b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 2684801 (Thread)

# Tough on smears, tough on the causes of smears.


Governmentally friendly.

(original )
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:24, archived)
# BBC lied, Kelly died
www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Edit: Too much political shit on here today. I'm outta here until the kittens come back.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:25, archived)
# Oh, cock off
or say something different
edit: I forgot to woo the pic. Sorry!
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:26, archived)
# seconded
Take your chip&shoulder elsewhere
hmm
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:28, archived)
# Why should I say something different
when none of the other political crap does? It's all "Hutton cover-up" this, and "Bush monkey" that.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:28, archived)
# you could just say
nothing?
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:30, archived)
# "Kittens this"
"Horses that"

I like a bit of a change myself from faceswaps and badly drawn nobs.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:30, archived)
# that's
the second time you've posted that link in 20 minutes
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:32, archived)
# because it's fucking crap, that's why
the Govts on both sides lied extensively, and far more seriously, than the BBC ever did. i see no mention of the plagiarization issue or the implication that the 45-min figure was "imminent threat." it's clear that Hutton is simply rubber-stamping Blair, as he's included NO criticism of his behaviour.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 17:00, archived)
# Chickens died, Sanders fried
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:28, archived)
# arf!

My only political comment: I think the fact that the country seems equally divided between those who think the BBC got it very wrong, and those who think Hutton is making the Government sound good means that, in actual fact, the BBC got it right, and is being as unbiased as it can be.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:30, archived)
# sounds about right.
certainly the bias in the report suggests that Hutton was hardly objective.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 17:03, archived)
# that's a silly web site
especially the bit about how the BBC are loony left wing nutters to suggest that the US government giving federal sex education cash to religious charities preaching abstonance is against the US cosntitutonal principle of seperation of church and state.

I stopped reading after that - silly site.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:30, archived)
# You've changed man, you used to be cool.
Now it's just all politics and heroin. Well fuck you man, I'm leaving the band. Get yourself a new bass player cos I am G O N E

/Edit: I'm taking the piss because I found the site unreadable twaddle - he's arbitrarily picked a side and is hoping that arguing as hard as he can will equal arguing rationally...

/Edit 2: The bottom of the page - he believes that by pulling the Beeb up on their latter-day anachronistic disapproval of Truman bombing Japan, that they immediately changed their text in response to him - Oh he has them running now! SSSHHHHHH!!! They may be listening!!!! ARGHRGRHRGRHRG
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:37, archived)
# Splendid!
I just tried to read his report. May as well have been written by Rebekah Wade for all the good it'll do anyone.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:27, archived)
# I've
just been watching bloody Campbell on News 24 complaining about the media's blatent disregard for facts. Oooooh the hypocritical bugger.

Cheery-uppy thread jack: John's Not Mad is out on DVD a week on Monday! And a few pence from each cunt cunt cunt copy sold goes to a Tourette's charity. Whore.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:27, archived)
# hoorah
wonder what the chances of it being on kazaa are, the haddock nescafe cunt fuckers
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:34, archived)
# Hooray!
You cunt. My mate went to school with him. He got locked in a cupboard when the teacher didn't know what to do with him.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:35, archived)
# Generally
the best thing to do with stuff you don't know what to do with.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:54, archived)