Who needs control towers?

[aviatoreb]

Erik,

 

As I have thought more about this, I come to the conclusion that the FAA should definitely close the towers.  If they don't believe safety will be effected, make the cuts and measure the effect.  Why are the towers open anyway if their closing won't jeopardize safety?  I mean really, is the FAA saying towers should be open just to prop up government spending?  After the towers are closed, make another cut and measure the effect.  As they say with shampoo, and repeat.  With the savings, consider new programs that may actually provide benefit and measure the effect.  If they don't perform, cut them too.

 

Hi David,

 

I dont believe the FAA when they say that safety won't be affected, but I admit I could be wrong.  Look at the hub airports.  There are other costs besides safety loss.  If they are correct that there will be 90 min delays due to inability of fewer controllers to make for separation that can be handled by fewer controllers then that would slow an important aspect of the economy which involves moving people around in scheduled carriers.  I am talking about scheduled carriers and the big airports.  I agree with you though now that I think about it - if indeed safety is not effected by loosing towers at smaller airports then why have them? I am still unconvinced that safety will not be compromised at least at some of the closing towers.  Hopefully I am wrong.

 

I never repeat when I shampoo.  I rinse and then I am done.  

[David Mazer]

I never repeat when I shampoo.  I rinse and then I am done.  

 

At least you need shampoo!

[aviatoreb]

At least you need shampoo!

 

I understand now!  Shampoo and rinse on the left side of your head.  Then repeat - on the right side of your head!  :-)

 

But why so glum looking in the picture?  You look like you just found out you need some cylinders replaced on your rocket.

[dcrogers11]

Wow, talk about a thread that got off from the original topic!

[aviatoreb]

Wow, talk about a thread that got off from the original topic!

 

Yeah - I know....topic is beat to death so now we are just enjoying each others personalities and joking around.  Nothing wrong with that.

[AmigOne]

I don't own a small buisness but I do watch fox news. I would watch other news agencies but I don't appreciate being misinformed.

 

Wow what a great example of a 'non sequitur'.  !!!  funny one at that.

[jetdriven]

I don't own a small buisness but I do watch fox news. I would watch other news agencies but I don't appreciate being misinformed.

 

Wow what a great example of a 'non sequitur'.  !!!  funny one at that.

 

The PPP did a survey and Republicans watch Fox news and don't believe ANYONE else, Democrats believe anything BUT Fox.  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/4th-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html 

 

Fox sounds like an echo chamber, keep listening to the same 5 talking heads repeating the same message over and over again until you believe it.  Then go repeat it to your friends. Truth by repetition. 

 

Interestingly enough, Fox won a wrongful termination lawsuit on appeal and their defense was it was not FCC law to prohibit lying, distortion, or falsification of news. Only policy, so they can do as they wish, and that was their defense.  In Cnada and many other places it IS law, which is why they keep getting deniced licenses in those places. The case was Akre v. Fox TV. Fair and balanced? You decide. 

[scottfromiowa]

The PPP did a survey and Republicans watch Fox news and don't believe ANYONE else, Democrats believe anything BUT Fox.  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/02/4th-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html 

 

Fox sounds like an echo chamber, keep listening to the same 5 talking heads repeating the same message over and over again until you believe it.  Then go repeat it to your friends. Truth by repetition.  images.jpg

 

Interestingly enough, Fox won a wrongful termination lawsuit on appeal and their defense was it was not FCC law to prohibit lying, distortion, or falsification of news. Only policy, so they can do as they wish, and that was their defense.  In Cnada and many other places it IS law, which is why they keep getting deniced licenses in those places. The case was Akre v. Fox TV. Fair and balanced? You decide. 

You crack me up sometimes.  This is a classic...

[jetdriven]

You crack me up sometimes.  This is a classic...

What part is false? I'm not trying to bullshit you, but abandoning all sources of news for one sole source is harmful to your thinking.

[AndyFromCB]

To PilotDerek, I sent an apology via PM, but I do not apologize to the rest of dumb asses who think Barry is somehow a worst president than the last years delivered to us by the dumb monkey from Texas (actually, GWB is from the east coast, good old fashioned liberal elitist, if you must know).

 

Now, a few quotes from those who've been there and done that:

 

"If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: PRESIDENT CAN'T SWIM." LBJ

 

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967

 

Reagan was a commie, at least according to most of you ;-)

[jetdriven]

Reagan is a unique character. Raised taxes seven times in 8 years, the Republican saint and example of what a Conservative president should be, tripled the deficit, doubled the national debt, and was too liberal to get elected today.

