Keith Olberman
ronde champ
kind of fodder in the midst of riding the pro-Lance bandwagon...
Keith Olbermann of ABC Radio wasn't enthralled by the selection of
Lance
Armstrong as Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year, saying: "Two
years
ago when Armstrong crossed picket lines to make a TV commercial, he
rationalized it by saying he was a cancer survivor who had to look out
for
his family -- completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of people who
make a few thousand dollars a year making commercials, certainly some
of
them had cancer in their families and none of them considered
themselves
too special to dishonor the strike by a union which Armstrong had
joined."
Dave Hansen
"ronde champ" <ronde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:atn8fa$jp4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
I would have to agree with Olberman on this one.
Dave
Boyd Speerschneider
"Dave Hansen" <dhans...@socal.rr.com> wrote in
news:z0KL9.150701$2z1.40...@twister.socal.rr.com:
Tom Kunich
"Boyd Speerschneider" <bspeers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92E78C2A7F20...@65.32.1.8...
G.T.
> Oh, good, then you don't mind United Airlines going out of business.
>
>
Give me a break. UA isn't going out of business because of the unions.
It's goint out of business because of moronic management.
Greg
--
"Walking under ladders for a living
You know we should be running round in pubs and bars
We know we'll never grow short
And we'll never grow tall" - the Mekons
Dave Hansen
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iEPL9.894$je6...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Oh, good, then you don't mind United Airlines going out of business.
No actually I do mind. Some of UAL's unions made concessions to help them out. The Fed Gov't who has
set aside money to help out the airlines since 9/11 of which UAL was the hardest hit, thought that
UAL's biz plan wasn't good enough for any of that bailout money. Christ how could a company like
that have any kind of decent biz plan in this jacked up economy. Why set up a "bailout fund and then
turn down the hardest hit airline when they need it. We should spend some money on some of our own
businesses instead of offering millions and millions of $ to some country to turn over a terroist
that they won't find anyways or know where he is at but harbor or won't divulge just to get our
money
Dave
ronde chimp
What bikes were the union workers riding?
Thanks,
Ronde Chimp
Scott Hendricks
It's easy to honor a strike when it doesn't cost you anything. Anyone
who makes a few thousand a year making commercials obviously isn't
getting rich at it, and likely finds it easy to make a stand, such
that it is, by foregoing the making of a commercial or two during a
strike.
But, put yourself in the position of someone who stands to lose many,
many thousands by not honoring sponsorship agreements, and suddenly
it's easier to see why he might say 'screw it, I'm making the
commercial'.
It's easy to be honorable and to take a stand, when you've got
relatively little or nothing to lose by doing so.
Besides, what the hell does Lance's crossing a picket line got to do
with the reason he was selected Sportsman of the Year?????
Ken Papai
"Scott Hendricks" <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:daa89b58.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "Dave Hansen" <dhans...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<z0KL9.150701$2z1.40...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > "ronde champ" <ronde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:atn8fa$jp4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> It's easy to be honorable and to take a stand, when you've got
> relatively little or nothing to lose by doing so.
>
> Besides, what the hell does Lance's crossing a picket line got to do
> with the reason he was selected Sportsman of the Year?????
Nothing. Zero. You're right of course.
-Ken
Adam Hodges Myerson
at hendric...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/18/02 4:20 PM:
> Besides, what the hell does Lance's crossing a picket line got to do
> with the reason he was selected Sportsman of the Year?????
Because sportsmanship requires being a respectful, thoughtful, and
considerate individual and teammate, as well as a talented athlete. The
award is Sportsman of the Year, not Athlete of the year.
Crossing the picket line of a union you're a member of isn't a very
sportsmanlike thing to do, though Lance obviously does many other
thoughtful, charitable things.
Adam
(Winner, 1980 Ashfield Elementary School Floor Hockey League Sportsmanship
Award, 3rd grade)
Kyle Legate
> It's easy to honor a strike when it doesn't cost you anything. Anyone
> who makes a few thousand a year making commercials obviously isn't
> getting rich at it, and likely finds it easy to make a stand, such
> that it is, by foregoing the making of a commercial or two during a
> strike.
>
> But, put yourself in the position of someone who stands to lose many,
> many thousands by not honoring sponsorship agreements, and suddenly
> it's easier to see why he might say 'screw it, I'm making the
> commercial'.
>
> It's easy to be honorable and to take a stand, when you've got
> relatively little or nothing to lose by doing so.
>
Do you think Nike (or whomever) would drop Lance's sponsorship if he asked
them to wait a week or two until the strike was over? Are they really that
fickle?
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
leg...@mcmaster.ca Kyle Legate leg...@hotmail.com
Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
moon musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
gopher
<ad...@cycle-smart.com> wrote:
>
>(Winner, 1980 Ashfield Elementary School Floor Hockey League Sportsmanship
>Award, 3rd grade)
LMAO @ AHM's sig!
The Pomeranian
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Oh, good, then you don't mind United Airlines going out of business.
Well I don't mind them going belly up.
> Give me a break. UA isn't going out of business because of the unions.
> It's goint out of business because of moronic management.
I think the employees (unions) own 55% of the company and have 3
directors on the board. So sure, management was moronic and that is
partly due to the unions themselves, since they had a say. UA had the
highest paid workers in the industry. If they get out of trouble,
that's fine with me. But I don't want tax dollars bailing out
shareholders, many of whom happen to be employees. That company needs
to die, and die quick, if they can't get their shit together. No
bailouts for fuckups and their investors.
If Joe's Plumbing "down the street" gets into trouble, Joe won't be
getting any federally guaranteed loans. Neither should UA get one
fucking red cent of taxpayer dollars.
Tom Kunich
news:dsQL9.150818$2z1.40...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:iEPL9.894$je6...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Oh, good, then you don't mind United Airlines going out of business.
>
> No actually I do mind. Some of UAL's unions made concessions to help them
out. The Fed Gov't who has
> set aside money to help out the airlines since 9/11 of which UAL was the
hardest hit, thought that
> UAL's biz plan wasn't good enough for any of that bailout money. Christ
how could a company like
> that have any kind of decent biz plan in this jacked up economy. Why set
up a "bailout fund and then
> turn down the hardest hit airline when they need it.
Because without a reasonable business plan it would only be money down a
rathole. All UAL needed was the machinists unions to cut some slack. They
refused and that refusal meant that there was no bailout. It was all in
black and white and everyone but one union went for it. Why should you and I
lose tax dollars because of some union's refusal to see what is really their
own best interest? A bailout should be based on the idea that it really is a
bailout and we won't need to cover the expenses of loans lost to a
bankruptsy.
ronde chimp
wrote:
What bikes were the machinists and lobbyists riding?
Thanks,
Ronde Chimp
Frank Tantillo
competitive transportation industry) is crucial to the country's economic
health - Joe Shit the Rag Man down the street is a much smaller cog
I don't disagree with your post, but there is a lot at stake when a company
like UAL fails. Admittedly, the marketplace will decide who lives and who
dies, so perhaps we should just let UAL expire, or be purchased by another
airline - maybe a foreign one....
Most importantly - what the fuck would happen to my million plus frequent
flier miles???
"The Pomeranian" <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
news:3E010CB7...@smellslikeakennel.com...
chiefhiawatha
<ad...@cycle-smart.com> wrote:
> Crossing the picket line of a union you're a member of isn't a very
> sportsmanlike thing to do, though Lance obviously does many other
> thoughtful, charitable things.
Forced to join the union to even film a commercial. Give me a break. Lance
isn't "IN" the union. He would be a total dumbass to not film a commercial
just because some acting guild decided they wanted three dozen donuts per
day. He has nothing in common with those people, and they have nothing in
common with him. Lance is not an actor. He's an athlete with a business to
protect and opportunities which come his way for a very very short time.
Boyd Speerschneider
No one's holding a gun to their (collective) head.
I union is only as strong as its solidarity.
So Tom, what's your solution to the problem?
Outlaw unions?
I think G-Dub agrees with you, ie. threatening to call in the National
Guard to break up union strikes in California shipyards. *That* worries
me a hell of a lot more than UA's plight.
Ahhh, I can see it now: The return to 19th century industrial era
laissez-faire economics.
Read some Dickens, then let me know how his universe appeals to you.
I realize this is an extrapolation, but effect does follow cause. At
least in the logic courses I've taken.
- Boyd S.
"More gruel sir?" - Oliver Twist
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:iEPL9.894$je6.432
@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Sam
"Frank Tantillo" <f.tan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AV8M9.68344$hK4.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The reality of the situation is that UAL (as a major component of a
> competitive transportation industry) is crucial to the country's economic
> health - Joe Shit the Rag Man down the street is a much smaller cog
>
> I don't disagree with your post, but there is a lot at stake when a
company
> like UAL fails. Admittedly, the marketplace will decide who lives and who
> dies, so perhaps we should just let UAL expire, or be purchased by another
> airline - maybe a foreign one....
