Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 Google's San Fran Wackos/Commie-Libs dedicate their web page to some nobody, no one has ever heard of Ángela Peralta's 175th birthday instead of Nancy's 100th today. What a mess. 1
716er Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 It’s Tay Zonday’s birthday, too. Why does Google hate Chocolate Rain so much? What a mess
Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Author Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, 716er said: It’s Tay Zonday’s birthday, too. Why does Google hate Chocolate Rain so much? What a mess Never heard of her, but I agree. What a mess. Edited July 6, 2021 by Irv
LeGOATski Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 4 hours ago, Irv said: Google's San Fran Wackos/Commie-Libs dedicate their web page to some nobody, no one has ever heard of Ángela Peralta's 175th birthday instead of Nancy's 100th today. What a mess. I had to Google both of them. I'm a mess. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 Nary a mention of the Dalai Lama's 86th today? Kevin Hart's 42nd? Nancy's astrologist KNEW they'd do this to her but she was powerless to stop it. I am outraged!
JaCrispy Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 Got nothing against Nancy, but I really couldn’t care less... 2
reddogblitz Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 No mention of Michael Shrieve? Played drums for Santana in the early days. Played at Woodstock.
Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Author Posted July 6, 2021 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Nary a mention of the Dalai Lama's 86th today? Kevin Hart's 42nd? Nancy's astrologist KNEW they'd do this to her but she was powerless to stop it. I am outraged! They’re alive and 86 and 42 aren’t exactly major milestones.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Irv said: They’re alive and 86 and 42 aren’t exactly major milestones. George W. Bush 75 (which kind of surprised me ... he looks good!) would be a better source of outrage. I think Google didn't feature a doodle on the 75th anniversary of Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, something far rarer than the 100th birthday of a dead person. Really, First Ladies (or Gentlemen, when we get them) ought to be basically ignored. This is something that I really dislike in American politics, the focus on the First Lady as some kind of unofficial running mate or even worse, unelected, unvetted policy maker. Dennis Thatcher, American turns its lonely eyes to you. Edited July 6, 2021 by The Frankish Reich
Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Author Posted July 6, 2021 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: George W. Bush 75 (which kind of surprised me ... he looks good!) would be a better source of outrage. Really, First Ladies (or Gentlemen, when we get them) ought to be basically ignored. This is something that I really dislike in American politics, the focus on the First Lady as some kind of unofficial running mate or even worse, unelected, unvetted policy maker. Dennis Thatcher, American turns its lonely eyes to you. I don’t know about that. Can you say with a straight face Hillary did not influence Bill?
The Frankish Reich Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 Just now, Irv said: I don’t know about that. Can you say with a straight face Hillary did not influence Bill? I just did say that, noting that the even worse scenario is the "unelected, unvetted" policy maker, which obviously was directed at Hilary and Bill. But let's be honest here: Nancy Reagan, while a forever loyal spouse (and from what we've heard, inveterate grudge-holder against those she thought wronged Ronnie) was kind of an idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Quigley#:~:text=Quigley was born in Kansas,chief of staff Donald Regan. "Quigley was born in Kansas City, Missouri. She was called on by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1981 after John Hinckley's attempted assassination of the president, and stayed on as the White House astrologer in secret until being outed in 1988 by ousted former chief of staff Donald Regan."
Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Author Posted July 6, 2021 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: I just did say that, noting that the even worse scenario is the "unelected, unvetted" policy maker, which obviously was directed at Hilary and Bill. But let's be honest here: Nancy Reagan, while a forever loyal spouse (and from what we've heard, inveterate grudge-holder against those she thought wronged Ronnie) was kind of an idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Quigley#:~:text=Quigley was born in Kansas,chief of staff Donald Regan. "Quigley was born in Kansas City, Missouri. She was called on by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1981 after John Hinckley's attempted assassination of the president, and stayed on as the White House astrologer in secret until being outed in 1988 by ousted former chief of staff Donald Regan." Misinterpreted what you were trying to get across. Apologies. You’re on to something. Senile Joe is not running the country. Jill probably is. What a mess.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 1 minute ago, Irv said: Misinterpreted what you were trying to get across. Apologies. You’re on to something. Senile Joe is not running the country. Jill probably is. What a mess. And you'll perhaps be surprised to learn that I believe Joe Biden in 2021 and Ronald Reagan in 1981 are at approximately the same stage of mental decline. In other words, some slippage is apparent, but it's not so severe as to impact their respective abilities to perform their jobs (with the assistance of huge and skilled advisory staffs). Clearly by his second term Reagan had progressed beyond that point. Will Biden by 2024-25? Who knows? Decline in mental acuity is a given, whether some of dementia is diagnosed or not. But the rate of decline is different in different people, and I know no way of predicting it. Having said that, I don't think it's a good idea to be electing men (and the decline comes earlier in men) in their 70s (even worse: who will be in their 80s before their term ends) to the most important job in the world.
Irv Posted July 6, 2021 Author Posted July 6, 2021 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: And you'll perhaps be surprised to learn that I believe Joe Biden in 2021 and Ronald Reagan in 1981 are at approximately the same stage of mental decline. In other words, some slippage is apparent, but it's not so severe as to impact their respective abilities to perform their jobs (with the assistance of huge and skilled advisory staffs). Clearly by his second term Reagan had progressed beyond that point. Will Biden by 2024-25? Who knows? Decline in mental acuity is a given, whether some of dementia is diagnosed or not. But the rate of decline is different in different people, and I know no way of predicting it. Having said that, I don't think it's a good idea to be electing men (and the decline comes earlier in men) in their 70s (even worse: who will be in their 80s before their term ends) to the most important job in the world. I was in high school and college when President Reagan was in office. Yes he made many gaffes when public speaking. But this mess we have in office is worse. The only thing I could think of that could be worse is if that mental midget Harris became POTUS. For that I pray for senile Joe to complete his term. What a mess.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 6, 2021 Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Irv said: I was in high school and college when President Reagan was in office. Yes he made many gaffes when public speaking. But this mess we have in office is worse. The only thing I could think of that could be worse is if that mental midget Harris became POTUS. For that I pray for senile Joe to complete his term. What a mess. You're about my age then. Reagan went from being a gaffe machine to being seriously addled, at least at times (and those times came more frequently with time) toward the end. You are right, however: there is no comparison at all between the future Bush 41 and Kamala as veep. Bush 41 could make a legitimate claim to being the best qualified VP in history. Kamala, umm, not so much. Edited July 6, 2021 by The Frankish Reich 1
Recommended Posts