 

Besides all that, I liked the guy, and I lived a good life while he was in charge.  His real skill was being able to compromise and make deals to move the country forward. Something the "Hostage worth taking" party has forgotten about. As soon as they get off their pedestals, we will all be better for it.

[Dale]

I have printed part of this case below. The citation is there if anyone wants to look up the entire case on google scholar or if they have Westlaw or fast case. In reality the station was trying to get the supporting documentation for the reporters claims before they would air their story. Mr. Wilson and ms. Akre would not provide their supporting documentation for their news story and threatened to sue the station. Arke's whistleblower claim went to the jury but was reversed because ms akre simply failed to state a cause of action because her claim of an adopted distortion rule in the law was not part of the whistleblower law. It will probably be clearer if you want to read it yourself. Good luck.

866 So.2d 1231

NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant,

v.

Jane AKRE, Appellee.

No. 2D01-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 14, 2003.

Order Granting Rehearing and Clarification and Denying Rehearing and Certification Denied February 25, 2004.

William E. McDaniels and Thomas G. Hentoff of Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, Patricia Fields Anderson, P.A., St. Petersburg, and Gary D. Roberts and Theodore A. Russell of Fox Group Legal Department, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellant.

Michael S. Finch, St. Petersburg, and Stuart C. Markman, Robert W. Ritsch, and Katherine Earle Yanes of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Roy C. Young of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae The Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Robert Corn-Revere and Brad C. Deutsch of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Belo Corp., Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.

Order Granting Rehearing and Clarification and Denying Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied February 25, 2004.

KELLY, Judge.

New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). We reverse.

In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.

[jetdriven]

How about you print the decision and the legal points on the appeal, Dale? 

[Dale]

On a more related note, the FAA intends to close the tower at KHWO despite the fact that the airport does almost 140,000 operations per year (the cutoff was 150,000 for non closure). This has caused some serious concern locally as KHWO sits within a few miles of Fort Lauderdale Hollywood international airport and is within the class B airspace of Miami. Apparently, this concern has reached the broward county aviation authority and our representatives in Washington who are working to try and keep the north perry tower opened for obvious reasons. If that doesn't occur I understand the closure will be at the end of the month.

Seems like there would be some areas that could be cut without perhaps jeopardizing safety in this high traffic area. The first time there is an incident in this area, we will start to here rumblings about closing the airport. Seems like a lot of reductions could be made in many FAA programs that are a bit less critical. IMHO

[Dale]

As per your request. Happy reading.

866 So.2d 1231

NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant,

v.

Jane AKRE, Appellee.

No. 2D01-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 14, 2003.

Order Granting Rehearing and Clarification and Denying Rehearing and Certification Denied February 25, 2004.

[866 So.2d 1232]

William E. McDaniels and Thomas G. Hentoff of Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, Patricia Fields Anderson, P.A., St. Petersburg, and Gary D. Roberts and Theodore A. Russell of Fox Group Legal Department, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellant.

Michael S. Finch, St. Petersburg, and Stuart C. Markman, Robert W. Ritsch, and Katherine Earle Yanes of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Roy C. Young of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae The Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Robert Corn-Revere and Brad C. Deutsch of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Belo Corp., Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.

Order Granting Rehearing and Clarification and Denying Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied February 25, 2004.

KELLY, Judge.

New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). We reverse.

In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.

In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the

[866 So.2d 1233]

story, and consequently, the story never aired.

In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.

While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have "[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a "law, rule or regulation" as "includ[ing] any statute or ... any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business." § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news—which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy"—does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from expression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." See Chad Raphael, The FCC's Broadcast News Distortion Rules: Regulation by Drooping Eyelid, 6 Comm. L. & Policy 485, 494 (2001) (quoting Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246, 1246 (1949)).

The policy did not begin to take shape, however, until 1969 when the FCC was called upon to investigate complaints regarding news distortion. Raphael at 494. Notably, the FCC did not take the initiative to investigate these complaints, but rather acted only after Congress referred complaints it had received to the FCC. In a series of opinions issued in licensing proceedings between 1969 and 1973, the FCC stated that when considering the status of a broadcaster's license, it would take into consideration proven instances of "deliberate news distortion," also called "intentional falsification of the news" or "rigging or slanting the news." In re CBS Program "Hunger in America", 20 F.C.C.2d 143, 150-51 (1969). This series of FCC opinions has come to be known as the FCC's news distortion policy.