>
> Most importantly - what the fuck would happen to my million plus frequent
> flier miles???
Well, American, Delta and a host of others would jump in an
offer you a spot in their program since you are obviously a loyal customer
and would remain loyal to them.
Sam
> They (UA) have the right to hire non-union employees.
> No one's holding a gun to their (collective) head.
> I union is only as strong as its solidarity.
>
> So Tom, what's your solution to the problem?
> Outlaw unions?
> I think G-Dub agrees with you, ie. threatening to call in the National
> Guard to break up union strikes in California shipyards. *That* worries
> me a hell of a lot more than UA's plight.
slowdown. When did W threaten to call in the National Guard? I missed that
but I was traveling during some of the work stoppage.
Oh yeah, I am not fan of unions in their current state.
Harold Buck
"Sam" <marat...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, I am not fan of unions in their current state.
>
California?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
Tom Kunich
> They (UA) have the right to hire non-union employees.
> No one's holding a gun to their (collective) head.
> I union is only as strong as its solidarity.
>
> So Tom, what's your solution to the problem?
> Outlaw unions?
Are you unaware that the union and it's members were important
stockholders in the company?
> I think G-Dub agrees with you, ie. threatening to call in the National
> Guard to break up union strikes in California shipyards. *That* worries
> me a hell of a lot more than UA's plight.
Nice to see your historic perspective. GW is hardly the first and
won't be the last President to order troops in to break illegal
strikes. Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
> Ahhh, I can see it now: The return to 19th century industrial era
> laissez-faire economics.
I suggest you really do study history instead of skimming it and
pretending. The right to strike is inherent. The right to be taken
seriously is not. Those who think that Lance had any responsibility to
honor anyone else's strike is stupid beyond ignorance. I suggest you
actually try to get work in the media before you spout that sort of
thing. You cannot even get a job on TV without being forced to join
one union or another. You have no choice.
> Read some Dickens, then let me know how his universe appeals to you.
> I realize this is an extrapolation, but effect does follow cause. At
> least in the logic courses I've taken.
So it's you position that the owners of the company should fight among
themselves over who is going to get a bigger piece of the pie while
the whole thing crumbles? Or is it your position that the taxpayers of
this country owe it to the union to support them even when they are
unreasonable?
Tom Kunich
> They (UA) have the right to hire non-union employees.
> No one's holding a gun to their (collective) head.
> I union is only as strong as its solidarity.
>
> So Tom, what's your solution to the problem?
> Outlaw unions?
When I belonged to a union I found out their dirty little secrets.
They took my money and used it to support political causes and
politicians that I did not agree with. When the local voted 99% to
strike, National came in and told us that they were the ones that told
us what to do and if we didn't do it we were all fired. We worked for
the union and not them for us! When we voted to use our strike fund to
help another union we found out that all of our local officers were
only figureheads - national had their "secretary" at local who
controlled everything and who was the only one that could sign checks.
It was the union and not the company that forced us all to clock in
only starting on the exact minute and it was the union and not the
company that told me that if I was late again I'd be fired. What was
late? 15 seconds after the starting minute the clock stamp turned from
blue to red. 20 guys had to clock through in that 15 seconds and if
you got a red clock, even though you were there standing in line, you
were late.
It was the union and not the company that opressed the workers.
No, I don't think that they ought to outlaw unions. When they had the
shipyard strike on the Pacific coast early last century they took some
of the early movies of the strike and on the front of the line
throwing the biggest rock was my maternal grandfather.
But anyone that gives his rights to an organization cannot blame
anyone else when that organization abuses them.
Jon Fiedler
> in article daa89b58.02121...@posting.google.com, Scott Hendricks
> at hendric...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/18/02 4:20 PM:
>
>
>>Besides, what the hell does Lance's crossing a picket line got to do
>>with the reason he was selected Sportsman of the Year?????
>
>
> Because sportsmanship requires being a respectful, thoughtful, and
> considerate individual and teammate, as well as a talented athlete. The
> award is Sportsman of the Year, not Athlete of the year.
>
I'd also note that it's Sportsman of the YEAR. This whole picket line
crossing thing happened two years ago, so it really shouldn't apply to
this years' voting. Unless you consider the award to be more along the
lines of "Sportsman Who's Done Great Things And Now We'll Give Him Some
Award For That".
Lance dominated in the Tour this year and that's why he's a deserving
winner.
Jon
Tom Paterson
>Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
>of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright lie.You
know that action was not even close to 100% popular. Just like when he ate
grapes on TV while his state police beat striking farm workers with
nightsticks. What a service to the growers, helping to pepetuate an uneducated
population of serfs.
If you want to say that firing the ground controllers made your very own
rock-hard Republican heart beat once or twice for joy, go ahead. Just don't say
that everyone felt the same, it wasn't even close.
"Ronald Reagan, the man who made it fashionable to hate the poor."
Long time no see, Kunich. --Tom Paterson
cucycln
just throwing out figures!
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021219105332...@mb-fv.aol.com...
Scott Hendricks
Do you think Lance's filming of that commercial had any effect on the
strike or the union's demands??
Corey Green
line - or working 18 hour shifts for a $1.00 - they had a real cause
and a real purpose.
Now days they strike because they were offered $18.21 an hour to screw
in three bolts on a transmission instead of the $18.25 they asked for.
I don't think anyone on this newsgroup would turn down LARGE NIKE
$$$$$ because a union was arguing over a few cents on their contract.
Kyle Legate <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.33.02121...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>...
John Lieswyn
bankruptcy?
As I understand it, they are still in business and will remain in business
after emerging from bankruptcy court.
"G.T." <eth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:b4QL9.519$Nf6.45...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
The Pomeranian
>
> The reality of the situation is that UAL (as a major component of a
> competitive transportation industry) is crucial to the country's economic
> health - Joe Shit the Rag Man down the street is a much smaller cog
It doesn't matter one bit. If there are customers lining up the planes
will fly. Who gives a rats ass whether it's UA or DeadWeight Airways?
I don't think the govenment should get in the business of deciding only
the big guys are important. That makes competition unfair to the little
guys. It seems rather commonplace these days for folks to complain
about "corporate power;" letting insolvent corporations die is one way
of solving the problem, if you think it is a problem. I like the
playing field to be as level as an airport runway.
> I don't disagree with your post, but there is a lot at stake when a company
> like UAL fails. Admittedly, the marketplace will decide who lives and who
> dies, so perhaps we should just let UAL expire, or be purchased by another
> airline - maybe a foreign one....
Sounds fine to me.
> Most importantly - what the fuck would happen to my million plus frequent
> flier miles???
Those with "miles owed" can line up with all the other UA creditors in
bankruptcy court, just like all the other creditors for all the other
businesses that couldn't figure out how to survive.
The Pomeranian
>
> Umm, is UA going out of business or reorganizing under chapter 11
> bankruptcy?
>
> As I understand it, they are still in business and will remain in business
> after emerging from bankruptcy court.
Yes, it is currently a re-org plan. But the crux of taking your company
into bankruptcy is you no longer have the ability to steer your own
plane however you wish, if you don't mind the pun. The court is looking
out for the creditors as much as the bankruptcy filing *temporarily*
protects UA from the creditors who want to collect the debt owed them.
The creditors get to "state their case" to the court, and so to a point
they now have a say in how those planes are steered. If the judge (and
really the creditors) think the company's re-org plan won't work, then
the banruptcy will turn to Chapter 7 (liquidation). Naturally this
means the company does not emerge.
I sure don't know what will happen (liquidate or emerge), but I do know
that the creditors will be looking to get the most pennies on the
dollars owed to them. If they like the re-org plan, and it proceeds
well (they are getting paid), then they will support the re-org.
However, if they don't like it, they'll state their case to the court;
if the judge is convinced the creditors are correct, then he/she is
_obligated_ to make sure the creditors recover as much as possible.
That could mean liquidation (or an adjustment to the re-prg plan) and
there is nothing UA can do about it if the court orders it. "Not being
able to do anything about it" is the down side to bankruptcy -- you hand
over your company's reins/fate to the court.
If you can't keep your house in order, you lose your house. It is as
it should be.
The Pomeranian
>
> >From: Tom Kunich
>
> >Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
> >of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
>
> No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright lie.You
> know that action was not even close to 100% popular. Just like when he ate
> grapes on TV while his state police beat striking farm workers with
> nightsticks. What a service to the growers, helping to pepetuate an uneducated
> population of serfs.
>
> If you want to say that firing the ground controllers made your very own
> rock-hard Republican heart beat once or twice for joy, go ahead. Just don't say
> that everyone felt the same, it wasn't even close.
I've never been a Reagan fan, but I have to admit that the firing the
air traffic controllers was pretty fucking cool.
