OT: George Zimmerman - Again

[Stormin Mormon]

One time, I tried to explain to my sister, how I liked the Reagan years. Taxes were low, the economy was moving, and I was able to buy equipment, hire help, etc. She instantly appeared angry, and started to tell me how her boyfriend had lost his job during those years, while the rich people did this and that, and how the rich profited unfairly. We just could not communicate. I was being factual, and she was so busy being angry at the rich people.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

I've come to believe that the liberal versus conservative thing is deeply rooted in how the brain works. We conservatives deal on the facts, like an engineer or scientist would. Liberals for the most part deal on emotion then rework the facts as much as necessary to try to make them fit. Hence the creative part.

[Han]

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:KkWhr.467$ [e-mail]:

Getting back to facts - I've heard it mention that during the Reagan years taxes were much higher. Before I go myself and get the stats, is it your opinion they were or weren't? For the record, IMNSHO under the Reagan administration good AND bad things happened.

Oh, yes, a lot of people got shafted during the Reagan years by the attempts to get the economy back on track. In the aggregate that helped the economy, but air traffic controllers and others were indeed victimized.

[Kurt Ullman]

How did the ATC get victimized. They did not have a right to strike under laws that preceded RR, he told what would happen if they struck before they did so and yet went ahead and did it. They tried to call RR's bluff and lost, how is that victimization? It isn't like he did a double secret probation move with the laws.

[Kurt Ullman]

The no strike provisions for Fed employees were passed in '51 and had been okayed by SCOTUS a full decade before the strike. Also, after I checked things, RR gave them a full 48 hours AFTER the strike to return to work.

[Doug Miller]

Han wrote in news:XnsA0347B161B886ikkezelf@207.246.207.19:

Complete nonsense. The air traffic controllers lost their jobs because went on strike, which is a violation of Federal law. Federal employees may unionize, but they may not strike.

The ATCs were victimized, all right, victimized by their union leaders who assured them that their jobs were safe.

[krw]

I think you proved the point about lefties starting with emotion and working back to a fantasy that supports it.

[Gordon Shumway]

Fact: Tax rates went down during Reagan.

Opinions are not facts. What people got shafted?

Air traffic controllers were not victimized. They broke the law -- they got fired. They were lucky they weren't imprisoned.

[krw]

I don't think it's the same interview but...

"Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

[Kurt Ullman]

I went back through some of the articles of the time to make sure I remembered things correctly. About 3 out every 5 stories had a quote from a fired Controller along the lines of: "I never thought Reagan would call our bluff.":

[trader4]

.19:

It wasn't "attempts". It was one sound plan and it worked. The economy today is still struggling along. With Reagan's plan long before the equivalent point in time jobs were being creaed at the rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month. We had one month at over 1mil. At the same time, inflation was falling and horrific interest rates were declining.

The "shafting" was the temporary increase in unemployment for two years that was caused by the FED jacking interest rates to the roof to reign in inflation. Inflation that had been allowed to go unchecked and get worse by the previous adiminstration. The FED chairman was Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter. He did what he had to do, with Reagan's support.

There will likely be a similar day of reckoning and "shafting" in the future to deal with the consequences of Obama's spending orgy that now has the debt at $16tril, over 100% of GDP. The liberals will similarly try to blame that shafting on whoever is there cleaning it up.

=A0>>In the aggregate that helped

nt on strike, which is a

o assured them that

Exactly. All Reagan did was enforce the law after giving them a warning before they striked and a further day or so to return to their jobs after they striked. And the fact that the USA now had a president who stood behind what he said and wasn't going to be pushed around was noticed. I've seen interviews with former Soviet Union officials where they said they were still trying to figure Reagan out in the summer of 81. When they saw what Reagan did with the ATCs, they realized that things had changed, he meant what he said, and if he was doing that to the ATCs, they knew he would be even tougher with them.

[Kurt Ullman]

further. Technically it is correct, statistically it shows how important it is to choose the correct baseline (grin).

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I think there was some miscalculation on the part of the air traffic controllers, but the point was that there working conditions were abysmal (sp?) at the time. They struck because there was no good faith negotiation. While condotions may eventually have gotten better, I'd still rather NOT be ATC ...

