From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 17:43
In article <5bce0345-50d7-414d-b91e-
63c4410f207f(a)u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> On Jul 31, 5:50�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > 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: Don Kirkman on 1 Aug 2010 17:46
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark
>>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
>>That's just another creationist crock.
>The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long
>The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not
>done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved
>from something else.
It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other
living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find
evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 17:47
In article <d20c051b-6230-45ce-bb98-66f493617716
@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> > > 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.
Tell me John, would an organization that promoted Asians be racist, what
about Caucasians? Just were is the line.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by
the content of their character."
Organizations that are based upon racial distinctions are racist.
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 17:49
In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99
@l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> 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.
I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or woman.
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 17:50
In article <wclark2-D509E7.13464501082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> In article <MPG.26bf616866ad2c6e98a180(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <wclark2-D1994D.11114301082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > state.edu>, wclark2(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.
You really do need to grow up and realize that the press has been
distoring peoples remarks for ever since the printing press was