stated above, and I love to find someone who is 'smarter than me' to cite. I would add, however, if I get the source wrong, and the source is refuted, it in no way diminishes what the point was, it just (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) There was once, well, a West Wing episode ;) , in which a pollster mentioned a little tale about polls-- " Polls tell us that people are sick and tired of hearing about sexual scandals of politicians, and yet the ratings of any show that (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Yeah, that is probably an overly broad statement. About the Caesar quote... The importance of getting the cite and who said it correctly has to do with a rhetorical technique called an appeal to authority. The person making the quote is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) As I may have mentioned before, we have to look at, struggle with, refute, and generally deal with the *issues*, and not the person. Larry's point was that he would never accept ideas and concepts coming from the idiot box, or specifically (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
