Season 4 question
Pandi
p
o
i
l
e
r
space
Did anyone get the Jimmy Carter reference/joke that Lorelei ended up getting
hysterical over near the end of the show?
Agnes428
hostage crisis a while back, and Iran represented Emily holding Rory hostage,
and Jimmy Carter represeented Lorelai cause maybe he was president back then or
something so it was like Lorelai was like Jimmy cause she had to free Roy, the
"hostage".
Anne
"Pandi" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mdocb.1702$La.1654@fed1read02...
Other than the fact that Rory was being held "hostage" by Emily, while
Lorelei was at home
and Carter was the president while real US hostages were being held in Iran,
I don't know. It really wasn't a funny reference. I think Lorelei was just
punchy from jet lag. Unless I missed something which is entirely possible !
ZoomZoom
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> space
>>
>>
>> Did anyone get the Jimmy Carter reference/joke that Lorelei ended up
>getting
>> hysterical over near the end of the show?
>>
>
>Other than the fact that Rory was being held "hostage" by Emily, while
>Lorelei was at home
>and Carter was the president while real US hostages were being held in Iran,
>I don't know. It really wasn't a funny reference. I think Lorelei was just
>punchy from jet lag. Unless I missed something which is entirely possible !
>
>
Jimmy Carter failed at rescuing the hostages in Iran in 1980. So, Ronald
Reagan won the presidential election. Maybe Lorelai was laughing because she,
too, is failing to rescue hostage Rory. Of course, jet lag is also probable.
Sandy
NickKnight
I lived through the Iran hostage crisis and missed the point
they were trying to make.
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Seraph
was very involved in politics at the time, but for some reason didn't put
the hostage crisis into the mix, when trying to figure it out.
"NickKnight" <NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70b4nvgnv7mmhfmdo...@4ax.com...
Walla walla
The only "point' was that Lorilei was succumbing to her jet lag and being
overcome with giddiness.
"Seraph" <ser...@dc.rr.com.takeoffpounds> wrote in message
news:wSqcb.4095$T46....@twister.socal.rr.com...
madeupagin
Tere
madeupagin
"Agnes428" <agne...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030924174732...@mb-m21.news.cs.com...
GOSH! None of you got it? Am I the oldest on this group? EGADS?
Jimmy Carter was president when a hostage rescue attempt FAILED -- and JC
was looked at as impotent for the rest of his presidency. The fact that he
had NOTHING to do with the bad maintenance on the helicopters didn't seem to
bother the Republicans -- had the helicopter NOT crashed because of faulty
maintenance, the mission most likely would have succeeded, and history would
be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT . . . no shrubbery for one thing. LOL
Damn, what IS that movie I can't remember the title to???
Tere
madeupagin
"Anne" <Ao...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:6oocb.151861$0v4.11...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It wasn't until the DAY Regan was sworn into office that the Ayatollah let
the hostages go.
Tere
madeupagin
"ZoomZoom" <sol...@aol.comxxxx> wrote in message
news:20030924184737...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> Jimmy Carter failed at rescuing the hostages in Iran in 1980. So,
Ronald
> Reagan won the presidential election. Maybe Lorelai was laughing because
she,
> too, is failing to rescue hostage Rory. Of course, jet lag is also
probable.
>
>
president that caused the failure of the rescue mission, either.
Anymore than Lorelei being a bad mother cause she couldn't rescue Rory.
Tere
Jerry Davis
I understand the reference, and even the joke comparing Lorelai's
inability to rescue Rory from brutal captivity to the Carter
administration's inability to rescue the Iranian embassy hostages. But,
I didn't really get why she went into such hysterics ... unless she was
comparing her utterly failed rescue trip to Hartford as being the same
as the Delta Force's failed attempt in the desert.
How did Emily know that that Friday was Rory's last night before Yale?
Rory only found out the previous day, herself. Script logic gap: Why
didn't Rory simply explain her mother's absence was due to her packing
for Rory so she could come to dinner? Not only more truthful, but more
plausible (and laudable) than the lame "she is running errands" excuse.
