Lucky...

You should follow your own advice. Yea and you are unable to pick it apart, just call for it's removel. Hmmmmm, wha does that sound like..... This would be a good one to start with. I love conversing with conservatives; short on substance, long on rhetoric. Go address some issues.

And I suggest you be more honest and not make reference to editorial comments written by anyone. The Motley Fool is an objective finance magazine, not a pro-union rag. I can't believe you even raised that non-issue. I read the articel, not comments, they mean nothing to me. Hell, you could add that and make note of it, but it isn't the autor's position. Very desperate on your part. Anymore, virtually every internet publication has a comment section, but that doesn't affect the author's message. I wonder why you didn't attack the author's message? Hmmm, 'cause it's true and valid? So go impeach the article, not the comments, you could add those, not saying you did, but the comments are annonymous editorial.

You should follow your own advice. Yea and you are unable to pick it apart, just call for it's removel. Hmmmmm, wha does that sound like.....

You should follow your own advice. I wonder how long it would take for him to delete almost 6400 posts? I dunno, how long did it take you to delete that 1 post? Probably a fraction of teh time it has taken you to run from and justify it.

The U.S. military knocked down the statue, it was a publicity stunt. The Marines used a tank recovery vehicle to tie a cable around the statue's neck to pull it down. At first the Marine put a U.S. flag around over Saddam's face, but that was quickly replaced by the old Iraqi flag, having the U.S. flag gave the wrong message to the people there aswell as the media and those watching at home....so replace it - publicity stunt. Most Iraqis are sick and tired of the U.S. occupation. Yeah, at first many of them were motivated, it was something new. But now most want us out. We replaced one dictator with 50 dictators and a kangaroo court. Most of the military have no idea why they are even in Iraq. Many of them associate the initial push in March '03 with 'payback' for the 9/11 attacks;. The two are not even associated with each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRtj82fR4N0 100% exactly

American conservtaives are all about silly symbols of whatever. They relish flags, crosses and statues as if they matter. The Saddam statue topplingg, as if it mattered and anti-flag burning are just what they worry about, whereas the lefties are more substantive. If someone loves their country, fine. Believes in Christianity, fine, but to worship a symbol is just plain silly. Im not sure if your aware of this but the Iraqi's wanted the US ti topel the Saddam statue and we refused and let them do it, and the Iraqi's who helped and supported love us for it, much like the Berlin wall. The Saddam statue is an example of a silly symbol, fine, let them topple it. But not all wanted Saddam out and us in, so let's not make that error. The Berlin Wall was more than a silly symbol: Flag, cross, statue, etc., it was a barrier, so that was significant.

Hey, son, I am aviation. I wish I wasn't, but I am. Those 3rd grade questions are so elementary I was yawning as I was typing. Tell me this: What is the technique of swelling and drawing while riveting acft structure? Only way you get it is if someone pipes in in PM. Google won't even help you I don't think.