Akre argues that the FCC's policy is a rule as defined by section

[866 So.2d 1234]

120.52(15), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides:

"Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule.

Even if we agreed with Akre that the FCC's news distortion policy was a "rule" as defined by section 120.52(15), her argument overlooks the fact that the whistleblower's statute specifically limits the definition of "rule" to an "adopted" rule. § 448.101(4). "This limitation to `adopted' material only appears deliberate, and well serves the public by hinging civil liability upon matters of which due notice, actual or imputed, has been conveyed." Forrester v. John B. Phipps, Inc., 643 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We find the legislature's use of the word "adopted" in the statute to be a limitation on the scope of conduct that will subject an employer to liability under the statute.

It is undisputed that the FCC's news distortion policy has never been "adopted" as defined by section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1997). In that regard, Akre notes that federal agencies may announce general policies and interpretive principles through the adjudicative process and argues that the fact that "the FCC adopted the news distortion policy through an adjudicative process does not affect its validity or enforceability as a matter of federal law." This argument is flawed in two respects. First, federal law recognizes a dichotomy between rulemaking and adjudication; it does not equate the two. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring). Second, while federal agencies may have discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process, the same is not true under Florida law. The Florida Legislature has limited state agencies' discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process by requiring agencies to formally adopt each agency statement that fits the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52. See § 120.54. As noted above, the legislature's use of the word "adopted" in the whistle-blower's statute was deliberate and was intended to limit the scope of conduct that will subject an employer to liability. This limitation is consistent with the legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a "rule" be formally adopted. Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute.

Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge, Concur.

ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.

KELLY, Judge.

This court entered an order granting appellate attorney's fees to the appellant,

[866 So.2d 1235]

New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television. Thereafter, the appellee, Jane Akre, sought rehearing, clarification, rehearing en banc, and certification of a question of great public importance. We grant Akre's requests for rehearing and clarification and deny her requests for rehearing en banc and certification.

WTVT appealed a final judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1997). The final judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding Akre $425,000 in damages. We reversed after concluding that Akre had failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. We also granted WTVT's motion for appellate attorney's fees under section 448.104, Florida Statutes (1997), which states, "[a] court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses to the prevailing party."

In her motion for rehearing, Akre argues that because section 448.104 authorizes an award of attorney's fees to prevailing defendants as well as to prevailing plaintiffs, this court should apply the standard articulated in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). In Christiansburg, the Court had to determine the proper standard for an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII gives courts discretion to award fees to the prevailing party, as does section 448.104, but it does not give any indication of when a court should award fees to a prevailing plaintiff or a prevailing defendant.

The Christiansburg Court concluded that equitable considerations embodied in Title VII justified applying different standards depending on whether the prevailing party was a plaintiff or a defendant. The Court found that while fees should be awarded to every prevailing plaintiff unless special circumstances would make such an award unjust, fees should only be awarded to a prevailing defendant when the plaintiff's action was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 420.

We do not agree with Akre's contention that this same standard should apply to an action brought under Florida's whistleblower's statute. We are not persuaded that the reasons cited by the Christiansburg Court for applying different standards to prevailing plaintiffs and defendants apply to cases brought under section 448.103. To the extent that this question has been addressed by other courts, they have likewise concluded that the Christiansburg standard is not applicable to fee awards under section 448.104. See Gamb v. Hilton Hotels Corp., No. 95-466-CIV-ORL-19, 1997 WL 893874 (M.D.Fla. Sept.26, 1997), aff'd, 132 F.3d 46 (11th Cir.1997); McGregor v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 130 F.R.D. 464 (S.D.Fla.1990), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1017 (11th Cir.1992).

Nevertheless, because section 448.104 is not mandatory, we must consider whether to exercise our discretion and make such an award in this case. Under the circumstances of this appeal, we conclude that WTVT is not entitled to appellate attorney's fees. Akre came to this court as an appellee defending a final judgment entered in her favor at the conclusion of a jury trial. We do not believe that it is either realistic or good policy to require an appellee who has obtained a favorable jury verdict to abandon it on appeal or risk an award of attorney's fees if it is reversed.

We reach this conclusion even though the whistle-blower aspect of Akre's

[866 So.2d 1236]

case was without legal merit from its inception. This court has held that because all final judgments have a presumption of correctness, attempting to uphold one is not frivolous. Cf. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Salter, 710 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).1 Accordingly, even the lack of legal merit in Akre's position does not convince us that we should exercise our discretion to award appellate attorney's fees to WTVT.