Tara O.
news:3F73299F...@flash.net...
> Pandi wrote:
>
> >s
> >p
> >o
> >i
> >l
> >e
> >r
> >
> >space
> >
> >
>
> Rory only found out the previous day, herself.
No, Rory just wrote the date down wrong. She also wrote down the wrong
return date on the itinerary she gave to Babbette. Both things I found odd.
Emily makes it her business to know these things so whether she knew from
Rory and remembered the correct date....or she contacted Yale and found out,
I don't know.
--
Tara
J.Duluoz
the fact that Richard was sleeping. She started to laugh (and get
reference) when Emily told her that Richard was sleeping.
I'm sending that message with google so don't expect me to answer back
before 9 hours
Dwayne Day
In article <20030925105204.440$m...@news.newsreader.com>, "madeupagin"
<just...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Carter was president when a hostage rescue attempt FAILED -- and JC
> was looked at as impotent for the rest of his presidency. The fact that he
> had NOTHING to do with the bad maintenance on the helicopters didn't seem to
> bother the Republicans -- had the helicopter NOT crashed because of faulty
> maintenance, the mission most likely would have succeeded, and history would
> be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT .
Erm... you've managed to over-simplify to the point of distorting the
reality. It was not simply "the Republicans" who felt that the mission was
a mess. Lots of people came to that conclusion. In fact, I believe that at
least one of the commanders of that mission has written a book conceding
that they never should have done it that way. I believe one of the books is
called "Desert One," after the name of the staging base in the desert where
the helicopter collided with the plane on the ground.
You're also wrong in implying that the issue was the failure of the rescue
effort. Carter was president for the entire length of the Hostage Crisis,
which I believe lasted 444 days. He is generally regarded as impotent
during that crisis.
Presumably that is what Rory was implying, that Lorelei was "Jimmy Carter"
and therefore unable to do anything to help her.
D
SeanB51229
> . . . She also wrote down the wrong return date on
> the itinerary she gave to Babbette.
No, the reason they got back late is because they
decided at the last second to go to Ireland to try to meet
Bono. The itinerary she gave Babbette had the correct
originally intended return date.
Sean Bernard
SeanB...@aol.com
madeupagin
"Dwayne Day" <zirc...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cZGcb.11102$ai7....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
We can agree to disagree on whether it was Mr. Carter's impotence that was
the problem. I think it was *really* he is too good a man to be president.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, and I refuse to argue about it.
YMMV.
Your last paragraph, I agree with. Since our military back then couldn't
scramble in less than something like 25 hours, I don't think it was HIS
fault, rather the IIC. That's also my opinion, I'm sticking to it, and I
refuse to argue about it. YMMV.
Agnes428
decided at the last second to go to Ireland to try to meet
Bono. The itinerary she gave Babbette had the correct
originally intended return date.
Ok, I never caught that!! I'll to go back and atch that part again where
Lorelai was telling Luke about going to Ireland.
Jana Peterson
I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
STARS!!!
news:Nqucb.1306$kD3....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> Overanalyzing.
>
> The only "point' was that Lorilei was succumbing to her jet lag and being
> overcome with giddiness.
>
Overanalyzing indeed. I knew about the whole Iran hostages thing, though was
probably too young to really understand what was happening (born in 1969). I
went looking for some deeper meaning while the obvious one was busy slapping
me in the face.
Avatar
You do not have a clue what you are talking about. The hostages
involved in the Carter adminstration were taken by Iranian students
when they seized the American embassy in Teheran during November of
'79. Carter's response was to hold us out of the Olympics in 1980. The
hostages remained as such for the remainder of the Carter
administration. What you seem to be talking about is the so-called
"October Surprise" where various crackpots came up this absurd theory
that George Bush flew to Iran in an SR-71 to cut a deal with the
Iranians to hold the hostages a little bit longer and thereby
humiliate Jimmy Carter, as if having Billy as a brother wasn't enough.
This was disproven years and years ago in a huge congressional
investigation, although the occasional nitwit still clings to the
notion.