For a overall review of the Reagan presidency, and most importantly one
that isn't steeped in love/hate polemics, I think the following book is
the best I've seen so far (I own it):
And then Krugman's book is pretty decent in touching on some of the
economic factors of the Reagan administration:
I own that one too; Krugman is a "liberal," whatever that is.
Tom Kunich
> >From: Tom Kunich
>
> >Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
> >of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
>
> No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright lie.
On August 5, 1981 Reagan fired all of the 11,600 ground controllers
for staging an illegal strike.
In 1980 Reagan won with 51% of the popular vote against Carter's 41%
and almost ten times more electoral votes than Carter.
In 1984 Reagan won with 59% of the popular vote and a whopping 97.5%
of the electoral vote.
Who is trying to change history Paterson? It couldn't be your stupid
lying self could it?
ronde chimp
What the fuck does this have to do with bikes or racing? Pls take this
discussion elsewhere - like alt.whothefuckcares.
Thanks,
Ronde Chimp
Kyle Legate
> dusto...@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message news:<20021219105332...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
> > >From: Tom Kunich
> >
> > >Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
> > >of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
> >
> > No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright lie.
>
> On August 5, 1981 Reagan fired all of the 11,600 ground controllers
> for staging an illegal strike.
>
> In 1980 Reagan won with 51% of the popular vote against Carter's 41%
> and almost ten times more electoral votes than Carter.
>
> In 1984 Reagan won with 59% of the popular vote and a whopping 97.5%
> of the electoral vote.
>
So you're saying that his re-election victory had everything to do with a
single forgettable event that occurred 3 years before the election took
place?
Tom Kunich
news:WJoM9.397495$WL3.117194@rwcrnsc54...
> Umm, is UA going out of business or reorganizing under chapter 11
> bankruptcy?
>
> As I understand it, they are still in business and will remain in business
> after emerging from bankruptcy court.
The court takes over the reorganization and if the creditors can't agree
then the airline will be disolved. I expect that they will agree since
Boeing, a major creditor, doesn't want their used airliners back.
Tom Paterson
>On August 5, 1981 Reagan fired all of the 11,600 ground controllers
>for staging an illegal strike.
>
>In 1980 Reagan won with 51% of the popular vote against Carter's 41%
>and almost ten times more electoral votes than Carter.
>
>In 1984 Reagan won with 59% of the popular vote and a whopping 97.5%
>of the electoral vote.
>
>Who is trying to change history Paterson? It couldn't be your stupid
>lying self could it?
Thanks for the numbers. Not even anywhere close to 100% voted for Regan,
therefore I'd say it's safe to assume that a significant number of American
citizens did not approve of his firing of the controllers. As usual, the lie is
yours-- "...made the entire country proud...". No, he didn't, and you knew that
when you said it. A lie.
"Illegal" strike? Weren't you just bragging elsewhere in this thread about your
maternal grandfather throwing rocks during a labor disturbance? Is throwing
rocks, apparently at people and property, a legal activity, Tom?
Just like old times. Merry Christmas (assuming you haven't gone Wicca or
something) TK! --Tom Paterson
Tom Paterson
>I've never been a Reagan fan, but I have to admit that the firing the
>air traffic controllers was pretty fucking cool.
Almost stated as an opinion. Not quite.>For a overall review of the Reagan
presidency, and most importantly one
>that isn't steeped in love/hate polemics, I think the following book is
>the best I've seen so far: (snip link).
Thanks, I'll look for that. Got any on Iran/Contra, in general, and
specifically the cocaine in the CIA planes, and the rise of the Cali cartel?
TIA, Tom P.
Tom Paterson
>Pls take this
>discussion elsewhere
OK. Done. On my end. --Tom Paterson
Tom Kunich
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.02121...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> them to wait a week or two until the strike was over? Are they really that
> fickle?
Yes, we get your point Kyle - boooooohooooo, the little guy is getting
screwed. Of course you DO know what the strike was about don't you?
Tom Kunich
make me feel bad. Sure. Reagan brought the largest majority of the popular
vote in modern history and almost an all time record for electoral votes -
but no, not 100%.
We'll have to remember that - the Tom Paterson litmus test for popularity -
100% or nothing.
Try scraggling this way and that even more Paterson. You are growing funnier
by the minute.
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021219200528...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Tom Paterson
>I think you're about to start crying at any minute and that would probably
>make me feel bad.
Do I have to google the girlfriend thing again, Tommy?>Reagan brought the
largest majority of the popular
>vote in modern history and almost an all time record for electoral votes -
>but no, not 100%.
>
>We'll have to remember that - the Tom Paterson litmus test for popularity -
>100% or nothing.
>
>Try scraggling this way and that even more Paterson. You are growing funnier
>by the minute.
The biggest margin he showed was your 59% of the popular vote. That's not even
close to 2/3rds, and the your electoral votes are numbers rhetoric. Many, many
people didn't like Regan then or now. Compared to Iran Contra, firing the
controllers was fairly minor stuff as far as I'm concerned.
It's just a matter of stating opinions as such, Kunich, instead of spinning in
order to impute opinions or reactions to others who do not share in agreement.
Firing the controllers did not make the whole country proud. "I loved it when
he fired the controllers" or some such statement would be a more accurate
expression. I for one did not like or agree with that action. I don't think it
was anything to be proud of, along with Iran Contra, having (at least) one of
the most corrupt administration in American history, dismal economic
policies/results, etc.
--Tom Paterson
G.T.
> dusto...@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message news:<20021219105332...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
>
>>>From: Tom Kunich
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
>>>of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
>>
>>No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright lie.
>
>
> On August 5, 1981 Reagan fired all of the 11,600 ground controllers
> for staging an illegal strike.
>
> In 1980 Reagan won with 51% of the popular vote against Carter's 41%
> and almost ten times more electoral votes than Carter.
>
He was a very good actor, better than when he was an actor.
> In 1984 Reagan won with 59% of the popular vote and a whopping 97.5%
> of the electoral vote.
>
He was a very good actor, better than when he was an actor.
TritonRider
>
>Greg
>
left office the way all of you whine on call like Pavlov's dogs when Reagan is
mentioned. I don't think we will be the left has institutionalized whining and
victim chic.
Bill C.
G.T.
>>From: The Pomeranian
>
>
>>I've never been a Reagan fan, but I have to admit that the firing the
>>air traffic controllers was pretty fucking cool.
>
Right on! Smack down the working man!
Greg
--
"I like coffee, it likes me
I'd like to have some Maxwell House coffee
Watcha call this cuppa a shit coffee?
Why I'd rather drink from the dick of a goat
I tell ya mother fucker that's all she wrote
A cuppa cuppa cuppa cuppa coffee
And Maxwell House is the best coffee
I like coffee and it likes me" - Killdozer
G.T.
Yep, the hypocrite fascists will whine for centuries about a couple of
misplaced blowjobs while the rest of us have forgiven Reagan's federal coke
dealing debacle. Due to his senility the man couldn't comprehend the CIA's
coke dealing so he deserves a break.
cucycln
TritonRider
>Right on! Smack down the working man!
>
>Greg
>--
You want to talk about working men, you should've worked the dairy farm I did
growing up. The ATC he fired had great pay for little work and that wasn't
enough. All my AF friends who ended up taking those jobs thought they'd gone to
heaven.
Keep fighting for those $23/hr laborers who are still whining on the
construction sites I work at.
Bill C.
G.T.
I agree with you. That's insane! They should be paid only $3.50 an hour!
Laborers shouldn't be able to support their children or spouses in their
wages. In fact, they shouldn't have children at all. They should be
forced to live their entire lives in migrant laborer camps!
Exploit the proletariat! Exploitation and unethical behaviour is what has
made this country great!
Ken Papai
"The Pomeranian" <.com...
> John Lieswyn wrote:
> >
> > Umm, is UA going out of business or reorganizing under chapter 11
> > bankruptcy?
> >
> > As I understand it, they are still in business and will remain in
business
> > after emerging from bankruptcy court.
>
> it should be.
So....... Greg......
The terrorists taking out two UAL planes on 9-11 is
part of United "not keeping their house in order?" WTF?
How soon will American Airlines follow United?
Those terrorists are mostly responsible for the shit the
airlines are in now.
Back to bike racing.... I know how much you
like talking so much about other subjects.
-Ken
Ken Papai
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h5zM9.11$QA...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I think you're about to start crying at any minute and that would probably
> make me feel bad. Sure. Reagan brought the largest majority of the popular
> vote in modern history and almost an all time record for electoral votes -
> but no, not 100%.
>
> We'll have to remember that - the Tom Paterson litmus test for
popularity -
> 100% or nothing.
At that point Kunich declares, as he should,
complete and total victory over Paterson.
Bravo!!
>
> Try scraggling this way and that even more Paterson. You are growing
funnier
> by the minute.
Exactly.
