A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 12:22 In article <alangbaker-D3BA65.17141130072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> 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. He could also utter a complete sentence without destroying the English language. That helps.
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 12:24 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. Or should that be "dufi"?
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 12:24 In article <MPG.26bde7f6f63700a098a15b(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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? Did they ever put a man on the moon? QED.
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 12:30 In article <4c531ca1$0$15177$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:58:56 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > message > > news:clark-A95B1D.13455930072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> In article > >> <ac846e85-0adb-4709-9406-220d71ca8482(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > >> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Jul 30, 11:16 am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> So what color is the sky in your world? America didn't want the > >>>> scum here. Obama listened. A first for him. > >>> > >>> Are they worse scum than the rapists and child molesters that we > >>> incarcerate here? > >> > >> Or Anthony Breitbart? > > > > Another person who scares the libs as much as Palin. > > Wow, you are so completely and totally wrong. Breitbart and Palin are > known loons who will never be taken seriously by anyone but the far > right of the Republican party. I actually want them to be first thing > that pops into the heads of moderates when they think of the Republican > party, especially during election season. Go Sarah! Go Anthony! Amen.
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 12:31
In article <qk86565lh0qgaviqbfjacf1jikvlp0cast(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:53:33 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >news:4c531ca1$0$15177$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > >> Wow, you are so completely and totally wrong. Breitbart and Palin are > >> known loons who will never be taken seriously by anyone but the far > >> right of the Republican party. I actually want them to be first thing > >> that pops into the heads of moderates when they think of the Republican > >> party, especially during election season. Go Sarah! Go Anthony! > > > >It's Andrew actually. Obama is already running off the moderates in droves. > > > > You really are dreaming Mike. Why do you just follow the party line > thought? > > BK Because that way he only needs one sentence to express his entire philosophy? |