AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
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.
Sounds like Patco.
No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity for
its members.

PATCO members already made more than the average salary.


You think "the average" salary is equity?

You don't know what equity is, either.

Equity, meaning some of the highest pay and shortest hours of any government
worker, or even private workers?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor contract
ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to


You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small at
the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session committees
were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.



I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your girl,
Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


You think "the average" salary is equity?

You don't know what equity is, either.


Harry, I've enjoyed debating with you in the past, but you just aren't
making any sense.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:57:35 -0500, HK wrote:

It's not equity *with*; it's equity.

In my humble opinion PATCO went back to the "equity" well a little to
often and without an understanding of how thoroughly disgusted the
rest of the country was with their aspirations.

In the corporate world people are worth whatever they can negotiate
based on the laws of supply and demand. That's equity.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...



Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.



Tell me about it. Rather, tell Mrs.E. about it. When winter sets in our
driveway becomes a sheet of ice and it's a long, long driveway. I am sick
and tired of spreading 20 bucks worth of de-icer every time it snows or
rains and then freezes like it's done for the past few days. Our house is
up on a hill and nobody can make it up the driveway unless your's truly goes
out and cracks the ice with de-icer, then pushes it away with the tractor.

I am sick of it, I am telling you.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.
Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor contract
ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to

You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small at
the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session committees
were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.



I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your girl,
Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch



She's not my first choice and never has been. Neither is Obama.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

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

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf of
three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United States
and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were offered
top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan Administration and
then offered the same jobs again in 1984. Independently, we both said no
both times.

Of course, you've deliberately kept from this newsgroup what it is you've
been doing for a living all these years. From the quality of your posts,
I'm guess you paint the eyeballs on Mickey Mouse dolls for some Chinese
labor contractor. You don't seem to have the skills for much else.


You know what?
I give up.

Eisboch




Well, perhaps you are more accepting of turds like Reggie, who:

* posts here with about 50 different identities

* apparently knows nothing about boats or anything else that exists
separate from what he can "google up"

* devotes most of his time here making snarky little remarks about other
posters he doesn't like

* refuses to offer any significant non-identity revealing information
about himself or his life


I treat him precisely as he deserves.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:14 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.

A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

Ok, I'll give you that one. Goes to show you how long ago I
registered to vote. :)

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.

Um...you, as a citizen, have certain obligations to the state in which
you live. To wit: paying taxes, serving in the country's armed forces
when called upon, obeying the civil/criminal laws enacted by one's
government, demonstrating commitment and loyalty to the democratic
political community and state, constructively criticizing the
conditions of political and civic life, participating to improve the
quality of political and civic life, respecting the rights of others,
defending one's own rights and the rights of others against those who
would abuse them.

That's right out of a basic civil law textbook.

What you are stating is an oath of office.

This is the Oath of Citizenship.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of
the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I'm sure you agree to that oath.

So, Ill ask the original question again - What is the difference
between your philosophy of morally compelled to break laws you
disagree with and, in theory, the President being morally compelled to
do the same?

When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

Non sequitur.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:17:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...



Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.



Tell me about it. Rather, tell Mrs.E. about it. When winter sets in our
driveway becomes a sheet of ice and it's a long, long driveway. I am sick
and tired of spreading 20 bucks worth of de-icer every time it snows or
rains and then freezes like it's done for the past few days. Our house is
up on a hill and nobody can make it up the driveway unless your's truly goes
out and cracks the ice with de-icer, then pushes it away with the tractor.

I am sick of it, I am telling you.

One word - Urea before the ice starts.

Ok, that was five words - sue me. :)

I use it and have for years. When the possibility of ice comes up, I
spread a light coating of urea with a fertilizer spreader.

When it's all said and done, clean walks and driveway. Like freakin'
magic.

Doesn't rust metal, doesn't hurt the grass along the edge of the
driveway or walks.

Just don't get carried away spreading it.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:15 -0500, HK wrote:

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s

No kidding?

You must know my good friend Mike Tobias then.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation

Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:14 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."
That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.
A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

Ok, I'll give you that one. Goes to show you how long ago I
registered to vote. :)

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.

Um...you, as a citizen, have certain obligations to the state in which
you live. To wit: paying taxes, serving in the country's armed forces
when called upon, obeying the civil/criminal laws enacted by one's
government, demonstrating commitment and loyalty to the democratic
political community and state, constructively criticizing the
conditions of political and civic life, participating to improve the
quality of political and civic life, respecting the rights of others,
defending one's own rights and the rights of others against those who
would abuse them.

