A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Carbon on 30 Jul 2010 21:28 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:44:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4c537169$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article <4c536d83$0$5003$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> In article <4c536921$0$5002$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:29:47 -0700, dene wrote: >>>>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:o6b656hpv3u229n27tdplr8kpn6hneppv4(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT), "John B." >>>>>>>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 3:24 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So will the next administration then be able to blame >>>>>>>>>> everything on Obama? Because Obama will certainly be leaving >>>>>>>>>> a mess. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If he leaves a mess, yes. Did you complain when Reagan blamed >>>>>>>>> everything on Carter? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carter was a terrible President, but I always laugh when >>>>>>>> Reagan is given credit for the release of the American >>>>>>>> abductees in Teheran. That happened during Carter's >>>>>>>> administration...the day before Reagan took office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the Iranians knew what was coming when Reagan took >>>>>>> office. >>>>>> >>>>>> When Reagan took office he was just another former B movie actor, >>>>>> and not a very good one at that. Not that the Iranians would have >>>>>> known or cared. The mythology came later. >>>>>> >>>>>> Truth is, he was just another dufus like Wubya, only much >>>>>> luckier. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I don't think that's fair. I think one of the key >>>>> differences between Reagan and G.W. Bush is that Reagan wasn't as >>>>> easily led around. He might not have had the education that Bush >>>>> had, but he had a more forceful personality, whereas Bush, Jr. was >>>>> more a "go along" kind of guy. >>>> >>>> Please read: >>>> >>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html >>> >>> That supports my point. >> >> How do you figure that? His wife had enormous influence on him based >> on the advice of... wait for it... an astrologer. > > 1. A wife is a life long companion and thus is *always* going to have > an enormous influence on her husband, if she chooses to avail herself > of it. > > 2. He chose to listen to her rather than go along with his staff. So? What difference does it make? He allowed his schedule to be set based upon the ramblings of his wife's astrologer. That's a dufus maneuver if there ever was one.
From: Alan Baker on 30 Jul 2010 21:33 In article <4c537c54$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:44:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <4c537169$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>> In article <4c536d83$0$5003$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>> In article <4c536921$0$5002$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:29:47 -0700, dene wrote: > >>>>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>>>>>> news:o6b656hpv3u229n27tdplr8kpn6hneppv4(a)4ax.com... > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > >>>>>>>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 3:24 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So will the next administration then be able to blame > >>>>>>>>>> everything on Obama? Because Obama will certainly be leaving > >>>>>>>>>> a mess. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If he leaves a mess, yes. Did you complain when Reagan blamed > >>>>>>>>> everything on Carter? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Carter was a terrible President, but I always laugh when > >>>>>>>> Reagan is given credit for the release of the American > >>>>>>>> abductees in Teheran. That happened during Carter's > >>>>>>>> administration...the day before Reagan took office. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Because the Iranians knew what was coming when Reagan took > >>>>>>> office. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When Reagan took office he was just another former B movie actor, > >>>>>> and not a very good one at that. Not that the Iranians would have > >>>>>> known or cared. The mythology came later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Truth is, he was just another dufus like Wubya, only much > >>>>>> luckier. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, I don't think that's fair. I think one of the key > >>>>> differences between Reagan and G.W. Bush is that Reagan wasn't as > >>>>> easily led around. He might not have had the education that Bush > >>>>> had, but he had a more forceful personality, whereas Bush, Jr. was > >>>>> more a "go along" kind of guy. > >>>> > >>>> Please read: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html > >>> > >>> That supports my point. > >> > >> How do you figure that? His wife had enormous influence on him based > >> on the advice of... wait for it... an astrologer. > > > > 1. A wife is a life long companion and thus is *always* going to have > > an enormous influence on her husband, if she chooses to avail herself > > of it. > > > > 2. He chose to listen to her rather than go along with his staff. > > So? What difference does it make? He allowed his schedule to be set based > upon the ramblings of his wife's astrologer. That's a dufus maneuver if > there ever was one. The difference is that his schedule is just not that important. *When* he did what he did is not nearly as important as *what* he did. If it made his wife happy, then what harm was there in it? The point it supports is that he wasn't being led around by the nose by people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: BAR on 30 Jul 2010 21:38 In article <8bhc0rFmiaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com says... > > Good grief. Reagan lifted a nation out of a severe recession, marked by gas > shortages, hyper inflation, umemployment, and double digit mortgages by > giving Americans a sense hope and patriotism while reducing government > spending, which O should do!! He inspired confidence and he stuck to his > principles, which led to winning the Cold War. > > He was the greatest presidence of my lifetime, yet all you can do is focus > on his goofy 2nd wife. > > As for the Iranian question, I think Reagan would have been far more > forceful than Rose Garden Carter. The means is speculation. His resolve > isn't. Greg, why are you arguing with the smartest sumbitch on the face of the earth?