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

As you well know the blame will eventually go to the real cause - Bush.

[Kurt Ullman]

Wrong. PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day,

32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service -- a package with a $770 million price tag. Unlike ANY other group in the US. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer which included a shorter work week and a 10 percent pay hike for night shifts and those controllers who doubled as instructors.  Further negotiations between Poli and Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis sweetened the pot even more. Had a guy I went to high school with quit as an emergency room RN to become an ATC because he felt it was lower stress. Still there some 30 years later.

[Gordon Shumway]

There are those that will believe what the wish regardless of the facts. We've been told that over and over and over and over and over for the last 3 years!

[Doug Miller]

Han wrote in news:XnsA0349BA2FA8B6ikkezelf@207.246.207.167:

Oh, give me a break. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is waaaaay out of hand.

Go read the Constitution. The President submits a budget to Congress, but that budget has _no meaning at all_ until *Congress* enacts it into law. *Congress* deserves the blame.

By the way... are you aware that the deficit in *each* year of the Obama Presidency has been higher than in *all eight years* of the Bush Presidency *combined*?

So explain to me just how the $16T debt is Bush's fault.

[Ed Pawlowski]

assured them that

Perhaps some day the pro union faction will realize that the union leaders are concerned about making money for the union leaders. They don't really give a damn about the rank and file. Unions outlived their usefulness sometime about 1970 or so.

[Robert Green]

What a bald-faced lie. I've been replying to you on and off since I've been here. Everybody and his brother knows that. But not you. It's just that I mostly ignore you because there's no point in arguing with a liar. They'll just lie some more.

If you're so sure about your facts they should be easy to prove. I know what I've written and I've never claimed to have killfiled you. You tell us you're a conservative fact-based cold, logical engineer kind of guy, better than any liberal, right? So you should be able to use that logical mind to prove your assertion, Chet.

I'll bet you can't because I never said I killfiled you. In fact, if you look hard enough, you'll see messages in other groups that say I *avoid* putting anyone in a killfile to make sure they don't give bad advice to newbies. But your lies, accusations and egomania DO result in my mostly ignoring you because it's not possible to hold a civil discussion with a guy who lies as casually as you do.

I'll be waiting, liar, for you to prove your allegations. (-: God, how I love it when you step on your joint, over and over again. Here - you can read what I wrote about killfiles in case you don't know how to search Google Groups:

You've confused my putting you in a killfile with me making you my bitch. You're my bitch because you respond to nearly every post I make like Pavlov's dog but I only respond to you when *I* feel like it. That's the way I trained my dog, too.

Perhaps you need a new alias. How about Truthless Trader?

Enjoy your new sock puppet friend. Maybe you can shuck each other's socks . . . (-:

-- Bobby G.

[trader4]

Like there's a big diffence in killfiling versus ignoring? Geez, you can sure get your shorts up in a knot over little things. So you said you were going to ignore me, not killfile me. Are you happy now? Unlike you, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But I fail to see all the anger over the difference.

Oh good, we all will sleep better tonight knowing the lib loon is out there protecting us from bad advice. I'm here protecting against your half-baked political ideas. How do you like that?

I agree. It's obvious you're incapable of holding a civil discussion. You just proved that.

You only respond occasionally because you know your nonsense is just going to get crushed again by not only me, but so many others here. But given the bile spewed forth, I think it really would be better for your health if you did respond more often instead of letting it build up.

BTW, how much time did you waste doing those google searches on something that is so meaningless?

Poor you. The list of those on here that you just can't get along with continues to grow.

[Attila.Iskander]

Indeed ? Booby doesn't seem to have much intellectual power (staying or not) Apparently after the first questioning of his claims he runs and hides by accusing the person challenging him of being a sock-puppet.

But it's very limited creation that depends more on fantasy than reality Ironically rational types have no problems taking the facts as known and trying to change the perspective in which they are seen and viewed to gain new insights and solutions They are both forms of lateral thinking - which is a form of creative thinking But somehow liberals can't seem to let go of their fantasies and replacing them with reality.

It's very Peter Pan-nish