 | | Re: Crucial Endorsement for Bush —Don Heyse
|
| | | (...) Yeah, the contents of supermarket tabloids are usually pretty funny, but maybe they should include a few more alien abduction stories in the Guardian so people don't forget what they're reading. I mean some people took them seriously the other (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Crucial Endorsement for Bush —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Inclined though you may be to dismiss the Guardian, perhaps you should factor the ramblings of the ultraliberal Weekly Standard into your "funny" calculations: (URL) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Crucial Endorsement for Bush —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) confusing than funny. What is this Weekly (Daily?) Standard? Is it some sort of satire mag? It doesn't seem to get quoted much here. Don (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Crucial Endorsement for Bush —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) junk to back your case. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Crucial Endorsement for Bush —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) Oops, you're right. They aren't scheduled to (URL) switch to tabloid format> until 2006. I stand corrected. Sorry, it seemed funny at the time. Heh, love that (URL) wikipedia>. Who knew George Soros was involved with the Guardian? Anyhow, do (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