From: Carbon on 30 Jul 2010 21:48 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:33:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4c537c54$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:44:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article <4c537169$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> In article <4c536d83$0$5003$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4c536921$0$5002$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>>>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:29:47 -0700, dene wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because the Iranians knew what was coming when Reagan took >>>>>>>>> office. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Reagan took office he was just another former B movie >>>>>>>> actor, and not a very good one at that. Not that the Iranians >>>>>>>> would have known or cared. The mythology came later. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Truth is, he was just another dufus like Wubya, only much >>>>>>>> luckier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, I don't think that's fair. I think one of the key >>>>>>> differences between Reagan and G.W. Bush is that Reagan wasn't >>>>>>> as easily led around. He might not have had the education that >>>>>>> Bush had, but he had a more forceful personality, whereas Bush, >>>>>>> Jr. was more a "go along" kind of guy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please read: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html >>>>> >>>>> That supports my point. >>>> >>>> How do you figure that? His wife had enormous influence on him >>>> based on the advice of... wait for it... an astrologer. >>> >>> 1. A wife is a life long companion and thus is *always* going to >>> have an enormous influence on her husband, if she chooses to avail >>> herself of it. >>> >>> 2. He chose to listen to her rather than go along with his staff. >> >> So? What difference does it make? He allowed his schedule to be set >> based upon the ramblings of his wife's astrologer. That's a dufus >> maneuver if there ever was one. > > The difference is that his schedule is just not that important. *When* > he did what he did is not nearly as important as *what* he did. > > If it made his wife happy, then what harm was there in it? > > The point it supports is that he wasn't being led around by the nose > by people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Let me make sure I understand: The President of the United States allowed an *astrologer* to set his schedule for him, and think it's somehow better than Wubya getting led around by his (non-astrologer) advisors. Why? I don't get it. They're both dufuses.
From: Alan Baker on 30 Jul 2010 21:51
In article <4c5380fb$0$4855$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:33:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <4c537c54$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:44:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>> In article <4c537169$0$4995$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>> In article <4c536d83$0$5003$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4c536921$0$5002$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:29:47 -0700, dene wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because the Iranians knew what was coming when Reagan took > >>>>>>>>> office. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When Reagan took office he was just another former B movie > >>>>>>>> actor, and not a very good one at that. Not that the Iranians > >>>>>>>> would have known or cared. The mythology came later. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Truth is, he was just another dufus like Wubya, only much > >>>>>>>> luckier. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, I don't think that's fair. I think one of the key > >>>>>>> differences between Reagan and G.W. Bush is that Reagan wasn't > >>>>>>> as easily led around. He might not have had the education that > >>>>>>> Bush had, but he had a more forceful personality, whereas Bush, > >>>>>>> Jr. was more a "go along" kind of guy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please read: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html > >>>>> > >>>>> That supports my point. > >>>> > >>>> How do you figure that? His wife had enormous influence on him > >>>> based on the advice of... wait for it... an astrologer. > >>> > >>> 1. A wife is a life long companion and thus is *always* going to > >>> have an enormous influence on her husband, if she chooses to avail > >>> herself of it. > >>> > >>> 2. He chose to listen to her rather than go along with his staff. > >> > >> So? What difference does it make? He allowed his schedule to be set > >> based upon the ramblings of his wife's astrologer. That's a dufus > >> maneuver if there ever was one. > > > > The difference is that his schedule is just not that important. *When* > > he did what he did is not nearly as important as *what* he did. > > > > If it made his wife happy, then what harm was there in it? > > > > The point it supports is that he wasn't being led around by the nose > > by people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. > > Let me make sure I understand: The President of the United States > allowed an *astrologer* to set his schedule for him, and think it's > somehow better than Wubya getting led around by his (non-astrologer) > advisors. Why? I don't get it. They're both dufuses. No. A husband humored his wife. He realized that in the grand scheme of things it didn't matter, and it made his wife happy. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |