HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:22:25 -0500, HK wrote:

Your 49' RV sank at the dock, but was hoisted out and fixed up.
Nope, not even built yet. I hope you're not referring to the
election of Ronald Reagan. We
could use someone with his common sense approach to leadership and
management right now.


Please. Our ATC system has never recovered, and is rapidly heading
straight down the tubes.

They played the strike card and RWR played the you are fired card.
The system recovered. It is the incompetent government contracting
method that has caused the problems.

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.

Harry,
The ATC workers went on strike because they wanted a more money, a
reduced work week and a better retirement package. They did not address
or express any concerns about flight paths, equipment or an increase in
customer traffic.

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

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:29:07 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:04:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:41:26 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Look into it sometime and see what havoc the sub-prime market is
having on smaller Eurpoean countries.

It's scary.
You just made an extremely good point, Tom.

The current housing/credit crisis is not a USA specific issue or problem.
It's world-wide.
I just read an article about a small town in Norway that is into CDOs
structured on sub-prime debt and they don't have enough money to fund
their social retirement system and local government.

The Dutch, who have a 63% income tax, are also having some
dislocations due to CDOs. The viability of their social system is
comeing under severe pressure.

The media and spin artists give the impression that it's unique to the
continued downfall of the USA.
I agree.

The Dutch are beginning to see the light regarding their social welfare
system. The problem is that many of the voters are the ones receiving the
welfare. Guess who they continue to vote for. They invited their
immigration problem, and it's burying them.

Nothing like that could ever happen in this country, of course.

This country has been sliding into hell since 1980, and will continue
its journey until it gets there.

You may be correct. We seem to be headed very much in the same direction as
the Dutch. Time will tell.
--
John H

"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

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.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



Go pee up a rope, Reggie.


Heh ... that's basically what the ATC said to Reagan in 1981. Didn't work.
:-)

Here's something to refresh your memory:

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm

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?

"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.

Well, with all due respect, the fact that you have always opposed legal
restrictions on the right to strike doesn't change the fact that that
Congress determined it to be illegal in 1955 (for federal employees) and the
Supreme Court determined the law to be constitutional when challenged in
1971. You have been out voted.



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.

You are entitled to think what you want but consider:

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

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.

Eisboch 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.

Well, with all due respect, the fact that you have always opposed legal
restrictions on the right to strike doesn't change the fact that that
Congress determined it to be illegal in 1955 (for federal employees) and the
Supreme Court determined the law to be constitutional when challenged in
1971. You have been out voted.



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.

You are entitled to think what you want but consider:

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.