We emphasize that we are only considering the issue of a proper exercise of discretion for an award of appellate attorney's fees. On remand, the trial court will have to make its own determination regarding whether to award trial court attorney's fees to WTVT as the prevailing party. To be entitled to such an award, however, WTVT does not have to demonstrate that Akre's suit was frivolous.

No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.

CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

--------

Notes:

1. We are aware of the Fourth District's decision in Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc., 788 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review granted, 817 So.2d 844 (Fla.2002). We have concluded that it is not pertinent to our decision because Salter still represents this district's position regarding whether defense of a judgment on appeal can ever be considered frivolous. Additionally, we find nothing in Forum that expressly repudiates that principle, which was the law in the Fourth District when Forum was decided. See Coral Springs Roofing Co. v. Campagna, 528 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Rather, the holding in Forum is directed to the proper construction of a 1999 amendment to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, that the Fourth District concluded broadened the circumstances under which a fee award could be made under that statute.

--------

[jetdriven]

Lets cut spending, just not spending that benefits me. 

[jetdriven]

So, "Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT."

 

Akre's case was overturned because Fox argued that distorting the "news" was not a "law, rule or regulation". Fox argued, successfully, that they can do this, and the whistleblower protections do not apply.  They didnt argue their "news" was correct, undistorted, or not an outright lie.

[Dale]

Simply a matter of common sense. I would think you would start with cuts that would be less likely to cause harm first and proceed to other cuts as prudence requires. When I worked for the broward aviation authority as legal counsel there were plenty of less critical areas that could be cut and not jeopardize safety.

[Dale]

You can't state a cause of action if it is not set out in the law. Ms. Akre had her whistleblower complaint dismissed simply because there was no such prohibition in Florida's whistleblower statute. No reason to argue anything else. Other arguments are not appropriate on appeal. Arguing such matters not preserved at the trial court level is improper and can be a cause for sanctions by the courts.

[jetdriven]

You can't state a cause of action if it is not set out in the law. Ms. Akre had her whistleblower complaint dismissed simply because there was no such prohibition in Florida's whistleblower statute. No reason to argue anything else. Other arguments are not appropriate on appeal. Arguing such matters not preserved at the trial court level is improper and can be a cause for sanctions by the courts.

 

Im not arguing the merits of Akre's case. I'm pointing out that Fox News's defense was that they can distort the news and report it as fact, and that is a problem.  Anyone who watches their channel, and especially the ones who believe them an no other, is seriously mislead.

[Dale]

Sorry, I didn't see that argument in the case I posted. I would always assume that people would use common sense when reviewing news from any channel.

[scottfromiowa]

What part is false? I'm not trying to bullshit you, but abandoning all sources of news for one sole source is harmful to your thinking.

Didn't say it was false Byron...

I lived in the 80's and you may attack Magnus Romulous all you want...I know a liberal vs a conservative when I am "led" by one. Berry is NO RR.

Can we balance a budget? Can we make cuts including closing some control towers, cutting defense and addressing entitlements for so there will be some return for future supporters of existing system? Can we gut the tax code and establish a flat tax? No loophole discussion 'cause they are gone. No revenue discussion...

Feds need to start living within their means, like I do. Time for a third party that rejects progressive big government. Time for change.

[scottfromiowa]

What part is false? I'm not trying to bullshit you, but abandoning all sources of news for one sole source is harmful to your thinking.

I drink many flavors of beer. I smoke many different cigars. I enjoy many different positions while not sleeping in bed. AND I get my news from multiple print, airwaves, and television sources. I know propaganda and see it on both sides of the aisle. One of us likes sucking and having others suckle from the government teet. I believe less is more when it comes to government at all levels.

[scottfromiowa]

Im not arguing the merits of Akre's case. I'm pointing out that Fox News's defense was that they can distort the news and report it as fact, and that is a problem.  Anyone who watches their channel, and especially the ones who believe them an no other, is seriously mislead.

There you go cracking me up again...

[scottfromiowa]

Reagan is a unique character. Raised taxes seven times in 8 years, the Republican saint and example of what a Conservative president should be, tripled the deficit, doubled the national debt, and was too liberal to get elected today.

 

Besides all that, I liked the guy, and I lived a good life while he was in charge.  His real skill was being able to compromise and make deals to move the country forward. Something the "Hostage worth taking" party has forgotten about. As soon as they get off their pedestals, we will all be better for it.

I would rather belong to that party than the Leave four behind to be raped and murdered party...