 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
<reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the attributions right, apologies if I flubbed> (...) Sorry, how is a license fee that one *must* pay (or be in violation of law), and which is collected *by the government*, and then (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Just name one thing that has changed in the past 30 years--This has got to stop
|
|
(URL) years ago. And the killing and the blaming and the bombing and the fighting and the pillaging and the retaliation and the blaming some more still continues. I don't care who started it. I don't care who you think the fanaticals are. I don't (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) And not made up like the NY Times... Ooops--US news sources are fallible! Did I say that out loud? If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't admonish those (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) *shakes head* Scott A (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Are you saying it can't be trusted? Shame on you sir! (...) Nonsense! It is funded by the public through a licence fee [~UKP100 / US$160] for every viewing household & through sales of its products. Fantastic value when you think about it. (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) You mean like when he landed on the aircaft carrier? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Nevertheless, your mistrust is not at all misplaced. The BBC, despite being government funded, isn't exactly hewing to reality, much less hewing to the Labour party line, at least according to some observers. Your mileage may vary, of course. (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) I realize that you have some internal connect between politics and religion, but for me I tend to keep those two worlds completely separate. My political views have little to do with my religious views, please try to stay focused. (...) My (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Crazy world, eh David? Nobody over here seems to understand that truth dealing is the way to make the U.S. a better place -- it's always some nonsense about patriotism, or national security, or counter-terrorism. And here I thought the truth (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes: <snip> (...) Ahh, there it is. If it isn't USA, it's no way. Got it. Perhaps you wish to reconsider? Dave K (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) This criticism still amazes me, although it wasn't unexpected. Presidents, and other political leaders have been misusing taxpayer money on these kinds of things for years. If Bush was simply looking for a photo-op he would have done this in (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
Because we all know how the BBC is prone to hperbole, and "faking the truth" whenever it can... (URL) it still a 'conspiracy nutter' story now? Or is it perhaps closer to the truth? Stop with the talk of anything that doesn't conform to the US (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) So which point do you take exception to, Scott? "We know that SH has WoMD and we know where they are!" (pause long enuf to have a war about it) "Well, we're withdrawing our inspectors next month 'cause we didn't find anything..." Conspiracies? (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) I wonder if they used that same film crew that rigged up that whole moon landing thing. I file this whole discussion right there along with Elvis sightings and the black helicopters. Scott C. (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
(...) Jessica's rescue, the toppling of the statue, Colin Powell's briefing--all faked for the mass television audience. And yet, there's the majority of the US audience, just gobbling it up. Standing ovation for the wonderful acting to all (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "Saving" Private Lynch
|
|
This makes good reading: The truth about Jessica (URL) was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Too weird for daylight...
|
|
(...) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? JOHN (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Too weird for daylight...
|
|
"The Oily Americans: Why the world doesn't trust the U.S. about petroleum: A history of meddling" (URL) a little too flimsy on the Iraq issue, probably didn't want to come off as "unpatriotic" -- whatever that means nowadays.] ---...--- New Policy (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Here's the next contender...
|
|
(URL) which Cuban diplomats were expelled from Washington and the UN due to 'spying'. Or they could have been expelled so that they have no potential to hear any plans against their country (if you read b/w the lines and are swayed towards (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Saudi Arabia? [Re: Kissing heinie at its finest]
|
|
(...) Surely you mean Saudi Arabia? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
