A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Alan Baker on 30 Jul 2010 22:22 In article <af175698cn7s32409qp252av5id7q40kh6(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >> 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. > > Agreed. He was much smarter than he appeared. And his conservative > values were much more selective than what most people either credit > him for or blame him for. I doubt he would have done many of the > more conservative things Obama has done. I think most politicians values are selective pretty much all the time. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 31 Jul 2010 01:57 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4c53857f$0$4838$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > Ronald Reagan insisted last week that at no time did astrology > determine policy. RR is dead. :) 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 read Regan's book. He had a chip on his shoulder from being canned as the COS. Regardless, fancy Nancy was a very difficult person. At a Coast Guard function, I heard a speaker who had served on Air Force 1 from Kennedy to Clinton. All the first ladies were gracious, sans one. Guess who?? > 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? Overstatement. -Greg
From: BAR on 31 Jul 2010 08:58 In article <4c5380fb$0$4855$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > 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. > The Romans used the various colors and configurations of the guts of animals to determine thier course of action. Were they any less successful for 1000 years?
From: Carbon on 31 Jul 2010 10:09 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:57:44 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4c53857f$0$4838$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> 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 read Regan's book. He had a chip on his shoulder from being canned > as the COS. > > Regardless, fancy Nancy was a very difficult person. At a Coast Guard > function, I heard a speaker who had served on Air Force 1 from Kennedy > to Clinton. All the first ladies were gracious, sans one. Guess > who?? > >> 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? > > Overstatement. Regan was pissed off, clearly. I don't blame him. But what better way to settle the score than by simply telling the truth? Nancy was obviously ambitious, domineering and not completely rational. And like most men who stay married to such women, her Ronnie went along to get along. Greg, I know how you feel about Reagan and I concede that he was a convincing issuer of platitudes and was very popular throughout his Presidency. This was partly because the scandals, such as the Iran-Contra affair, never seemed to stick to him. Now, why was that? IMHO, it was because when he went to the Hill and said "I don't know," and "I don't recall," all those hundreds of times, they believed him.
From: Carbon on 31 Jul 2010 10:12
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:58:21 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <4c5380fb$0$4855$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> 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. > > The Romans used the various colors and configurations of the guts of > animals to determine thier course of action. Were they any less > successful for 1000 years? Don't quit your day job. |