The Iran-Contra arms for hostages fiasco started about three or four
years *after* Carter was shown the door in the (then) largest
landslide in American history. A brief summation of the high points of
Iran-Contra follows. There were groups of mideast terrorists who
kidnapped and held for ransom American citizens. While the Reagan
administration had an official policy of not negotiating with
terrorists, someone came up with the bright idea of selling arms to
the Iranians who would use their influence to get the hostages
released. The arms were sold to the Iranians so they could kill a
bunch of Iraqis and they were sold to them at a huge markup. The extra
cash was then diverted to fund the Contra rebels in South America who
were fighting the spread of communism in this hemisphere. While
Reagan's policy was "no arms for hostages", this walked, quaked, flew,
swam, and shit like a duck. Nobody in charge knew or could be proven
to know what the hell was going on, except for Ollie North. Oliver
North was granted full immunity to tell what he knew. He told his tale
but since he was granted immunity, nothing much happened to him.
In summation: Your ignorance on the subject is truly amazing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Day
In article <q4l6nv4qlv0jo5qoq...@4ax.com>, Avatar
<Ava...@avatar.org> wrote:
>>I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
>>not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
>>Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
>
> You do not have a clue what you are talking about. The hostages
> involved in the Carter adminstration were taken by Iranian students
> when they seized the American embassy in Teheran during November of
> '79. Carter's response was to hold us out of the Olympics in 1980. The
Whoah. Before telling someone that they don't have a clue what they are
talking about, you might want to review some history. Carter pulled out of
the 1980 Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, _not_
because of the Hostage Crisis. (The Olympics were in Moscow, not Tehran.)
> Nobody in charge knew or could be proven
> to know what the hell was going on, except for Ollie North. Oliver
> North was granted full immunity to tell what he knew. He told his tale
> but since he was granted immunity, nothing much happened to him.
There were others as well, including Admiral Poindexter.
> In summation: Your ignorance on the subject is truly amazing.
Uh, you might want to slow down a bit.
D
Dwayne Day
In article <Pine.A41.4.58.030...@homer37.u.washington.edu>,
Jana Peterson <jp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
> not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
> Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
No. This was a conspiracy theory that circulated around a bit in the 1980s.
There was absolutely no evidence at all to support it.
The Iranians held the hostages until Carter left office and then let them go
about 20 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. It is easy to see why they
did not release them earlier (in order to humiliate Carter). You can argue
as to why they released them under Reagan's presidency. The common belief
is that they worried that Reagan might order a military attack on them.
D
Avatar
<zirc...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>----------
>In article <q4l6nv4qlv0jo5qoq...@4ax.com>, Avatar
><Ava...@avatar.org> wrote:
>
>>>I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
>>>not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
>>>Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
>>
>> You do not have a clue what you are talking about. The hostages
>> involved in the Carter adminstration were taken by Iranian students
>> when they seized the American embassy in Teheran during November of
>> '79. Carter's response was to hold us out of the Olympics in 1980. The
>
>Whoah. Before telling someone that they don't have a clue what they are
>talking about, you might want to review some history. Carter pulled out of
>the 1980 Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, _not_
>because of the Hostage Crisis. (The Olympics were in Moscow, not Tehran.)
Heh. At least somebody paid attention to my insane ramblings.
>
>> Nobody in charge knew or could be proven
>> to know what the hell was going on, except for Ollie North. Oliver
>> North was granted full immunity to tell what he knew. He told his tale
>> but since he was granted immunity, nothing much happened to him.
>
>There were others as well, including Admiral Poindexter.
>
>> In summation: Your ignorance on the subject is truly amazing.
>
>Uh, you might want to slow down a bit.
NEVER!
>
>
>
>D
Dwayne Day
In article <20030925151106.220$x...@news.newsreader.com>, "madeupagin"
<fals...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> Carter was president for the entire length of the Hostage Crisis,
>> which I believe lasted 444 days. He is generally regarded as impotent
>> during that crisis.