TritonRider
>I agree with you. That's insane! They should be paid only $3.50 an hour!
> Laborers shouldn't be able to support their children or spouses in their
>wages. In fact, they shouldn't have children at all. They should be
>forced to live their entire lives in migrant laborer camps!
>
>Exploit the proletariat! Exploitation and unethical behaviour is what has
>made this country great!
>
>Greg
>--
I'm not sure what world you live in. A LOT of skilled people, including me
don't make that and do just fine. I work, so does my wife, our three kids are
not wanting for anything they NEED. Volvos, AWD Subarus, $5 Lattes are not
needs! You people are so spoiled. Rich little pricks whining about how tough it
is. I didn't see a whole lot of you when I was covered in cow shit and grease,
or when I was laying pipe in trenches. The people who do the actual work don't
need your superior patronizing bullshit.
Bill C.
G.T.
>>From: "G.T." eth...@sbcglobal.net
>
>
>>I agree with you. That's insane! They should be paid only $3.50 an hour!
>> Laborers shouldn't be able to support their children or spouses in their
>>wages. In fact, they shouldn't have children at all. They should be
>>forced to live their entire lives in migrant laborer camps!
>>
>>Exploit the proletariat! Exploitation and unethical behaviour is what has
>>made this country great!
>>
>>Greg
>>--
>
> I'm not sure what world you live in. A LOT of skilled people, including me
> don't make that and do just fine. I work, so does my wife, our three kids are
> not wanting for anything they NEED.
So you're wife neglects your kids by working? 40 hours a week? That's
sad. My Mom nor none of my friends' Moms had to work to help support the
family 30 years ago.
> Volvos, AWD Subarus, $5 Lattes are not
> needs!
I have a 1972 VW Bug with 387,439 miles on it. I go out to dinner once
very 2 months if I can afford it. And I make my own coffee.
> You people are so spoiled. Rich little pricks whining about how tough it
> is.
Who said I was rich? I'm whining because I'm poor. Why would I be whining
if I were rich?
> I didn't see a whole lot of you when I was covered in cow shit and grease,
> or when I was laying pipe in trenches. The people who do the actual work don't
> need your superior patronizing bullshit.
>
My patronizing bullshit? Seems the patronizer is my boss who pays me $8 an
hour to run the company while he goes off golfing with his fellow
exploiters, er, CEOs.
Greg
--
"I like coffee, it likes me
I'd like to have some Noble House coffee
Watcha call this cuppa a shit coffee?
Why I'd rather drink from the dick of a goat
I tell ya mother fucker that's all she wrote
A cuppa cuppa cuppa cuppa coffee
And Noble House is the best coffee
TritonRider
>very 2 months if I can afford it. And I make my own coffee.
>
>> You people are so spoiled. Rich little pricks whining about how tough it
>> is.
>
>Who said I was rich? I'm whining because I'm poor. Why would I be whining
>if I were rich?
>
>> I didn't see a whole lot of you when I was covered in cow shit and grease,
>> or when I was laying pipe in trenches. The people who do the actual work
>don't
>> need your superior patronizing bullshit.
>>
>
>My patronizing bullshit? Seems the patronizer is my boss who pays me $8 an
>hour to run the company while he goes off golfing with his fellow
>exploiters, er, CEOs.
>
>Greg
So you feel the need to place the blame on someone else: ie boss, govt., robber
barons, unfeeling conservatives.
I wasn't going to live that way, I went to a Voc. school learned hardware
electonics, Air Force Comm/Computer, did electrical eng. classes while in. Got
out went to the H-D factory sponsored school (GI Bill and loans)and became a
certified tech.(first job doing what I wanted to) With wife as stay at home dad
back to Europe w/military. Son and daughter raced for a German team in Ge, It.,
Fr. and Be. travelled saw and did things most kids never will. Came back, tired
of motorcycle shop BS. Worked/working for contractor doing a bit of everything
plumbing, electrical, occasionaly digging holes, but mostly cause I wanted to
found high end remodeling stuff where I could work on my finish carpentry
skills worked for $13/ hr for the last two years for a flexible schedule so I
could do things with kids. This spring I will be starting a new business with
my partner building on our efforts of the last two years. We are not going to
get rich, but we will be doing what we want.
Doesn't take someone to hand it to you. You want it you find a way to make
it happen. To get it back on bike racing I'd guess my story would be pretty
typical for those who have chosen to find a way to make a living in bikes.
Racers, promoter, shop owners found a way to do it cause they wanted to, not
because someone handed it to them.
Bill C.
Tom Paterson
>At that point Kunich declares, as he should,
>complete and total victory over Paterson.
Is he gonna leave, too? Bravo!!
Ken, you're tripping over your politics. --Tom Paterson
The Pomeranian
I guess you're saying both that "airport security" wasn't an oxymoron
before 9-11 and that all of UA's problems are due to 9-11 alone.
How many times did I watch the news where air security experts said they
had been hammering the government and airlines for more than a decade
about the lame state of security but no one gave a shit? Ever hear of
Pan Am Flight 103 and Lockerbie? That was 1988. The idea of
terrorists using planes as weapons didn't occur to only the terrorists.
No one wanted to be "inconvenienced" and "expensed" by troublesome
airport security.
So no, as guilty as the terrorists are for what they did, UA doesn't
deserve taxpayer dollars. The price of two UA planes is chicken change,
so I don't know why it is especially important that two of them happened
to be UA planes. Sure, we'll pay for the two planes. Now if we can
just find someone to ride on them. How does Southwest fly at a profit?
http://www.iflyswa.com/investor_relations/fs_news_releases.html
Tom Kunich
news:7gLM9.228428$C8.6...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> ????????????????????????????????????????
> "G.T." <eth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:qrKM9.3120$k75.99...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > TritonRider wrote:
> > >>He was a very good actor, better than when he was an actor.
> > >
> > > after he left office the way all of you whine on call like Pavlov's
dogs
> > > when Reagan is mentioned. I don't think we will be the left has
> > > institutionalized whining and victim chic.
> >
> > Yep, the hypocrite fascists will whine for centuries about a couple of
> > misplaced blowjobs while the rest of us have forgiven Reagan's federal
> > coke dealing debacle. Due to his senility the man couldn't comprehend
> > the CIA's coke dealing so he deserves a break.
The CIA hired some rather questionable people at that time and apparently
there was some of them flying cocaine into the country on one of the CIA
transfer flights. Of course he has that all screwed up since it was the Bush
(elder) administration that was involved in that and not the Reagan bunch as
he so ignorantly assumes.
You see, people like Greg like to blame Reagan pesonally for that. While he
doesn't believe that Clinton used to steal money from old people using the
MacDougals and the Whitewater Land Company. And it isn't like Bill didn't
know it. At parties he used to laugh about the money he was making
foreclosing on retired people's homes - he called the money his "MacBucks".
Greg also conveniently forgets that Clinton was dealing directly with
corruption by taking illegal campaign money from the Red Chinese military
intelligence in CASH. And that Al Gore personally asked to be the go-between
in these deals and was carrying illegal campaign "donations" which were
nothing but tens of thousands of dollars in cash bribes into the White House
in bags! All of this is a matter of public record. The FBI has made
publically available the reports on this and we all heard Gore telling us
that he didn't think that there was anything wrong with this because there
was "no controlling legal authority" - meaning that there was no police with
the authority to prosecute him for it even though it was illegal.
We'll conveniently forget the Mena, Arkansas, murders of two young boys or
the fact that Clinton associates were identified at the scene. We'll also
forget that it was common knowledge in Arkansas that Clinton was being paid
by the Colombian Cartel to look the other way when the cocaine flights that
Greg is talking about took place.
We'll also forget the death in the Whitehouse that was pretty plainly VERY
illegally covered up by the CIA and FBI.
We see GT crying about the union busting of Reagan for the Air Controllers
who were UNDER STRICT CONTRACTS to never strike as it was a matter of public
safety. For giving up their right to strike they were given very good
working conditions and very high wages compared to commercial business wages
and benefits for equal work. The country was battling out of Jimmy Carter's
depression when retired people saw their savings go down the drain as
inflation hit 14% and unemployment was rife. At the worst point of this
problem, some of the fatest fucking cats in all of the federal bureaucracy
told - TOLD - the government that they wanted a raise and they were willing
to risk the public safety to get it contract or no contract.
We won't hear GT or that idiot Paterson mention that. Instead we hear them
suggesting that somehow the poor air controllers were kicked around by a
power hungry or uncaring Ronald Reagan.
I haven't seen Greg saying anything about how Clinton had the FBI murder a
woman with a baby in her arms (oh, yeah, scratch that, they were really
trying to murder a 14 year old boy and accidently killed his step mother) at
Ruby Ridge in Montana. Nor have we seen any comments about those 86 killed
in Waco, TX, or anything about the long term coverup about the use of
military weapons and personel against American civilians inside of America
which is strictly against the law.
Instead we see GT whining about making $8/hr.
You know what Greg? When I didn't like the wage I was making I bettered
myself. Apparently you want to force someone to pay you more for the same
job. Good luck.
Frank Tantillo
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/11/14/83510
....and vince foster
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3nbN9.562$b97....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
G.T.
>
> You know what Greg? When I didn't like the wage I was making I bettered
> myself.
You've bettered yourself? Wow, I hate to wonder what you were like before
you bettered yourself!!!
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
G.T.
> let's not forget secretary of commerce ron brown
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/11/14/83510
>
> ....and vince foster
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
>
Spooky!
The Pomeranian
>
> Thanks, I'll look for that. Got any on Iran/Contra, in general, and
> specifically the cocaine in the CIA planes, and the rise of the Cali cartel?
No, I don't. If I really wanted to read about specific "important
events" during the Reagan administration, I would probably research the
collapse of the Soviet Union because it was so much more important.
While I don't know much about Iran/Contra, and do suspect it was a dirty
crooked business, I think you give away your primary motivation for a
political (power) weakening of the "other side" just like Kunich does.
Sure I think it is good to hammer away at crooked politicians but would
rather do it without regard to the political party. Please be an equal
opportunity basher. At a minimum, if you can't be objective, please be
clever enough to make it appear so.
G.T.
> Tom Paterson wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks, I'll look for that. Got any on Iran/Contra, in general, and
>>specifically the cocaine in the CIA planes, and the rise of the Cali cartel?
>
>
>
> No, I don't. If I really wanted to read about specific "important
> events" during the Reagan administration, I would probably research the
> collapse of the Soviet Union because it was so much more important.
>
I'd research the administration's training of Osama since that's clearly
much more important to US history than the collapse of the Soviet Union
(something Reagan barely had an effect on). Or maybe research the complete
lack of sane US foreign policy since WWII.
The Pomeranian
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> > Tom Paterson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Thanks, I'll look for that. Got any on Iran/Contra, in general, and
> >>specifically the cocaine in the CIA planes, and the rise of the Cali cartel?
> >
> >
> >
> > No, I don't. If I really wanted to read about specific "important
> > events" during the Reagan administration, I would probably research the
> > collapse of the Soviet Union because it was so much more important.
> >
>
> I'd research the administration's training of Osama since that's clearly
> much more important to US history than the collapse of the Soviet Union
> (something Reagan barely had an effect on). Or maybe research the complete
> lack of sane US foreign policy since WWII.
Well that stumps me -- all I can do is steal Chung's line to Kunich:
"Oh dear!"
Defeated and in complete despair,
Pom-Pom
Tom Paterson
>While I don't know much about Iran/Contra, and do suspect it was a dirty
>crooked business, I think you give away your primary motivation for a
>political (power) weakening of the "other side" just like Kunich does.
I'm specifically attacking the supposed superior moral ground held by
Reagan/Bush etc., and their conservative, rightwing boosters, whatever title
they go by.
>If I really wanted to read about specific "important
>events" during the Reagan administration, I would probably research the
>collapse of the Soviet Union because it was so much more important.
That's your call. As long as you don't give RR total credit for it, like
financial prosperity during the Clinton years, it's a point of view. --Tom
Paterson
Canuck
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>
> >If I really wanted to read about specific "important
> >events" during the Reagan administration, I would probably research the
> >collapse of the Soviet Union because it was so much more important.
>
> That's your call. As long as you don't give RR total credit for it, like
> financial prosperity during the Clinton years, it's a point of view.
Reagan shouldn't even get partial credit. The Soviet defense spending did
not increase in the 80's. They collapsed because of the bureaucratic nature
of their centrally planned economy restricted its ability to adapt to
change. Communist economies work at the beginning because they are set up
for the existing conditions. As time passses, those conditions change, but
the economy can't react fast enough because of Central Planning.
Our economy, while not perfect, is nowhere nearly as vulnerable as the
Communist economy because inefficient producers are allowed to go out of
business. The bike manufacturer that makes the crappy shifting, expensive
gruppo will not survive if another manufacturer does the same job better. In
the Communist economies, inefficient enterprises were allowed to continue
until eventually they overwhelmed the economy, like a cancer (cells that
consume, but do not produce) overwhelming its human host.
The Pomeranian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Re: Did Reagan bring down USSR?
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:15:34 -0400
From: Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com>
Organization: Happy Skeptics of America
On Wed, 30 May 2001 04:46:12 GMT, "Brian Turner"
<myr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:hp66htcdv56uv7i8h...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 May 2001 03:09:53 GMT, "Brian Turner"
>> <myr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Chasna1" <cha...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:20010528042831...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps everybody on earth is lying. Perhaps the USSR never really fell.
>> >> Perhaps the US fell instead.
>> >>
>> >> Or, perhaps you should try reading a newspaper.
>> >
>> >Brilliant rebuttal sir. However, I'm still waiting for how Reagan's
>> >policies impacted internal politics of the USSR.
>>
>> Read Gorbachev's autobiography.
>>
>> He says they did, and he was there. ;-)
>
>Seems like I read something about this in Rush Limbaugh's book. Gorb said
>something like Reagan's rhetoric scared the USSR big shots. If this is what
>you are referring to....
Weren't you the one in another thread who told the econ student to
learn some history before believing what he read in a textbook?
Is this what you meant by learning history? Coming up with your own
critique of "something" it "seems like" Rush Limbaugh wrote, about
"something" that Gorbachev said about Reagan's rhetoric?
And thus you understand the fall of communism. Sheesh.
>this in no way says Reagan caused the USSR to
>collapse. The CPSU isn't going to just resign because Reagan called them
>names.
Silly straw man argument.
>In fact, as you know, they didn't step down, they were forced down
>by a popular uprising which Reagan had nothing to do with.
>
>Gorbachav came to power, Gorbachav ended the subjication of Eastern Europe,
>and internal repression. So, people felt emboldened to protest, the regime
>was unwilling to use violence to suppress it, they tried to negotiate and
>plea for continued rule, but the people decided to go with Yeltsin.
Considering the aggressive, repressive record of the Soviets up to and
including the early 1980s (Afghanistan, etc.), you could insert maybe
six or a dozen "why?"s in the above short paragraph, inquiring about
the causes behind the sudden shift to such enlightened, humanistic
policies on the part of the regime -- even though the changes sealed
its own doom and that of its allies. But it seems you're not curious.
Was it really just that "Gorbachev came to power"? A nice guy at last,
so they suddenly didn't want to repress anyone any more?
I was in Prague in '68 and got to enjoy the protective custody of the
Red Army for about a week, but that Brehznev was nasty. The Czechs'
had bad luck there. And I was in East Germany just before the wall
came down and the Stasi were still very nasty -- I guess they hadn't
gotten the be nice message yet. ;-(
>End result, Reagan's admirers take dubious credit.
>
>If you are referring to some other statement by Gorbachav, save me the
>trouble of digging it up
Oh, now we see how you *really* value history.
I hope that econ student is reading this. ;-)
Why read primary sources about the end of the cold war written by the
people who ended it when one can get snippets from usenet, logically
refute vague memories of Rush Limbaugh, and consider oneself well
informed about it all?
>and summarize it here please.
That's amusing. Summarize the end of the cold war in usenet post. ;-)
Oh, well, here's a thimbleful:
Yes, indeed, in retrospect communism as an economic system was
"doomed" -- but it wasn't doomed to end in the 80's, nor the 90's, nor
the 00s. Many "doomed" regimes, today and in history, have used force
to preserve themselves for decades, with a lot less than an arsenal of
1,000s of nuclear weapons. And in the 80s there were *plenty* of
hardliners well experienced in using force throughout the East and in
the Soviet government and the Communist party and on the Politboro.
(Gorbachev had a "right wing" to deal with that was a lot bigger than
Reagan's.)
Nor was it doomed to end peacefully. Many regimes that maintain
themselves by force finally go down in character.
(A friend of mine who's an historian -- and a rather left-leaning one,
as most faculty ones are these days, but one who prefers *intelligent*
arguments when critiquing the right -- once pointed out to me that as
an economic system National Socialism was unsustainable and "doomed"
by the late 1930s. But this did not lead to a happy 1940s for those
leaders then around to "take the credit") .
More to the point, perhaps, the strategies that competitors adopt
reflect what *they* think *at the time* -- not what we think in
retrospect. And the Soviets in no way thought they were "doomed" in
the 80s. And the West didn't think they were doomed either.
The Soviets knew they had economic problems in the early 80s, but they
thought they could fix them. That's no reason to raise the white flag.
Instead they adopted the standard strategies for someone in that
position of "divide the opposition" and "delay the outcome" until
things can fixed up.
With that specific purpose, one (of many) strategies you may remember
they adopted was the deployment of theater missiles targeted at
Europe, to divide Europe's interests from the US (would the US risk
itself by striking the CCCP if the latter hit Europe but not the US?),
and to motivate separate "disarmament" movements in the West. And
you may remember the great grief this caused the Carter
Administration, which never came up with an effective counter.
You may also remember how people laughed at Reagan's counter -- the
"zero option": " You pull out all your missiles, we do nothing (by
not putting any in)". IIRC, the PBS bio of Reagan had a bunch of film
of all kinds of politicos from the time ridiculing this idea that the
Russians unilaterally disarm.
Then, a few years later, the Soviets came back *asking* for the zero
option! Golly, what happened? What happened was that the Reagan
Administration did two things:
First, it took a hard and skilled political/military line that united
the governments of western Europe in a tough response to the Soviet
deployment, in spite of all the domestic political pressures the
latter had successfully stirred up.
That didn't "just happen" as an impersonal force of history --
Carter's people couldn't do it and if you *read history* you know
precious few people at the time thought Reagan's could.
The result was the Soviets got a clear message that "divide and
delay" wasn't going to work, and they felt a ratcheting up of economic
pressure accordingly. Anybody who says the Soviets didn't feel a real
increase economic pressure during this period as a result of changed
Western policies is ignorant of primary sources, a knave, or in
denial.
But that didn't *topple* the Soviets, they still could have gone on
for a long time.
Secondly, and attributable to Reagan personally, his Administration
gave the other side a *way out*. If you ever become a negotiator
you'll know that you can't get a best solution to a dispute just by
squeezing the other guy -- you've got to squeeze *and* give the other
side something they value, that maybe you wouldn't have to give except
for the fact that you have some foresight.
People who paint cartoon caricatures of Reagan as some kind of
dim right-wing anti-communist obsessive forget how he was savaged *by*
the political right in US for how much he *gave* to the Soviets from a
position of strength. George Will famously called Reagan's policies
"the moral equivalent of disarmament", etc.
But Reagan was really different from others on the right in that
he didn't want to *win* the cold war like others did, he wanted to
*end* it.
Reagan's administration was unique -- no other Democratic
Administration could be tough and put on pressure like it did, and no
other rightish Republican administration was going to be happily
talking about nuclear arms reductions of 30%, 50%, even 100%, to take
the economic pressure *off* the Soviets, after gaining the negotiating
advantage. (Reagan had to put down near mutinies among his own people
as it was. And can anyone even *imagine* Carter offering the Soviets
"50% off" on ICBMs in a way the world would take seriously?)
This is all a long way from the cartoon claim that Reagan unilaterally
arm wrestled the Soviets to their knees until they cried "uncle".
But it's every bit as much cartoon foolishness to say Eastern Europe
suddenly went free because one day Gorbachev came to power and he was
a nice guy who didn't want to repress people any more.
Gorbachev was a life-long Soviet apparatchik who was well experienced
at being on the oppressor's side. Granting that he had much more
enlightened goals and intentions than his predecessors -- and that's a
fact -- he had his own *massive* right wing forces to deal with before
he could just go about downsizing the military and "tearing down that
wall".
Reagan's administration always had that in mind and made many
concessions that they really didn't have to make, of the kind that
many other governments of other times failed to make under similar
circumstances -- to their long-term cost.
Gorbachev has said many times that he and Reagan *together* changed
the course of history in Europe, that Reagan was a person he trusted,
and that this made the events of the '80s possible. Read his recent
comments urging the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reagan.
("The award of the Gold Medal of the U.S. Congress to Ronald
Reagan is a fitting tribute. Together with Ronald Reagan, we took the
first, most important steps to end the Cold War and start real nuclear
disarmament...." )
I'll close with a few words from Gorbachev's arms negotiator and
foreign minister, Alexander Bessmertnykh...
~
"The end of the Cold War was not inevitable. It was ended by human
beings, people who were dedicated to eradicating this part of human
history...
Gorbachev and his advisors valued Reagan more than American
liberals...
As for common things, the two men were very idealistic. Their
ideals were not the same, but their dedication to their ideals was
similar. They both believed in something. They were not politicians to
trim their sails to go the way the wind blows. They immediately sensed
this in each other, and this is why they made good partners....
Reagan handled negotiations very, very well ... He used little
cards when he came to the formal details, but then would throw away
the cards and start talking directly...
I was across the table from this President at all the summits and
followed him for all those years, and I personally admire the man very
much. He was a good politician, a good diplomat, very dedicated.
If it were not for Ronald Reagan, I do not believe we would have
been able to reach the agreements in arms control we reached later,
because of his idealism -- because he thought we really should do away
with nuclear weapons.
Gorbachev believed in that. Reagan believed in that.
The experts didn't believe in that. But the leaders did."
_Witnesses to the End of the Cold War,_ William C. Wohlforth, ed.,
~~
"We were able to make a difference"
-- Gorbachev to Reagan, May 3, 1992, Santa Barbara, CA.
~~
That's a thimbleful. For some actual knowledge read some books by the
people who were there, not third-hand stuff by people with agendas.
Nor usenet posts.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > You know what Greg? When I didn't like the wage I was making I bettered
> > myself.
>
> You've bettered yourself? Wow, I hate to wonder what you were like before
> you bettered yourself!!!
First I was making $2.10 per hour in 1967 and that wasn't even a living
wage. Then I was making $3.45 per hour and I wasn't complaining that my boss
was screwing me. I went out and found a job that would pay me more. And then
more. And then more. Now I'm a project manager at a multinational company.
You seem an above average intelligence individual. If I could do it so could
you. But you have to want to do something instead of just complain about it.
Canuck
"The Pomeranian" <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
news:3E068B15...@smellslikeakennel.com...
> RR get's as much credit as he is due. No more, no less.
Granted, Reagan deserves credit for diplomatic breakthroughs w/ Gorbachev.
What he doesn't deserve credit for is the old saw about "the Soviet Union
was spent (defense budget) into submission"
I am used to adressing that old wives' tale which in this case is the straw
man. My apologies.
G.T.
> "G.T." <eth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:_LfN9.280$jl7.17...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>You know what Greg? When I didn't like the wage I was making I bettered
>>>myself.
>>
>>You've bettered yourself? Wow, I hate to wonder what you were like before
>>you bettered yourself!!!
>
>
> First I was making $2.10 per hour in 1967 and that wasn't even a living
> wage. Then I was making $3.45 per hour and I wasn't complaining that my boss
> was screwing me. I went out and found a job that would pay me more. And then
> more. And then more. Now I'm a project manager at a multinational company.
>
Wow, sounds pretty simple. With that attitude everybody should be able to
make over a million year. Shit, why not a billion a year? I just thought
of something! We should raise the minimum wage up to $481 per hour. Then
everyone would be happy!
Damn, I forgot the fact that someone who isn't as smart as Tom Kunich needs
to be exploited to make capitalism work, and with no checks in place we can
exploit those below him to the fullest! Same with the environment!
Rock on little doggy!
Greg
--
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end."
Tom Paterson
>RR get's as much credit as he is due. No more, no less.
Depends on who's (note correct use of apostrophe) talking, of course. He
doesn't get much-if-any credit from me, but then I don't believe in the myth of
Ronald Reagan. --Tom Paterson
The Pomeranian
>
> >From: The Pomeranian
>
> >RR get's as much credit as he is due. No more, no less.
>
> Depends on who's (note correct use of apostrophe) talking, of course.
Yes, I get sloppy with my writing. No, it should not be about who is
doing the talking.
> He doesn't get much-if-any credit from me, but then
> I don't believe in the myth of Ronald Reagan.
I'm not asking you to believe any "myth" because I don't know "the
story" myself. What I am asking for is a fair and impartial analysis;
drop the partisan bullshit.
Tom Paterson
>I'm not asking you to believe any "myth" because I don't know "the
>story" myself.
Thank you.
> What I am asking for is a fair and >impartial analysis;
How's this: "They're all liars, scoundrels, and cheats". Every single one of
them.
>drop the partisan bullshit.
I think it's telling that I'm the one who is told to get out, called
names/ridiculed, have my personal intergrity questioned if not plainly called a
liar, or is a target of "drop the partisan bullshit".
First, did you tell Kunich the same? Second, it's not bullshit. You're going to
build (for instance) a Ronald Reagan up, I'm going to talk about the necromancy
(or necro-Nancy, if you prefer) and the weekend at the cabin before they were
married and she was even decently divorced, and Iran-Contra, etc., rather than
let Kunich or others think they have agreement on their pronouncements of
propaganda and cant ("Insincere esp.conventional expressions of enthusiasm for
high ideals, goodness, or piety." (Websters NUU Dictionary)
--Tom Paterson
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "G.T." <eth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:_LfN9.280$jl7.17...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >>>You know what Greg? When I didn't like the wage I was making I bettered
> >>>myself.
