Filed under: Retirement Benefit
Question:
I can’t help but notice the following… (from the CNN article) What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the CIA and the White House. And this following quote… "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in Washington, so we [soldiered] on." May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? Maybe the next time Clinton is on Larry King he could talk about these "considerations". The *press*, who normally loves to take any story about Washington culpability firmly in its’ teeth, seem to have little to say about these "policy considerations" and the subsequent 9/11 attack. Mr. Clinton did say some rather nice things about Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, which means that he is still watching the polls quite closely. On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite light. gtski
Response:
OIL = dems and repubs with industrial interests plus old anti-communist bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy is my friend theory.
Response:
> On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it > a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite > light.
I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? See ya, John
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it >a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite >light. > I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. > It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings > would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? > See ya, > John
Yes. I played it using a couple of Reverends guitars.. one with humbuckers, and one with P-90s. Very Nice..! ! The different "tone" settings give it a multi-facceted appeal… Reverend *seems* to be calling it a "practice amp", that can be used at small gigs. It is LOUD for such a small package, and while I didn’t get to play it REAL loud, I think it would in fact be usable at small gigs. One thing about trying it out at a show, since it can’t be "cranked up" it’s hard to tell the difference between 5 and 15 watts.. it is quite loud at the 5 watt setting. I think that if a bunch of guys sat down to jam, and they all had Goblins, it would be loud enough to be "fun" and not bring the cops. And I think everyone would get a "kick" playing these little beasts. My guess… if you try one, you’ll buy one. gtski PS- if a gigging musician wanted to buy a *new* rig that would cover most of what they needed to do, one could buy a Reverend guitar, a Kingsnake, a Goblin, and a couple of "Reverend Approved" pedals and be done. For the "bigger" venues, just add a Reverend external spkr, 1×12 or the new 2×12. NOTE – I don’t work for, nor am I affiliated in any way with the Reverend company, these are merely my opinions and mine alone. ;-)
Response:
> I can’t help but notice the following…
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite the article! > (from the CNN article) > What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had > developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and > then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the > CIA and the White House.
Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > And this following quote… > "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t > taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which > was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. > "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in > Washington, so we [soldiered] on." > May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" > allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..??
No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read some of it, if you can stand the pain. Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a complete plan. By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of a plan. In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, all plans in place. W et al ignored it… until finally, September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down by the Clinton admin nine months before, was approved in toto. Too late. Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it up by attacking Iraq. We’re still paying for it. __ Steve .
Response:
>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article!
Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html >(from the CNN article) >What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had >developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and >then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the >CIA and the White House. > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book…
No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ a bit on his "claims". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And this following quote… >"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain.
Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin Laden most of all. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan.
Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans that are put into action that *count*. > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of > a plan.
By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down. Clinton had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he defered in the last 6 months is a joke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place.
In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush would do what he didn’t… > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late.
Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* Bush had the balls to do it…??? > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq.
Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..??? We’re still paying for it. IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry sex-scandal. BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts. D-Day was but one battle of one theater of one war against one enemy. Google up some casualty figures… then google up some casualty figures of the next 6 months of war in Europe. Then compare that to the losses for then entire Afghan and Iraq confict over the last few years. While your on the subject of "costs", compare the dollar cost as a percentage of USA GNP for WWII, Korea, VietNam, Gulf war I, and Gulf war II… let’s hear your insight on comparitive "costs" of war/conflict. Do you have a beef with the Marshall Plan…??? That money, if saved and not spent, would by now provide free medical and retirement benefits for every American alive. Maybe it was better spent how it was…??? Were taxpayers crying about "spending our grand-kids money" back during the Marshall Plan…??? Are YOU missing those dollars…??? gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> __ > Steve > .
Response:
Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits…
Oh, horse crap. Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill couldn’t blow his own nose, it was all everyone else’s fault. But almighty George, he just blows his nose and that signals that millions of lackeys go kill people. You can’t have it both ways.
Response:
>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article! > Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html
… > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ > a bit on his "claims".
I’m reading the paperback edition… dated 2004. It’s dynamite. Provide a cite for any retraction of his… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>And this following quote… >>"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >>taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >>was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >>"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >>Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >>May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >>allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain. > Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, > same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t > pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of > PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden > and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin > Laden most of all.
Do you assert that this information is contained in the book referenced above (in the CNN article)? There was inside knowledge of a big meeting… if the Military could have pulled it off without telegraphing the missile launch (the book goes into detail), then Musharraf would have been over a barrel, at dinner with the American ambassador, assured that the missiles were ours, headed for Taliban camps. The military bungled it bad… telegraphed its punch with hours to go. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan. > Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan > constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans > that are put into action that *count*.
Indeed… where was W? > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have
handed Bush a war instead of > a plan. > By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he > and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA > would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down.
Then why did Bush do nothing? >Clinton > had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he > defered in the last 6 months is a joke.
If you don’t read the book, I’m not going to quote it all here for you. I urge the others reading here to read Clarke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place. > In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, > things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush > would do what he didn’t…
Remember the Millenium plot? Clinton nipped that one in the bud… what we learned from that was… nobody cares. You’re better off politically to let the attack come through, then you have carte blanche. Bush applied that lesson well. > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late. > Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin > handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* > Bush had the balls to do it…???
‘Befulded’? Freudian, that! Anyway, read the book. > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq. > Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..???
No… he got a hummer. Good on ‘im, I say. > We’re still paying for it.
What, the witch hunt, or the hummer? > IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… > and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while > Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry > sex-scandal.
I’d rather be remembered for staining Monica’s dress than reading a children’s book through 9/11… anyway, time will tell. > BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the > "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts.
Why? The current situation bears *no* comparison to D Day *at all*… one could more profitably compare it to WWI, where Wilson lied to the country about our inevitable future involvement in the conflict. In fact, the case can be made for a comparison to Pearl Harbor, where it certainly falls within the realm of possibility that the attack was allowed to happen in order to polarize the populace (and save crypto intel). I don’t think you’ll find that many that really give a damn about Iraq… this was Bush’s pet war, plain and simple, and it *completely fucked up* the War On Terror. Europeans are our direct ancestors… Iraq just pissed off the wrong president. Now *we* pay. __ Steve read Clarke .
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: > … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Oh, horse crap. > Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill > couldn’t blow his own nose, > it was all everyone else’s > fault. > But almighty George, he just > blows his nose and that signals > that millions of lackeys go > kill people. > You can’t have it both ways.
Sure I can… after all, what did W do before 9/11? *Less* than Clinton. Way less. One week before 9/11, W says "Iraq, Macedonia, very troubling…"… he couldn’t be given a clue. Bush reaped the benefit of 9/11… and completely, thoroughly squandered it. Read Clarke. __ Steve .
Response:
> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11?
It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part of a year for a new administration to get set-up. See ya, John
Response:
> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11? > It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his > cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part > of a year for a new administration to get set-up.
Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? Why the Bush foot dragging? Did he not see the danger? He was certainly *told* of the danger. "In January 2001, with the Florida fiasco behind us, I briefed each of my old friends and associates from the first Bush administration, Condi Rice, Steve Hadley, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. My message was stark: al Qaeda is at war with us, it is a highly capable organization, probably with sleeper cells in the U.S, and it is clearly planning a major series of atttacks against us; we must act decisively and quickly, deciding on the issues prepared after the attack on the Cole, going on the offensive." Clarke, pg 227. __ Steve .
Response:
mighty George is the one sucking face with the Saudi’s. It was a fraternity of Saudi who flew into the trade center. It was Bush makin deals on behalf of Unocal in Texas when he was governor. These guys all play hockey for various corporate donors. Sometimes they share donors and sometimes they play on opposite sides of the ice, it depends on what’s convenient. I don’t think Clinton was, ummm principled with regard to campaign favors (actually you could say he WAS principled – I mean he did his his job for those who paid him) but I think Bush is 10 times worse and far more dangerous because he "believes" rather than "thinks." And you can’t say that Bill killed more US soldiers in stupid wars than Bush. Bush wins hands down there. Suppose you look it this as power plays by varioius global companies and various families. I mean this literally. The Bush and Saudi Royal family have been working together for ages. Oil is almost but not quite thicker then blood. We will never get binLaden while Bush is president because we need the oil more than we need Osama and Osama serves as a useful propaganda rallying flag. Bush get’s what he needs, the Saudi’s get what they want. Also don’t forget how much of the US they actually own and how much we are in debt to them. And especially don’t forget how much the neo cons were praying for a disaster of this sort so that they could instigate theor plan to take over the world by "benevolent" force and install puppet democracies everywhere. As to Clinton and our Lady of Walmart. In bed with the Chinese since the first $300,000 campaign contribution. It really galls me that he sold himself so cheaply.
Response:
> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack?
Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that the foot dragging had been on going. > Why the Bush foot dragging?
Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time. See ya, John
Response:
> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? > Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have > called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, > but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s > admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that > the foot dragging had been on going.
"As in the case of Khobar and the East African embassy bombings, the FBI sent out a large team to collect evidence and interrogate witnesses. Ever the hands-on guy, John O’Neill led the team. He ran right into the US Ambassador I would least like to deal with under those circumstances, Barbara Bodine. O’Neill could charm a corpse, but he could not find a modus vivendi with the US Ambassador to Yemen. The Yemeni government also dragged its feet in the investigation, leading to President Clinton’s becoming personally involved. The US government left the Yemenis in no doubt about the two alternative paths that Yemeni-American relations could take. Meanwhile in Washingtone neither CIA nor FBI would state the obvious: al Qaeda did it. We knew there was a large al Qaeda cell in Yemen. There was also a large cell of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, but that group had now announced its complete merger into al Qaeda, so what difference did it make which group did the attack? Lisa Gordeon-Hagerty, Paul Kurtz, and Roger Cressey had worked around-the-clock pieceing together the evidence and had made a very credible case against al Qaeda. CIA would agree only months later." > Why the Bush foot dragging? > Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and > getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some > time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting > Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time.
The problem was that the intel was ‘not made here’… it was tainted by being a product of the Clinton admin. Therefore, time had to pass, even though the plan would eventually be approved almost verbatim. Both Tenet and Clarke, pleading to loose the dogs against al Qaeda…. Bush saying "Iraq, Macedonia… very troublesome right now". Let History judge. __ Steve .
Response:
Question:
FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala".
Response:
> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala".
Cold-eyed reality is that we’ve been living in a global economy since WWII, and also that both technology & economic forces are continually reducing the number of workers needed worldwide – it just isn’t those 2 corporate states’ turn yet. A much bigger issue, is how your masters will go about reducing the population to cut the expenses of maintaining & managing increasing numbers of nonproductive human captial franchisees (often still called "citizens").
Response:
Thanks to Oprah car sales are up! up! UP! > FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD
FORD TO UNIONS: DROP DEAD Unions = Exhorbitant pay for lazy ineffective workers. Stay competitive America! Bust the union mafia! As a former Navel Aerator, (you know I am a formal Navy Aerator) this is something I know a little about. In fact I know little about a great deal of subjects. Now Oprah on the other hand, there’s a woman who knows how to shave ~!~ The next Socialist Idol: M~!~MulaY – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala".
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > Cold-eyed reality is that we’ve been living in a global economy since > WWII, and also that both technology & economic forces are continually > reducing the number of workers needed worldwide – it just isn’t those > 2 corporate states’ turn yet. A much bigger issue, is how your > masters will go about reducing the population to cut the expenses of > maintaining & managing increasing numbers of nonproductive human > captial franchisees (often still called "citizens").
The cold-eyed reality is that the CEOs and VPs in many major corporations make a thousand times what a guy on the line makes. The cold-eyed reality is that for them greed is good. The cold-eyed reality is that if they were a tad more ethical then 22,000 more people would actually be able to afford (pardon the pun) the shit boxes that roll off their assembly lines. The cold-eyed reality is that the corporations have been fucking the middle class up the ass for a long, long time because they care more about money than their fellow man. And you’re right, they will try to exterminate as many of us as possible once they’ve squandered our resources beyond the point of sustainability for the general populace. Our only solace will come when they inevitably turn on each other. Unless we bring them down. Up the revolution! Bring ‘em on! Tubeguru
Response:
> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala".
http://untruenews.com/2002/jan14.html Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
Auto makers aren’t in the business of creating jobs. — Kevin -=#=-
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The > cold-eyed reality is that if they were a tad more ethical then 22,000 more > people would actually be able to afford (pardon the pun) the shit boxes > that
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > Cold-eyed reality is that we’ve been living in a global economy since > WWII, and also that both technology & economic forces are continually > reducing the number of workers needed worldwide – it just isn’t those > 2 corporate states’ turn yet. A much bigger issue, is how your > masters will go about reducing the population to cut the expenses of > maintaining & managing increasing numbers of nonproductive human > captial franchisees (often still called "citizens"). > The cold-eyed reality is that the CEOs and VPs in many major corporations > make a thousand times what a guy on the line makes. The cold-eyed reality > is > that for them greed is good. The > cold-eyed reality is that if they were a tad more ethical then 22,000 more > people would actually be able to afford (pardon the pun) the shit boxes > that > roll off their assembly lines. The cold-eyed reality is that the > corporations have been fucking the middle class up the ass for a long, > long > time > because they care more about money than their fellow man. And you’re > right, > they will try to exterminate as many of us as possible once they’ve > squandered our resources beyond the point > of sustainability for the general populace. Our only solace will come when > they inevitably turn on each other. Unless we bring them down. Up the > revolution! Bring ‘em on! > Tubeguru
Or, maybe the citizens will come to realize that just like Islamists, the only good multi-national is a dead multi-national. "Let them eat cake", marked the end of an era. It is time that the multi-national corporations met their demise. They no longer work for the good of the people. Their license to exist is about to expire. Everyone – sell your multi-national stocks. We can show them who is boss. Ed Cregger
Response:
Fascinating that one of the AGA leftists was forced to pull a "news" clip from over 2 years ago that wasn’t true to begin with, then goes on an anti-captitalist & CEO rant, making a total idiot of themselves. It might surprise you Corporate America-haters that Mr. Ford, grandson of Henry Ford I, accepts no financial comensation, no salary or bonus, as chairman of FOMOCO. That is, he runs Ford Motor FOR NOTHING when he could receive millions. Name one liberal politician who does his job for nothing! Go ahead NAME ONE!!!!!! Further, name one liberal who’s ever employed over 250,000 workers, provided them with health & life insurance, retirement benefits second to none, etc. And runs a company over 100 years old. Go ahead NAME ONE!!!!! Fact is, liberals profess to LOVE JOBS, but they hate the institutions and individuals that provide them. Perhaps their real heros, old Vlady Lenin or his buddy Little Joe Stalin will be reincarnated and show the way. Last time we looked, the commies’ legacy was poor people murdered by the millions and a century later, still living in filth. Grow up you asshols: Go to school, get a job and shut the fuck up!!!!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > http://untruenews.com/2002/jan14.html > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> Grow up you asshols: Go to school, get a job and shut the fuck up!!!!
Jerry, could you be a little more explicit and tell us how you really feel? <G> I like a blend of capitalism, socialism, ismism, futurism, archeoism, etcism. I would like to blend the best features of all "isms" into one system and then keep only the good parts that work together. When a hard right wing conservative calls me a lefty and a lefty calls me a conservative, I know I’m doing something right – er – left? Ed Cregger
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > Cold-eyed reality is that we’ve been living in a global economy since > WWII, and also that both technology & economic forces are continually > reducing the number of workers needed worldwide – it just isn’t those > 2 corporate states’ turn yet. A much bigger issue, is how your > masters will go about reducing the population to cut the expenses of > maintaining & managing increasing numbers of nonproductive human > captial franchisees (often still called "citizens"). > The cold-eyed reality is that the CEOs and VPs in many major corporations > make a thousand times what a guy on the line makes. The cold-eyed reality is > that for them greed is good. The > cold-eyed reality is that if they were a tad more ethical then 22,000 more > people would actually be able to afford (pardon the pun) the shit boxes that > roll off their assembly lines. The cold-eyed reality is that the > corporations have been fucking the middle class up the ass for a long, long > time > because they care more about money than their fellow man. And you’re right, > they will try to exterminate as many of us as possible once they’ve > squandered our resources beyond the point > of sustainability for the general populace. Our only solace will come when > they inevitably turn on each other. Unless we bring them down. Up the > revolution! Bring ‘em on! > Tubeguru
Riiiight on…brother!
Response:
Gee, that’s profoundly obtuse. So I guess *no one* needs a job at a corporation, right? After all, they’re not the place to get a job, are they? And not the place to make enough money to buy one of their products, are they? And fuck the American dream of having a good rewarding job, a suitable home and a nice car. I can imagine if founder, Henry Ford was still alive he’d be personally strangling his descendent, Clay Ford Jr. as we speak and most likely having a few words to Baghdad Buush and the fanaticon Congress.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Auto makers aren’t in the business of creating jobs. > — > Kevin > -=#=- > The > cold-eyed reality is that if they were a tad more ethical then 22,000 more > people would actually be able to afford (pardon the pun) the shit boxes > that
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > http://untruenews.com/2002/jan14.html > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Time Electronics. > http://www.timeelect.com > Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, > Music & Studio Production, > Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Truth is stranger than fiction he he he he 
Plant closing list coming up. Add your favorite plant closing here:
Response:
AND NOW FOR THE REAL NEWS!!!!!!! The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don’t need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal! For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it’s "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you’d have every plant you own on a barge." General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000. Motorola has received almost $500 million in direct loans and loan subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank. The result? A mere 56 percent of its workforce is now located in the United States. In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five recipients of Ex-Im subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce by 38% – more than a third of a million jobs down the drain. These same five companies have received more than 60 percent of all Export-Import Bank subsidies. Boeing, the leading Ex-Im recipient, has reduced its workforce by more than 100,000 employees over the past ten years. Here are a few examples of your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work: The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. – exacerbating the crisis in our steel industry. Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was "not economically viable." THIS ONE HERE OUGHT TO REALLY GET YOUR GOAT! NATIONAL SECURITY? HA HA HA HA HA HA The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinists’ Local 751: "Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing’s definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?" The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances to export back to the United States. This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American jobs in Bloomington, Indiana. And on and on it goes. The bottom line is that if the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed so as to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated. American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers
Response:
> Gee, that’s profoundly obtuse. > So I guess *no one* needs a job at a corporation, right? > After all, they’re not the place to get a job, are they? > And not the place to make enough money to buy one > of their products, are they? And fuck the American dream > of having a good rewarding job, a suitable home and a nice car.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. You’re a moron, on your best days. Typical liberal. > I can imagine if founder, Henry Ford was still alive he’d be personally > strangling his descendent, Clay Ford Jr. as we speak and most likely > having a few words to Baghdad Buush and the fanaticon Congress.
