wrote in message
...
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.

Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981. Do
you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's a
fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch

"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

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".

Eisboch



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.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
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.



Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981.
Do you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's
a fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced to
take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications were both
immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any responsible
president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation like that.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:29:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced
to take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications
were both immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any
responsible president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation
like that.

Eisboch

I think you were right the first time. I think Carter had a contingency
in place to survive the strike. I don't think he would have fired the
controllers.

It has been argued that the firings were an ambush, a chance for Reagan
to look tough. Note the letter to Robert Poli, head of PATCO, written in
Oct, 1980. I wonder what changed.


Dear Mr. Poli:
I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable
state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that
too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has
placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so
clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to
act responsibly.
You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take
whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with
the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work
days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of
public safety....
I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with
you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the
air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

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

wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:29:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced
to take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications
were both immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any
responsible president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation
like that.

Eisboch

I think you were right the first time. I think Carter had a contingency
in place to survive the strike. I don't think he would have fired the
controllers.

It has been argued that the firings were an ambush, a chance for Reagan
to look tough. Note the letter to Robert Poli, head of PATCO, written in
Oct, 1980. I wonder what changed.


Dear Mr. Poli:
I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable
state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that
too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has
placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so
clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to
act responsibly.
You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take
whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with
the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work
days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of
public safety....
I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with
you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the
air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan



What changed...was that Reagan needed a way to look tough, as I
previously stated.

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".

Eisboch



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.

Say Goodnight Gracie

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?

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?

SWS,
Damn you! Stop trying to bring logic into this discussion.

Don't you know this is UseNet and the correct manner of carrying on a
discussion is to use childish insults, emotional rants, and repeating
yourself over and over.