That's right out of a basic civil law textbook.

What you are stating is an oath of office.

This is the Oath of Citizenship.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of
the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I'm sure you agree to that oath.

So, Ill ask the original question again - What is the difference
between your philosophy of morally compelled to break laws you
disagree with and, in theory, the President being morally compelled to
do the same?

When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

Non sequitur.


A. Other than paying taxes on income and not breaking the law, there are
no other obligations of an ordinary citizen.

B. The oath of citizenship is not taken by native-borns.

C. The POTUS takes an oath. Whatever his moral compulsion, he cannot
legally take steps that interfere with his oath.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Now while I have a very successful career, and have many professional and
personal achievements I am proud about, I don't think it is necessary to
discuss them in a recreational forum.


Since 99% of the posters here are anti-labor, it is unlikely they're going
to be impressed with my labor union history.


Out voted again. :-)

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I
were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.
Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor
contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to
You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small
at the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session
committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.


I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your
girl, Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch
She's not my first choice and never has been. Neither is Obama.

Don't tell me you are a Kucinich backer!




You know what? I really like Dennis. Not as a potential president, of
course, but as a really interesting, funny guy. And I think he has a
dish as a wife. I like Dennis' good-humored zaniness.

None of the Dems I would like to get the nomination have a chance. I
prefer Biden, Richardson or Dodd.

If Hillary is nominated, she will wipe the floor with any of the
Republican hopefuls. None of them has the set of balls she has, and all
of them have more fatal flaws than she. But I have no clue as to whether
she will be the nominee.

Rudy - corruption, and really strange family life.

Romney - the model on which all flip-floppers are based.

Thompson - dead and ready for burial.

Huckabee - the candidate from Jesus.

Paul - still crazy after all these years.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation

Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.

That is the WOD.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

I vaguely remember a recent incident revolving around a sex act.
No way I could count the times I heard his opponents say:
"The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land."
Just a vague memory.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:15 -0500, HK wrote:

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s

No kidding?

You must know my good friend Mike Tobias then.


No bells are ringing here.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

I vaguely remember a recent incident revolving around a sex act.
No way I could count the times I heard his opponents say:
"The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land."
Just a vague memory.

--Vic


Indeed. A sex act. With a woman of legal age. Quite a bit different than
lying us into a war with Iraq. or trying to lie us into a war with Iran,
or any of the other horrific acts perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on
behalf of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in
the United States and as a result of success in that area, my
principal and I were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the
incoming Reagan Administration and then offered the same jobs again
in 1984. Independently, we both said no both times.
Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your
principal independently said no, both times. That and the "largest
labor contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to
You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many
years, and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee
twice, during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major
postal unions bargained together in committee fashion. The committees
were very small at the main sessions, where I participated, but the
craft session committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your
girl, Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch
She's not my first choice and never has been. Neither is Obama.
Don't tell me you are a Kucinich backer!

You know what? I really like Dennis. Not as a potential president, of
course, but as a really interesting, funny guy. And I think he has a dish
as a wife. I like Dennis' good-humored zaniness.

He is an idiot. No doubt about it.


None of the Dems I would like to get the nomination have a chance. I
prefer Biden, Richardson or Dodd.

If Hillary is nominated, she will wipe the floor with any of the
Republican hopefuls. None of them has the set of balls she has, and all of
them have more fatal flaws than she. But I have no clue as to whether she
will be the nominee.

A perfect Christmas gift for you:

http://www.prankplace.com/hillary_nu...FRuhFQod9Hac7w




I ordered one of those for my wife: she's a Hillary fan.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:56:24 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:15 -0500, HK wrote:

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s

No kidding?

You must know my good friend Mike Tobias then.

No bells are ringing here.

Hmmm - that's odd.

Oh well...

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Vic Smith wrote:
"

I vaguely remember a recent incident revolving around a sex act.
No way I could count the times I heard his opponents say:
"The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land."
Just a vague memory.