> We can agree to disagree on whether it was Mr. Carter's impotence that was
> the problem. I think it was *really* he is too good a man to be president.
> That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, and I refuse to argue about it.
> YMMV.
Uh, slow down. Note that I did not say that I _personally_ regarded Carter
to be impotent.* I wrote that "he is generally regarded as impotent."
That latter comment is true. You can find a lot of contemporary media
evidence to support it, such as Time and Newsweek magazine covers focusing
on Carter's inability to force a resolution to the crisis. You can also
find that as the theme of many books about that time.
This perception also extended to the rest of Carter's presidency. Carter
once gave a speech where he talked about the apparent lack of energy that
Americans were feeling and the word "malaise" later became associated with
him.
See:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_malaise.html
Here is an excerpt from that Public Broadcasting Service website:
"Perhaps appreciating the president's astonishing frankness, the public
rewarded him with higher approval ratings in the days that followed. But
then, as historian Douglas Brinkley notes, "it boomeranged on him. The op-ed
pieces started spinning out, 'Why don't you fix something? There's nothing
wrong with the American people. We're a great people. Maybe the problem's in
the White House, maybe we need new leadership to guide us.'" Historian Roger
Wilkins concurs: "When your leadership is demonstrably weaker than it should
be, you don't then point at the people and say, 'It's your problem.' If you
want the people to move, you move them the way Roosevelt moved them, or you
exhort them the way Kennedy or Johnson exhorted them. You don't say, 'It's
your fault.'"
Indeed, when Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago, many of the
newspaper articles discussed how he had "rehabilitated" his image after his
presidency. His image needed this "rehabilitation" because it was an image
of an ineffective president.
Indeed, you can argue all you want, but what do you think that Rory was
joking about when she said "You're Jimmy Carter"? Do you think it was a
_positive_ reference? No, it was a negative reference.
D
* For the record, I _do_ think that Carter had an impotent presidency.
Joe Curwen
>
<<SNIP>>
>The hostages
>involved in the Carter adminstration were taken by Iranian students
>when they seized the American embassy in Teheran during November of
>'79. Carter's response was to hold us out of the Olympics in 1980.
A small correction: Carter kept us out of the Olympics in protest of the Russian
invasion of Afganistan (the Olympics were held in Moscow that year). Democrats
called Carter's action unjust and destablizing to world peace, and the
Republicans thought it was just pathetically weak. Carter couldn't please
anybody, it seems.
Joe
Anne
"madeupagin" <just...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20030925105204.440$m...@news.newsreader.com...
[snip]
> the mission most likely would have succeeded, and history would
> be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT . . . no shrubbery for one thing. LOL
>
> Damn, what IS that movie I can't remember the title to???
Monty Python's Holy Grail ?
Garret
Yea she didnt seem to get giddy until the mention of Richard sleeping
the enitre time, I don't see how that fits into the hostage joke.
Dwayne Day
In article <uc87nv01mcrc7k1ps...@4ax.com>, Garret
<gar...@wreckt.com> wrote:
>>I don't know american politics very well but, did it has to do with
>>the fact that Richard was sleeping. She started to laugh (and get
>>reference) when Emily told her that Richard was sleeping.
>
> Yea she didnt seem to get giddy until the mention of Richard sleeping
> the enitre time, I don't see how that fits into the hostage joke.
I think she was laughing at the absurdity of the situation--her father had
gone to sleep hours before, yet Emily was still holding Rory hostage,
forcing her to watch boring videos.
D
Emanuel Brown
They cover it in the "I can't believe you!" salvo. "I can't believe
I've only got 2 days!" "I can't believe you got the date wrong!" "I
can't believe you made us waste 2 days stalking Bono!" "No fair
you've got more 'I can't believes.'"
Emanuel
--
Sony VAIO 505 info - http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/sony505.html
Join the 505 Mailing List - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sony505/
Rob Jensen
Richard is noted sleeper Ronald Reagan, obviously. Don't
try to analyze the joke further 'cause this is where the metaphor
ends. ;)
-- Rob Jensen
Rob Jensen
writes:
>How did Emily know that that Friday was Rory's last night before Yale?
