You Know You're an Incurable Machead...
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Nick Naym on 17 Apr 2010 10:55 In article 170420100647179664%star(a)sky.net, Davoud at star(a)sky.net wrote on 4/17/10 6:47 AM: > Matthew Lybanon: >> I think the present Republican opposition to everything the Democrats >> want to do is disgraceful. "NO!" is not a policy. But the historical >> record is what it is. > > It's Obama. They are enraged that a man with African blood is > President. They are enraged at the American people for electing him > president. They are enraged that Obama would not have been elected if > the people had not judged that Bush II was worst President in modern > history (pushing Nixon down to #2). An wide-awake voter is their worst > enemy. > > They are determined to do whatever it takes--no matter what the cost to > the country--to see that Obama fails. But he has already succeeded > spectacularly and secured a place in the pantheon of great presidents, > and he will not fail. At that just leads to further rage. > > The so-called tea party? Nothing new there. The rich have always > schemed to find ways to get the poor to pay their taxes for them. > Wealthy welfare scum. > > Davoud I couldn't agree more. The only other president that came into office under somewhat similar circumstances was JFK: Young, relatively inexperienced, and the target of prejudice. Yet he didn't face such total, unreasonable Republican opposition, nor irrational anger from gun-toting, self-proclaimed patriots and other wingnuts. IMO, the biggest difference between JFK and Obama -- the difference responsible for the incredibly vitriolic opposition to Obama -- is Obama's African heritage. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 17 Apr 2010 12:33 In article <michelle-583385.08441517042010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <4bc9d455$0$10951$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Just out of interest, who do all y'all consider the worst president > > ever? I mean, since Washington? Is it Buchanan? > > There are too many to choose from, but off the top of my head, the list > includes Nixon, Bush 43, Andrew Johnson, and US Grant. Andrew Johnson wasn't nearly as bad as Buchanan or Harding. Johnson isn't even the worst should have never been President due to being VP and President dying. That goes to Tyler. A different category is most overrated President. The best choice here would be Monroe. Monroe served two terms, was elected unanimously during the "Era of Good Feelings" yet the only thing he really did was demonstrate the smarts to have John Quincy Adams who really ran the country. -- Remove blown from email address to reply.
From: Nick Naym on 17 Apr 2010 13:06 In article michelle-12D5B4.08421317042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/17/10 11:42 AM: > In article <C7EF4405.59742%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> JFK: Young, relatively inexperienced, > > He had served six years in the House of Representatives and seven years in > the Senate when he was elected president. I wouldn't call that > inexperienced. Compared to Humphrey and Nixon? > Other than that, I agree with you. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: George Kerby on 17 Apr 2010 15:03 On 4/17/10 12:06 PM, in article C7EF62D8.5976F%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > In article michelle-12D5B4.08421317042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, > Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/17/10 11:42 AM: > >> In article <C7EF4405.59742%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> JFK: Young, relatively inexperienced, >> >> He had served six years in the House of Representatives and seven years in >> the Senate when he was elected president. I wouldn't call that >> inexperienced. > > Compared to Humphrey and Nixon? > Or a "Community Agitat - er, Organizer"? ;-)
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 17 Apr 2010 19:32
In article <C7EF702A.4368E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4/17/10 12:06 PM, in article > C7EF62D8.5976F%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid, "Nick Naym" > <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > In article michelle-12D5B4.08421317042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, > > Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/17/10 11:42 AM: > > > >> In article <C7EF4405.59742%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> JFK: Young, relatively inexperienced, > >> > >> He had served six years in the House of Representatives and seven years in > >> the Senate when he was elected president. I wouldn't call that > >> inexperienced. > > > > Compared to Humphrey and Nixon? > > > Or a "Community Agitat - er, Organizer"? > > ;-) Well, the RepbliCANTS are considering having a half-term governor from Alaska who previously was a mayor of a town of 7000 run in 2012 so what's your point other than the one at the top of your head? -- Remove blown from email address to reply. |