Uh huh. This is really an irrellevant point, but was asserted this way: You submitted the strike wasn't based upon Boeing wanting relief from 787 delays. I submitted it was and posted 3 docs supporting that and introduced the trem, "force majeure." You stated: Those clauses are common to just about every major contract between a supplier and a builder. Nothing new. and Actually, I did. I have worked on many such contracts. Like I said, nothing new. I replied: I don't believe you are a contract specialist. You could have called out that kind of contract clause beforehand and discounted it if you knew and understood. And anyone who really understands corporate contracts would also be aware of the deceptive strategies they often use to avoid performance or demand performance. _____________________________________ So, as I thought, you would try to dissect the line between working contracts and contract specialist to make the case that you knew what a "force majeure" was, but not so much as to give explanation as to why you didn't propose the term before I did. We all see it, it's new to you, you tried to play off like "I knew that," we know you didn't and are winging it. It's an irrelevant part of the issue anyway, so if you feel the need to to get the last denial in, go ahead. While you're at it, tell us your occupation. You're posturing because you don't want it to be true; I'm reading the circumstances and making the same conclusion that many others are, including many publications. Supported with publications and contract law, even a typical Boeing contract. There is no absolute evidence available unless you are privvy to Boeing executive boardrooms. That won't exist, as that could cost them 100's of millions or billions and the executive who typed that would be fired. It's likely known with the boys club at the top of Boeing, short of that, you have to draw conclusions about management's actions. Kind of like the murderer who's on trial, you might not get him to own-up to the killing, so you have to use sometimes exclusively circumstantial data and evidence to tie him to the murder. I'm sure you say that's fine, but then you want to take a contract situation and apply a higher standard to it that this country does with criminal matters; we call this a futile argument, one where a person is using abstract logic. Now you could take the publications I posted and make some comments on those, but somehow I doubt you read them, even tho I posted some of teh text from them. Can you post something a little more challenging? W/o researching I would say carb ice between 20 and 70-80ish as I recall. I was licensed in 83, so it's been a while. But if I'm flying a carb'd acft I pull the carb heat with the throttle regardless. I was licenced in Guam, so we didn't have that issue either. But you still constantly watch for the power loss/rpm drop. P-factor. I think Mooneys and some other acft have the engine mounts fabbed so the engine actually has a couple degrees of turn. High end twin acft like Beech have counter-rotatating, the unusual rotation is real expensive and rare to find parts for. I'm an AP/IA/PP. This is rudamentary. First you throw out your skydiviers, , then since you are short final, you might want to set up for the crash/ditching/landing. Actually I would simulataneously ensure I have enough altitude to make the field and check my fuel selector, other than that you're a glider. If you're short final the assumption is you're near an airfield, so your crash will be obvuous to all and help rendered soon anyway. But as with skydiving, altitude is time/life, so that is your #1 concern. So my answer is: neither, but I would check the fuel selctor, fuel primer to see if it walked out, they say that can cause fuel blockage - never seen it. I've backed it up and you haven't even addressed it. The world you're trying to claim exists for us is one that demands absolute proof or you're right. The Ray Krone case is one that only had for evidence bite impressions of the deceased woman's breast and his teeth impressions. He was convicted twice BY THE STANDARD WE HAVE FOR THE HIGHEST CRIMES and you want to make a lesser issue, a contract issue a FAR HIGHER standard. Arguing with anyone who uses that standard of logic is futile and you know it, since you don't have an answer for my 3 posted sources of evidence, you defer to wanting 100% pure evidence. Welcome to earth - enjoy your stay.

Actually it was a union thread, we're discussing how Boeing instigated the labor strike to enact the clause that allowed them to avoid late fees - not really a tangent at all. Now, let's get back to talking about whether Kraft Mac and cheese is better than generic

I say we go after the kids like McCain did: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/new-mccain-ad-attacks-oba_b_121403.html The right is so out of touch that they don't understand what it means when we say the right is out of touch.

Thx for validating my prognostication that you would say that after saying you had worked contracts before. As if you know, you're guessing. You didn't know the Boeing strike, much or anything about the 787, or the contract term I taught you. You just threw it out there as if you know/knew: Oh yea, uh, er, thousands think the strike had nothing to do with the 787 delay tactic, er...... Face it, you know as much about aviation as I know of your career that you refuse to disclose. It's 'common knowledge' that Boeing used a simple strategy to avoid paying late fees by not working with the labor unions and forcing a strike. Then after sufficient time, 50 some odd days, Boeing agreed to a contract that benefitted them mostly, as they got their no strike clause. The union thought that would keep the 787 there, but soon after Boeing announced they would move it to Carolina, at least partially. So for a self-titled contract non-specialist, you sure don't understand anything about contract strategy. Yea, all those aviation publications are wrong and the 1000's of ghosts that you refer to are right. BTW, post some substance about the strike not being about the 787 delivery delay strategy. I've supported my opinion with 3 relevant cites, where's yours?

These labels are a sum total of a person's political positioning. One could submit a resume of all the left, centrist and right ideals, but liberal, moderate and conservative is a quick reference to understand where someone's politics reside. How else would you do it?

Well thank you. Is that your 'country way' of calling me an ideologue? I'm pro-guns big time and against the current affirmative action, so how am I all lefty? Oh, I get it, 'with us or against us.' Talk about tired. Since you didn't reference the article, you basically didn't reply, so just keep truckin' on by.

Well I'll be very interested in your platform. And, instead of a podium, you could have a urinal.

Actually, I did. I have worked on many such contracts. Like I said, nothing new. So go ahead and split the hair between, "I have worked on many such contracts" and being a specialist. That's right it is, it's the opinion of thousands of people and many independent publications, probably customers too, who were screwed by the delay tactic and cancelled orders. As for other opinion, juries are opinions, appellate judges draw opinions from events as measured thru state and federal constitutions. Of course they are just opinions becuase nothing is definite. The motive was there, the Machinist Union even gave Boeing a no-strike claus and Boeing is still moving to Carolina, at least in part. So Boeing wasn't trying to leverage the union into anything, they were focused on the prize that was application of teh clause and relief of late payments. Again, when guys like you decide you want to believe a certain thing, independent opinion matters not, you want a certified letter from Boeing, which doesn't exist. I have the same issue when I make the claim that innocent people have been executed by the US. The most obvious peice of evidence is that even since Gregg V Georgia in 1976, reinstatement of the DP, we have executed 100-1220ish people and various groups have the numbers 25ish of innocent people executed. Anyway, these people, like you, want a piece of paper that certifies they were innocent and executed. The US just doesn't do that, they might issue a postumous pardon, but never admit they executed someone by error. So do what you have to, but it would make sense if you read and critiqued the articles Iposted. You won't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_el_ho/us_ny_special_election_16 "We accept moderates in our party, and we want moderates in our party. We cover a wide range of Americans," said Republican House Leader John Boehner in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union." Yea, that sounds noce, but it isn't literal. Moderate Republicans are called liberals by the major part of the GOP. I had a guy tell me Lieberman was mostly liberal and they hate Snow now, even tho she is against a public option. The GOP is out of touch and the more ya call em on it, the more resolute they become. On CBS' Face The Nation, White House senior adviser David Axelrod addressed whether he believes conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh truly represents the direction the GOP is going. "That's for the Republican Party to decide," Axelrod said. "I think we've seen an interesting development over this weekend in a special election in upstate New York in a congressional district. The Republican candidate withdrew because of the strong third-party movement behind a very right wing conservative. And certainly Mr. Limbaugh and others were behind that. And I think it sends a clear message to moderates within that party that there's no room at the inn for them. That's why you see Republican identification in polls at a historic low." I think he does, most GOPers seem to embrace him pretty much. I think most GOPers would never introduce the radical ideas of Limbaugh, but once Limbaugh lets them out there, I thinkmost GOPers go along.

I read somewhere that they had a statue of the boot which was thrown into Bush. And his electorate.....

I'm sorry you are unable to read, these are the independent sources I have: Here we go: http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/09/04/boeing-should-let-the-union-walk.aspx There's a phrase for that If Boeing has a "force majeure" clause in its contract, a legal concept present in most well-drafted sales contracts, that could excuse its failure to perform (say, by not delivering planes when it promised to) because of events outside its control (say, a strike). Recent financial history is replete with examples of companies using force majeure to gain wiggle room on their contractual obligations. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) invoked its clause in response to strikes in Nigeria in April. Bunge (NYSE: BG) used this excuse when agriculture workers struck in Argentina in March. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan (NYSE: POT) cited strikes at three Canadian mines in raising the possibility just last month. By standing pat and allowing a strike to go forward, Boeing could conceivably save itself millions in "late fees" it would otherwise owe to its customers -- perhaps even save enough to offset the profits lost because of a work stoppage. Meanwhile, as Boeing machinists sit idle and watch their bank accounts dwindle, Boeing's subcontractors -- who by all accounts are the primary reason for production delays at the 787 project -- could continue working out the kinks in Boeing's supply chain. And this: http://www.twobirds.com/English/NEWS/ARTICLES/Pages/Boeing_announcement_delays_production_787.Aspx For strategic reasons Boeing has emphasised the detrimental consequences of the machinist strike and that a significant part of the announced delays in the delivery of the said aircraft is attributable to the strike. Since a strike is normally considered as a force majeure event under the aircraft purchase agreements concerned, it will therefore constitute an excusable delay. And finally, an actual contract: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/idscommon/ccr/s/ssm_sz_4200_01_20061103.pdf 2. Events of Force Majeure: (a) General or partial events of readiness and war; (b) Earthquake, flood or other natural physical disaster; (c) Riots, revolutions or sabotage or civil commotion; (d) US and Turkish labor strikes affecting the performance of the contractual obligations; (e) Acts or omissions of any government in its sovereign capacity, [such acts or omissions shall mean the exercise of (government and parliament) of the executive and legislative power; however, if such acts or omissions occur as a result of the instigation of the Seller and/or its subcontractors they shall not be considered as Force Majeure];