>Rory only found out the previous day, herself. Script logic gap: Why
>didn't Rory simply explain her mother's absence was due to her packing
>for Rory so she could come to dinner? Not only more truthful, but more
>plausible (and laudable) than the lame "she is running errands" excuse.
Emily's been known to know event dates at Chilton
before Lorelai and Rory do. It would be a natural
progression for her to know about Yale events in
advance, too, especially since it's her and Richard's
alma mater.
-- Rob Jensen
Rob Jensen
>I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
>not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
>Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
You're half-right. Yes, Ray-gun (nice spelling! I think I'll
keep it!) made a deal with Iran to delay the release of the
hostages until the day he took office. Iran-Contra was a
different, *later* scandal of the Ray-gun Disadministration
in which Ollie North played bagman for the Administration, which
sold arms to Iran (to use, ironically, on Iraq) to prompt Iran
to make its Palestinian terrorist allies release about a dozen
hostages taken individually in Lebanon in the mid-80's. Substantial
money from this fiasco was diverted by North to pay for the arms
and training of the corrupt Contra rebels in Nicaragua whose failure
ultimately turned the Nicaraguan government, the Sandanistas,
Communist. It was a mess and Ray-gun and Daddy Bush
should have been impeached for it -- and North executed
as a traitor, to boot, but Congress screwed up and granted
North immunity from prosecution in exchange for misleading
testimony in which he implicated only himself, cowardly hiding
behind the immunity agreement to dodge even prison time
(he was convicted in court of obstruction charges, but they
were thrown out due to the immunity decree) and even
then he *lied* about Ray-gun & Daddy Bush's participation
in the explicitly illegal activity, which they *had* to have
known about because of North's position in the administration
(joint chiefs office) and certain diplomatic communications
made between Iran and the Administration at a time in which
diplomacy between the countries was ostensibly strained (because
the bitter taste of the earlier hostage crisis that Rory referred to
still lingered in *every* American at that point).
However, Carter aside, same creeps (Iran and Ray-gun),
different hostage deal, so I can see how they could be
confusing.
-- Rob Jensen
Rob Jensen
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>
>space
>
>
>Did anyone get the Jimmy Carter reference/joke that Lorelei ended up getting
>hysterical over near the end of the show?
Yup. Iranian hostage crisis/Rory being held hostage by
Emily. I thought it was hysterical *and* harrowingly
intense that Lorelai was so emotional about Luke and about
missing her movie night with Rory through Emily's plotting
and then having to argue with Emily over it that she didn't
get the joke until the moment that all of those pressures
overwhelmed her. It's a pivotal moment in the entire series.
-- Rob Jensen
Dwayne Day
In article <20030926074408...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.comgilmore (Rob Jensen) wrote:
> It's a pivotal moment in the entire series.
When you're trying to mix sarcasm and parody, you need to be a little more
subtle.
D
Dwayne Day
In article <20030926074405...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.comgilmore (Rob Jensen) wrote:
>>I thought it was common knowledge that Ray-gun made a pre-deal with them
>>not to release the hostages so he could be elected. I believe it's called
>>Iran-contra or arms for hostages...
>
> You're half-right. Yes, Ray-gun (nice spelling! I think I'll
> keep it!) made a deal with Iran to delay the release of the
> hostages until the day he took office. Iran-Contra was a
> different, *later* scandal of the Ray-gun Disadministration
> in which Ollie North played bagman for the Administration, which
Meanwhile, back on earth...
D
madeupagin
"Verdoux" <ver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sj58nvcv94hph09a7...@4ax.com...
> mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!"
No, the shrubbery I was referring to is Duyba and his FL Gov brother, JEB.
I live in Florida, so I have shrubbery. Those of you who don't live in
Florida only have a bush.
Tere
madeupagin
"Cory" <seeke...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19de0574e...@news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:54:43 -0400, madeupagin said...
> that we could burn the damn thing.
