HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a
discussion, but is very patronizing.


Go pee up a rope, Reggie.

Well that certainly contributed to the discussion.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further a
discussion, but is very patronizing.


Go pee up a rope, Reggie.

Well that certainly contributed to the discussion.

More than you usually do.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch



Yeah, and Mussolini kept the trains running on time.


LOL. I have to give you credit Harry. You ardently stick to and believe
what you want to believe.

Kinda like GW Bush in a way ..... an admirable trait if you happen to be
right.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:11:45 -0500, HK wrote:


I always thought Reagan was a charlatan because of his involvement in
the Iranian hostage crisis, his double-dealing with the Iranians later
to sell them arms, his budget-busting deficit spending on military
wastage, et cetera. I often wondered when in his terms he began to
deteriorate mentally because of his illness.

PATCO got what they deserved for supporting him in the 1980 election.

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Has anyone told you that your little hehehe does nothing to further
a discussion, but is very patronizing.


Go pee up a rope, Reggie.

Well that certainly contributed to the discussion.

More than you usually do.
Harry,
I thought you might like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYo1-tc9Mzw

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch

Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch



"if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them" is actually the definition of Anarchy.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch




This nation runs on greed, not law.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch



This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.