That was a fun little indulgence. Your medication must be kicking in. — Kevin -=#=-
Response:
> AND NOW FOR THE REAL NEWS!!!!!!! > The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes > to wealthy and profitable corporations that don’t need it, but that in
There went your credibility, again. Who determines "need"? — Kevin -=#=-
Response:
" into one system and > then keep only the good parts that work together. > When a hard right wing conservative calls me a lefty and a lefty calls me a > conservative, I know I’m doing something right – er – left? > Ed Cregger
Incorrect. You’re uh bi-lingual er I mean ambidexterous! http://www.ambidextrous.org/tunes.htm No?
Response:
Just having a little fun with you. Seeing if Lord Valve and his minions were on their toesie wosies. Catch me! catch me! catch me!!!! But fact of the matter is Who determines need? The person who "Needs" the most power. Or should that be the person who "wants" the most power. You tell me? and tell me the difference between "want" and "need" ? http://est.rbma.com/content/Bizarro?date=20040828
Response:
Greg "asshol" McGeorge’s Quality Job 1… LV needs a cheeze scraping behind the stinking meat slab he uses for a walker. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Grow up you asshols: Go to school, get a job and shut the fuck up!!!!
Response:
Who determines need? The giver. "Need" is when you’re desperate enough to ask for help, and you’ll take whatever is offered. "Want" is when you’ll take is offered, and still demand more. People need. Liberals want. — Kevin -=#=-
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Just having a little fun with you. Seeing if Lord Valve and his minions > were on their toesie wosies. Catch me! catch me! catch me!!!! > But fact of the matter is > Who determines need? The person who "Needs" the most power. Or should > that be the person who "wants" the most power. You tell me? and tell me > the difference between "want" and "need" ? > http://est.rbma.com/content/Bizarro?date=20040828
Response:
You’ve needed a punch in the face since you were "little", but you’re a suburban rat . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Who determines need? The giver. "Need" is when you’re desperate enough to > ask for help, and you’ll take whatever is offered. "Want" is when you’ll > take is offered, and still demand more. > People need. Liberals want.
Response:
> Who determines need? The giver. "Need" is when you’re desperate enough to > ask for help, and you’ll take whatever is offered. "Want" is when you’ll > take is offered, and still demand more. > People need. Liberals want. > — > Kevin > -=#=-
How’s that agian? you’re saying liberals aren’t people. What about libertarians? Let’s see now there are people…. and then there is every one else. People are what? Define needs. Here are some definitions. LV can tell you where I got them. "The fundamental motivations and requirements of people, not to be confused with "wants" or "desires". The distinction between "needs" and "wants" becomes subject to debate beyond the minimal levels of basics such as food, clothing, shelter, drinkable water, and breathable air. Items that most Americans would consider necessities of life may be useless extravagances to other cultures. Psychological studies have indicated that conditions that should have no effect on the body may be necessities for maintaining mental health, and therefore physical health and productivity." "Something deemed to be necessary for survival that has no or few substitutes. Most of what we perceive we need is in fact a "want." There are substitutes for almost everything." "Result from a discrepancy between an actual and a desired state of being" Let me use your definition of want "Want" is when you’ll > take is offered, and still demand more. That sounds like what happens during contract renewal time in every pro sport.
If I understand you correctly wanting is a bad thing? A Liberal attribute??? Come again? Would you care to rephrase that?
Response:
> Fascinating that one of the AGA leftists was forced to pull a "news" clip > from over 2 years ago that wasn’t true to begin with, then goes on an > anti-captitalist & CEO rant, making a total idiot of themselves.
I wasn’t forced to post a totally fake news story from a satirical site. I did it to get a rise out of you all. You have no sense of humor whatsoever. I did it totally on purpose for fun to antaognize you and to see if our great and fearless leader would tag me, but you did instead. I am not a lefist. I own my own company and more real estate than I want. I employee more than 10 people. I happen to think that manufacuring in the US matters. I think that once our manufacturing base is gone, we’re vulnerable to those who make everything we use. All service business rely on tools and machines. It’s a dangerous thing to have to rely on someone else. I think the CEOs I throw mud at have no loyalty to this country whatsoever and are motivated by greed, many are criminals pure and simple. One can be a capitalist while critiqueing the system. I happen to think it is one’s duty to do so. The total idiot is the one who participates in group think. 8 lesson in group think – google it up yourself. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency. A lot of you guys are guilty as charged whatever your political name.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD > The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce > expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. > Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had > strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it > cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " > Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford > told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can > apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > http://untruenews.com/2002/jan14.html > Regards, > Rich Koerner,
Hey Rich … with all due respect, this is exactly what you were on about concerning industries going "offshore". Yeah, I know ZW is satirizing the situation, but it IS the situation. Right? — Don http://www.don-evans.com
Response:
> How’s that agian? you’re saying liberals aren’t people. What about > libertarians? Let’s see now there are people…. and then there is > every one else. People are what?
Libertarians won’t ask for help. We’re motivated self-starters! People are everyone "not liberal". > Define needs.
Already did. > Here are some definitions. LV can tell you where I got them.
All that matters is that you have to borrow ideas, again. > "The fundamental motivations and requirements of people, not to be > confused with "wants" or "desires". The distinction between "needs" > and "wants" becomes subject to debate beyond the minimal levels of > basics such as food, clothing, shelter, drinkable water, and > breathable air. Items that most Americans would consider necessities > of life may be useless extravagances to other cultures. Psychological > studies have indicated that conditions that should have no effect on > the body may be necessities for maintaining mental health, and > therefore physical health and productivity."
The Salvation Army "needs" donations, but they aren’t the ones "in need". Students "need" school supplies, but they "want" designer backpacks. > "Something deemed to be necessary for survival that has no or few > substitutes. Most of what we perceive we need is in fact a "want." > There are substitutes for almost everything."
For some things, there are no substitutes. For example, the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights. > "Result from a discrepancy between an actual and a desired state of > being"
That’s not even a complete sentence. You’re clipboard must be full! > Let me use your definition of want "Want" is when you’ll > take is offered, and still demand more. That sounds like what happens > during contract renewal time in every pro sport.
It also sounds like liberal lobbyists seeking new entitlements. It makes me think of baby birds in the nest, being fed by their parents. > If I understand you correctly wanting is a bad thing? A Liberal > attribute???
You do not understand. > Come again? Would you care to rephrase that?
Anybody can want. Liberals just want, and very little else, to the detriment of all. — Kevin -=#=-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> FORD TO AMERICA: DROP DEAD >> The Ford Motor Company will close five plants in an effort to reduce >> expenses. 22,000 people in the USA are expected to lose their jobs. >> Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr. said the company had >> strayed from their primary goal of making quality automobiles "and it >> cost us dearly. And by ‘us’ I mean ‘you’. " >> Bristling at criticism that Ford is screwing their workers, Mr. Ford >> told Untrue News "If the workers want their jobs so badly, they can >> apply at our plants in Thailand and Guatemala". > http://untruenews.com/2002/jan14.html > Regards, > Rich Koerner, > Hey Rich … with all due respect, this is exactly what you were on about > concerning industries going "offshore". Yeah, I know ZW is satirizing the > situation, but it IS the situation. Right?
It is the situation. I wish I knew the answer to the problem. I don’t, but I do know when some politician cooks up a phony answer. Long term, it looks like the answer is gonna be learning how to live with a lower standard of living. I think we are already living with a lower standard of living. The quality of our "things" is arguably much lower than our "things" of even 20 years ago. Like ol Kevin says. There’s wants and then there’s needs. Most of what we think we need, we really want. Thank you Advertising Age. Anyhoo, Welcome to the post industrial world. Service = servitude. I think it’s gonna look a whole lot like the pre-industrial world but a whole lot nastier, Under The Thunderdome on radioactive steriods nasty.
Response:
Question:
>Whiny left-wing pink-o loser. >Capitalist Pig
Errrr. Is asshole just understood or shouldn’t you have included that in the basic description of Thumper? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We Republicans do everything above board. Read the savage condemnation of > >Richard Clarke by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist on the floor of the >US > >Senate: >http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_i… >onth=3&Year=2004 > >Capitalist Pig > Partisan hack. > Thumper > >> Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp > >> March 29th, 2004 > >> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3440 > >> Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of > >> protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who > >> remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the > >> Democrats rushing forward to decry the "trashing" of Richard Clarke. > >> Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a > >> daily basis? > >> It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a > >> comparative light. > >> Alleged Offense > >> Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and revealed > >> the national security deliberations of professional non-political > >> career civil service advisers to the President and his chief aides. In > >> doing so, he ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely > >> on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous Presidents of > >> both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or potential courses of > >> action may unexpressed, as a result of the threat of future publicity > >> from a tell-tale aide. Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous > >> (so far secret) testimony and background briefings he previously > >> provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at variance > >> with the facts. > >> Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to > >> protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his > >> sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an > >> intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape > >> recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn > >> perjury. She thus "betrayed" the "friendship" of someone who wanted > >> her to commit a felony to benefit the "friend." > >> Nature of Criticism > >> Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission have been > >> subjected to comparison with his previous writings and testimony, some > >> of which have been, or have been proposed to be, newly declassified or > >> released. Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been questioned, > >> in that his publisher has launched one of the most successful and > >> highly-coordinated publicity campaigns in publishing history, > >> encompassing moving the timing of publication to match his 9/11 > >> Commission testimony, and tying-in sister company CBS’s premier > >> showcase venue, Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars > >> or more. He has, in response, promised to donate an unspecified > >> "portion" of his earnings to the families of 9/11 victims and military > >> survivors of the Afghan campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke > >> have gone so far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. > >> Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her > >> tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp > >> was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being "in it > >> for the money," although no book was ever proposed, written, or > >> published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal > >> appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, > >> donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on > >> Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis. > >> Consequences > >> Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges have been > >> respectfully reported by nearly all of the major media. Only some of > >> the media have subjected his charges to comparison with his earlier > >> testimony and backgrounder views. There have been no reports of > >> Clarke’s pension or retirement benefits being challenged. The size of > >> Clarke’s advance from his publisher and his potential profits from his > >> book have only today been revealed in a leak to Drudge. Clarke’s close > >> connection to John Kerry’s foreign policy advisor (the two men jointly > >> teach a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and > >> is not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press. > >> No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity has so far > >> come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live has plans to hire > >> Roseanne Barr or some other fat comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, > >> appearance, and masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for > >> the comedic festivities. > >> Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, > >> following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, > >> acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about > >> in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight > >> loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her > >> appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, > >> probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp > >> subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer. > >> Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by > >> relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent > >> of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared. > >> For some small things, we can be grateful. > >> Thomas Lifson
Response:
Whiny left-wing pink-o loser. Capitalist Pig
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We Republicans do everything above board. Read the savage condemnation of >Richard Clarke by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist on the floor of the US >Senate: >http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_i… onth=3&Year=2004 >Capitalist Pig > Partisan hack. > Thumper >> Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp >> March 29th, 2004 >> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3440 >> Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of >> protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who >> remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the >> Democrats rushing forward to decry the "trashing" of Richard Clarke. >> Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a >> daily basis? >> It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a >> comparative light. >> Alleged Offense >> Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and revealed >> the national security deliberations of professional non-political >> career civil service advisers to the President and his chief aides. In >> doing so, he ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely >> on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous Presidents of >> both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or potential courses of >> action may unexpressed, as a result of the threat of future publicity >> from a tell-tale aide. Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous >> (so far secret) testimony and background briefings he previously >> provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at variance >> with the facts. >> Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to >> protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his >> sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an >> intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape >> recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn >> perjury. She thus "betrayed" the "friendship" of someone who wanted >> her to commit a felony to benefit the "friend." >> Nature of Criticism >> Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission have been >> subjected to comparison with his previous writings and testimony, some >> of which have been, or have been proposed to be, newly declassified or >> released. Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been questioned, >> in that his publisher has launched one of the most successful and >> highly-coordinated publicity campaigns in publishing history, >> encompassing moving the timing of publication to match his 9/11 >> Commission testimony, and tying-in sister company CBS’s premier >> showcase venue, Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars >> or more. He has, in response, promised to donate an unspecified >> "portion" of his earnings to the families of 9/11 victims and military >> survivors of the Afghan campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke >> have gone so far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. >> Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her >> tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp >> was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being "in it >> for the money," although no book was ever proposed, written, or >> published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal >> appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, >> donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on >> Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis. >> Consequences >> Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges have been >> respectfully reported by nearly all of the major media. Only some of >> the media have subjected his charges to comparison with his earlier >> testimony and backgrounder views. There have been no reports of >> Clarke’s pension or retirement benefits being challenged. The size of >> Clarke’s advance from his publisher and his potential profits from his >> book have only today been revealed in a leak to Drudge. Clarke’s close >> connection to John Kerry’s foreign policy advisor (the two men jointly >> teach a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and >> is not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press. >> No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity has so far >> come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live has plans to hire >> Roseanne Barr or some other fat comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, >> appearance, and masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for >> the comedic festivities. >> Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, >> following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, >> acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about >> in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight >> loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her >> appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, >> probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp >> subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer. >> Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by >> relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent >> of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared. >> For some small things, we can be grateful. >> Thomas Lifson
Response:
>We Republicans do everything above board. Read the savage condemnation of >Richard Clarke by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist on the floor of the US >Senate: >http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_i… >Capitalist Pig
Partisan hack. Thumper – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp > March 29th, 2004 > http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3440 > Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of > protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who > remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the > Democrats rushing forward to decry the "trashing" of Richard Clarke. > Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a > daily basis? > It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a > comparative light. > Alleged Offense > Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and revealed > the national security deliberations of professional non-political > career civil service advisers to the President and his chief aides. In > doing so, he ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely > on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous Presidents of > both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or potential courses of > action may unexpressed, as a result of the threat of future publicity > from a tell-tale aide. Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous > (so far secret) testimony and background briefings he previously > provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at variance > with the facts. > Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to > protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his > sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an > intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape > recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn > perjury. She thus "betrayed" the "friendship" of someone who wanted > her to commit a felony to benefit the "friend." > Nature of Criticism > Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission have been > subjected to comparison with his previous writings and testimony, some > of which have been, or have been proposed to be, newly declassified or > released. Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been questioned, > in that his publisher has launched one of the most successful and > highly-coordinated publicity campaigns in publishing history, > encompassing moving the timing of publication to match his 9/11 > Commission testimony, and tying-in sister company CBS’s premier > showcase venue, Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars > or more. He has, in response, promised to donate an unspecified > "portion" of his earnings to the families of 9/11 victims and military > survivors of the Afghan campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke > have gone so far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. > Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her > tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp > was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being "in it > for the money," although no book was ever proposed, written, or > published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal > appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, > donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on > Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis. > Consequences > Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges have been > respectfully reported by nearly all of the major media. Only some of > the media have subjected his charges to comparison with his earlier > testimony and backgrounder views. There have been no reports of > Clarke’s pension or retirement benefits being challenged. The size of > Clarke’s advance from his publisher and his potential profits from his > book have only today been revealed in a leak to Drudge. Clarke’s close > connection to John Kerry’s foreign policy advisor (the two men jointly > teach a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and > is not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press. > No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity has so far > come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live has plans to hire > Roseanne Barr or some other fat comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, > appearance, and masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for > the comedic festivities. > Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, > following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, > acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about > in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight > loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her > appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, > probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp > subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer. > Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by > relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent > of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared. > For some small things, we can be grateful. > Thomas Lifson
Response:
We Republicans do everything above board. Read the savage condemnation of Richard Clarke by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist on the floor of the US Senate: http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_i… Capitalist Pig
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp > March 29th, 2004 > http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3440 > Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of > protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who > remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the > Democrats rushing forward to decry the "trashing" of Richard Clarke. > Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a > daily basis? > It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a > comparative light. > Alleged Offense > Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and revealed > the national security deliberations of professional non-political > career civil service advisers to the President and his chief aides. In > doing so, he ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely > on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous Presidents of > both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or potential courses of > action may unexpressed, as a result of the threat of future publicity > from a tell-tale aide. Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous > (so far secret) testimony and background briefings he previously > provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at variance > with the facts. > Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to > protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his > sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an > intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape > recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn > perjury. She thus "betrayed" the "friendship" of someone who wanted > her to commit a felony to benefit the "friend." > Nature of Criticism > Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission have been > subjected to comparison with his previous writings and testimony, some > of which have been, or have been proposed to be, newly declassified or > released. Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been questioned, > in that his publisher has launched one of the most successful and > highly-coordinated publicity campaigns in publishing history, > encompassing moving the timing of publication to match his 9/11 > Commission testimony, and tying-in sister company CBS’s premier > showcase venue, Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars > or more. He has, in response, promised to donate an unspecified > "portion" of his earnings to the families of 9/11 victims and military > survivors of the Afghan campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke > have gone so far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. > Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her > tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp > was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being "in it > for the money," although no book was ever proposed, written, or > published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal > appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, > donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on > Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis. > Consequences > Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges have been > respectfully reported by nearly all of the major media. Only some of > the media have subjected his charges to comparison with his earlier > testimony and backgrounder views. There have been no reports of > Clarke’s pension or retirement benefits being challenged. The size of > Clarke’s advance from his publisher and his potential profits from his > book have only today been revealed in a leak to Drudge. Clarke’s close > connection to John Kerry’s foreign policy advisor (the two men jointly > teach a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and > is not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press. > No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity has so far > come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live has plans to hire > Roseanne Barr or some other fat comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, > appearance, and masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for > the comedic festivities. > Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, > following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, > acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about > in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight > loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her > appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, > probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp > subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer. > Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by > relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent > of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared. > For some small things, we can be grateful. > Thomas Lifson
Response:
Question:
"Jane," Are you a UAL retiree? You sound so bitter against UAL. Yes, the things of which you speak happen with all airlines, but you keep mentioning UAL. And you are in South Florida? That’s "The Holy Grail" for United employees. United has so few employees in warm climates; and many, over a thousand people, want to transfer there. Are you collecting retirement or other money from UAL? Why aren’t you standing up for UAL? What is the ‘real’ problem, "Jane?" What are you so angry about? Seriously. The plane availability is not the problem, something else is. That, and every time someone responds, you get to tell everybody once again that you "get to fly for free." Yet you’re complaining about United. You’re flying for free, but complaining about the service. Really, "Jane," what’s eating you? Having to pay a little service charge for pass travel now? A possible reduction in retirement benefits if you are a retiree? What is it? Are you a UAL retiree? How many years service? Frank
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > Logically, yes…. > Financially it is imposible. > > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather > delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger > schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation. > Do you still don’t understand that? > Customer don’t care where the plane comes from. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? > Ticketing for UAL > And yes I was one of the few that mastered FastAir and learned on my > own a lot of things about Unimatic, something that they don’t teach > anymore. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather. > That is what you think > Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane > before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent > the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather. > Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the > customer? > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. > I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight > a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather > issues. > That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being > able to find out. > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed? > Sorry, you need to read my article again. > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > Hey I fly for free. > And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US > AWA DL CO maybe. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this? > Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems > that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break. > Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL. > Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the > way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to > Smaller carriers. > So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to > replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being > "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane > delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain > about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they > replaced the aircraft? > HEH?/????? > Read my arcticle again…. > I don’t think you understand
Response:
> > Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > Logically, yes…. > Financially it is imposible.
Financially it would normally possible to run an airline with twice the number of planes/pilots than you need???? > > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather > delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger > schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation.
The delay or non arrival from an airport with a weather problem is a weather delay even if the weather problem is not between the cities you want to fly between. You might not wish to call it that, but that is how the government classifies it. > Do you still don’t understand that? > Customer don’t care where the plane comes from.
No, but the customer paid a price for a specific service. You don’t seem to know what the specific service was. This service does not include compensation for late arrival times due to weather delays. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? > Ticketing for UAL
But, you didn’t learn what airlines were required to give passengers due to weather delays, or even what constituted a weather delay. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather. > That is what you think
No, that is what the rules say > Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane > before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent > the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather.
The customer should care if they bought a ticket that doesn’t guarantee them compensation in this case. > Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the > customer?
The customer got what he paid for. It is up to the customer to determine before he buys the ticket what the ticket entitles him to. > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. > I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight > a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather > issues. > That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being > able to find out.
paying passengers??????? > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed? > Sorry, you need to read my article again.
"As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there" You are correct… I was confusing it with a followup post. Nowhere did you say this plane in LAX was not the originally scheduled aircraft. If not, then what happened to the original plane that was supposed to fly ORD-SEA? > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > Hey I fly for free. > And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US > AWA DL CO maybe.
So, you think they should provide service, but you don’t want to pay for it. Even if you did, most people don’t. Most leisure travelers would take the cheaper flight with less protection. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this? > Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems > that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break.
No, but when they were making money, passengers got more benefits, correct? But, most passengers were never compensated for weather dealys. > Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL.
#1 in on time performance recently, I hear. > Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the > way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to > Smaller carriers.
Smaller carriers have niche markets. I haven’t had a real problem with an airline in quite awhile. New airline may provide bonuses, like you claim that Jet Blue gives compensation for weather problems. However, they are still in the early stages trying to attract customers. Even profitable WN doesn’t give compensation for weather problems. Are people still flying them?
Response:
> Why wouldn’t someone sending an unaccompanied minor (or anyone else, > for that matter) from MIA to SEA choose a non-stop flight in order > to reduce the risk of misconnections, lost checked baggage, etc.?
I am guessing the fare was lower… This is my point. People want to spend less money, and expect others to pick up the tab if there is a hiccup in the cheapest plan.
Response:
> Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane?
Logically, yes…. Financially it is imposible. > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described.
Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation. Do you still don’t understand that? Customer don’t care where the plane comes from. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA?
Ticketing for UAL And yes I was one of the few that mastered FastAir and learned on my own a lot of things about Unimatic, something that they don’t teach anymore. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather.
That is what you think Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather. Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the customer? > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement.
Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather issues. That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being able to find out. > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed?
Sorry, you need to read my article again. > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay?
Hey I fly for free. And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US AWA DL CO maybe. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this?
Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break. Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL. Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to Smaller carriers. > So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to > replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being > "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane > delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain > about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they > replaced the aircraft?
HEH?/????? Read my arcticle again…. I don’t think you understand
Response:
>Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. >Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport >UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it >still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and >stuck in that connection city.
Why wouldn’t someone sending an unaccompanied minor (or anyone else, for that matter) from MIA to SEA choose a non-stop flight in order to reduce the risk of misconnections, lost checked baggage, etc.? — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
This is absurd. If I were in the airline industry, you are not the kind of customer I would want to have. Dairenn Lombard Los Angeles, CA
Response:
> This is absurd.
What is absurd, honey? Have you ever worked for an airline to even know what is absurd or not? > If I were in the airline industry, you are not the kind of customer I > would want to have.
I can’t wait to be a full paying passenger again. The airlines wouldn’t get away with what they are doing. Fortunately me and my family fly for free. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dairenn Lombard > Los Angeles, CA
Response:
mrtravel I don’t think that you understand the core of customer service, yet. You don’t understand that, whatever business your running, you can’t charge a customer, walk away with the money and leave the customer inconvenienced. I think this and other bad things need to happen to you before, you come to your senses. And if you work for UAL here is your wake up call "No, not every customer travels with an extra spare 200.00 dollars for the inconvenience that UAL might cause them." When I used to work for UAL, everybody always used to joke that if you shake the passengers enough that the money will fall out of them. UAL has thaught this type of culture to their employees, saying that passengers always have money, and that if you pressure them enough, they will turn it over. Here is another exapmle Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and stuck in that connection city. I am not sure how much the airlines are ripping off the people for UMNR’s now, but it surely is enough to place that child in a good hotel with an employee. But instead, I have wittnessed UAL putting the child in disgusting room at O’hare Airport, letting the child sleep on a cott. Hmmm, now UAL charges so much money for that UM; wouldn’t you think that they should be decent enough to treat that child with dignity. I don’t think so. UAL in this example and others alike, is only interested in cashing in, anywhere they can, for services that they don’t provide. I am sure other airlines aren’t any better, but I can’t speak for what I haven’t seen, only for what I have wittnessed. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Please, learn some customer service. Maybe UAL’s business will get better as a result of it.
Response:
> mrtravel > I don’t think that you understand the core of customer service, yet. > You don’t understand that, whatever business your running, you can’t > charge a customer, walk away with the money and leave the customer > inconvenienced.
And you need to balance what you are giving away versus the revenue lost by not giving it away. A weather problem is not the fault of the airline. I don’t know if you recognize this or not, but most leisure customers are NOT going to pay more money for not being inconvenienced by weather delay > I think this and other bad things need to happen to you before, you > come to your senses. And if you work for UAL here is your wake up > call "No, not every customer travels with an extra spare 200.00 > dollars for the inconvenience that UAL might cause them."
But…. an Act Of God is not the airline’s fault. Your contract with the airline is that you don’t get compensated for a weather delay. If you want that to be in the conditions of carriage, then either don’t do business with that carrier, or find a way to get it added. Why should the passenger not shoulder the responsibility of the weather delay? Go back to my simple question. An airline has one plane. If there is a weather problem, do you expect the airline to be able to make money by having a standby plane? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Here is another exapmle > Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. > Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport > UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it > still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and > stuck in that connection city. > I am not sure how much the airlines are ripping off the people for > UMNR’s now, but it surely is enough to place that child in a good > hotel with an employee. > But instead, I have wittnessed UAL putting the child in disgusting > room at O’hare Airport, letting the child sleep on a cott. > Hmmm, now UAL charges so much money for that UM; wouldn’t you think > that they should be decent enough to treat that child with dignity.
How much is "so much money"? Does it cover the cost of a room at the ORD Hilton? If you want to ensure your child doesn’t have a problem, then hire someone to fly with him AND PAY for a hotel room if there is a problem. If you pay $50 or whatever it is for UMs to fly, then you KNOW he isn’t going to get a room at Four Seasons if there is a problem. The parent chooses to send the child as a UM. If the parent doesn’t ask what the consequences of a flight delay are then that is their problem. It’s a business. You don’t expect a Lincoln for the price of a Metro. I want to hear more about how UA is "cashing in" as you call it, for services they don’t provide. Aren’t they providing the services they are contracted to provide? The contract doesn’t require them to do anything for a weather delay except get you on the next available flight that has seats available in your class. In your employment at UA, did you not know that?
Response:
> Wait….. > The customer doesn’t care, where the plane comes from. > It is the airlines job to have a plane ready there.
Are you suggesting that it would be a profitable business to have enough standby planes and crew available at all airports served by the airline, in case of a problem? So, if UA’s hub at ORD is snowed in and all of the planes there are grounded, they could afford to have enough aircraft to not affect other locations?
Response:
>And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are >no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or >get it changed.
A customer can also choose itineraries which avoid using airports that have a high risk of weather problems (e.g. northern cities during snow season, SFO, etc.). Of course, this can hurt airlines whose hubs are at problem-prone airports. — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
> >And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are >no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or >get it changed. > A customer can also choose itineraries which avoid using airports > that have a high risk of weather problems (e.g. northern cities > during snow season, SFO, etc.).
I agree, but that won’t help if the aircraft you are waiting for is coming from a bad weather location.
Response:
> > You misunderstood the contract. > How simple can I make it for you to understand… > Let’s see… > You pay for something… > You show up on time… > You are then told: "though luck, we don’t have a plane, Good bye." > "Oh, and you get nothing from us…. Sleep on the floor if you want."
Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a standby aircraft for every problem) An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. Snow grounds the plane. Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > What makes it a qualified weather delay? > How? > Why? > Explain
What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for the flight was delay by weather. It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement aircraft came from. UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > I worked for UAL, a qualified weather delay is something that is > directly affecting the flight that the customer wants to get on. > Whether you agree or not.
You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no longer existed? > Simply because an airline’s home base in in Chicago, doesn’t mean it has > plenty of extra planes and pilots around. > OK, planes they don’t have necessarily. They are therefor sitting in > MHV and VCV. But, what does that have to do with the customer? > Surely let’s say they don’t have plane. Fine, but the airline should > pay for hotel accommodation in this case. > The airline should have had a plane.
Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > As far as your reference to pilots, there is much more than that in > order to put together a flight. For all of that they have plenty, and > I say, most of the time, plenty of reserves available. > Still that is not the customers job, > Hellowwwwww….. > IT’S THE AIRLINES JOB. > One last reference to this stupid remark… > They surely have plenty of planes available and parked right now in > MHV and VCV, due to their crappy service.
Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do with this? > There is no promise of compensation for a weather delay unless it is > specified in the conditions of carriage. It isn’t… > Good point…. > I always said that there needs to be. > What you don’t know is… > that airlines jiggle A/C around to cheat the customers, all in an > effort to minimize the impact of IROPS;
So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they replaced the aircraft?
Response:
Wait….. The customer doesn’t care, where the plane comes from. It is the airlines job to have a plane ready there. The customer doesn’t care what was done with the plane before. The airline said that they have booked a flight for ORD – SEA so they need to have a plane for ORD – SEA, not "maybe if by chance they have a plane available for the customer" Then they should not charge the customer for the leg ORD – SEA. They should only charge if by chance they have the plane ready at the gate. They would have to charge at the gate then. Just leave it plain and simple….
Response:
> Remember…. > I worked for UNITED. > You all have valid points. > But, still what does it have to do with the customer? > The customer paid for (in this EXAMPLE) UAL to have a plane ready for > transportation.
And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or get it changed.
Response:
Ken > I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision > not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from > civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this > were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to > fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. > I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all > the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines > were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the > "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to > pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide > accomodations, meal vouchers, etc.
What’s a noname airline? Are you talking about the renouned Southwest Airlines with 30 years of solid service and no mayor accidents? Or are you talking about famous JetBlue for all of its superb service. Which noname airline? Strangly enough everybody is going to those noname airlines and spreading the names. Ever heard of mandatory FAA cancellations. That means that sometimes airlines have to cancel up to 75% of flights. Let’s reduce the number to a more common mandatory cancellation. 25% Let’s say that your NONAME airline has only one or two flight to the affected airport. Hmmmm that would mean that the noname airline can fly both of it’s flights. In this example, MANDATORY FAA canx, the airline still gets to choose what they WANT to cancel or not. In this event a small airline is not affected by this. So, therefor, if you ever have flown through ORD and seen 30% canx at AA and UA, chances are that your safe NONAME airline does not have to cancel any flights. Even if it just seems to you that they are flying unsafe. Speaking of UNSAFE…. Just because FAA mandates cancellations doesn’t mean it is unsafe to fly. It is perfectly safe to fly. It is just that during low visibility, the spacing among A/C in the air has to be greater than on a normal day, making it impossible for all planes to be allowed in the air. Again, that does not mean that everybody has to cancel it’s flights. In the case of a small airline they are most likely to be allowed to fly because, as and example, you could not possibly cancel 30% of 2 flights.
Response:
> You misunderstood the contract.
How simple can I make it for you to understand… Let’s see… You pay for something… You show up on time… You are then told: "though luck, we don’t have a plane, Good bye." "Oh, and you get nothing from us…. Sleep on the floor if you want." > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described.
What makes it a qualified weather delay? How? Why? Explain I worked for UAL, a qualified weather delay is something that is directly affecting the flight that the customer wants to get on. Whether you agree or not. > Simply because an airline’s home base in in Chicago, doesn’t mean it has > plenty of extra planes and pilots around.
OK, planes they don’t have necessarily. They are therefor sitting in MHV and VCV. But, what does that have to do with the customer? Surely let’s say they don’t have plane. Fine, but the airline should pay for hotel accommodation in this case. The airline should have had a plane. As far as your reference to pilots, there is much more than that in order to put together a flight. For all of that they have plenty, and I say, most of the time, plenty of reserves available. Still that is not the customers job, Hellowwwwww….. IT’S THE AIRLINES JOB. One last reference to this stupid remark… They surely have plenty of planes available and parked right now in MHV and VCV, due to their crappy service. > There is no promise of compensation for a weather delay unless it is > specified in the conditions of carriage. It isn’t…
Good point…. I always said that there needs to be. What you don’t know is… that airlines jiggle A/C around to cheat the customers, all in an effort to minimize the impact of IROPS; in other words, just to keep the little money that they would have had to spend on Hotel accommodations and other little things. It’s all a game. Another fact is that they do not train the agents to recognize these things. They just write WEATHER in Unimatic and easely the agents say what they are trained to say. If an agent is smarter than that, then they ax that agent, simple as that. Surely, UAL as well as probably other airlines, walk away from the problem imposed on the customers. No surprise that customers are now walking away from airlines that behave like this, and go to airlines that do exactly the opposite; like JetBlue…. 
Response:
Remember…. I worked for UNITED. You all have valid points. But, still what does it have to do with the customer? The customer paid for (in this EXAMPLE) UAL to have a plane ready for transportation. What does all the drama have to do with how UAL does business? All the customer wanted was transportation from A to B. To twist things more now, this is another example of what the airlines practice out there. Let’s say that another plane was missing from the fleet for another flight; that another flight had actually had a weather cancellation. Let’s say that the plane meant for use for the SEA flight arrived on time from LAX and DEN. However, another plane for another flight didn’t make it due to weather and needs to go to (EXAMPLE) a more lucrative market, or due to operational logistics another route. I have seen many times that UAL flight Ops will swap planes, take the available plane for another flight because of the above mentioned and then make the customers flight a weather delay or cancellation. How about that? Please, read carefully before making stupid remarks. If you aren’t smart enough to understand this then shut up. And remember, this is just an example of what goes on. I didn’t actually fly this. I fly for free. Airline employee
Response:
> Sometimes the airline can come up with another airplane. But that is very > rare. And you also need a cockpit crew and cabin crew. That’s easier as they > have people on "airport standby," suited up and ready to go. The plane is > the hard part.
That is not the customers problem, is it? > Also, was your ORD-SEA leg the last flight of the day? That doesn’t help, > but that certainly can’t be avoided. My guess is the airline wasn’t too > happy either, they need that plane in SEA for the next day’s flight.
This wasn’t my flight. I put this together in order for you folks to understand. I fly for free. > Somebody long ago said, "An airplane sitting on the ground isn’t making any > money." Althought it would be nice, the airlines don’t have planes sitting > around on standby.
BUT STILL, What does it have to do with the customer? That is not the customers problem, the airline said that it was going to have a plane ready for him by scheduling this ticket. The customer doesn’t care whether they have planes sitting or in the air. The customer just wants his plane to be there as promised. The customer doesn’t care how the airline runs its business. The customer paid for a service, and the custome surely should demand for it. Remember, I am an airline employee too. I understand everything that goes on behind the scenes, but still, what does it have to do with the paying customer?
Response:
>Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was >cancelled or delayed due to weather?
Could one reduce the risk of misconnection problems by doing any of the following? a. Choosing nonstop flights, or minimizing the number of connections when possible. b. Choosing flights with reasonable layover times (e.g. a one hour layover where one must pass US customs and immigration is not all that realistic). c. Choosing flights earlier in the day (if you miss one, there is a better chance of getting a later one that day, and early flights are less affected by cascading delays). d. Using the flight status on the airline web sites over several days to find the risk of a particular flight being late, and avoiding flights that have a high risk of being late. e. Choosing connections in places where weather and other delays are less likely (with seasonal considerations). — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing?
