A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:31 On Jul 30, 10:07 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:51:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <4c5380fb$0$4855$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:33:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>> In article <4c537c54$0$4995$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:44:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>> In article <4c537169$0$4995$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>> Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4c536d83$0$5003$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>>>> Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:14:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <4c536921$0$5002$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon > >>>>>>>>> <nob...(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 think it was Alzheimer's, not astrology, that kept him under wraps in his second term.
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:34 On Jul 31, 1:57 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(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 Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal.
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 15:35 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:11:22 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <wclark2-48697E.13012701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >> In article <MPG.26bf30409b5cfafb98a175(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR >> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >>> In article <alangbaker-6FE270.23073531072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >>> alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >>>> >>>>> So you are telling us that atheistic evolution isn't faith based? >>>> >>>> Answer me one question, Greg: >>>> >>>> How many years old do personally believe the earth is? >>> >>> Research says it is some 4 to 10 billion years old. >> >> Ah, in other words scientific evidence says so. Not 6,000 years, no >> dinosaurs with saddles on? > > You, Carbon and Baker are laughable each and every time you bring this > up. You are under the misguided impression that anyone who is in > disagreement with you is a fundie or some religious nut. Not necessarily. If you had any idea what the scientific method was you probably wouldn't jump to conclusions quite as much.
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:35 On Jul 31, 1:57 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(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 Regan had a chip on his shoulder, period. The guy was a mean-spirited prick before, during and after his service as COS.
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:39
On Jul 31, 1:43 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-5C18F7.12513931072...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > In article <4c536b4e$0$4970$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:37:55 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-C06CE9.13143130072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> In article <8bgpttFmc...(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" > > > >> <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >>>news:alangbaker-EDCC5B.13025030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > >>>> The full video is 43 minutes long. > > > > >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk> > > > > >>>> Don't you think a real journalist would have reviewed that before > > > >>>> putting up cherry-picked sections of it and passing judgement? > > > > >>> What makes you think he didn't have the whole video? > > > > >> If he did, that makes his actions even worse, because it has been > > > >> pretty much universally agreed that anyone who has seen the whole > > > >> video could never have made the claims of racism that Breitbart made. > > > > >> You're really digging yourself a hole here, Mike, and for what? > > > > > I not digging anything. Breitbart is attempting to show racism at the > > > > NAACP, not specifically to Sherrod. Whether you think he does or does > > > > not accomplish this is debatable. > > > > He was attempting to smear the NAACP, not "show racism." Look at his > > > deliberately misleading excerpt. Then look at the full video. Unless > > > you're totally demented you'll be able to see what he did. > > > I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "demented" bit :-) > > By definition the NAACP is a racist organization. That may be the dumbest thing you've ever said, but given the wealth of choices, it's really hard to say. |