>
> --- Cory
>
Well, that's what the bush stood for, silly! I have double whammy. Youse
guys only have one. LOL
Burn it, piss on it, do something with it, but get it out!!! (Weed-B-Gone
probably wouldn't work, LOL).
Tere
Dwayne Day
----------
In article <MPG.19de0536b...@news.individual.net>, Cory
<seeke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > You're half-right. Yes, Ray-gun (nice spelling! I think I'll
>> > keep it!) made a deal with Iran to delay the release of the
>> > hostages until the day he took office. Iran-Contra was a
>> > different, *later* scandal of the Ray-gun Disadministration
>> > in which Ollie North played bagman for the Administration, which
>>
>> Meanwhile, back on earth...
>
> Iran-Contra happened on Earth, Dwayne, and if you have a problem with
> that, talk to Ollie North and Ronnie Reagan. They're the ones who
> hatched the whole thing. I'm sure of it.
Whoah, before you start sneering, it might help to pick up a history book.
I was pointing out that Mr. Jensen's version of events was, um, "fanciful."
Do you believe that Reagan made a deal with Iran to delay the release of the
hostages? Do you have evidence that you can provide us?
Mr. Jensen also wrote: "and training of the corrupt Contra rebels in
Nicaragua whose failure ultimately turned the Nicaraguan government, the
Sandanistas, Communist." There are several problems with that assertion.
For starters, the Sandinistas were communist when they took power in 1979.
They never denied it. They claimed to be committed Marxist-Leninists and
they received economic and military assistance from Cuba. Now the Contras
did not actually emerge until _after_ 1979. So how could the Contras "turn"
the Sandinistas communist when the Sandinistas were already communist?
Another problem is that the Contras did not really "fail." The Sandinistas
ultimately lost power over a decade ago.
Jensen also wrote that North served in the "(joint chiefs office)." That's
not where North worked either. He worked for the National Security Council,
which is in the White House. The Joint Chiefs Office is in the Pentagon.
I was pointing out that his version of events did not correspond to what
actually happened on earth.
I can gladly suggest several books (both liberal and conservative) about
this era if you are interested in learning more.
D
Rob Jensen
<zirc...@nospamearthlink.net> writes:
>I was pointing out that his version of events did not correspond to what
>actually happened on earth.
They definitely don't correspond to what the Lying Liars in
the Republican Administrations since Watergate deign to tell
us. However, the actual facts contradict their "official," factually
unreliable record. What actually happened on Earth bears little
resemblance to the Republicans' perpetual responsibility-dodging
(aka cowardice).
-- Rob Jensen -- proud founder of Republicans Anonymous (which
I just made up) and Undeclared/Voting on the Democratic Card for
the past seven years
Rob Jensen
<zirc...@nospamearthlink.net> writes:
Subtlety is not one of my strong suits. Have you
met my screen name? ;)
-- Rob Jensen
Dwayne Day
In article <20030927034427...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.comgilmore (Rob Jensen) wrote:
>>> It's a pivotal moment in the entire series.
>>
>>When you're trying to mix sarcasm and parody, you need to be a little more
>>subtle.
>
> Subtlety is not one of my strong suits. Have you
> met my screen name? ;)
Heh. Of course one problem with being subtle is that too many people miss
the joke entirely...
D
Dwayne Day
In article <20030927034425...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.comgilmore (Rob Jensen) wrote:
>>I was pointing out that his version of events did not correspond to what
>>actually happened on earth.
>
> They definitely don't correspond to what the Lying Liars in
> the Republican Administrations since Watergate deign to tell
> us. However, the actual facts contradict their "official," factually
> unreliable record. What actually happened on Earth bears little
> resemblance to the Republicans' perpetual responsibility-dodging
> (aka cowardice).
Yeah, okay, whatever.
But as I pointed out, your version of events contained numerous factual
errors, such as the fact (not a "Republican lie") that Oliver North worked
for the National Security Council and not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Like I said, I can gladly suggest several books on the subject of the
Somocistas, Sandinistas, Contras, Iran-Contra, etc. Just ask.
D