I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide accomodations, meal vouchers, etc. In addition to explicitly being exempt from weather delays in the C of C and DOT regulations, weather falls under "force majure" (sp?) or "acts of God" which nullify most contracts. Ken Ishiguro
Response:
Well said, Ken. A pilot on a major airline told me that because of low ceilings (or some weather event) recently, his major airline had the equipment to land at DEN, but the lower cost airline could not. It’s no coincidence that air travel is so safe. Ned www.funniestfa.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? > I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision > not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from > civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this > were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to > fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. > I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all > the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines > were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the > "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to > pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide > accomodations, meal vouchers, etc. > In addition to explicitly being exempt from weather delays in the C of C and > DOT regulations, weather falls under "force majure" (sp?) or "acts of God" > which nullify most contracts. > Ken Ishiguro
Response:
Sometimes the airline can come up with another airplane. But that is very rare. And you also need a cockpit crew and cabin crew. That’s easier as they have people on "airport standby," suited up and ready to go. The plane is the hard part. Also, was your ORD-SEA leg the last flight of the day? That doesn’t help, but that certainly can’t be avoided. My guess is the airline wasn’t too happy either, they need that plane in SEA for the next day’s flight. Somebody long ago said, "An airplane sitting on the ground isn’t making any money." Althought it would be nice, the airlines don’t have planes sitting around on standby. Ned www.funniestfa.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? > This information goes to show you that maybe the way airlines make > decisions could affect you. Therefore, the airlines should also be > held accountable for this. > When you buy a ticket on an airline, you are buying a contract for the > airline to have you transported from A to B. > But many times the airlines cancel your flight or delay it resulting > in you getting stranded in a connecting airport. > Here is one scenario. > Say you book > United Airlines 1467 > Boeing 757-200 4:45 pm Miami (MIA) 7:01 pm Chicago (ORD) > On Time Non-stop > United Airlines 631 > Airbus A319 9:15 pm Chicago (ORD) 11:33 pm Seattle(SEA) > Non-stop > Let’s say you book the above flight with UNITED. You are taking a > flight from Miami via Chicago to Seattle. > You arrive in Chicago with a two-hour layover in order to assure your > connection, however, once you arrive in ORD you find out that your > flight is delayed and later cancelled. > The reason? UAL says: "Bad weather". > But there is no bad weather in ORD, nor is there bad weather in DEN > where the plane was coming from. > Well UAL says: "Bad weather from where the plane is supposed to > originate from." > As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg > ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there. > United Airlines 264 > Airbus A319 12:45 Los Angeles(LAX) 16:05 Denver(DEN) > Delayed for 3 hours Non-stop > United Airlines 264 > Airbus A319 16:55 Denver (DEN) 20:15 Chicago(ORD) > Delayed for over 3 hours and ETA 12:00 am Non-stop > United is now stranding you in ORD and blaming it on weather. > But wait. Why do you have to pay for UNITED not having a plane ready > for your connection to SEA. > Sure UAL cannot control the weather, but what does it have to do with > your flight? Nowhere did it say, that if UNITED has a bad weather > situation somewhere in the country, that they are not responsible for > not having a plane ready for you in Chicago. Besides, isn’t Chicago a > main hub for UNITED? > You paid for your ticked from MIA via ORD to SEA, > not MIA – LAX – DEN – ORD – SEA. > If something similar happens to you, then you should demand for > compensation. It isn’t your job to have a plane ready for you, it’s > UNITED’s job to keep the contract. > If they break the contract they should both give you hotel > accommodation and compensation.
Response:
The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe all airlines practice. Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? This information goes to show you that maybe the way airlines make decisions could affect you. Therefore, the airlines should also be held accountable for this. When you buy a ticket on an airline, you are buying a contract for the airline to have you transported from A to B. But many times the airlines cancel your flight or delay it resulting in you getting stranded in a connecting airport. Here is one scenario. Say you book United Airlines 1467 Boeing 757-200 4:45 pm Miami (MIA) 7:01 pm Chicago (ORD) On Time Non-stop United Airlines 631 Airbus A319 9:15 pm Chicago (ORD) 11:33 pm Seattle(SEA) Non-stop Let’s say you book the above flight with UNITED. You are taking a flight from Miami via Chicago to Seattle. You arrive in Chicago with a two-hour layover in order to assure your connection, however, once you arrive in ORD you find out that your flight is delayed and later cancelled. The reason? UAL says: "Bad weather". But there is no bad weather in ORD, nor is there bad weather in DEN where the plane was coming from. Well UAL says: "Bad weather from where the plane is supposed to originate from." As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there. United Airlines 264 Airbus A319 12:45 Los Angeles(LAX) 16:05 Denver(DEN) Delayed for 3 hours Non-stop United Airlines 264 Airbus A319 16:55 Denver (DEN) 20:15 Chicago(ORD) Delayed for over 3 hours and ETA 12:00 am Non-stop United is now stranding you in ORD and blaming it on weather. But wait. Why do you have to pay for UNITED not having a plane ready for your connection to SEA. Sure UAL cannot control the weather, but what does it have to do with your flight? Nowhere did it say, that if UNITED has a bad weather situation somewhere in the country, that they are not responsible for not having a plane ready for you in Chicago. Besides, isn’t Chicago a main hub for UNITED? You paid for your ticked from MIA via ORD to SEA, not MIA
Question:
Then it is safe to assume that maybe Zoomby is black mooded about this is that he got hit with alimony? Having to pay for someone’s upkeep when you are not living with her and want nothing to do with her anymore? Probably make me bitter as heck if my marriage fell apart *very* early on and *I* had to pay *him* (meaning my X in this case) But some ppl want to take ppl over the coals and some just want out and are willing to support themselves. Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Trailing Vine, >This isn’t the first time this topic has come up. Each time we >painfully explain to ZW, that alimony is NOT an option. >A 50/50 split and child support are all that are asked, just as >the law specifies. >Each time he refuses to READ the entire post, he seems to be on his >own crusade. I doubt he’s been jabbed with alimony, very few states >even allow that practice. >I hope he takes your advice. >codeee > I think I’ve discovered the reason Zomby is having a problem > understanding your painful explanations about alimony not being an > option and not allowed in most states. I think it has something to do > with you being wrong. Alimony is allowed under the law in all fifty > states plus the district of columbia. An alphabetical listing for each > state’s law with proper code citation follows: > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: The judge has full discretion to > award an allowance for maintenance to either spouse, if such spouse has > insufficient property to provide for his or her own maintenance. This > award may be made out of the property belonging to the other spouse, > unless it is separate property (acquired by gift or inheritance, or > acquired prior to the marriage) and was never used for the common > benefit of the marriage. The factors to be considered are: (1) the value > of the estate of both spouses; and (2) the condition of the spouse’s > family. Up to 50% of a spouse’s retirement benefits may be used for > alimony if the retirement was accumulated during a marriage of 10 years > or more. Misconduct of either spouse may be considered in the > determination as to whether to award maintenance and may totally bar the > right to any maintenance. Any award of maintenance will be terminated if > the recipient is living openly with a member of the opposite sex or has > remarried. [Code of Alabama: Title 30, Chapters 2-51, 2-52, and 2-55]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Maintenance may be awarded to > either spouse for support. The award may be made as a lump-sum or may be > ordered paid in installments. Any fault of the spouses may not be taken > into account. Factors considered are: (1) length of marriage, (2) > position in life of the parties during marriage, (3) the age and health > of the parties, (4) the earning capacity of each spouse, (5) the > financial condition of each spouse, (6) the parties conduct regarding > their assets, (7) the division of the spouse’s property, and (8) all > other relevant factors. Non-monetary contributions to the marriage (for > example: home-making) are also considered. [Alaska Statutes; Title 25, > Chapter 24.160]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Maintenance can be awarded to > either spouse, if the spouse seeking maintenance: (1) lacks sufficient > property to provide for his or her reasonable needs; or (2) is unable to > support him or herself through appropriate employment; or (3) is the > custodian of a child whose age and condition is such that the custodian > should not be required to seek employment outside the home; or (4) lacks > earning ability in the labor market to adequately support him or > herself; or (5) contributed to the educational opportunities of the > other spouse; or (6) had a marriage of long duration and is of an age > which may preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to > support him or herself. Marital misconduct is not a factor to be > considered for maintenance order. The factors to be considered are: (1) > the time for the spouse to acquire education and training for suitable > employment; (2) the spouse’s future earning capacity; (3) the spouse’s > standard of living during the marriage; (4) the duration of the > marriage; (5) the ability of the spouse providing maintenance to meet > his or her needs while providing the maintenance to the other; (6) the > financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance (including marital > property awarded and the spouse’s ability to meet his or her needs > independently); (7) any destruction, concealment, fraudulent > disposition, or excessive expenditures of jointly-held property; (8) the > comparative financial resources of the spouses including their > comparative earning capacities; (9) the age of the spouses; (10) the > physical and emotional condition of the spouses; (11) the usual > occupations of the spouses during the marriage; and (12) the vocational > skills of the spouse seeking maintenance. [Arizona Revised Statutes > Annotated; Title 25, Chapters 319]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Alimony may be granted to either > spouse in fixed installments for a specific period of time and subject > to contingencies such as death of either spouse or remarriage of the > receiving spouse. Where the grounds for divorce are voluntary separation > for 3 years, fault may be considered in dividing the property. The > factors for consideration specified in the statute are that the amount > be reasonable based on the circumstances of the parties and the nature > of the case. Alimony payments may be ordered to be paid through the > registry of the court. [Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated; Title 9, > Chapter 12-312]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: The court may award support to > either spouse in any amount and for any period of time that the court > deems just and reasonable, based on the standard of living achieved > during the marriage. The factors considered are: (1) whether the spouse > seeking support is the custodian of a child whose circumstances make it > appropriate for that spouse not to seek outside employment; (2) the time > necessary to acquire sufficient education and training to enable the > spouse to find appropriate employment, and that spouse’s future earning > capacity; (3) the standard of living established during the marriage; > (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the comparative financial > resources of the spouses, including their comparative earning abilities > in the labor market; (6) the needs and obligations of each spouse; (7) > the contribution of each spouse to the marriage, including services > rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of > the other spouse; (8) the age and health of the spouses; (9) the > physical and emotional conditions of the spouses; (10) the tax > consequences to each spouse; (11) the ability of the supporting spouse > to pay, taking into account that spouse’s earning capacity, earned and > unearned income, assets, and standard of living; (12) the balance of > hardships to each party; and (13) any other factor the court deems just > and equitable. Marital misconduct is not a factor to be considered in > determining the amount of support, except for attempted murder. The goal > is specifically to make the supported spouse self-supporting in a > reasonable period of time (generally considered to be half the length of > the marriage). [Annotated California Code; Section 4320, 4324, and > 4330]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Either spouse may be awarded > support for a just period of time, without regard to any marital fault, > if the spouse seeking maintenance: (1) lacks sufficient property, > including his or her share of any marital property, to provide for his > or her needs, and (2) is unable to support his or herself through > appropriate employment, or has custody of a child and the circumstances > are such that the spouse should not be required to seek employment > outside the home. > The award of maintenance is based upon a consideration of the following > factors: (1) the time necessary to acquire sufficient education and > training to enable the spouse to find appropriate employment, and that > spouse’s future earning capacity; (2) the standard of living established > during the marriage; (3) the duration of the marriage; (4) the ability > of the spouse from whom support is sought to meet his or her needs while > meeting those of the spouse seeking support; (5) the financial resources > of the spouse seeking maintenance, including marital property > apportioned to such spouse and such spouse’s ability to meet his or her > needs independently; (6) the age of the spouses; (7) the physical and > emotional conditions of the spouses; and (8) any custodial and child > support responsibilities. Maintenance payments may be ordered to be paid > directly to the court for distribution to the spouse. [Colorado Revised > Statutes; Article 10, Sections 14-10-114 and 14-10-117]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Alimony may be awarded to either > spouse, based on the following factors: (1) the causes for the > dissolution of marriage, including any marital fault; (2) the > distribution of the marital property; (3) whether the spouse seeking > support is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances > make it appropriate for that spouse not to seek outside employment; (4) > the duration of the marriage; (5) the age of the spouses; (6) the > physical and emotional conditions of the spouses; (7) the usual > occupation of the spouses during the marriage; (8) the needs of each > spouse; and (9) the vocational skills and employability of the spouse > seeking support and alimony. [Connecticut General Statutes Annotated; > Title 46b, Chapters 82 and 86]. > ALIMONY/MAINTENANCE/SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Either spouse may be awarded
… read more »
Response:
wrote : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >us in on their opinion by saying: >(Trailingvine) wrote : >>I didn’t make any excuses for anything. I told you to keep your mouth >>shut, if you didn’t like hearing about our personal problems when they >>come up. You have options to not read our posts, killfile those of us >>who choose to let people into our real lives, or just not read the >>newsgroup at all. >>You have no right to judge those of us who are in the middle of >>divorces, or what rights we have to ask for alimony, child support or >>anything else. You don’t know the facts of our situations, so don’t >>sit and tell us that what we are fighting for is wrong. >>"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." >>Marcus Aurelius >Trailing Vine, >This isn’t the first time this topic has come up. Each time we >painfully explain to ZW, that alimony is NOT an option. >A 50/50 split and child support are all that are asked, just as >the law specifies. >Each time he refuses to READ the entire post, he seems to be on his >own crusade. I doubt he’s been jabbed with alimony, very few states >even allow that practice. >I hope he takes your advice. >Then why the post "make him pay"? Hmm? >codeee
That was the existing header. You’ll note that no one mentioned "ALIMONY" in that post. All that was discussed was the unfortunate reality that separate attorneys are required, even in a "no fault" community property state. Community property meaning each party gets half. If children are involved, then fair and reasonable child support is granted, but nothing is given out as a long term privately funded grant, as you seem to think is the case. IOW No Alimony Ever! Under any circumstances..the end! codeee I
Response:
I have thought long and hard on this one Zeembywaaf and here is my answer to you….. if and I say if with a small i because there is always the possibility (life can be funny that way) I wouldnt have to have on going maintaince because half of what we have would keep me going till I die and still have some left over to pass on to my grandkids! Does that answer *your* question. I cant answer for anyone else that is not my place to do so… Veronica
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > in on their opinion by saying: >Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the >vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets >begin.. >We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up >for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS >full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at eight >months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay >in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with >Danny. >I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my >parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got >on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F >to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I got >there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just what >got >me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the >hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months >early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each >other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when >he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and >Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get Bun >really >mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and >the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I leave >him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the >business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told him >to >either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno >moment >and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other but >just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. There >has >been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the >bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we >never >make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same >problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we can >talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would >meet >Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I learned >over >the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working at >digging >rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. >Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports >me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support >him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing this >I can >look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in >the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. You >dont >owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines I >said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I am >old >fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. >Ronnie > Sounds like the typical long term inter-dependent relationship, > punctuated with periods of physical assault and abuse if you ask me. > And yes, I know, no one is asking me. > Even still, other then a fair & equatable division of assets, do you > honestly feel that you are entitled to on going maintenance payments? > If so, why so?
Response:
Thanks for sharing. Almost show time. Getting ready to move um out. Bonner
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Oh yes we are dependent on each other… Why the hell do you think we > stay married? One is not more dependent we share it. I bare my soul > and this is what I get from you? I wanted to point out that no marriage > is a bed of roses… I laugh at you Zomby in your question at the end! > We are not divorced you fool.. > Ronnie > in on their opinion by saying: > >Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the > >vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets > >begin.. > >We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up > >for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS > >full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at > eight > >months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay > >in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with > >Danny. > >I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my > >parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got > >on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F > >to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I > got > >there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just > what > >got > >me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the > >hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months > >early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each > >other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when > >he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and > >Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get > Bun > >really > >mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and > >the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I > leave > >him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the > >business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told > him > >to > >either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno > >moment > >and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other > but > >just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. > There > >has > >been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the > >bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we > >never > >make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same > >problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we > can > >talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would > >meet > >Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I > learned > >over > >the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working > at > >digging > >rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. > >Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports > >me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support > >him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing > this > >I can > >look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in > >the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. > You > >dont > >owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines > I > >said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I > am > >old > >fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. > >Ronnie > Sounds like the typical long term inter-dependent relationship, > punctuated with periods of physical assault and abuse if you ask me. > And yes, I know, no one is asking me. > Even still, other then a fair & equatable division of assets, do you > honestly feel that you are entitled to on going maintenance payments? > If so, why so?
Response:
Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I want one, I want one!. OH PLEASE! > I still want one! > Bonner > Ronnie > > Oh good… a new topic that people can’t be adult about and discuss > > rationally without the personal insults. I was getting bored reading the > > flame war about jokes. > > Ziggy > > >>>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle > > >>>cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. > > >>>Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to some > > >>>of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even > married > > >>>to you. > > >Zomby, > > >You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. > > >You have made me angry. > > >My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. > > >If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is > > >hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of > > >other, more painful places than that. > > >He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so > > >hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our > > >children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just lay > > >down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a > > >fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to allow > > >shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? > > >You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. > > >Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get > > >alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still > > >make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time > > >parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our cases > > >here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to > > >become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been > > >shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than > > >women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material > > >stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the > > >victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. > > >I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten > > >years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so > > >eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. > > >You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you > > >dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve > > >worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as > > >I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should > > >happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only legal > > >recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just > > >go to hell. > > >You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women > > >with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on you > > >in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does > > >explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and > > >divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. > > >Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for > > >the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we > > >should stay away from. > > >If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our > > >posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it from > > >the men in their lives, tough shit. > > >Trailingvine > > >"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." > > >Marcus Aurelius
Response:
wrote : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >in on their opinion by saying: >Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the >vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets >begin.. >We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up >for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS >full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at eight >months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay >in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with >Danny. >I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my >parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got >on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F >to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I got >there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just what >got >me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the >hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months >early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each >other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when >he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and >Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get Bun >really >mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and >the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I leave >him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the >business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told him >to >either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno >moment >and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other but >just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. There >has >been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the >bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we >never >make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same >problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we can >talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would >meet >Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I learned >over >the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working at >digging >rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. >Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports >me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support >him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing this >I can >look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in >the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. You >dont >owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines I >said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I am >old >fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. >Ronnie >Sounds like the typical long term inter-dependent relationship, >punctuated with periods of physical assault and abuse if you ask me. >And yes, I know, no one is asking me. >Even still, other then a fair & equatable division of assets, do you >honestly feel that you are entitled to on going maintenance payments? >If so, why so?
Did you READ this post ZW?? Obviously not! Nowhere does Ronnie mention the word divorce or alimony. I don’t know what crawled up your butt on this subject, but you’d be well advised to read the content and not assume what the post says The Readers’ Digest version of this for you, is that two people have lived together for 43 years in a partnership. In those years, they encountered great sorrow and hardship, which coulndn’t have been easy to post, BTW. They also built a life together…..that’s the story here. No one is getting shafted, or paid. IOW, this is a story of two people who have stuck it out through good times, and bad..and now they’re reaping some of the rewards of that. I see nothing to condemn in a life well lived with another person, and a family which has stayed together. That is hardly "long term inter-dependant punctuated with periods of abuse etc" Dr. Freud. Do the manly thing, or if you feel that is sexist, then do the human thing, that’s the least I’d expect of anyone for such a crass, negligent post. codeee
Response:
(Trailingvine) wrote : >I didn’t make any excuses for anything. I told you to keep your mouth >shut, if you didn’t like hearing about our personal problems when they >come up. You have options to not read our posts, killfile those of us >who choose to let people into our real lives, or just not read the >newsgroup at all. >You have no right to judge those of us who are in the middle of >divorces, or what rights we have to ask for alimony, child support or >anything else. You don’t know the facts of our situations, so don’t >sit and tell us that what we are fighting for is wrong. >"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." >Marcus Aurelius
Trailing Vine, This isn’t the first time this topic has come up. Each time we painfully explain to ZW, that alimony is NOT an option. A 50/50 split and child support are all that are asked, just as the law specifies. Each time he refuses to READ the entire post, he seems to be on his own crusade. I doubt he’s been jabbed with alimony, very few states even allow that practice. I hope he takes your advice. codeee
Response:
Now are we ready for a food fight. Bonner
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ronnie > I want one, I want one!. OH PLEASE! > I still want one! > Bonner > > Ronnie > > > Oh good… a new topic that people can’t be adult about and discuss > > > rationally without the personal insults. I was getting bored reading > the > > > flame war about jokes. > > > Ziggy
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > >>>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle > > > >>>cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. > > > >>>Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to > some > > > >>>of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even > married > > > >>>to you. > > > >Zomby, > > > >You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. > > > >You have made me angry. > > > >My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. > > > >If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is > > > >hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of > > > >other, more painful places than that. > > > >He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so > > > >hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our > > > >children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just > lay > > > >down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a > > > >fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to > allow > > > >shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? > > > >You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. > > > >Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get > > > >alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still > > > >make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time > > > >parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our > cases > > > >here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to > > > >become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been > > > >shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than > > > >women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material > > > >stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the > > > >victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. > > > >I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten > > > >years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so > > > >eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. > > > >You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you > > > >dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve > > > >worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as > > > >I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should > > > >happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only > legal > > > >recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just > > > >go to hell. > > > >You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women > > > >with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on > you > > > >in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does > > > >explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and > > > >divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. > > > >Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for > > > >the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we > > > >should stay away from. > > > >If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our > > > >posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it > from > > > >the men in their lives, tough shit. > > > >Trailingvine > > > >"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." > > > >Marcus Aurelius
Response:
I want one, I want one!. OH PLEASE! I still want one! Bonner
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ronnie > Oh good… a new topic that people can’t be adult about and discuss > rationally without the personal insults. I was getting bored reading the > flame war about jokes. > Ziggy > >>>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle > >>>cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. > >>>Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to some > >>>of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even married > >>>to you. > >Zomby, > >You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. > >You have made me angry. > >My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. > >If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is > >hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of > >other, more painful places than that. > >He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so > >hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our > >children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just lay > >down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a > >fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to allow > >shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? > >You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. > >Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get > >alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still > >make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time > >parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our cases > >here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to > >become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been > >shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than > >women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material > >stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the > >victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. > >I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten > >years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so > >eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. > >You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you > >dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve > >worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as > >I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should > >happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only legal > >recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just > >go to hell. > >You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women > >with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on you > >in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does > >explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and > >divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. > >Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for > >the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we > >should stay away from. > >If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our > >posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it from > >the men in their lives, tough shit. > >Trailingvine > >"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." > >Marcus Aurelius
Response:
Oh yes we are dependent on each other… Why the hell do you think we stay married? One is not more dependent we share it. I bare my soul and this is what I get from you? I wanted to point out that no marriage is a bed of roses… I laugh at you Zomby in your question at the end! We are not divorced you fool.. Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > in on their opinion by saying: >Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the >vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets >begin.. >We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up >for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS >full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at eight >months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay >in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with >Danny. >I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my >parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got >on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F >to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I got >there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just what >got >me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the >hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months >early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each >other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when >he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and >Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get Bun >really >mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and >the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I leave >him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the >business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told him >to >either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno >moment >and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other but >just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. There >has >been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the >bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we >never >make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same >problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we can >talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would >meet >Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I learned >over >the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working at >digging >rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. >Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports >me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support >him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing this >I can >look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in >the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. You >dont >owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines I >said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I am >old >fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. >Ronnie > Sounds like the typical long term inter-dependent relationship, > punctuated with periods of physical assault and abuse if you ask me. > And yes, I know, no one is asking me. > Even still, other then a fair & equatable division of assets, do you > honestly feel that you are entitled to on going maintenance payments? > If so, why so?
Response:
Thank you for telling me your story, Ronnie. I wish my marriage would have turned out that way…but it does take two, doesn’t it? Even after Shane strangled Andrew, I wanted to work things out. I didn’t leave, nor ask Shane to leave. I stood next to him at court, and did what I could to keep my family together. But he decided that if Andrew didn’t leave, then he would. He refused to even try to fix things. Marriage does take alot of hard work, and it doesn’t end, either. Most people don’t realize that, especially nowadays. I didn’t expect things to be easy, and I didn’t just let it go, either. Zomby doesn’t understand how unique each marriage is, and he refused to see what I meant. Marriages break up all the time, but each one is so vastly different from the next. He has no right to tell us how to behave, or feel, or what to do or what to expect. I am very very happy for you and Bun, Ronnie. You are a great example of what those vows really mean. My parents just had their 40th anniversary, and are in Hawaii right now, celebrating. They also have had very very rough times. In their first year of marriage, they also lost their first child; just 2 weeks before he was to be born, they were in a head on collision. My mother had severe head injuries, a broken femur, and other various injuries. The baby died because of shock…he suffocated in the womb. Top it off with the fact that they had no medical insurance, and the idiot who hit them had no car insurance…they were paying for those medical bills for over 20 years. They lived on bermuda onions on soda crackers for a time too…But now, they are wealthy, happy, and more in love than they have ever been. I envy them, and others like you, who have been able to withstand the trials and tribulations of life, and move on to the happy, loving, comfort that a marriage can give. Thanks for sharing, Ronnie. Marcia – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the >vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets >begin.. >We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up >for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS >full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at eight >months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay >in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with >Danny. >I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my >parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got >on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F >to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I got >there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just what >got >me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the >hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months >early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each >other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when >he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and >Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get Bun >really >mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and >the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I leave >him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the >business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told him >to >either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno >moment >and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other but >just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. There >has >been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the >bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we >never >make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same >problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we can >talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would >meet >Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I learned >over >the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working at >digging >rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. >Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports >me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support >him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing this >I can >look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in >the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. You >dont >owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines I >said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I am >old >fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. >Ronnie >> in on their opinion by saying: >> >Amen to that one Marcia!!!!!! >> >Ronnie >> Really? Amen to being unable to be the master of your own destiny? >> Of planning into the stereotypical role of defenseless little female >> who is incomplete without a man to pay her way? >> If you are willing to say that women are incapable of fending for >> themselves I would agree that alimony is required in this day & age. >> However, I doubt that is going to happen. >> The breakup of a marriage is a sad thing to see. However, as I said >> before "Shit Happens" sometimes there is no rhyme or reason for it. >> But the expectation of financial reward at the end of a marriage is >> ludicrous.
"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." Marcus Aurelius
Response:
>>So making him pay alimony makes a physical assault against your son >ok? Did you press charges against him for that action? Is he >awaiting trail? If not, why not?
I have not requested alimony. Only child support. And as for the assault on my son, he did go to court, and was found guilty of a lesser charge when the district attorney decided to allow him to plea bargain just 2 days before trial. He received 2 years probation, alcohol and drug assessment, a fine of $1,000, of which $700 was stayed. >Of course you are entitled to 50% of everything that you have >contributed into the marriage over it’s course. Why on earth do you >think you are entitled to ongoing payments for the rest of your life?
I do not expect him to pay my way. And as far as I know, most judges do not give alimony except in extreme cases, such as Hollywood celebrities who marry deadbeats, like Liz Taylor. You are way behind the times, my dear boy. >What I meant by "Shit Happens" is marriages break up all the damn >time. Sometimes for absolutely no visible rhyme or reason. Dwelling >on it does not in fact make it better. Dealing with it and moving on >does.
And so you think saying what you did will help those of us who are still in the middle of the whole process? Get real. We can’t move on, because it isn’t over yet. You should stay out of conversations you know nothing about. >Regardless of what a man or a woman makes, each adult is responsible >for his or her own actions in life. That includes their own welfare & >support. Any woman that relies on a man for her financial & emotional >security is a fool. I refuse to buy into that a woman cannot fend for >herself and must have some man pay for her freight in life.
I take full responsibility for my actions, as do most people who have any degree of maturity, and who aren’t brainwashed by all the various special interests who insist that everyone is a victim of something or another. >You want to be angry at me, fine. But remember, only you can >make/allow yourself to be angry. No other can do it for you. It is >also a very wasteful emotional state that clouds judgement & >perspective.
My judgement remains completely clear, thanks. And as far as my anger goes, I seldom remain angry for long, so you are no exception to that. >These are not the caveman days were a woman cannot fend for herself. >You can make all the excuse you want for your situation, blame all the >other people in your life if you like. But remember it all boils down >to one simple fact. Each an everyone of us is responsible for our own >lots in life. If we are unhappy with it, it is our responsibility to >change it. Those things that we cannot change, we must learn to live >with an accept.
I didn’t make any excuses for anything. I told you to keep your mouth shut, if you didn’t like hearing about our personal problems when they come up. You have options to not read our posts, killfile those of us who choose to let people into our real lives, or just not read the newsgroup at all. You have no right to judge those of us who are in the middle of divorces, or what rights we have to ask for alimony, child support or anything else. You don’t know the facts of our situations, so don’t sit and tell us that what we are fighting for is wrong. "To live happily is an inward power of the soul." Marcus Aurelius
Response:
Get ready for a long post !! When Bun and I got married we made the vowes for better or worse… in sickness and in health. Alright lets begin.. We had a baby girl in two years. One morning I was tired after being up for a week straight with her and he pissed me off and I broke a GLASS full baby bottle over his head! Soon after that Cyndi passed away at eight months… 1 month after that Bun got 70% of his body burned. 8 month stay in the hospital and I found out durning this time I was preg. again with Danny. I was put into a mental ward during this time because I went over to my parents house and broke down crying saying I missed Bun. My mother got on the phone and called our doctor (small town) and he told her and my F to take me to the state mental place because I was loosing it. When I got there I went up before the board of doctors and after I explained just what got me there they called my parents to come and get me. Bun got out of the hospital and I had Danny… move on to David.. born at 1pd 7oz 3 months early.. Lots of good and bad times inbetween but we made vows to each other and we damn well made good on them! then came Gary and when he grew up he got a drinking problem. He came home one night drunk and Bun blew his top. He was all ready to slug Gary (it took alot to get Bun really mad) and I saw what was going to happen and jumped across the bed and the blow landed on my cheek bone and cracked the bone alittle. Did I leave him NO! Bun went through the male change and decided to leave us and the business…. He went I kept working for him as his sec. One day I told him to either shit or get off the pot… He came home. I went through a meno moment and left…. I came back… Why because we were IN love with each other but just needed space at the time and each of us gave it to the other. There has been lots of bad days.. we ate eggs while we payed our employee’s in the bad days of the 90’s so they could feed their familys…. We fight and we never make up at bed time because after that is over and you wake up the same problem is still there. We sort things out in our own minds and then we can talk reasonably. I was a bride of the 50’s where I thought that I would meet Bun at the door in a pretty white lace apron just like Doris Day. I learned over the years that marriage takes alot of hard work. I think that working at digging rocks every day is easier because at the end of the day you are done. Marriage goes on day in and day out. Year in and year out. Bun supports me and supports me (and when the son’s lived at home good) BUT I support him in everything he had done to achieve this. As I sit here typing this I can look around me and see a house completely payed for in cash. Money in the bank and after 43 years I can say to Bun I am *in* love with you. You dont owe me anything and I you. We started out pledging that famous two lines I said in the begining of this very long post. But you were warned. I am old fashioned and believe working at something is rewarding in the end. Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > in on their opinion by saying: >Amen to that one Marcia!!!!!! >Ronnie > Really? Amen to being unable to be the master of your own destiny? > Of planning into the stereotypical role of defenseless little female > who is incomplete without a man to pay her way? > If you are willing to say that women are incapable of fending for > themselves I would agree that alimony is required in this day & age. > However, I doubt that is going to happen. > The breakup of a marriage is a sad thing to see. However, as I said > before "Shit Happens" sometimes there is no rhyme or reason for it. > But the expectation of financial reward at the end of a marriage is > ludicrous.
Response:
>Oh good… a new topic that people can’t be adult about and discuss >rationally without the personal insults. I was getting bored reading the >flame war about jokes. >Ziggy
Maybe you could start a thread about something YOU are interested in, ZIggy, then I am sure we would have a stimulating, intelligent conversation! Seriously, Ziggy, are you taking one-liner lessons from ;Dillo? That seems to be the way your contributions have been lately. Maybe you could start a new thread about something more interesting? Lusti (The Perv)
Response:
What I read in TV post was not playing into the stero type female. Yes shit happens and a woman/wife does NOT have to lay down and let it cover her! Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > in on their opinion by saying: >Amen to that one Marcia!!!!!! >Ronnie > Really? Amen to being unable to be the master of your own destiny? > Of planning into the stereotypical role of defenseless little female > who is incomplete without a man to pay her way? > If you are willing to say that women are incapable of fending for > themselves I would agree that alimony is required in this day & age. > However, I doubt that is going to happen. > The breakup of a marriage is a sad thing to see. However, as I said > before "Shit Happens" sometimes there is no rhyme or reason for it. > But the expectation of financial reward at the end of a marriage is > ludicrous.
Response:
Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Oh good… a new topic that people can’t be adult about and discuss > rationally without the personal insults. I was getting bored reading the > flame war about jokes. > Ziggy >>>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle >>>cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. >>>Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to some >>>of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even married >>>to you. >Zomby, >You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. >You have made me angry. >My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. >If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is >hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of >other, more painful places than that. >He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so >hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our >children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just lay >down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a >fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to allow >shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? >You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. >Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get >alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still >make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time >parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our cases >here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to >become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been >shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than >women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material >stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the >victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. >I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten >years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so >eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. >You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you >dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve >worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as >I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should >happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only legal >recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just >go to hell. >You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women >with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on you >in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does >explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and >divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. >Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for >the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we >should stay away from. >If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our >posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it from >the men in their lives, tough shit. >Trailingvine >"To live happily is an inward power of the soul." >Marcus Aurelius
Response:
Amen to that one Marcia!!!!!! Ronnie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle >>cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. >>Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to some >>of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even married >>to you. > Zomby, > You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. > You have made me angry. > My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. > If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is > hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of > other, more painful places than that. > He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so > hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our > children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just lay > down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a > fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to allow > shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? > You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. > Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get > alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still > make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time > parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our cases > here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to > become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been > shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than > women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material > stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the > victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. > I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten > years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so > eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. > You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you > dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve > worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as > I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should > happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only legal > recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just > go to hell. > You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women > with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on you > in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does > explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and > divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. > Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for > the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we > should stay away from. > If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our > posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it from > the men in their lives, tough shit. > Trailingvine > "To live happily is an inward power of the soul." > Marcus Aurelius
Response:
>>Horseshit. Make him pay, make him pay, the infamous female battle >cry. He hurt my feelings, hit him in the wallet. Bawwhahhh. >Do any of you simply realize shit happens? Christ listening to some >of you rattle on makes me want to divorce you and I’m not even married >to you.
Zomby, You have succeeded in doing something no one else here has ever done. You have made me angry. My husband didn’t hurt my feelings. He strangled my son. If all he had done was hurt my feelings, then all I’d want to do is hit him in the wallet. As it stands now, I want to hit him in alot of other, more painful places than that. He is trying to take my home, my children, everything I’ve worked so hard to build for the last ten years, after abandoning me and our children. And you are saying the I and others like me should just lay down and let these men take what they want, without putting up a fight, saying that "shit happens". Well, guess what? I refuse to allow shit to happen to me without fighting for my share. Would you? You have no right to attempt to minimize what we are going through. Some men deserve what the judge decides in a divorce, and most get alot more than they deserve in cases like mine. Men in general still make more money than women; they usually don’t have full time parenting to worry about in cases involving children; and in our cases here these men abandoned us, so they are more emotionally ready to become involved with their next unsuspecting girlfriend. It has been shown over and over again that men recover faster and better than women following divorce, even when women get alot of the material stuff. So quit whining, and trying to portray the male gender as the victim of a system created and perpetuated by men themselves. I intend on standing up for my share of everything I have spent ten years to build. I refuse to just allow shit to happen, as you so eloquently put it. And I’m proud to do so. You feel free to allow shit to happen to you, though. But don’t you dare tell me that I should let him walk away with everything I’ve worked for after the hell he’s put me and my kids through. As far as I"m concerned, hitting him in the wallet is the least that should happen to him for what he’s done to my family. But it is my only legal recourse, and I plan on utilizing it to the fullest, and you can just go to hell. You have really left no doubt as to your true feelings about women with this post, though. Someone must have really done a number on you in the past to make you hate us so much. It’s too bad…but it does explain your contempt and idiotic generalizations about women and divorce. It’s a good thing that most men don’t feel the way you do. Just because you have a penis doesn’t make you the spokesperson for the male gender, but you could be a poster boy for one type of man we should stay away from. If you don’t want to hear about our personal lives, don’t read our posts. If it angers you that women refuse to lay down and take it from the men in their lives, tough shit. Trailingvine "To live happily is an inward power of the soul." Marcus Aurelius
Response:
>I called today and made an appointment, but next week I am going to do some >more lawyer shopping. I cannot get into this one until Friday. So I am >stuck again. It will be over soon. I had him on agreement and now he has >changed his mind again. Yes he is still wanting the divorce. So I guess he >is not going to like my plan. It was pretty simple. So now I am going for >the jugular. Hate to do, but it was so easy and I was letting him off real >easy. Told my Mom and she said well lets go for the jugular I said I am >game now. >Bonner
Sometimes you just gotta do what ya gotta do Bonner. No one will take care of you, but you! Mom and Dad will always be there of course, but you have to do what is right for you in a divorce. Keep your chin up kiddo…..you are a good person. Sue We survive together or not at all.
Response:
> Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 >dollars now. I do not have that kind of money.
Linda, HE wants the divorce, HE walked out, make HIM pay for it!!!! And yes, you deserve alimony and you need it right now! Sorry for what you are going through. I think my 10 year relationship is coming to an end, but neither one of us know how to end it, and we are just hanging on. He doesn’t care about me when I am sick, NEVER asks how I am, etc. It’s a lonely world where I am. Hugs to you, Nikki ******* I am who I am Your approval is neither Desired nor required ******* When you throw mud at someone, remember you are the one who is losing ground. ******* If anger is a crutch, then why cant I hit people with it? *******
Response:
I think my 10 year relationship is coming > to an end, but neither one of us know how to end it, and we are just hanging > on.
I asked a friend about 4 weeks ago, how do you know when your marriage is ending? She had been through 2 marriages, and is single. She said when one ask the other to leave. If it is over just end it. Do not try to make sense of it. I can not believe it, but hey why stay with the other person when he does not love you!! It only makes you feel less of a person. I need him no ya don’t. Bonner God mad Man the perfect asshole.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 >dollars now. I do not have that kind of money. > Linda, HE wants the divorce, HE walked out, make HIM pay for it!!!! And yes, > you deserve alimony and you need it right now! > Sorry for what you are going through. I think my 10 year relationship is coming > to an end, but neither one of us know how to end it, and we are just hanging > on. He doesn’t care about me when I am sick, NEVER asks how I am, etc. It’s a > lonely world where I am. > Hugs to you, > Nikki > ******* > I am who I am > Your approval is neither > Desired nor required > ******* > When you throw mud at someone, remember you are the > one who is losing ground. > ******* > If anger is a crutch, then why cant I hit people with it? > *******
Response:
I called today and made an appointment, but next week I am going to do some more lawyer shopping. I cannot get into this one until Friday. So I am stuck again. It will be over soon. I had him on agreement and now he has changed his mind again. Yes he is still wanting the divorce. So I guess he is not going to like my plan. It was pretty simple. So now I am going for the jugular. Hate to do, but it was so easy and I was letting him off real easy. Told my Mom and she said well lets go for the jugular I said I am game now. Bonner
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bonner, > I’m sorry your parents won’t be there this weekend. > I do hope you’ll go through the yellow pages and look at the ads for > Divorce Attorneys…(only). See which ones offer a free consultation > and pick their brains too. Please don’t think that the word of this > one guy is "gospel". The one you spoke to seemed to be more > concerned with your leg, and a possible suit because of it. You may > want to pursue that at some time, but for now…you truly want > someone who *only* does divorces! You may well be surprised at the > different attitudes and degrees of professionalism you’ll encounter > after you compare a few different lawyers. > Best of luck to you, > codeee >My Mom and dad are not coming this weekend. We live near I 40 which is more >or less a artery and they think it is going to be too busy this weekend to >come down. So I have to wait until next week sometime. I know the marriage >is over with. I just want to get the show on the road, and get it over with >like right now. Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 >dollars now. I do not have that kind of money. He said if I want alimony >or we could do a quickie and no alimony for 400 dollars. He said do you >think he would pay you the alimony? I said I do not know. I said he could >bail on me and move back to France just to get out of it. He said it sounds >like you are in a hard place. He did not want to make an appointment until >I have the money for alimony divorce or 200 dollars down for a quickie. I >know he is going to bail and leave country he is just that kind of man. He >has no balls. I told him he is going to get everything and I am going to >get nothing. He said well we’ll see about that and sort of laughed. He was >more interested with my left leg weakness then my damn divorce. He said let >explore it. The only reason why I said anything was because I mentioned I >was disabled so it could help get me the alimony. That when he said were >you injured on the job and yada yada? I said no! he said what happened? So >I said it was a long story. He said go ahead and tell me. I got time. >Sounds like to me he wants to do something about my leg instead of get me a >divorce. >Bonner
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bonner, > I’m sorry your parents won’t be there this weekend. > I do hope you’ll go through the yellow pages and look at the ads for > Divorce Attorneys…(only). See which ones offer a free consultation > and pick their brains too. Please don’t think that the word of this > one guy is "gospel". The one you spoke to seemed to be more > concerned with your leg, and a possible suit because of it. You may > want to pursue that at some time, but for now…you truly want > someone who *only* does divorces! You may well be surprised at the > different attitudes and degrees of professionalism you’ll encounter > after you compare a few different lawyers. > Best of luck to you, > codeee >My Mom and dad are not coming this weekend. We live near I 40 which is more >or less a artery and they think it is going to be too busy this weekend to >come down. So I have to wait until next week sometime. I know the marriage >is over with. I just want to get the show on the road, and get it over with >like right now. Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 >dollars now. I do not have that kind of money. He said if I want alimony >or we could do a quickie and no alimony for 400 dollars. He said do you >think he would pay you the alimony? I said I do not know. I said he could >bail on me and move back to France just to get out of it. He said it sounds >like you are in a hard place. He did not want to make an appointment until >I have the money for alimony divorce or 200 dollars down for a quickie. I >know he is going to bail and leave country he is just that kind of man. He >has no balls. I told him he is going to get everything and I am going to >get nothing. He said well we’ll see about that and sort of laughed. He was >more interested with my left leg weakness then my damn divorce. He said let >explore it. The only reason why I said anything was because I mentioned I >was disabled so it could help get me the alimony. That when he said were >you injured on the job and yada yada? I said no! he said what happened? So >I said it was a long story. He said go ahead and tell me. I got time. >Sounds like to me he wants to do something about my leg instead of get me a >divorce. >Bonner
Response:
My Mom and dad are not coming this weekend. We live near I 40 which is more or less a artery and they think it is going to be too busy this weekend to come down. So I have to wait until next week sometime. I know the marriage is over with. I just want to get the show on the road, and get it over with like right now. Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 dollars now. I do not have that kind of money. He said if I want alimony or we could do a quickie and no alimony for 400 dollars. He said do you think he would pay you the alimony? I said I do not know. I said he could bail on me and move back to France just to get out of it. He said it sounds like you are in a hard place. He did not want to make an appointment until I have the money for alimony divorce or 200 dollars down for a quickie. I know he is going to bail and leave country he is just that kind of man. He has no balls. I told him he is going to get everything and I am going to get nothing. He said well we’ll see about that and sort of laughed. He was more interested with my left leg weakness then my damn divorce. He said let explore it. The only reason why I said anything was because I mentioned I was disabled so it could help get me the alimony. That when he said were you injured on the job and yada yada? I said no! he said what happened? So I said it was a long story. He said go ahead and tell me. I got time. Sounds like to me he wants to do something about my leg instead of get me a divorce. Bonner
Response:
Bonner, I’m sorry your parents won’t be there this weekend. I do hope you’ll go through the yellow pages and look at the ads for Divorce Attorneys…(only). See which ones offer a free consultation and pick their brains too. Please don’t think that the word of this one guy is "gospel". The one you spoke to seemed to be more concerned with your leg, and a possible suit because of it. You may want to pursue that at some time, but for now…you truly want someone who *only* does divorces! You may well be surprised at the different attitudes and degrees of professionalism you’ll encounter after you compare a few different lawyers. Best of luck to you, codeee – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My Mom and dad are not coming this weekend. We live near I 40 which is more >or less a artery and they think it is going to be too busy this weekend to >come down. So I have to wait until next week sometime. I know the marriage >is over with. I just want to get the show on the road, and get it over with >like right now. Talked with the Lawyer on the phone he wants 1200 to 1500 >dollars now. I do not have that kind of money. He said if I want alimony >or we could do a quickie and no alimony for 400 dollars. He said do you >think he would pay you the alimony? I said I do not know. I said he could >bail on me and move back to France just to get out of it. He said it sounds >like you are in a hard place. He did not want to make an appointment until >I have the money for alimony divorce or 200 dollars down for a quickie. I >know he is going to bail and leave country he is just that kind of man. He >has no balls. I told him he is going to get everything and I am going to >get nothing. He said well we’ll see about that and sort of laughed. He was >more interested with my left leg weakness then my damn divorce. He said let >explore it. The only reason why I said anything was because I mentioned I >was disabled so it could help get me the alimony. That when he said were >you injured on the job and yada yada? I said no! he said what happened? So >I said it was a long story. He said go ahead and tell me. I got time. >Sounds like to me he wants to do something about my leg instead of get me a >divorce. >Bonner
Response:
Question:
Airport Screeners Up Rates for U.S. Mon Aug 26, 5:55 PM ET By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) – Some private companies that screen airline passengers are charging more for their services now that the government is footing the bill, says a federal report that found one company nearly doubled its rates. The Transportation Department’s inspector general also found cases where the companies billed the government for absent employees and work that was never completed. And it found lax oversight by government officials. Before Sept. 11, private companies had contracts with airlines to screen passengers and their carry-on bags. After the terrorist attacks, Congress created the Transportation Security Administration, which was ordered to take over the contracts, worth $1.6 billion, and to hire a federal work force to assume passenger screening duties in more than 400 airports by Nov. 19. According to Alexis Stefani, the Transportation Department’s assistant inspector general for auditing, the companies raised their rates for labor and overhead when the government started paying the bills in February. One company nearly doubled its overhead rate to $28 an hour and raised employee pay from $10 to $14. The inspector general’s staff visited six unidentified contractors at two undisclosed airports and found no government supervision while contractor employees arrived late, left early and signed in as though they worked an entire shift. "We saw virtually no onsite monitoring of screener contractors by TSA employees," the report said. A separate review by the TSA discovered "internal controls were not followed, contractors billed TSA for employees who were on vacation, and TSA was overcharged for services not performed," the inspector general said in the report issued earlier this month. Kenneth Quinn, an attorney representing several screening companies, said the higher costs are justified. He said security screeners were vastly underpaid before Sept. 11 because of pressure from the airlines to reduce costs. Now, he said, "you need to make sure you’re paying people adequately so they don’t bolt knowing that they’ll be out of a job" when the federal work force is in place. Quinn also said the government appears to be doing a good job of supervising the companies and their screeners. "From my vantage point the TSA has provided fairly active oversight," said Quinn, who cited a confidentiality agreement in declining to identify his clients. The TSA did not return repeated calls seeking comment. Rep. John Mica ( news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, said higher pay is understandable but charging for services not performed is not. "We cannot tolerate fraudulent billing," Mica said. "We’ll have to track it down and conduct our proper oversight." The government was supposed to negotiate prices and terms with the screening contractors after taking over the contracts six months ago, but hasn’t done so yet, the inspector general said. The TSA instead awarded so-called ‘letter contracts’ to the companies, which don’t spell out detailed terms. The agency is in the midst of hiring about 30,000 screeners. As of Tuesday, screeners who work for the federal government were on the job in 37 of the 424 airports that will have federal workers. Many of the privately employed screeners are getting jobs as federal screeners, earning between $23,600 and $35,400 a year plus health insurance, retirement benefits and paid leave. As private-sector screeners they generally earned about $10,000 a year, and often received no benefits. Some, though, can’t meet the government’s higher standards: They must be U.S. citizens with a high school diploma or one year of experience in a job that shows they can perform the security work. ___ On the Net: Transportation Department inspector general: http://www.oig.dot.gov
Response:
> Some, though, can’t meet the government’s higher standards: They must > be U.S. citizens with a high school diploma or one year of experience in > a job that shows they can perform the security work.
The subject of this post should have been "TSA screws us". Let’s under- stand the logic, or lack thereof. Everyone complained about the screeners. So, what does the TSA write as one of the main job requirements? That all job applicants must have screening experience (go and look at the Monster. com ads). So, only screeners can apply for the new jobs. Sounds like typical government idiotic logic at work. The movie "Brazil" looms closer all the time. Casey
Response:
Actually, that is not true..you don’t necessarily need screening experience, but they do look for law enforcement and security experience…the main thing is being able to pass the tests..and 60% of the people that have tested have failed the 1st phase of testing. It will get better than worse…at present, they have private security doing the job gor about $7.00 an hour. What quality of people can you really get at that rate. Plus, I know from experience, that most security companies run a "meat market" when hiring….the motto is "if the are vertical and fog a mirror, they’re hired" This mentality has led to the current level of quality that you have seen in the Aiports. I know the TSA is trying to get good people, and it seems like they have so far. Given a little time for adjustment, they might just prove worthwhile…we shall see.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Some, though, can’t meet the government’s higher standards: They must > be U.S. citizens with a high school diploma or one year of experience in > a job that shows they can perform the security work. > The subject of this post should have been "TSA screws us". Let’s under- > stand the logic, or lack thereof. Everyone complained about the screeners. > So, what does the TSA write as one of the main job requirements? That all > job applicants must have screening experience (go and look at the Monster. > com ads). So, only screeners can apply for the new jobs. Sounds like > typical government idiotic logic at work. The movie "Brazil" looms closer > all the time. > Casey
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Jerry, >Again, no context was removed. You’re looking too deep. >He said the US <<invaded>> the CSA… >Somehow, that action does not fit my definition of an invasion. > It’s a matter of perspective: to us (I’m a yankee too we were > trying to end an illegal -by the unions laws- secession. To the > confederacy the union was interfering with their right -by their laws- > to secede. The CSA thought of themselves as a sovereign nation while > we didn’t recognize it and considered it to be a rebellion instead. To > them it was an invasion and just because we won doesn’t mean that we > get to call it whatever we want forevermore instead.
Somehow this looks like the china-taiwan situation today, doesn’t it? So, is there a consensus in the US about whether it is okay to wage war to keep a country together? Greetings! Volker — Das meiste Geld habe ich fuer exklusive Restaurants, schnelle Autos und teure Frauen ausgegeben. Den Rest habe ich verplempert.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Jerry, > >Again, no context was removed. You’re looking too deep. > >He said the US <<invaded>> the CSA… > >Somehow, that action does not fit my definition of an invasion. > It’s a matter of perspective: to us (I’m a yankee too we were > trying to end an illegal -by the unions laws- secession. To the > confederacy the union was interfering with their right -by their laws- > to secede. The CSA thought of themselves as a sovereign nation while > we didn’t recognize it and considered it to be a rebellion instead. To > them it was an invasion and just because we won doesn’t mean that we > get to call it whatever we want forevermore instead. >Somehow this looks like the china-taiwan situation today, doesn’t it? >So, is there a consensus in the US about whether it is okay to wage >war to keep a country together?
Yes it does in a way. But I guess that we support someones right to secede only if they wish to adopt a political system that we approve of and oppose it if they don’t. Our support for the Taiwanese has always been somewhat self-righteous & self-serving. After this much time the Taiwanese have proven to be quite successful though: if the Chinese would have quashed the rebellion reasonably soon after it’s formation then we wouldn’t have liked it but probably would have seen it as an internal affair. But after this much time has passed we see Taiwan as, in fact, as having become a separate nation. I guess it’s now a matter of what people see as the status quo. Perhaps given enough time mainland China will merge with Taiwan rather than vice-vesa. — JLG
Response:
>Jerry, >Again, no context was removed. You’re looking too deep. >He said the US <<invaded>> the CSA… >Somehow, that action does not fit my definition of an invasion.
It’s a matter of perspective: to us (I’m a yankee too we were trying to end an illegal -by the unions laws- secession. To the confederacy the union was interfering with their right -by their laws- to secede. The CSA thought of themselves as a sovereign nation while we didn’t recognize it and considered it to be a rebellion instead. To them it was an invasion and just because we won doesn’t mean that we get to call it whatever we want forevermore instead. But then again, history is typically written by the winners… >When the National Guard went into Georgia/Alabama, was that >really considered an invasion?
No, not that specifically; that was more of a police action. The union was imposing it’s will to ensure that Georgia/Alabama couldn’t officially secede even if they wanted to. >I guess I’m just semantically challenged.
I don’t think so: you’re just looking at it from the perspective of the winner. >The Civil War was fought for the same reasons as other wars: greed >and fear. Slavery was the critical factor, but the war was started and >fought for stated reasons other than that.
A bit more than greed & fear in this case. The CSA didn’t want to simply become a resource to be exploited by the northern industrialists. They wanted control over their own politics, economy and way-of-life – however ‘immoral’ we might now consider some of the aspects of it. The southern politicians defended slavery on economic grounds – and rationalized it on philosophical (racist) grounds. The northerners didn’t go marching into the south on some moral crusade to ‘free the slaves’ (heck: most of them actually believed the racism aspect of it as much as the southerners did) so much as to dismantle the institution of slavery as part of an economic structure. >Notice that to solve this moral problem, the Constitution was amended.
Yup, and after they won the union imposed it’s constitution on the looser – among other things. Hey, I think equality is a great thing; I think that every citizen should be given equal opportunity & liberty. I just would have worded it a bit differently to acknowledge that even though equality must be provided & presumed that on an individual level people are anything but _in fact_ equal. I don’t know how to actually word it without the danger of creating an elite class, perhaps by realistically defining a citizens worth by their contributions/involvement in society. Something that’s already practiced in our legal system: I think it should be ‘above board’ and defined so that there’s less chance that it takes on individual (perhaps racial) interpretations. All I’m saying here is that we don’t give a 25 yr. old looser that’s spent 1/2 of his life in jail the same credibility as you or I. Same opportunity, yes, but not the same credibility or worth until they in fact make some effort to achieve it. [and who the hell would decide that & by whose values would definitely be a problem] Sorry about the tangent. OK, back on topic: March 1861 — Lincoln’s Inauguration. At Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare. — JLG
Response:
> Jerry, > Again, no context was removed.
Essentially, EVERYTHING was removed. > You’re looking too deep. > He said the US <<invaded>> the CSA…
Which Jerry may not have known because that statement was one of the things you removed. > Somehow, that action does not fit my definition of an invasion.
The states that had seceded were no longer a part of the US. By definition, the US’s actions constituted an invasion. > When the National Guard went into Georgia/Alabama, was that > really considered an invasion?
No, because Georgia and Alabama were part of the US at the time.
