 | | Re: One world order is a pipe dream (was Re: UN Gets It Right!)
|
|
(...) Your command of the obvious is impressive. Sorry I didn't snip the "or pay our dues" part; glad you found the "imprecision" amusing. Pettifogging makes boring conversation IMO. For instance if I were to rejoin by saying that your use of "its" (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | One world order is a pipe dream (was Re: UN Gets It Right!)
|
|
(...) I love the imprecision of this :-) Perhaps 'it is not possible for the US to pay its dues' - and its not like the US doesn't have buckets of money, so presumably its debt to the world (personified in many ways by the UN) is overwhelmingly (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) The evidence has been presented here in the past and I'm not inclined to dig it up again. (...) Cites please? I'm not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're anti-capitalist and don't see the distinction between (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Two points 1) Some of the stuff that's one link away from that website talks about conspiracies of Illuminati and Zionists and etc to impose a New World Order. I'm not sure how seriously that site's going to be taken based on that particular (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) By that reasoning, FoxNews, the National Register, and The Wall Street Journal should likewise be regulated as pro-Bush political commercials. (...) Are they? I haven't heard that--do you have a citation? And even if the DNC is buying tickets, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) Let's review: In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) True, they very well might, as the law is written. But it's beside the point. 'd have more respect for them if they came out against the law instead of using it against their opponents. Just as I said I'd have more respect for Clinton if he (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: UN Gets it Right!
|
|
(...) I trust you do not mean that war crimes are constitutional? ;) (...) I'm sure many others would say Bush heading it would also be a "farce". After all, it is Bush's record on human rights which stopped him getting the ICC exemption extended. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) I think they have a case. How would a commercial promoting a movie that criticizes a political candidate differ in kind from a commercial criticizing a political candidate paid for by a political opponent? And besides, the group is only (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip)... because there's no need to repeat it, especially if it goes unanswered by Dave!(1) But, tangentially related, here's a story (URL) which some conservative group apparently wants to block (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
