A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: bknight on 30 Jul 2010 22:00 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:23:11 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >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 > You were easily fooled Greg. He was called the "Teflon President" for good reason. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0608-01.htm BK
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jul 2010 22:04 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:24:25 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(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. Isn't that what happens every time the White House changes parties? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Carbon on 30 Jul 2010 22:07 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:51:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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. Ronald Reagan insisted last week that at no time did astrology determine policy. Strictly speaking, that appears to be so. But Regan and others make a compelling case that in 1986 and 1987 astrological influence dramatically reduced the presidency's effectiveness, at least partly, by keeping Ronald Reagan under wraps for much of the time. Nancy's intrusions in the scheduling process, Regan said in an interview with TIME last week, "began to interfere with the normal conduct of the presidency." I am honestly surprised you're defending this. It doesn't bother you that such an obviously superstitious, pliable person had his finger on the button?
From: Alan Baker on 30 Jul 2010 22:09 In article <4c53857f$0$4838$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:51:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > 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. > > Ronald Reagan insisted last week that at no time did astrology > determine policy. Strictly speaking, that appears to be so. But Regan > and others make a compelling case that in 1986 and 1987 astrological > influence dramatically reduced the presidency's effectiveness, at least > partly, by keeping Ronald Reagan under wraps for much of the time. > Nancy's intrusions in the scheduling process, Regan said in an interview > with TIME last week, "began to interfere with the normal conduct of the > presidency." > > I am honestly surprised you're defending this. It doesn't bother you > that such an obviously superstitious, pliable person had his finger on > the button? I'm not defending it: I'm distinguishing it. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jul 2010 22:08
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:51:26 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >It's his policies I don't like. And it will take some doing to undo them. >And Obama has already cost the country. Dearly. His policies of having the same bosses as his predecessor have cost this country dearly. The foreign wars, the drug war, Big Business welfare have increased our debt, kept the recession going, and have given more power to the fascist radio shows. But the question is - how are these going to be undone? Is there someone who can win who will get us out of those expensive wars? Is there someone who will say no to the moneyed special interests? Is there someone who is going to help the middle class and small business? Certainly the wealthy are selling their program to more voters. But that won't help anybody except the wealthy. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |