"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?

"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

"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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.