Response:
Jerry, Again, no context was removed. You’re looking too deep. He said the US <<invaded>> the CSA… Somehow, that action does not fit my definition of an invasion. When the National Guard went into Georgia/Alabama, was that really considered an invasion? I guess I’m just semantically challenged. The Civil War was fought for the same reasons as other wars: greed and fear. Slavery was the critical factor, but the war was started and fought for stated reasons other than that. Notice that to solve this moral problem, the Constitution was amended. Dan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->So, Jerry, Mr. Historian, tell me something I didn’t know. > So Dan, did you read up on the causes for the civil war a bit? BTW: > I’m not a historian: I simply read a lot and believe that the ‘truth’ > is probably somewhere close to the median. >Now parse the appropriate statement and tell me what you think: > Impossible to parse for context when it has been removed. Clarify to > us whether you believe that the American civil war was fought > specifically due to racial (the morality of slavery) issues. >> >> > The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited. >> >> There’s a new one. >> >Where’s a "new one"? You ridicule my comments after removing them from >your response? >Please note that there was nothing removed from his point that was >relevant… >>>> Stuff viciously & underhandedly deleted< by >Dan > — > JLG
Response:
>So, Jerry, Mr. Historian, tell me something I didn’t know.
So Dan, did you read up on the causes for the civil war a bit? BTW: I’m not a historian: I simply read a lot and believe that the ‘truth’ is probably somewhere close to the median. >Now parse the appropriate statement and tell me what you think:
Impossible to parse for context when it has been removed. Clarify to us whether you believe that the American civil war was fought specifically due to racial (the morality of slavery) issues. > >> > The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited. > >> There’s a new one. > >Where’s a "new one"? You ridicule my comments after removing them from >your response? >Please note that there was nothing removed from his point that was >relevant… >>> Stuff viciously & underhandedly deleted< by >Dan
— JLG
Response:
So, Jerry, Mr. Historian, tell me something I didn’t know. Now parse the appropriate statement and tell me what you think: >> > The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited. >> There’s a new one. >Where’s a "new one"? You ridicule my comments after removing them from your >response?
Please note that there was nothing removed from his point that was relevant… >> Stuff deleted <<<
Dan
Response:
>> > The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited. > There’s a new one. >Where’s a "new one"? You ridicule my comments after removing them from your >response?
Ah, so you’re meeting our resident revisionist. The object of the game is to discredit what you know and replace it with "History according (and acceptable) to Dan" don’t ca know. >You’re a dick!
I’ll bet you suspected that on the very first post but didn’t say it. > Stick around and anything will get airplay > in this group… And to think, every book I have ever read on that war > was wrong.
Dan; read more, a LOT more, and don’t be so damn selective about it. >I can’t imagine any book claiming that the US invaded the CSA to end >slavery. That’s utterly silly.
Oh they’re out there Mark, lots of them. They’re even required reading in many of our public schools; the American Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Period. In this way Dan might actually be being honest about what he’s read. History lesson for the day for our revisionists: <start article> Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer. What caused the American Civil War? It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. Consider this: It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery. However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception. Background: The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave. But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South’s economic system was based upon cotton–and slavery. The political leaders of the South, such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, The Fire-Eaters and Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, recognized that if the South lost her slaves (i. e., had to pay slaves wages similar to what white laborers were paid), her entire socio-economic system would probably collapse. Hence any political action that took place that threatened the slavery system of the South received the undivided attention of the South’s political leaders, many of whom were themselves slave owners. Political leaders in the North were much more divided about the slavery issue. Many of the powerful abolitionists, such as William L. Garrison of Massachusetts, were either religious leaders or newspaper editors. A fewer number of abolitionsits, such as Senator Edwin Sumner of Massachusetts and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, were politicians. The north had equally powerful political leaders such as democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas who were either indifferent towards or supportive of slavery. Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South’s political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue. Up until the middle 1800s, slavery was kept as a background issue that remained largely the concern of political leaders of the South, and abolitionists of the North. But in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, brought slavery to the forefront of national attention. Kansas-Nebraska eliminated the old Missouri Compromise (which in 1820 had designated areas of the new territories in which slavery could and could not be introduced) and made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory. Douglas called the concept of allowing residents of the territories to decide the slavery issue for themselves Popular Sovereignty. Kansas-Nebraska caused a firestorm to errupt in the North, awakening many people to the danger of the potential spread of slavery. Moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln became active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery. Conclusion: Although the majority of the American people– including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln–wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery. These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.). Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth–but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight. So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and–of primary concern to most southern soldiers–the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians–and consequently the underlying cause of the South’s desire to seek independence and state rights. <end article> — JLG
Response:
> The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited. > There’s a new one.
Where’s a "new one"? You ridicule my comments after removing them from your response? You’re a dick! > Stick around and anything will get airplay > in this group… > And to think, every book I have ever read on that war > was wrong.
I can’t imagine any book claiming that the US invaded the CSA to end slavery. That’s utterly silly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dang that liberal media elite. Dang it to HELL! > He wanted to force the Southern states to be part of the US empire. > Interesting interpretation, and not wrong in its entirety. > But think of the world we could have had! > Dan
Response:
Great intellectual analysis. And so brave and manly, as well! All as expected, of course. Dan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Christian, if you’re gonna tear us up, you might learn our language a little > better. Have a nice day! :) > so environmentalist grew silent as they realized the world was lost. > all that will be left will be one big city and a beef farm. 1 billion > americans has got to be the most disgusting idea I ever heard. Let us > hope that somewhere along the road. As we grow we come to realize that > nature is not the enemy. that pollution is not our only option and of > course, that that you can bounce off the wall and not touch it for 3 > years while its still fresh actually tastes good. 1 billion americans > living there current lifestyles can produce some of the scariest > stattistics imaginable. Holy crap> >
Response:
> The US invaded the CSA for the reasons I cited.
There’s a new one. Stick around and anything will get airplay in this group… And to think, every book I have ever read on that war was wrong. Dang that liberal media elite. Dang it to HELL! > He wanted to force the Southern states to be part of the US empire.
Interesting interpretation, and not wrong in its entirety. But think of the world we could have had! Dan
Response:
You’re right Mark. Time to give the revisionists that will object to what you say a history lesson: Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer What caused the American Civil War? It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. Consider this: It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery. However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649) The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception. Background: The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave. But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South’s economic system was based upon cotton–and slavery. The political leaders of the South, such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, The Fire-Eatersand Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, recognized that if the South lost her slaves (i. e., had to pay slaves wages similar to what white laborers were paid), her entire socio-economic system would probably collapse. Hence any political action that took place that threatened the slavery system of the South received the undivided attention of the South’s political leaders, many of whom were themselves slave owners. Political leaders in the North were much more divided about the slavery issue. Many of the powerful abolitionists, such as William L. Garrison of Massachusetts, were either religious leaders or newspaper editors. A fewer number of abolitionsits, such as Senator Edwin Sumner of Massachusetts and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, were politicians. The north had equally powerful political leaders such as democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas who were either indifferent towards or supportive of slavery. Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South’s political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue. Up until the middle 1800s, slavery was kept as a background issue that remained largely the concern of political leaders of the South, and abolitionists of the North. But in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, brought slavery to the forefront of national attention. Kansas-Nebraska eliminated the old Missouri Compromise (which in 1820 had designated areas of the new territories in which slavery could and could not be introduced) and made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory. Douglas called the concept of allowing residents of the territories to decide the slavery issue for themselves Popular Sovereignty. Kansas-Nebraska caused a firestorm to errupt in the North, awakening many people to the danger of the potential spread of slavery. Moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln became active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery. Conclusion: Although the majority of the American people– including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln–wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery. These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.). Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth–but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight. So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and–of primary concern to most southern soldiers–the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians–and consequently the underlying cause of the South’s desire to seek independence and state rights. Copyright
Question:
> Is a "not quite we’re gonna crash" going to lead the PIC to land at the nearest > major airport? Or do they search for the nearest patch of
concrete/asphalt with > runway markers on it?
It’s a judgement call, but we have a number of procedures that end with "Land at Nearest Suitable Airport". There are fairly specific criteria that we use to determine "nearest suitable", including the weather, airfield facilities, etc. Cedar City, with an 8700′ runway and an ILS, normally qualifies as a suitable airport. –Mark Rogers
Response:
hey,i never made it that far and it’s been years since I watched the movie Come Fly with Me, but I think you could bid once a week trips if you were senior enough but I don’t think you’d make a lot of money! geoff.
Response:
Re: Why so many airlines in debt ?? > (bicker) >Too true. But don’t forget the > disproportionately high pilots’ salaries. > US$100.000.00 a year for what? Sitting for 6 > hours and doing nothing for 51/2 of it. Planes > fly themselves. >That’s silly. (And yes, sorry to say, Mary, just > what folks have come to expect from many > WebTV users.)
What’s silly is your thinking that because I use webtv I’m some kind of moron. ISP snobbery is silly. If I bought a pc would I instantly become a genius like you? Besides we webbies no longer use WebTV we now use MSNTV. >There are two people who I want making more > money than I do: my doctor and my pilot, > thankyouverymuch.
More yes. Too much more they don’t deserve. >– >
Question:
>. And how are you madam?
I am doing OK. I am on Enbrel now and it really is doing good things for me. Miss seeing you around though pal. Char "Remember, I’m pulling for ya’. We’re all in this together." Red Green
Response:
Oh now this is what I was waiting to hear. See me smiling??? Duckie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->. And how are you madam? > I am doing OK. I am on Enbrel now and it really is doing good things for me. > Miss seeing you around though pal. > Char > "Remember, I’m pulling for ya’. > We’re all in this together." Red Green
Response:
>Oh now this is what I was waiting to hear. See me smiling??? >Duckie
Yep. I can see it from here. lol Char "Remember, I’m pulling for ya’. We’re all in this together." Red Green
Response:
> Larry > Thanks for posting this. I’ll get a lot of mileage out of sending this > to all my Shipmates. Almost brought tears to my eyes. Well, it did a few > times.
My eyes were misting also, my friend, that’s why I had to share it. I knew Roy Benevidez personally and he was a great guy. That young Captain’s comments on him, Roy, got to me as did the old gal with the tattoo on her forearm. — Be Well, Larry — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Response:
Char I’m so happy to hear the good news. You go girl. Bout time you got a break. Hope it continues. ~Kenny
Response:
Larry Everybody I’ve sent that to has almost said the same thing. Again, thanks my friend. ~Kenny
Response:
Hey Harv The stress test came out good. I was able to do the whole the whole test on the tread mill and everything looked OK according to the Doc. Sore knees and ankles later but I was bound and determined to do it. I gave up Vioxx afterwards and things seem to be settling down. Hey Char I lurk around quite often but someone ran my red boxers up the flag pole by the hot tub and it’s kinda to cold to leave that area. Some of the threads have been veeerry interesting though. Ain’t going there!!! Well, yet anyway.<BEG> And I am doing well as can be expected. Thanks for asking. And how are you madam? ~Kenny
Response:
> Larry > Thanks for posting this. I’ll get a lot of mileage out of sending this > to all my Shipmates. Almost brought tears to my eyes. Well, it did a few > times. > ~Kenny > http://usslowrydd-770.com
Hi Kenny,,,, There you are. Where you been? How you been? Am I having memory problems or were you suppose to update us on your stress test??? Harv
Response:
Larry, Thank you for this moving account. As an ex-service man myself, UK not USA I found this story reminding me of the stories I heard from veterans of WWII. I was in the Royal Navy and heard stories from both Royal and merchant marine veterans. I only hope that I would have risen to the challenge had it ever been put to me. Thanks again. Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thank you, Larry. > — > DeeTee and Bob Taggart > http://home.earthlink.net/~bdtaggart/DC/DC.html > I am a doctor specializing in Emergency Medicine in the Emergency > Departments > of the only two military Level One trauma centers. They are both in San > Antonio, TX and they care for civilian Emergencies as well as military > personnel. San Antonio has the largest military retiree population in the > world living here, because of the location of these two large military > medical centers. As a military doctor in training for my specialty, I > work > long hours and the pay is less than glamorous. One tends to become jaded > by > the long hours, lack of sleep, food, family contact and the endless parade > of human suffering passing before you. > The arrival of another ambulance does not mean more pay, only more work. > Most often, it is a victim from a motor vehicle crash. Often it is a > personof dubious character who has been shot or stabbed. With our large > military retiree population, it is often a nursing home patient. > Even with my enlisted service and minimal combat experience in Panama, > prior > to medical school, I have caught myself groaning when the ambulance > brought > in yet another sick, elderly person from one of the local retirement > centers > that cater to military retirees. I had not stopped to think of what > citizens of this age group represented. > I saw "Saving Private Ryan." I was touched deeply. Not so much by the > carnage in the first 30 minutes, but by the sacrifices of so many. I was > touched most by the scene of the elderly survivor at the graveside, asking > his wife if he’d been a good man. I realized that I had seen these same > men > and women coming through my Emergency Dept. and had not realized what > magnificent sacrifices they had made. The things they did for me and > everyone else that has lived on this planet since the end of that conflict > are priceless. > Situation permitting, I now try to ask my patients about their > experiences. > They would never bring up the subject without the inquiry. I have been > privileged to an amazing array of experiences, recounted in the brief > minutes allowed in an Emergency Dept. encounter. These experiences have > revealed the incredible individuals I have had the honor of serving in a > medical capacity, many on their last admission to the hospital. > There was a frail, elderly woman who reassured my young enlisted medic, > trying to start an IV line in her arm. She remained calm and poised, > despite her illness and the multiple needle sticks into her fragile veins. > She was what we call a "hard stick." As the medic made another attempt, I > noticed a number tattooed across her forearm. I touched it with one > finger > and looked into her eyes. She simply said "Auschwitz." Many of later > generations would have loudly and openly berated the young medic in his > many > attempts. How different was the response from this person who’d seen > unspeakable suffering. > Also, there was this long retired Colonel, who as a young officer had > parachuted from his burning plane over a Pacific Island held by the > Japanese. Now an octogenarian, his head cut in a fall at home where he > lived alone. His CT scan and suturing had been delayed until after > midnight > by the usual parade of high priority ambulance patients. Still spry for > his > age, he asked to use the phone to call a taxi, to take him home, then he > realized his > ambulance had brought him without his wallet. He asked if he could use > the > phone to make a long distance call to his daughter who lived 7 miles away. > With great pride we told him that he could not, as he’d done enough for > his > country and the least we could do was > get him a taxi home, even if we had to pay for it ourselves. My only > regret > was that my shift wouldn’t end for several hours, and I couldn’t drive him > myself. > I was there the night US Army Special Forces Vietnam Veteran MSG. Roy > Benavidez came through the Emergency Dept. for the last time. He was very > sick. I was not the doctor taking care of him, but I walked to his > bedside > and took his hand. I said nothing. He was so sick, he didn’t know I was > there. I’d read his Medal of Honor citation and wanted to shake his hand. > He died a few days later. > The gentleman who served with Merrill’s Marauders, the survivor of the > Baatan Death March, the survivor of Omaha Beach, the 101 year old World > War > I veteran, the former POW held in frozen North Korea, the former Special > Forces medic – now with non-operable liver cancer, the former Viet Nam > Corps > Commander. I remember these citizens. > I may still groan when yet another ambulance comes in, but now I am much > more aware of what an honor it is to serve these particular men and women. > I am angered at the cut backs, implemented and proposed, that will > continue > to decay their meager retirement benefits. > I see the President and Congress who would turn their back on these > individuals, who’ve sacrificed so much to protect our liberty. I see > later > generations that seem to be totally engrossed in abusing these same > liberties, won with such sacrifice. > It has become my personal endeavor, to make the nurses and young enlisted > medics aware of these amazing individuals when I encounter them in our > Emergency Dept. Their response to these particular citizens has made me > think that perhaps all is not lost in the next generation. > My experiences have solidified my belief that we are losing an incredible > generations, and this nation knows not what it is losing. Our uncaring > government and ungrateful civilian populace should all take note. We > should > all remember that we must "Earn this." > Written By CPT. Stephen R. Ellison, M.D. (If you send this story along > to friends, please include the author’s name. Thank you! > — > Be Well, > Larry > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Response:
Kenny! How the heck are you? We see you so seldom anymore. Miss ya’ big guy. Hardly know what to do, when no one is wearing red boxers. LOL Come around more often. Char "Remember, I’m pulling for ya’. We’re all in this together." Red Green
Response:
Larry Thanks for posting this. I’ll get a lot of mileage out of sending this to all my Shipmates. Almost brought tears to my eyes. Well, it did a few times. ~Kenny http://usslowrydd-770.com
Response:
Thank you, Larry… a very eloquent post. Best regards,
Response:
Thanks Larry, as the daughter, niece, sister, sister-in-law, aunt and soon to be ex wife of military personnel, I know only too well what these people represent. Simply put, it’s called freedom. Anne (proud to be an AF Brat) AAC/AAF/AFBV62.0844.AZ http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot
Response:
>Thank you, Larry… a very eloquent post. >Best regards,
Yes, less we forget. When the generations do that we’ll be back in the same position again. Regards Andy
Response:
Thank you Larry. That was awesome, in the truest meaning of that word. Char "Remember, I’m pulling for ya’. We’re all in this together." Red Green
Response:
