Ronald Reagan ?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

You worked part time? Hah, what a pansy. I worked 40+ hours a week to pay for a bio/biochem degree I'll never use.

As much as he likes to think that he can speak for me, Tim cannot.

The head of financial aid at my college kept promising that the checks would be in sometime next month, and like the sucker I am, I trusted the man. I painted myself into a corner that way and had to find a job quickly, and I ended up working as "contracted services" part-time with an engineering firm - beggars cannot be choosers.

I got screwed on my taxes (self-employed) and when my financial aid check did come in just after doing my taxes, I signed that very check "PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE IRS".

After two years of living in an unheated building and at times going hungry, I broke down and went to work full time for an architecture firm and went to night school.

Worked my way to a Masters at the University of Michigan, all in all thirteen years from start to finish (3-degrees, 3 schools). Not the fast track to success, and as old as some of my instructors when I graduated. Once I got out I could never be viewed as the young "hot-shot", and therefore would not be getting any of the breaks that status brings.

I was hurt by Reagan's policies, which were designed to destroy the middle class and to keep the poor, poor. I trust that if there is a God, a heaven and a hell Reagan is getting what he deserves.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Actually, BEGINNINING was not in your post. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we can let the record show that's what ypu meant.

So when I used the word FIRST (in regards to cars of the late 70's/80's) then later FOLLOWED (the world becoming more industrialized...China) you did not understand?

I bet most who read this besides you, understood what I was getting at. Everyone may not agree with my opinion I was stating, but you seem to be the only one who could not comprehend what I typed.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by kach22i

As much as he likes to think that he can speak for me, Tim cannot.

The head of financial aid at my college kept promising that the checks would be in sometime next month, and like the sucker I am, I trusted the man. I painted myself into a corner that way and had to find a job quickly, and I ended up working as "contracted services" part-time with an engineering firm - beggars cannot be choosers.

I got screwed on my taxes (self-employed) and when my financial aid check did come in just after doing my taxes, I signed that very check "PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE IRS".

After two years of living in an unheated building and at times going hungry, I broke down and went to work full time for an architecture firm and went to night school.

Worked my way to a Masters at the University of Michigan, all in all thirteen years from start to finish (3-degrees, 3 schools). Not the fast track to success, and as old as some of my instructors when I graduated. Once I got out I could never be viewed as the young "hot-shot", and therefore would not be getting any of the breaks that status brings.

I was hurt by Reagan's policies, which were designed to destroy the middle class and to keep the poor, poor. I trust that if there is a God, a heaven and a hell Reagan is getting what he deserves.

I can't speak for you George, but I can certainly speak about you. I have absolutely no pity for your experience with trying to pay for college. See, I don't think it is gubmint's responsibility to give grants so that kids can go to college. I think kids should have to figure a way to do it on their own. Life is tough and people should be responsible for their own lot in it. I had freinds whose parents were wealthy enough to pay their fees and I have friends who like me, had to work for the money ourselves. I don't have a problem with either way, but I do have a problem with tax dollars funded grants.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

I had freinds whose parents were wealthy enough to pay their fees and I have friends who like me, had to work for the money ourselves. I don't have a problem with either way, but I do have a problem with tax dollars funded grants.

Status quo shall remain intact with your way Tim. If you don't come from money, why in the world would you want that?

My old boss used to ask; would you want a surgeon who went to night school working his way though college to operate on you? Sure, why not I asked back.

You see Tim there is a whole lot of people who will look down on you just because you are "from the wrong side of the tracks". Being able to go to school with them "one on one" with a level playing field is not what the elite want for their children to go though, nor for themselves. They fear the working class, they fear fair competition.

[RoninLB]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120243266768552299.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

McCain's Veep Options
By PAT TOOMEY
February 8, 2008


crop

The path back requires re-establishing the GOP as a party of limited government and economic freedom. This is essential to Mr. McCain's political future, the fortune of his party, and the economic well-being of the nation. And the first big indication that he intends to bring back the party of Reagan will be who Mr. McCain taps as his running mate.

crop

Fortunately, there is no shortage of true-blue fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Here are few who would help Mr. McCain unify his party and restore its winning brand:

crop

Despite his impressive wins Tuesday, Mr. McCain lost among self-identified conservative voters and only managed a statistical tie with Mr. Romney among self-described Republicans. To win in November, Mr. McCain needs a strong economically conservative message. Picking a vice presidential nominee who can credibly champion that message is the first and perhaps best indicator he can give voters how he will govern if he makes it to the Oval Office.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I was hurt by Reagan's policies, which were designed to destroy the middle class and to keep the poor, poor. I trust that if there is a God, a heaven and a hell Reagan is getting what he deserves.