> >>
> >>You've bettered yourself? Wow, I hate to wonder what you were like before
> >>you bettered yourself!!!
> >
> >
> > First I was making $2.10 per hour in 1967 and that wasn't even a living
> > wage. Then I was making $3.45 per hour and I wasn't complaining that my boss
> > was screwing me. I went out and found a job that would pay me more. And then
> > more. And then more. Now I'm a project manager at a multinational company.
> >
>
> Wow, sounds pretty simple. With that attitude everybody should be able to
> make over a million year. Shit, why not a billion a year? I just thought
> of something! We should raise the minimum wage up to $481 per hour. Then
> everyone would be happy!
No wonder you can't get better wages. You can't understand the basics
of the capitalist system.
> Damn, I forgot the fact that someone who isn't as smart as Tom Kunich needs
> to be exploited to make capitalism work, and with no checks in place we can
> exploit those below him to the fullest! Same with the environment!
And you then go one to prove that you don't understand the capitalist
system. Somehow you think that someone that can't rise above their own
limitations is being exploited.
If Fred the caveman couldn't feed himself he died. If Fred the US
Citizen can't feed himself he can get government assistance to keep
him at a subsistence level. If Fred the marginal worker can only make
$8/hr then he must learn to live on $8/hr or figure out how to make
more.
I'm not into making everyone equal as you are. Screw those who
accomplish anything and give it to those who don't. But of course we
all have seen Greg's real feelings when he tells us that he's the one
running his bosses company. Some pigs are more equal than other
comrades huh Greg?
The Pomeranian
>
> >From: The Pomeranian
>
>
> How's this: "They're all liars, scoundrels, and cheats". Every single one of
> them.
Hey, well that makes it all so easy. They are all the same and all
hopeless so we don't even need to care about separating fact from
fiction. Let us simply bicker.
> >drop the partisan bullshit.
> ...
> First, did you tell Kunich the same?
Okay. From now on you get equal status with Tom K. Congratulations.
But both you and Tom will need to paddle furiously to catch up with GT.
My money says you can't make it.
TritonRider
>I'm not into making everyone equal as you are. Screw those who
>accomplish anything and give it to those who don't. But of course we
>all have seen Greg's real feelings when he tells us that he's the one
>running his bosses company. Some pigs are more equal than other
>comrades huh Greg?
>
Tom, the last time I checked there was no law against, and a ton of resources
and support for, opening your own small business. If you don't like the way
things are change them. Sitting around bitching and whining just creates more
whiners. Other options are employee owned co-ops, socialy conscious
independent firms, organic farms etc. The world would be a lot better place if
people like Greg and Patterson would put their energy where their mouths are
and create some "fair" jobs. I know a lot of people who have done, or are doing
this. I don't always see eye to eye with them, but, I have a lot of respect for
them forwalking the walk.
Bill C.
Tom Paterson
>Hey, well that makes it all so easy. They are all the same and all
>hopeless so we don't even need to care about separating fact from
>fiction. Let us simply bicker.
They aren't all the same. Not hopeless, the point is separating fact from
fiction. Bickering will ensue.
>Okay. From now on you get equal status with Tom K. Congratulations.
It's a step up, depending on who is responding.
>But both you and Tom will need to paddle furiously to catch up with GT.
>My money says you can't make it.
I like to think I can recognize a compliment when I see one. So-- Ah, yeah,
thanks.
Excuse, should that have not been "pedal", before RC (whether Chimp, Chump,
Champ) objects for relevancy? --Tom Paterson
G.T.
I'm disappointed. I guess you guys just don't recognize my parody of a
commie. I'm actually a reactionary anarchist. I'd like to deregulate
civilization back to the days when men were men and the only way to get
ahead was to be strong enough to carry a bigger T Rex thigh bone. And know
how to use it.
Greg "DEVO" T.
Tom Paterson
>The world would be a lot better place if
>people like Greg and Patterson would put their energy where their mouths are
>and create some "fair" jobs. I know a lot of people who have done, or are
>doing
>this. I don't always see eye to eye with them, but, I have a lot of respect
>for
>them forwalking the walk.
>
>Bill C.
I'm a) retired, and b) reluctant to accept life assignments from others who do
God knows what with their own time and resources.
Let's see, I should spend 14-16 hours a day, six or seven days a week (called
"running your own business) doing something I don't need or want to do, in
order to get some sort of "respect" from you that doesn't include looking me in
the eye unless the way I run my biz suits your ideology? Pass. --Tom Paterson
TritonRider
>commie. I'm actually a reactionary anarchist. I'd like to deregulate
>civilization back to the days when men were men and the only way to get
>ahead was to be strong enough to carry a bigger T Rex thigh bone. And know
>how to use it.
>
>Greg "DEVO" T.
>
Any anarchist has NOT thought it through, even you are not that lost. I am not
quite as far out as Tom is though. I think we need to provide a reasonable
system for giving anyone who wants to use it a chance to succeed. I'm not even
against second chances for people, everyone screws up. We do need education
reform, we also need reform in those cultures who don't consider education
valuable. We need to stop telling young people "Don't even try. The evil
exploiters will get you."
Education reform here in Mass is a great example of how screwed up the system
is. We ended up with a terrible standardised test for graduation. The reason
this happened is that the Mass Teachers Union insisted NO reform was neccessary
and refused to even discuss the subject. The left sided with the union. The
right wing wackos, with no input from saner minds went wild. The kds got
slammed because pinheads on BOTH sides were too busy playing power politics to
give a shit about the people.
Greg, I'd put money on you going out with the union.
Bill C.
TritonRider
>do
>God knows what with their own time and resources.
>
>Let's see, I should spend 14-16 hours a day, six or seven days a week (called
>"running your own business) doing something I don't need or want to do, in
>order to get some sort of "respect" from you that doesn't include looking me
>in
>the eye unless the way I run my biz suits your ideology? Pass. --Tom
>Paterson
>
>
week to read to an elementary school class, or help at a shelter, or Health
Center. With your experience you'd be a real asset. Hell go tell 'em cycling
stories and at least get them outside. My real bitch is people who just spout
and whine and do nothing. If you are not doing something constructive, you are
part of the problem.
Bill C.
G.T.
>
> Any anarchist has NOT thought it through, even you are not that lost. I am not
> quite as far out as Tom is though. I think we need to provide a reasonable
> system for giving anyone who wants to use it a chance to succeed. I'm not even
> against second chances for people, everyone screws up. We do need education
> reform, we also need reform in those cultures who don't consider education
> valuable.
Yes, exactly. We need to reform our consumer-oriented culture that it's
important to learn rather than to hope that you some day have a shoe named
after you.
> We need to stop telling young people "Don't even try. The evil
> exploiters will get you."
The only people telling kids that are a few misguided coaches, rap stars,
and drug dealers.
> Education reform here in Mass is a great example of how screwed up the system
> is. We ended up with a terrible standardised test for graduation. The reason
> this happened is that the Mass Teachers Union insisted NO reform was neccessary
> and refused to even discuss the subject. The left sided with the union. The
> right wing wackos, with no input from saner minds went wild. The kds got
> slammed because pinheads on BOTH sides were too busy playing power politics to
> give a shit about the people.
Switch union with management here in LA Unified and you get the same story.
There are power trippers on both sides of the fence. Sometimes the
idiots are in management, other times they are in labor.
> Greg, I'd put money on you going out with the union.
>
Going out where? The pasture?
Woe be to the worker when he or she no longer has collective bargaining
power. Not everyone can be king of the hill.
Greg
--
/dev/wd0a / ffs rw,softdep 1 1
/dev/wd0d /var ffs rw,nodev,nosuid,softdep 1 2
/dev/wd0e /tmp ffs rw,nodev,softdep 1 2
/dev/wd1a /home ffs rw,nodev,softdep 1 2
Tom Kunich
>
> I'm a) retired, and b) reluctant to accept life assignments from others
who do
> God knows what with their own time and resources.
>
> Let's see, I should spend 14-16 hours a day, six or seven days a week
(called
> "running your own business) doing something I don't need or want to do, in
> order to get some sort of "respect" from you that doesn't include looking
me in
> the eye unless the way I run my biz suits your ideology? Pass. --Tom
Paterson
No, you stupid ass, if you don't want to make anything different yourself
stop telling others that they ought to.
Tom Kunich
news:20021223174931...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> >
> You'd get just as much respect from me if you volunteered a couple of
hours a
> week to read to an elementary school class, or help at a shelter, or
Health
> Center. With your experience you'd be a real asset. Hell go tell 'em
cycling
> stories and at least get them outside. My real bitch is people who just
spout
> and whine and do nothing. If you are not doing something constructive, you
are
> part of the problem.
Paterson isn't in to actually doing anything. Only in criticizing those who
do.
The Pomeranian
>
> >From: The Pomeranian
>
> ... Bickering will ensue.
