"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch


Of course not! Hehehe.

Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the executive
branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in behalf and in
the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union was
well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were strongly
encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a political
agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often enough some
people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch

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

Eisboch wrote:
It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch

Of course not! Hehehe.

Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the executive
branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in behalf and in
the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union was
well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were strongly
encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a political
agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often enough some
people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch



Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always
opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I
was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union
strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York.

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.

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

Eisboch wrote:
It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch

Of course not! Hehehe.

Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the
executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in
behalf and in the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union
was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were
strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating
the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a
political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often
enough some people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch

Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always
opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I
was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union
strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York.

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.

So if laws don't fit in with your philosophy, it's OK to break them?

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

Eisboch wrote:
It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch
Of course not! Hehehe.
Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the
executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in
behalf and in the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union
was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were
strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating
the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a
political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often
enough some people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch
Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always
opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I
was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union
strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York.

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.

So if laws don't fit in with your philosophy, it's OK to break them?



It all depends on "the laws." If you recall, in certain parts of this
country, it was against the law to teach about evolution in the public
classrooms. It was against the law for people of color to drink from
certain public drinking fountains, ride in the front of the bus, stay in
certain hotels, and so on and so forth.

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.

"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.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..




This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:59:18 -0500, 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.

Leave it.
--
John H