Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Brett" wrote in message .. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

"Brett" wrote in message . ..
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal

What goal?

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters
and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many
campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik"
he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving
that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
election.

If you were a Nixon supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a McGovern supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a Democrat without a Presidential candidate to vote for, it was
a "bad thing" (he wasn't the best choice the Democrats had available in
1972).

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:



How about botulinum toxin? We found no facilites for producing
botulinum toxin. One doctor came forward with a specimin of the
botulinum baccilus that he had been keeping at home. There are
about a half dozen varieties of this bacilus.

It would be more correct to say there are six forms of the toxin, A-G.
There could well be more than one substrain that produces the same
toxin.

All produce highly toxic material.

Not all botulinus toxins affect humans, or have a very low incidence of
affecting humans -- especially C&D.

The toxins they produce vary in toxicity by a
factor of about 100. The least toxic of these is used theraputically,

No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
therapeutic drug Botox.

one supposes that he best choice for WMDs would be the most toxic
variety. The specimen the doctor had was of the least toxic
variety.

That being said, I have seen no reports indicating weaponization after
1991.

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..


How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.

Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
that up."

Google News is your friend.

Or, anyway, would be if you bothered to check the multiple complete
expositions answering your question that have appeared in this newsgroup
during the past year.

Once you've done that, you will likely have a chance to apologize to Ed.

In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message
...


Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import.
At least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
TANG.

Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.

HB wrote among other things:

No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
therapeutic drug Botox.


Jeeze guys! Can we leave Kerry out of this one?

Oxmoron1

In message ,
Steve Hix writes
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.

That's got to be one sore knife arm he's got there. Even if it seems
most of his victims survived.

Did he personally stab _everyone_ in _every_ military? I know a fair few
UK folk who were serving at the time, who never mentioned having some
Yank with political ambitions jab them in the back with anything sharp.

Indeed, if he was going around stabbing North Vietnamese, Red Russian
and Yellow Chinese military in the back, doesn't that make him a hero?


Okay, maybe you assumed that only the United States has a military, fair
enough. Is the new test for "were you really in the US military" showing
the scar where Kerry personally stabbed you? No scar, no service?

(Can't abide the guy, personally, but I don't think he's actually knifed
many people - there's more than enough to knock him for without
inventing stuff.)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

If Americans in Somalia were inspired by Clinton to committ crimes
then Clinton would be just as responsible for those crimes as Bush
would be for crimes he inspired at Abu Graib.

Blah,blah, blah. You politically motivated zelots won't ever stop. The issue
wasn't the ridiculous notion you've put fourth above, it was one of "ultimate
responsibility" versus "personal responsibility". Your fellow left wing lunatic
said Bush was "personally responsible" for Abu Garib because he was CinC. When
I applied that litmus test to the fiasco of Somalia circa 1993, he claimed
Clinton was not responsible *at all* (ultimately or personally), instead he
placed blame on Bush 41. If this is sound reasoning to you (and I'm quite sure
it will be) you are short on the ability to think rationally.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steve Hix wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message
...


Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import.
At least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
TANG.

Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.

No.

How about if you try again, or offer an explanation?

I am confident that you can write more than one sentence and
combine those sentences into coherent paragraphs which may serve
as the start of an intelligent discussion.

Please don't prove me wrong.

--

FF