|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
on the other hand wrote:
| Quote: |
| Hustler has been publishing stuff far more tasteless than that for decades now. (Ever heard of Chester The Molester?) I somehow doubt that Flynt suddenly had a sincere crisis of conscience over one "yo mamma" joke about Jerry Falwell. More likely, he's grown rather fond of of hobnobbing with the cultural elite, and thought it might up his social standing a bit to say that he regrets making personal insults against other members of said elite. |
I'm well aware of Hustler. Took a peek at it myself (and the spreads, literally) when it first came out because of all the hoopla. Some of their cartoons and jokes were funny, although raunchy. I think you're estimation about why Flynt spoke favorably of Falwell is too cynical though. When they met on Larry King Live in 1997 everyone including Flynt expected fireworks. But instead Falwell was most gracious, deflating the media expectations of a brouhaha.
| Quote: |
| I pretty much regard the Religious Right, noxious though they may be, as an electoral pawn of cynical conservative elites. |
Well, this is cynical too. Are Hollywood actors nothing but pawns of the Left? C'mon, if they guys are as manipulative and ego-laden as the Left characterizes them then they wouldn't be so easily duped. You might resent Falwell but at least give him his due: he raised a huge Ministry from nothing, launched a university, and sent millions overseas to the needy. I didn't like some of his politics either but I at least acknowledge him the strength of his convictions.
Dr. Porn wrote:
| Quote: |
| his attempt to paint a moral picture. Well, Steve, then every terrorist that dies is a bad thing. |
Taking things to their logical extension as you have doesn't take into consideration the person's intentions. My point was that even a former adversary like Flynt openly admitted that Falwell was not only a gentleman in his dealings with him but that he sincerely believed what he preached. He was also acting for the good of society with his moral stance, or so he thought. It's quite the stretch to then say we shouldn't joke about the death of terrorists. None of those things I mentioned are true of them.
I didn't call for honoring the man, just not tap dancing on his grave. Again, try to see the forest for the trees.
As for Reagan, toward the end of his second term the effect of Alzheimer's yet undiagnosed were beginning to manifest itself. But by then Reagan had done much to bolster the spirit of Americans. Maybe you were too young to see the contrast from the pre-Reagan era. Even Tip O'Neill admitted that Reagan was a good symbol of American optimism. No one ever claimed he was brilliant, although he wrote a lot of his own speeches and he knew how to communicate his ideas to the people at large. But I wouldn't expect a leftist like you to give him his due, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I just view it differently, in that it doesn't really matter if you're a gentlemen in your dealings with people, or that you sincerely believe what you're saying. Those two qualities describe all kinds of white supremacist leaders and bigots of other types, as well as more than a few descriptions of Osama that I've read. I think the message is more important than the delivery, and when the message is hate and intolerance, no matter how sincerely 'believed', it's wrong.
As to the Reagan defense, when his medical records are released (assuming they ever are--my personal theory is that they will be 'misplaced') it is widely thought/rumoured that what will be found is that his condition was known and evident to those around him well before the end of his second term. There are all kinds of quotes and snippets indicating that from many of those who worked with him.
The writing his own speech thing is kind of funny to bring up, since it's believed that a big part of that is that his ability to memorize and recall were growing increasingly compromised throughout his two terms. The writing, you attribute, is more of a Clinton thing, whereby he was given comments, headers etc, and then worked his way around them--- though Clinton often completely ignored speeches and headers that were written for him and would just start talking. The difference between the two is that Clinton did it by choice, rather than a lack of ability.
Lastly, I understand the Reagan being seen as a 'leader' and that people, for whatever the reason, seeing him as the gipper. But that does NOT make him a good president, nor does it mean he should be given credit for such total balderdash assertions like 'winning the cold war'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Porn:
| Quote: |
| Those two qualities describe all kinds of white supremacist leaders and bigots of other types, as well as more than a few descriptions of Osama that I've read. |
It also describes all kinds of commies like Castro and Chavez. So what's your point? Are you equating Falwell with David Duke? If you are, we have no basis for discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobody is saying Reagan won the Cold War by himself. What we are saying is that the Gipper was one of the leaders who did it. be it Reagan and his administration in the US, the influence and inspiration of Pope John Paul II on Solidarity and anti-communist movement in Poland the the Soviet Bloc, to Walesa, etc. it was people like these that took down communism. Im sure you hated Pope John Paul II too, I would imagine anyone who helped bring the USSR and ended your Che wet dreams is a baddie. Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
I pretty much regard the Religious Right, noxious though they may be, as an electoral pawn of cynical conservative elites.
Well, this is cynical too. Are Hollywood actors nothing but pawns of the Left? C'mon, if they guys are as manipulative and ego-laden as the Left characterizes them then they wouldn't be so easily duped. You might resent Falwell but at least give him his due: he raised a huge Ministry from nothing, launched a university, and sent millions overseas to the needy. I didn't like some of his politics either but I at least acknowledge him the strength of his convictions |
What I meant by "pawns" was that the Religious Right voters elect politicians who, despite their outward rhetoric, have little intention of advancing the RR agenda. I mean, come on. Two terms for Reagan, one for Bush I, and two for Bush II, and they STILL can't put together a supreme court majority to oveturn school prayer?
I don't think that the grassroots voters of the Religious Right are manipulative and ego-laden. They're probably quite sincere and, according to their own worldview, well-intentioned.
And yes. If Hollywood liberals thought that by voting Democrat they were helping to usher in a socialist USA with public ownership of the means of production, then I would call them electoral pawns as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