Thank you, Larry. — DeeTee and Bob Taggart http://home.earthlink.net/~bdtaggart/DC/DC.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a doctor specializing in Emergency Medicine in the Emergency > Departments > of the only two military Level One trauma centers. They are both in San > Antonio, TX and they care for civilian Emergencies as well as military > personnel. San Antonio has the largest military retiree population in the > world living here, because of the location of these two large military > medical centers. As a military doctor in training for my specialty, I work > long hours and the pay is less than glamorous. One tends to become jaded by > the long hours, lack of sleep, food, family contact and the endless parade > of human suffering passing before you. > The arrival of another ambulance does not mean more pay, only more work. > Most often, it is a victim from a motor vehicle crash. Often it is a > personof dubious character who has been shot or stabbed. With our large > military retiree population, it is often a nursing home patient. > Even with my enlisted service and minimal combat experience in Panama, prior > to medical school, I have caught myself groaning when the ambulance brought > in yet another sick, elderly person from one of the local retirement centers > that cater to military retirees. I had not stopped to think of what > citizens of this age group represented. > I saw "Saving Private Ryan." I was touched deeply. Not so much by the > carnage in the first 30 minutes, but by the sacrifices of so many. I was > touched most by the scene of the elderly survivor at the graveside, asking > his wife if he’d been a good man. I realized that I had seen these same men > and women coming through my Emergency Dept. and had not realized what > magnificent sacrifices they had made. The things they did for me and > everyone else that has lived on this planet since the end of that conflict > are priceless. > Situation permitting, I now try to ask my patients about their experiences. > They would never bring up the subject without the inquiry. I have been > privileged to an amazing array of experiences, recounted in the brief > minutes allowed in an Emergency Dept. encounter. These experiences have > revealed the incredible individuals I have had the honor of serving in a > medical capacity, many on their last admission to the hospital. > There was a frail, elderly woman who reassured my young enlisted medic, > trying to start an IV line in her arm. She remained calm and poised, > despite her illness and the multiple needle sticks into her fragile veins. > She was what we call a "hard stick." As the medic made another attempt, I > noticed a number tattooed across her forearm. I touched it with one finger > and looked into her eyes. She simply said "Auschwitz." Many of later > generations would have loudly and openly berated the young medic in his many > attempts. How different was the response from this person who’d seen > unspeakable suffering. > Also, there was this long retired Colonel, who as a young officer had > parachuted from his burning plane over a Pacific Island held by the > Japanese. Now an octogenarian, his head cut in a fall at home where he > lived alone. His CT scan and suturing had been delayed until after midnight > by the usual parade of high priority ambulance patients. Still spry for his > age, he asked to use the phone to call a taxi, to take him home, then he > realized his > ambulance had brought him without his wallet. He asked if he could use the > phone to make a long distance call to his daughter who lived 7 miles away. > With great pride we told him that he could not, as he’d done enough for his > country and the least we could do was > get him a taxi home, even if we had to pay for it ourselves. My only regret > was that my shift wouldn’t end for several hours, and I couldn’t drive him > myself. > I was there the night US Army Special Forces Vietnam Veteran MSG. Roy > Benavidez came through the Emergency Dept. for the last time. He was very > sick. I was not the doctor taking care of him, but I walked to his bedside > and took his hand. I said nothing. He was so sick, he didn’t know I was > there. I’d read his Medal of Honor citation and wanted to shake his hand. > He died a few days later. > The gentleman who served with Merrill’s Marauders, the survivor of the > Baatan Death March, the survivor of Omaha Beach, the 101 year old World War > I veteran, the former POW held in frozen North Korea, the former Special > Forces medic – now with non-operable liver cancer, the former Viet Nam Corps > Commander. I remember these citizens. > I may still groan when yet another ambulance comes in, but now I am much > more aware of what an honor it is to serve these particular men and women. > I am angered at the cut backs, implemented and proposed, that will continue > to decay their meager retirement benefits. > I see the President and Congress who would turn their back on these > individuals, who’ve sacrificed so much to protect our liberty. I see later > generations that seem to be totally engrossed in abusing these same > liberties, won with such sacrifice. > It has become my personal endeavor, to make the nurses and young enlisted > medics aware of these amazing individuals when I encounter them in our > Emergency Dept. Their response to these particular citizens has made me > think that perhaps all is not lost in the next generation. > My experiences have solidified my belief that we are losing an incredible > generations, and this nation knows not what it is losing. Our uncaring > government and ungrateful civilian populace should all take note. We should > all remember that we must "Earn this." > Written By CPT. Stephen R. Ellison, M.D. (If you send this story along > to friends, please include the author’s name. Thank you! > — > Be Well, > Larry > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Response:
I am a doctor specializing in Emergency Medicine in the Emergency Departments of the only two military Level One trauma centers. They are both in San Antonio, TX and they care for civilian Emergencies as well as military personnel. San Antonio has the largest military retiree population in the world living here, because of the location of these two large military medical centers. As a military doctor in training for my specialty, I work long hours and the pay is less than glamorous. One tends to become jaded by the long hours, lack of sleep, food, family contact and the endless parade of human suffering passing before you. The arrival of another ambulance does not mean more pay, only more work. Most often, it is a victim from a motor vehicle crash. Often it is a personof dubious character who has been shot or stabbed. With our large military retiree population, it is often a nursing home patient. Even with my enlisted service and minimal combat experience in Panama, prior to medical school, I have caught myself groaning when the ambulance brought in yet another sick, elderly person from one of the local retirement centers that cater to military retirees. I had not stopped to think of what citizens of this age group represented. I saw "Saving Private Ryan." I was touched deeply. Not so much by the carnage in the first 30 minutes, but by the sacrifices of so many. I was touched most by the scene of the elderly survivor at the graveside, asking his wife if he’d been a good man. I realized that I had seen these same men and women coming through my Emergency Dept. and had not realized what magnificent sacrifices they had made. The things they did for me and everyone else that has lived on this planet since the end of that conflict are priceless. Situation permitting, I now try to ask my patients about their experiences. They would never bring up the subject without the inquiry. I have been privileged to an amazing array of experiences, recounted in the brief minutes allowed in an Emergency Dept. encounter. These experiences have revealed the incredible individuals I have had the honor of serving in a medical capacity, many on their last admission to the hospital. There was a frail, elderly woman who reassured my young enlisted medic, trying to start an IV line in her arm. She remained calm and poised, despite her illness and the multiple needle sticks into her fragile veins. She was what we call a "hard stick." As the medic made another attempt, I noticed a number tattooed across her forearm. I touched it with one finger and looked into her eyes. She simply said "Auschwitz." Many of later generations would have loudly and openly berated the young medic in his many attempts. How different was the response from this person who’d seen unspeakable suffering. Also, there was this long retired Colonel, who as a young officer had parachuted from his burning plane over a Pacific Island held by the Japanese. Now an octogenarian, his head cut in a fall at home where he lived alone. His CT scan and suturing had been delayed until after midnight by the usual parade of high priority ambulance patients. Still spry for his age, he asked to use the phone to call a taxi, to take him home, then he realized his ambulance had brought him without his wallet. He asked if he could use the phone to make a long distance call to his daughter who lived 7 miles away. With great pride we told him that he could not, as he’d done enough for his country and the least we could do was get him a taxi home, even if we had to pay for it ourselves. My only regret was that my shift wouldn’t end for several hours, and I couldn’t drive him myself. I was there the night US Army Special Forces Vietnam Veteran MSG. Roy Benavidez came through the Emergency Dept. for the last time. He was very sick. I was not the doctor taking care of him, but I walked to his bedside and took his hand. I said nothing. He was so sick, he didn’t know I was there. I’d read his Medal of Honor citation and wanted to shake his hand. He died a few days later. The gentleman who served with Merrill’s Marauders, the survivor of the Baatan Death March, the survivor of Omaha Beach, the 101 year old World War I veteran, the former POW held in frozen North Korea, the former Special Forces medic – now with non-operable liver cancer, the former Viet Nam Corps Commander. I remember these citizens. I may still groan when yet another ambulance comes in, but now I am much more aware of what an honor it is to serve these particular men and women. I am angered at the cut backs, implemented and proposed, that will continue to decay their meager retirement benefits. I see the President and Congress who would turn their back on these individuals, who’ve sacrificed so much to protect our liberty. I see later generations that seem to be totally engrossed in abusing these same liberties, won with such sacrifice. It has become my personal endeavor, to make the nurses and young enlisted medics aware of these amazing individuals when I encounter them in our Emergency Dept. Their response to these particular citizens has made me think that perhaps all is not lost in the next generation. My experiences have solidified my belief that we are losing an incredible generations, and this nation knows not what it is losing. Our uncaring government and ungrateful civilian populace should all take note. We should all remember that we must "Earn this." Written By CPT. Stephen R. Ellison, M.D. (If you send this story along to friends, please include the author’s name. Thank you! — Be Well, Larry — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Response:
Question:
>Ellen, welcome to our little exclusive club…if anyone else out there is >running down to BWI from PHL please speak up.
Why, thank you — but I’ve been in the club for awhile. Drove down to BWI a few years ago to fly to PVD when PHL-PVD was about $400 and BWI-PVD (all on US) was $79. >Thank heavens for the WN effect. I’m trying to not stick my clients with the >hefty PHL fares whenever possible now.
If it were $100 or even $200 more, I’d stick ‘em with the PHL fares — but $700 to go to BUF is really surreal. >Where the real challenge for the airlines will lie is when do they give up the >ghost on certain routes and make us cheapos fly on WN exclusively?
That’s what I keep wondering. =:O
Response:
Just thought I’d share my most recent experience with the ‘Southwest Effect’. I had to buy a ticket PHL-BUF, no Saturday night. The cheapest fare I could find was over $500, mostly around $700. (Apparently it’s Easter week or something like that.) So I checked BWI-BUF, a WN route. Voila, US’s price: $103.50, tax included. Looks like I’ll be driving to BWI again… (And no, I’m not paying — but I wouldn’t stick SUNY Buffalo with a $600 bill for bringing me from Philadelphia!)
Response:
Ellen, welcome to our little exclusive club…if anyone else out there is running down to BWI from PHL please speak up. Thank heavens for the WN effect. I’m trying to not stick my clients with the hefty PHL fares whenever possible now. Where the real challenge for the airlines will lie is when do they give up the ghost on certain routes and make us cheapos fly on WN exclusively? -g – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Just thought I’d share my most recent experience with the ‘Southwest >Effect’. I had to buy a ticket PHL-BUF, no Saturday night. The cheapest >fare I could find was over $500, mostly around $700. (Apparently it’s >Easter week or something like that.) So I checked BWI-BUF, a WN >route. Voila, US’s price: $103.50, tax included. Looks like I’ll >be driving to BWI again… (And no, I’m not paying — but I wouldn’t >stick SUNY Buffalo with a $600 bill for bringing me from Philadelphia!)
Response:
> Where the real challenge for the airlines will lie is when do they >give up the > ghost on certain routes and make us cheapos fly on WN exclusively?
It’s already happened on some routes in California. Southwest and United used to compete on Oakland – Burbank several years ago. But now only Southwest flies the route. Ed Suranyi
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > > > > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > > > > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > > > > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > > > > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > > > > lowest fair at around $450. > > > Try looking for that same fare (note spelling–it doesn’t change) > a > > day > > > or three before you want to go and you’ll see a different story. > > Okay, I just checked leaving Thursday from MCO to LAX > > and returning on Friday and WN wanted $742 plus taxes, title > > and tag and ATA wanted $661. > Changing your cities does little to support your earlier claim. > Okay. I just ran RNO. Delta, Continental, and America West > all beat it. And that’s leaving TOMORROW.
Now that supports your claim. As to the actual fare being beaten, really only Continental does so with their $809.50 fare. For the others (and Northwest and American as well), the fare is $821. Southwest’s is $826.50. The $5.50 difference is because there is either an additional PFC or segment fee, or both, due to the extra stop Southwest’s itinerary includes. And by the way, you mentioned earlier that Southwest served a route with 3 connections. Southwest has no valid routings that include more than 1 connection. There can be up to an additional 3 stops enroute, but not another connection.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > > > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > > > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > > > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > > > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > > > lowest fair at around $450. > > Try looking for that same fare (note spelling–it doesn’t change) a > day > > or three before you want to go and you’ll see a different story. > Okay, I just checked leaving Thursday from MCO to LAX > and returning on Friday and WN wanted $742 plus taxes, title > and tag and ATA wanted $661. > Changing your cities does little to support your earlier claim.
Okay. I just ran RNO. Delta, Continental, and America West all beat it. And that’s leaving TOMORROW. > Last I checked, ATA didn’t serve MCO-RNO. > You were doing a fare comparison between Southwest and a major full service > airline. Now you bring in another lowfare carrier. Totally different > scenario. No one ever said Southwest is cheaper than any other carrier on a > last minute basis. We were comparing Southwest to the full service majors > because that is what YOU used in your example.
Where? I just said "…lower than what I get from other airlines." I’m sure you can take any airline and find a route that they beat all the competition on. I just never seem to run across it with WN. And the strange part is that frequently the airline that beats it is some fairly run of the mill major like Delta.
Response:
> Are employee costs (eg: Mark Roger’s salary ad benefits) significantly > different between the big Airlines and an established low-fare carrier such as > Southwest ?
Southwest pays its pilots industry standard rates for the 737, although retirement benefits are not as good. –Mark Rogers
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > > lowest fair at around $450. > Try looking for that same fare (note spelling–it doesn’t change) a > day > or three before you want to go and you’ll see a different story. > Okay, I just checked leaving Thursday from MCO to LAX > and returning on Friday and WN wanted $742 plus taxes, title > and tag and ATA wanted $661.
Changing your cities does little to support your earlier claim. Last I checked, ATA didn’t serve MCO-RNO. You were doing a fare comparison between Southwest and a major full service airline. Now you bring in another lowfare carrier. Totally different scenario. No one ever said Southwest is cheaper than any other carrier on a last minute basis. We were comparing Southwest to the full service majors because that is what YOU used in your example.
Response:
> > I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > lowest fair at around $450. > Try looking for that same fare (note spelling–it doesn’t change) a day > or three before you want to go and you’ll see a different story.
Okay, I just checked leaving Thursday from MCO to LAX and returning on Friday and WN wanted $742 plus taxes, title and tag and ATA wanted $661.
Response:
> The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet that knows the real > reason Southwest was the most profitable airline at the end of the year > — they went against industry standard practice and hedged 100% of their > fuel costs for the second half of 2000. The only other airline that did > that was Continental, and I believe they did pretty decent too. > Mike
They did. American also hedged, and turned in their second-best yearly profit, although down from ‘99. DL, NW, and UA had labor-related disruptions in the second half of the year, so their 2000 profit/loss statements were affected beyond fuel costs. US did not hedge and it showed in the loss for the year.
Response:
> I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > lowest fair at around $450.
I have found the same thing. For advance purchases with Sat night stays indeed SW is often more expensive and less convenient than the major carriers. But for short notice trips with no Saturday Night Stay Southwest can be significantly less. I.e. for San Jose to Houston WN costs 1/3 of what Continental charges and 1/2 of what American charges. I could fly round-trip to China three times for what Continental charges for a San Jose to Houston round-trip (over $2000). Flying across the country on WN can be a career, as well as being a royal pain, but that’s not the market they’re interested in anyway.
Response:
> I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I > get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare > to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere > near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections > were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the > lowest fair at around $450.
Try looking for that same fare (note spelling–it doesn’t change) a day or three before you want to go and you’ll see a different story.
Response:
> What is different betwene Southwest and the big airlines to make the big > airlines charge so much money ?
First I’ll comment on another poster’s statement that Southwest wasn’t competitive on the route he was pricing. That’s absolutely true in some cases on an advance purchase basis and happens most often when Southwest serves the route with one or more stops or connections. If any segment of the itinerary is not available at the lowest advance purchase fare, the entire ticket will be priced higher. Just compare full fare on that same route. Delta won’t even come close. If Southwest can fill their planes and post the profits that it does, it does not have to be competitive 100% of the time. And as to the Delta example given, well, Leo Mullin, Delta’s CEO, told Delta’s investors a few months ago that one of Delta’s biggest threats is Southwest Airlines, so what does that say about Delta? Now, as to why Southwest is able to charge the lower overall fares they do and still be profitable–reduced expenses, and it’s certainly not just meals. Not that this hasn’t been discussed here over and over, but one of the primary reasons is that Southwest keeps their planes in the air a much greater percentage of the day than do the other carriers. An airline isn’t earning any revenue when a plane is sitting at the gate. Southwest has 20-25 minute turnarounds. Compare that to most U.S. domestic airlines turns of about an hour. Multiply that 30 minutes additional time in the air for each up and down throughout the day on competing routes. Serving fewer delay prone airports. That’s a very significant aspect of Southwest’s plan. Delays are very costly to an airline. Simplified ticketing. Southwest has more revenue from their website than any of their competitors. Airline websites are the cheapest distribution channel. Open seating. Southwest has repeatedly said that this is a cost-saving measure for them. So that’s just a few. I’m sure others will supplement the list.
Response:
> > Funny how that happens. The big airlines that claim the need for higher and > higher fares, combined with more and more restrictions are losing money or > facing declining revenues at an alarming rate year after year, while > Southwest quietly continues it record of twenty-something years of profits. > What is different betwene Southwest and the big airlines to make the big > airlines charge so much money ?
I’m hard pressed to ever find a fair on WN lower than what I get from other airlines. Right now I was looking for a fare to Reno and WN wasn’t even competitive, much less anywhere near some absurdly low price. And bajeezsus, 3 connections were the best options. Strangely enough, Delta had the lowest fair at around $450. > I doubt the food on the plane makes such a big difference. We’re talking > $5-$10 per meal. > And if a 757 is more efficient than 2 737s to fly the same number of pax > across the country, how come the big airline would have higher costs than > SOuthwest ?
Higher levels of service? Interairline agreements? Fewer stops? A first class section? Service into major airports? Apparently a boarding pass costs hundreds.
Response:
High on Southwest Why Cheap Charlie likes the carrier Earnings season has just finished on Wall Street. And the airlines got hammered. Again. Everyone except Southwest. Funny how that happens. The big airlines that claim the need for higher and higher fares, combined with more and more restrictions are losing money or facing declining revenues at an alarming rate year after year, while Southwest quietly continues it record of twenty-something years of profits. (By the way, it is now the most valuable airline in the country based on market capitalization.) Full story at http://www.ticked.com/cheapcharlie/2001/chsouthwest.htm
Response:
> Funny how that happens. The big airlines that claim the need for higher and > higher fares, combined with more and more restrictions are losing money or > facing declining revenues at an alarming rate year after year, while > Southwest quietly continues it record of twenty-something years of profits.
What is different betwene Southwest and the big airlines to make the big airlines charge so much money ? I doubt the food on the plane makes such a big difference. We’re talking $5-$10 per meal. And if a 757 is more efficient than 2 737s to fly the same number of pax across the country, how come the big airline would have higher costs than SOuthwest ? Does SABRE et other large CRS actually save airlines money ? If low cost carriers save money by having a limited (or nil) participation in the big CRS, what does that say about the big CRSs ? Are employee costs (eg: Mark Roger’s salary ad benefits) significantly different between the big Airlines and an established low-fare carrier such as Southwest ?
Response:
Previous page