--Vic

Vic,
I know the way a thread will develop many tangents, but SWS's original
question was a rhetorical question about someone's ability to pick and
chose the laws they want to obey. He really wasn't trying to provide
justification for anyone disobeying the law. I don't believe a sex act
is illegal though, and i don't believe anyone was ever accused any
president of breaking the law. My memory was the problem had to do with
perjury in a civil suit and before a grand jury.
Eeither way, that horse has been beat so hard and so often in this NG it
is nothing more than a smear on the forum floor.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:45:19 -0500, HK wrote:


A. Other than paying taxes on income and not breaking the law, there are
no other obligations of an ordinary citizen.

Yes there are - the fact that you refuse to adhere to them is not
relevant.
B. The oath of citizenship is not taken by native-borns.

It is implied as a condition of citizenship. If it were not implied
for native borns, then it would not be required of non-citizens who
wish to become citizens.

Look up the case law.

C. The POTUS takes an oath. Whatever his moral compulsion, he cannot
legally take steps that interfere with his oath.

And you are the ultimate rationalizer. I have said before and I'll
say it again - you have a remarkable ability to rationalize anything
as long as it suits your individual view point.

In some ways, that is admirable.

I am finished here.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...



When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I anticipated
I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for trying to end
segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he doesn't like, he
knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court will for the most
part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?


This whole discussion just became a waste of time.

Let's drop it.

Not yet. I remember at the time not having much sympathy for PATCO,
because it was partly a stickup for money, and they could have played
it smarter with Ronnie, a known anti-union wacko.
At the time I had been laid off from my first IT job. 1982.
We had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression.
In 1983, after working some time as a helper for plumber, I went to
work running packaging machines, because the plumbing work was spotty
after I demurred from toking up with my boss.
I had formerly been a packaging machine mechanic. Started the new
operator job at 5.50 an hour, about what I had been making 15 years
prior. To the point. I daily ate lunch with a QC inspector making
the same as me - 5.50 - who had 10 years experience as an ATC before
Ronnie fired him. He had 3 kids and was about to lose his house.
He had stuck with his union leadership, as many did.
He still had some hope to get his ATC job back, but when I left to go
back into IT he was still there.
Ronnie never would let any of these guys be rehired, baldly showing a
mean streak and a disconnect from the "common man."
At the same time him and Nancy were attending ostentatiously lavish
balls.
Although I never hated Ronnie, I don't have much affection for him
either. Nowadays, I really miss Dick Nixon.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:


Sorry, dickbreath, there's no one in here I wish to impress.

Ha ha ha.


I remember
details that to me are important enough to remember. I remember the
first political campaign on which I worked when I was 16 years old, I
remember the candidate, I remember the downtown office in which we made
phone calls, and I remember going to a victory picnic. I also remember
the name of every grade school, junior high, and high school teacher I
had, and that it was Mrs. Dickstein in the third grade who taught us
simple French, and it was Mrs. Olson in the fifth grade who got me
hooked on Latin. On the other hand, it was Ms. McGough in the 8th grade
who told me I could become a writer.

Hell, if I had *half* the accomplishments you claim to have, I wouldn't
be wasting my time in a newsgroup where most of the participants are,
according to you, idiots. After all, there's what here, two "responsible
conservatives"? Good thing there's plenty of lap dogs here who look
adoringly into your eyes and suck up the stories.

snicker


There's no one in here I even know, and probably no more than a half
dozen I'd enjoy meeting. You aren't on the list.

Yea, we all remember what happens when you have to meet up face to face
with someone. ((Peggy Hall))


What have you ever done professionally, Reggie? How long were you
employed as a fluffer?

You're a fraud.

-- Charlie

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:54:06 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation

Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.

That is the WOD.

You should send it to someone...

http://tinyurl.com/ywosrt
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:54:06 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation
Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.
That is the WOD.

You should send it to someone...

http://tinyurl.com/ywosrt

yes, but he would just cut me off and then go onto another diatribe.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:17:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...



Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.



Tell me about it. Rather, tell Mrs.E. about it. When winter sets in our
driveway becomes a sheet of ice and it's a long, long driveway. I am sick
and tired of spreading 20 bucks worth of de-icer every time it snows or
rains and then freezes like it's done for the past few days. Our house is
up on a hill and nobody can make it up the driveway unless your's truly goes
out and cracks the ice with de-icer, then pushes it away with the tractor.

I am sick of it, I am telling you.

Eisboch


Put up a sign..."Icy driveway, use cell phone"
--
John H