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 15:40 On Jul 31, 1:54 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4c542eaa$0$4990$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > 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. > > I have a better answer. America didn't care. In of itself, ripping off the > Iranians to support the Contras wasn't that bad of an idea. In terms of an > outstanding presidency, it was a bump in the road. > > -Greg It was a federal crime. And Reagan lied about it.
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:42 On Jul 31, 5:50 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article <MPG.26be3037a8c94fce98a...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <8bj63tFlh...(a)mid.individual.net>, d...(a)remove.ipns.com > > says... > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > >news:4c542eaa$0$4990$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > 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. > > > > I have a better answer. America didn't care. In of itself, ripping off the > > > Iranians to support the Contras wasn't that bad of an idea. In terms of an > > > outstanding presidency, it was a bump in the road. > > > It was a smart business decision. But, I wouldn't expect Carbon to > > understand what Iran-Contra was really about. > > Yes, it's really worked out well, vis a vis Iran, hasn't it? I wonder how many Americans those TOW missiles killed.
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:43 On Jul 31, 9:01 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > In article <8bj66lFm2...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around the > > > > world than science. > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > -Greg > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the game, > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in the > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > -Greg Are you a creationist?
From: John B. on 1 Aug 2010 15:52 On Aug 1, 1:46 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article <MPG.26bf616866ad2c6e98a...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <wclark2-D1994D.11114301082...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > Breitbart is a publisher and he made a business decision just like > > > > > > the > > > > > > NYT, WaPo and other media outlets. > > > > > > > Judgement on Breitbart's using your moral question is irrelevant. > > > > > > > Remember, government censor, businesses make decisions. > > > > > > So did he lie with the intention of misrepresenting the NAACP and Ms. > > > > > Sherrod or not? Simple question. Have the cojones to answer it. > > > > > He made a business decision. > > > > OK, so you simply refuse to see this as a total distortion of the truth > > > for political ends. Just goes to show how much any of your "opinions" > > > are worth. Absolutely nothing from a moral midget. > > > Exactly what was distored? > > Nothing was "distored" - the message of her remarks were "distorted" and > turned around 180 degrees by editing deliberately intended to deceive. That's not libel.
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Aug 2010 15:53
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:34:27 -0700 (PDT), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to >London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. So am I. -- "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 |