Dem Sen. Ted Kennedy's KGB Correspondence

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“TwoTongues”]
Riiiiight, that’s why nobody picked up on this story in the mainstream media for the past few years, and that’s why it’s going nowhere now.

Many in the mainstream media have advanced journalism degrees. What point are you trying to make?

My point is you don’t write “drivel” “shill” “comtatose ronnie reagan” “no journalism degree” “a TV interviewer, not a reporter” “with only a BA in journalism” in a single paragraph and expect be taken seriously. At least by me. But then I don’t have a journalism degree either. :cactus:[/quote][/quote]
That is NOT my writing, I copied it there from the site that TC provided, it’s one of the online comments because it quickly summarized the level of inanity and BS that these smear jobs contain, without my having to spend any more time on it. Maybe those two guys COULD have used some more journalism training, because what they’ve produced is crap - that comment does NOT say you have to have journalism training to be objective, it’s saying they are not objective and have little or no journalism training. And if I am not “to be taken seriously” because of copying a comment questioning their level of objectivity and journalistic integrity, then what does that make these ding dongs who dig up this garbage and espouse it as the truth?

I’ve wasted too much time on this junk already, the only reason I’m still responding is because I have some respect for you’ve done in the past MM. This thread is a car accident.

[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“TwoTongues”]
Riiiiight, that’s why nobody picked up on this story in the mainstream media for the past few years, and that’s why it’s going nowhere now.

Many in the mainstream media have advanced journalism degrees. What point are you trying to make?

My point is you don’t write “drivel” “shill” “comtatose ronnie reagan” “no journalism degree” “a TV interviewer, not a reporter” “with only a BA in journalism” in a single paragraph and expect be taken seriously. At least by me. But then I don’t have a journalism degree either. :cactus:[/quote][/quote]
That is NOT my writing, I copied it there from the site that TC provided, it’s one of the online comments because it quickly summarized the level of inanity and BS that these smear jobs contain, without my having to spend any more time on it. Maybe those two guys COULD have used some more journalism training, because what they’ve produced is crap - that comment does NOT say you have to have journalism training to be objective, it’s saying they are not objective and have little or no journalism training. And if I am not “to be taken seriously” because of copying a comment questioning their level of objectivity and journalistic integrity, then what does that make these ding dongs who dig up this garbage and espouse it as the truth?

I’ve wasted too much time on this junk already, the only reason I’m still responding is because I have some respect for you’ve done in the past MM. This thread is a car accident.[/quote]

You need to lower the defenses a bit there captain. :wink: “Not taken seriously” refers to the writer of the comments you posted, not you. I think you have done a good job showing what nonsense TC is posting yet again. I don’t need to look through your links because we’ve seen this all too many times before. As you said, a five minute google search will usually prove that the Fcom right is spouting nonsense, distorting messages, and otherwise engaged in completely disingenous arguments.

I`m not surprised. JFK slept with East German hooker spies (Ellen Rometch) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_Arvad which have been documented by mainstream authors and journalists.

If booze and hookers were supplied to any Kennedy, they`d probably share information with just about anyone.

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“TwoTongues”]
Riiiiight, that’s why nobody picked up on this story in the mainstream media for the past few years, and that’s why it’s going nowhere now.
Many in the mainstream media have advanced journalism degrees. What point are you trying to make?
My point is you don’t write “drivel” “shill” “comtatose ronnie reagan” “no journalism degree” “a TV interviewer, not a reporter” “with only a BA in journalism” in a single paragraph and expect be taken seriously. At least by me. But then I don’t have a journalism degree either. :cactus:[/quote][/quote]
That is NOT my writing, I copied it there from the site that TC provided, it’s one of the online comments because it quickly summarized the level of inanity and BS that these smear jobs contain, without my having to spend any more time on it. Maybe those two guys COULD have used some more journalism training, because what they’ve produced is crap - that comment does NOT say you have to have journalism training to be objective, it’s saying they are not objective and have little or no journalism training. And if I am not “to be taken seriously” because of copying a comment questioning their level of objectivity and journalistic integrity, then what does that make these ding dongs who dig up this garbage and espouse it as the truth?

I’ve wasted too much time on this junk already, the only reason I’m still responding is because I have some respect for you’ve done in the past MM. This thread is a car accident.[/quote]
You need to lower the defenses a bit there captain. :wink: “Not taken seriously” refers to the writer of the comments you posted, not you. I think you have done a good job showing what nonsense TC is posting yet again. I don’t need to look through your links because we’ve seen this all too many times before. As you said, a five minute google search will usually prove that the Fcom right is spouting nonsense, distorting messages, and otherwise engaged in completely disingenous arguments.[/quote]
Well written. Impeccably worded. Grammatically precise. Easy to understand. To the point…err…well no. It isn’t…is it?
Nothing written by either of you two actually addresses the topic. Just a mutual surfeit of bombast.
It appears that both of you are incapable of speaking to the topic and would just prefer jousting for top position in this sad little pile-on.
TT - if all you can do is “cherry-pick” one post that suits your purpose from the comments section of a source article its time you realized you just ain’t got it. Just stick to subjects where your hand in reading comprehension, subject analysis, corollary topics and critical thinking skills are not overly taxed. It will make it easier for all of us.
MM - What can be said. You came…You smelled blood (although it was TTs)…you joined the attack…You were wrong again.
You don’t really add much to the thread content-wise. Just your SOP of looking for an opportunity to jump-in on someone whose politics you imagine is contrary to yours. Circle like a jackal and wait for someone else to start the scrum. Laughable in your predictability.
(of course your SOP is getting a response that will result in the thread being tempted or 86’d completely - its what your job is…right?)

This thread was merely a follow-up to the ones linked to in the OP. Just showing more information about Teddy that has become available. If it poked holes in one of your personal idols…well…balloons are just so prick-able…its fun to watch the hot air fizzling out of them… :roflmao:

Chewy - Now there is a topic!

Teddy Kennedy revisited? Where the hell is Chewycorns? He used to party with Ted in West Palm Beach! Come on Chewycorns? where are you now?!

The best thing about being a Kennedy must have been the inherited wealth derived from bootlegging. That would be enough to send any wavering Catholic in search of a truly original sin off the deep end. Too bad they didn’t maintain favour with various Families. Then maybe it might not have had to have looked like it was:"…when after all, you and me…", that killed the Kennedys.