Likewise (but you realize you're on a primarily die-hard conservative Republican forum here, I'm sure). To roughly paraprase comedian Lewis Black, "Who the fcuk wants to be trickled down on?"

From it's maddening inception, I always equated the trickle with the well known substance commonly referred to as always running downhill.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Status quo shall remain intact with your way Tim. If you don't come from money, why in the world would you want that?

My old boss used to ask; would you want a surgeon who went to night school working his way though college to operate on you? Sure, why not I asked back.

You see Tim there is a whole lot of people who will look down on you just because you are "from the wrong side of the tracks". Being able to go to school with them "one on one" with a level playing field is not what the elite want for their children to go though, nor for themselves. They fear the working class, they fear fair competition.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

So when I used the word FIRST (in regards to cars of the late 70's/80's) then later FOLLOWED (the world becoming more industrialized...China) you did not understand?

I bet most who read this besides you, understood what I was getting at. Everyone may not agree with my opinion I was stating, but you seem to be the only one who could not comprehend what I typed.

Do not point at me if your writing skills failed you. You are the one who had to add "BEGINNING" while trying to clarify what you said when that word was not in it at all. Here is exactly what you typed:

"...the illegal worker problem has never been a simple issue....it wasn't then, it's not now. I personally don't think it had much to do with jobs LEAVING. I would blame that trend first on the US car makers making junk cars in the late 70's /early 80's which made consumers start getting accustomed to buying "foreign", followed then by the rest of the world becoming more industrialized. Whether we like it or not, we have a "world economy" now."

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Do not point at me if your writing skills failed you. You are the one who had to add "BEGINNING" while trying to clarify what you said when that word was not in it at all. Here is exactly what you typed:

"...the illegal worker problem has never been a simple issue....it wasn't then, it's not now. I personally don't think it had much to do with jobs LEAVING. I would blame that trend first on the US car makers making junk cars in the late 70's /early 80's which made consumers start getting accustomed to buying "foreign", followed then by the rest of the world becoming more industrialized. Whether we like it or not, we have a "world economy" now."

You still failed to see the the word "first" along with my mention of the 70's/80's. You also can't seem to understand the word "followed".

Yes I indeed tried to clarify my comment for you, it seems you still can't comprehend it (that or you just like to argue). My leg is starting to get raw from all the leg humping, but if you want to continue this, let me get a few drinks in me first (TGIF) and then I will be back to continue this petty little dispute over my internet forum writing skills.

[MRM]

I think he was trying to bring the post back to the topic of Ronald Reagan. I think he meant, if you read hard between the lines, that anyone from Wisconsin knows that Ronald Reagan did not kill the domestic auto industry.

Lee Iacocca did. Hello Wisconsin. Goodbye Kenosha.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

You still failed to see the the word "first" along with my mention of the 70's/80's. You also can't seem to understand the word "followed".

Yes I indeed tried to clarify my comment for you, it seems you still can't comprehend it (that or you just like to argue). My leg is starting to get raw from all the leg humping, but if you want to continue this, let me get a few drinks in me first (TGIF) and then I will be back to continue this petty little dispute over my internet forum writing skills.

So how are you with airplanes?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

You still failed to see the the word "first" along with my mention of the 70's/80's. You also can't seem to understand the word "followed".

Yes I indeed tried to clarify my comment for you, it seems you still can't comprehend it (that or you just like to argue). My leg is starting to get raw from all the leg humping, but if you want to continue this, let me get a few drinks in me first (TGIF) and then I will be back to continue this petty little dispute over my internet forum writing skills.

You know what...you are correct...it is a tad petty. But I think that a petty argument takes two...so you are at least 50% wrong.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by MRM

I think he was trying to bring the post back to the topic of Ronald Reagan. I think he meant, if you read hard between the lines, that anyone from Wisconsin knows that Ronald Reagan did not kill the domestic auto industry.

Lee Iacocca did. Hello Wisconsin. Goodbye Kenosha.

Well, that was not my point. As for Iacocca and Kenosha, he probably did Kenosha a favor. Closing the American Motors plant was a blow at the time but the fact of the matter is that Chrysler's action may be the reason that as of 2007 Chrylser is the ONLY manufacturer among the 10 largest employers in Kenosha County.

So maybe grouchy ole Lee did'em a favor!