I just realized we don't speak the same language. Sorry... no
comprend...
> >Okay. From now on you get equal status with Tom K.
>
> It's a step up, depending on who is responding.
Good grief! It is getting really hard to insult people these days.
Tom Paterson
>No, you stupid ass, if you don't want to make anything different yourself
>stop telling others that they ought to.
Hey Tom, stop being obnoxious for a moment and think (deep breath, that's two
different things. One at a time.). I came in on this one where I didn't agree
with your "assessment" of the Reagan handling of the Air Traffic Controllers
strike. Remember? Ah, how is that "telling others about making things
different" to use your eloquent expression?
>stupid ass,
That's not a very nice way to talk about someone who corrects your many grammar
and spelling mistakes for free. Think of it as an hour or two a week of public
service, that'll help. I promise I won't let them slip by as I've been doing
lately while lurking. Better?
Merry Christmas TK. See any ghosts so far this year? --Tom Paterson
G.T.
I love being insulted by anonymous neanderthals named after annoying little
doggies almost as much as I love being insulted by clueless dorks named
Tom. It's as cute and inefficacious as an infant blowing a raspberry.
Tom Kunich
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >From: "Tom Kunich"
>
> >No, you stupid ass, if you don't want to make anything different yourself
> >stop telling others that they ought to.
>
> with your "assessment" of the Reagan handling of the Air Traffic
Controllers
> strike. Remember? Ah, how is that "telling others about making things
> different" to use your eloquent expression?
This is what the conversation was:
>>From: Tom Kunich
>>Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
>>of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
> From: Tom Paterson
>No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright
lie.You
>know that action was not even close to 100% popular.
I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
That's the whole country for those who will accept something less than 100%.
For those who want to change history not even 100% is good enough.
G.T.
>
>
> I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
> second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
>
> That's the whole country for those who will accept something less than 100%.
> For those who want to change history not even 100% is good enough.
>
I really think you need to study presidential elections. Even if the
electoral college voted 100% for someone that doesn't necessarily mean that
"the whole country" voted for that person. And it definitely wasn't the
case for RR.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> >
> > I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
> > second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
> >
> > That's the whole country for those who will accept something less than
100%.
> > For those who want to change history not even 100% is good enough.
> >
>
> I really think you need to study presidential elections. Even if the
> electoral college voted 100% for someone that doesn't necessarily mean
that
> "the whole country" voted for that person. And it definitely wasn't the
> case for RR.
This is what is known as revisionist history Greg. All of your sniveling
can't change what happened and what is going to happen the next election
when Hillary runs for President. I know that you love Hillary like your own
mother but kissing your mother like you want to do to Hillary is just
disgusting.
G.T.
> "G.T." <eth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:npRN9.894$i61.53...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
>>>second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
>>>
>>>That's the whole country for those who will accept something less than
>>
> 100%.
>
>>>For those who want to change history not even 100% is good enough.
>>>
>>
>>I really think you need to study presidential elections. Even if the
>>electoral college voted 100% for someone that doesn't necessarily mean
>
> that
>
>>"the whole country" voted for that person. And it definitely wasn't the
>>case for RR.
>
>
> This is what is known as revisionist history Greg.
What is wrong with you? It's not revisionist history. It's the difference
between how the Electoral College votes are allocated and how "the whole
country" voted.
> All of your sniveling
> can't change what happened and what is going to happen the next election
> when Hillary runs for President. I know that you love Hillary like your own
> mother but kissing your mother like you want to do to Hillary is just
> disgusting.
What's that got to do with the Electoral College?
You know, sometimes I argue with you and the other reactionaries just
because it's fun. But when you obsess on things like 97.5% of the
electoral vote being "the whole country" I wonder about your grasp of reality.
Tom Paterson
>I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
>second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
But how did *we the people* vote again, Tom? Less than 60%, right? Not close to
2/3. Post it the other way: "Over 40% of the American people who voted did not
vote for Ronald Reagan". Counting the probable majority who didn't vote, that
makes for a whole lot more who didn't "like" RR or agree with his policies,
firing the AT controllers in particular. You're tripping over your ideology
*again* (and again, and again).
>For those who want to change history >not even 100% is good enough.
The controllers were striking for better working conditions (shorter hours) as
I recall. So now who's trying to "change history" (your assertion that the
controllers had the best pay and working conditions going). Your using bogus
"electoral vote" count to represent the will of the people was pretty ingenuous
too. The usual: "statistics can only be used to prove the Kunich version of
'truth'." --Tom Paterson
Tom Paterson
>> I really think you need to study presidential elections. Even if the
>> electoral college voted 100% for someone that doesn't necessarily mean
>that
>> "the whole country" voted for that person. And it definitely wasn't the
>> case for RR.
>
>This is what is known as revisionist history Greg. All of your sniveling
>can't change what happened (snip)
Excuse me... what is revisionist? Far, far fewer than 100% of the American
people voted for Ronald Reagan? This is called not admitting making a foolish
statement. Just keep hammering, it'll be true someday, hey Tom? While you were
slipping the "sniveling" (assertion of cowardice) in there you forgot to
insult...
>and what is going to happen the next election
>when Hillary runs for President. I know that you love Hillary like your own
>mother but kissing your mother like you want to do to Hillary is just
>disgusting.
Hey, I spoke too soon. Right into the old garbage can again, as usual. Are you
ever going to learn to argue like an adult male? Time is getting short. See any
ghosts yet this Christmas? Maybe tonight. Have a Merry. --Tom Paterson
Jim Quinn
"Tom Paterson" <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >From: "Tom Kunich"
>
> >I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
> >second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
>
> But how did *we the people* vote again, Tom? Less than 60%, right? Not
close to
> 2/3. Post it the other way: "Over 40% of the American people who voted did
not
> vote for Ronald Reagan". Counting the probable majority who didn't vote,
that
> makes for a whole lot more who didn't "like" RR or agree with his
policies,
> firing the AT controllers in particular. You're tripping over your
ideology
> *again* (and again, and again).
In all probability the non-voters probably would have voted about the same
way as the ones who actually did vote. A polling sample of 40% is huge and
your confidence level given that size of sample has to be almost 100%. By
the way I remember when Reagan fired the Air traffic controllers and there
was a remarkable lack of outrage over the action. The fact that what they
did was technically illegal probably had something to do with the publics
reaction.
And by the way, who really cares about this stuff anymore? This is not
really breaking news is it.
Kyle Legate
> This is what the conversation was:
>
> >>From: Tom Kunich
>
> >>Ronald Reagan made the entire country proud when he fired all
> >>of the ground controllers for their illegal strike.
>
> > From: Tom Paterson
>
> >No he didn't. Right-wing propaganda. Not just exaggeration, an outright
> lie.You
> >know that action was not even close to 100% popular.
>
> I then replied that Reagan took that action in his first term and in his
> second term he won the Presidency with 97.5% of the electoral vote.
>
You missed my post where I asked for evidence that any percentage of that
electoral vote was due to his response to the strike. Was that the only
thing he did in his first term?
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
leg...@mcmaster.ca Kyle Legate leg...@hotmail.com
Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
moon musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Tom Paterson
>You missed my post where I asked for evidence that any percentage of that
>electoral vote was due to his response to the strike. Was that the only
>thing he did in his first term?
Well no, he also took Social Security benefits away from defenseless little old
ladies. --Tom Paterson
Tom Kunich
Citation scum bucket.
Tom Paterson
(Reagan SS cuts)
>Citation (snip)
From:
http://balderdashe.com/usapol/archives/vol1/V1-46.html
In 1981, President Reagan imposed severe cuts in Social Security benefits. The
House voted 391-20 to reverse Reagan's action. Virtually every House Republican
deserted the Reagan Administration on this issue. But Cheney stood with the
small minority. Did most Wyoming voters really have a problem with Social
Security benefits?
My mistake, he only *tried* to drastically reduce SS payments to the little old
ladies. Looks like he didn't have "the entire country's support" even from his
own party House members on that scurrilous move, hey Tom? Quite the contrary!
Well, Cheney went along with it.
>scum bucket.
Iran-Contra.
--Tom Paterson
Chris Mitchell
"Tom Paterson" > wrote in message > >From: "Tom Kunich"
>
> (Reagan SS cuts)
>
> >Citation (snip)
>
next to me, so we can SPED back to our classroom.
No cookies and milk for either of you.
-Chris Mitchell
Tom Kunich
Paterson types lies as fast as he can and I see only those people
posting who wish to support his lies. In fact, Ronald Reagan never CUT
any social security benefits.
Tom Paterson
>Paterson types lies as fast as he can and I see only those people
>posting who wish to support his lies.
Citation on speed. Citation on "lies". Thanks, TK. Happy New Year. Oh yeah,
citations on everything you post from now on. Thanks again. --Tom Paterson