 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) I believe the word you're looking for is 'idealism' (...) And I think it's important for our neighbours to the south to recall that we Canadians play the best Americans on T.V. I can;t speak for the ROC, but I know that I like my entertainment (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not looking up the specifics, but as I recall, in the first years of the Supreme Court, maybe during the reign of Madison(?), the court decided that some big name law passed by Congress (that we should all remember, but I can't) was (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) can't) (...) Unless I fill in the blanks first... It was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. From (URL) : The new Constitution declared itself to be the "supreme law of the land a fundamental law binding upon state and federal officers alike. To make (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys
|
| | | | Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Freedom of Speech can be restricted by requirements of circumstance and profession. If W announced that we were about to obliterate Canada with nuclear bombardment and said that we've just launched the missiles, would you say "oh, that's just (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Even here on (...) I'm going to forgive your foray off-topic in this NG just this once if you tell us and tell us NOW who knows what:-) (...) I would say that your characterization is slightly off-- should be whether the inclusion of "under (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) I guess then that this is up to the Supreme Court to decide? Wait, if the Pledge is 'voluntary' then it's Free Speech--those that don't want to say it don't have to, which then legitimizes my other arguement--if the kid gets picked on, it has (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) I know about shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded Theatre arguement--don't get bogged down in semantics. (...) And you're getting bogged down in semantics and slippery slopes--if you're afraid that your kid's going to get beat up 'cause he or she's (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Question Time is fine television. —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) I mean, I don't know about the Canadian iteration, but I absolutely LOVE PM's Question Time in the UK. They show it at off times on CSPAN and sometimes it's just a hoot. Were it that all government activity were so entertaining. best LFB (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question Time is fine television. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Shh! The overseas entertainment factor is one of the biggest reasons used to justify the "reform" of PMQ’s. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
