 | | 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) I've mentioned before, and I'm happy to reiterate here, that you've done vastly more reading on the subject than I, and I am therefore given to accept much of what you interpret the 2nd amendment to say. But if the issue as cut-and-dried as (...) (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: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) makes (...) Meaning I thought it was a fresh debate, rather than a carryover of another debate (which it seems to be). (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Which debate, though? The one about West Wing, the one about quotations and their merit, or the one about the second amendment? I expect you could steer the threadlette in the direction you wanted it to go. But you would have to deal with the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Again, I thought John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing" was a totally new debate topic on The West Wing and how the West Wing was not an accurate represenation of the workings of politics and the White House. (...) Probably about once or twice (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Actually, if I may clarify--this was a new debate about TWW and the validity of using cites from the show--Larry pointed out that in his opinion, any cite from TWW will carry no water with him. That was this particular debate drew in issues (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) "flyby." (...) Well, that's sort of technically true, but at the same time, the thread wouldn't have started without the context that leads to it. In that way, it is a continuation of more than one other thread in which TWW was cited. So I (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Exactly. (...) So what medium isn't spewing propaganda? (...) It would be interesting to see the ratio of those letters received to viewers. IS it 1%, 10%. I don;t think it would be very high at all. (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Arguing the validity of the words of a (...) BTW, you didn't ask, but the main reason that I dont't post more to debate is that most of these debates end up spending most of their life argueing over the validity or quotes, sources, statements, (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) TV (...) silly. (...) I agree. But also believing that what you see on a soap is litterally true...so much so that you write in to the fictional characters is pretty extreme. I'm sure that lots of (all?) people are successfully propagandized (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) I think the bigger question is: What isn't propagandized? Isn't all advertising propaganda? Isn't every book propaganda? Every medium's main purpose is to promote its ideas. Isn't the very promotion of ideas propaganda? (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) Certainly advertising is by nature propagandist. There seems like a critical difference between a piece of fiction that is written solely to entertain and one that is written with underlying political/religious/...l/whatever messages that are (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) I remember in January '86 when the shuttle blew up--the news preempted all the soaps for the afternoon to cover the terrible accident. Then the tv stations received many nasty letters and phone calls from irate viewers who were angry that they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
(...) These two paragraphs are the crux of the issue, for me. We might add a third permutation and ask: if the author creates a work intended to stir social change, but it doesn't, is it still propaganda? That seems like a suitable opposite of your (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing")
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (Deleting a whole lot of things I agree with.) The contradiction with the dictionary (...) Please note that I am only using the names Beavis and Butthead in the next paragraph to differentiate (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