Again, that, I'm sure is true, but is it representative? Engine wise anyway, the other parst can be picked. A compounded absolute; I need laughs too, thx. It probably pursuaded a few buyuers who were not going to buy otherwise. The GDP grew tremendously for the 2nd and 3rd Q's. The economy was a mess when Obama inheroted it. Really, the worst we've seen in our lifetime, so what is your answer: Tax cuts my friends? We know doing nothing is mass murder, as in the GD 12 mill dead in < 3 years, so what is your solution? Yep, a better idea would have been to let the banks fail that, of those that would fail and take that 700B that Bush signed for and gave away 317B of use it as a pool to rescue home mortgages and other loans, have the gov as teh lender and the party that gets paid back for it. But a certain party wanted to call that socialism, so we had one choice and giving AIG billions so they could continue multi-million $ bonuses and million $ weekend fuck-fests was it. My solution would be to let the bansk fail that couldn't make it and immediately have the gov become the lender and collector. We controil the interest rates and money supply, so that will be easy, and with money scarrce, inflation won't be a problem for years other than maybe oil. I doubt you can name every single gov program, nor can I, so I assume you're posturing. But since we have the choice of having the gov do it, roads, military, social, etc., or not having it at all, then we re relegated to having it since we cannot exist w/o it, so your point is moot. Talking about Bush's prescription drug mess where he outlawed seniors going to Canada to get meds? Yea, that worked well for pharmaceutical co's, but Obama has already curtailed some of that. Too? You mean virtually wholly. Obama has allocated 787B on the stimulus which most of is still unspent. Bush racked the debt 5T. largely due to undertaxing the rich, but his spending spree was a mess as well as his undertaxing. List all that Obama has spent money on that was/is wasteful and what you would do in place of it. Saying, "I dunno, but that spendign is fucked" is ridiculous; that kind of exit strategy is not substantive, show me what you would do.

Zon was the one wanting photos - DO try to keep up with the rest of us, old chap. Post 14: More like a pic of me pissing on it... Pretty sure those were yours. I *was* going to try to explain logic to you, but then I realized it would be wasted effort. Go take your piss fetish someplace else, you're really starting to creep me out. YOUR WORDS: More like a pic of me pissing on it...

Yay for people jumping to unfounded conclusions and exaggerating math. Bravo. I wanna know what nit-wit at Edmunds made this amazing analysis. That number is so far off the mark it's laughable. Compared to the math being used in Washington, I'll take Edmunds.com any day of the week. I'll take reliable data from whomever. But settling for less just cause doesn't work.

Zon was the one wanting photos - DO try to keep up with the rest of us, old chap. Post 14: More like a pic of me pissing on it... Pretty sure those were yours.

Yes, when you change a definition and subsequently try to pass it off as being from a particular source, that is dishonest, no matter how you try to justify it. So nor we're saying change instead of alter? I, in parenthesis, clarified a word by defining a word within the definition. The defintion of precipitates didn't change the meaning of teh originla word defined and you know it. I see we're going from alter to change, it's a little softer, huh? See, you are the king of petty, semantic arguments, rather than trying to maintain substance, which is why you correct typos, etc. But then when I post scientific articles where they talk about a cause and a catalyst being the same, you run to the hills on that one. I understand your MO with your arguments. ; loud and clear.

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative. Then maybe you should have stated real GDP in your OP, instead of scrambling to add it to your second or third post once you realized the straight numbers didn't support your claim. "Objective", to you, meaning "any source you approve of". How about you disprove the data I provided, first. A story in an openly right wing source does not constitute "data". A law on the books of Wasilla, AK does constitute data. Just give it up, he's constantly shopping on RW agenda sites, posting it and calling it fact. Been there, done that. If you are even able to pry a source from him, it's some Limbaughian site.

More like a pic of me pissing on it... So you fantasize about pissing on Bill? Isn't there a term for that? Yes - projection (on your part) So is your projection of urine on Bill a fetish? Or...... Evidently, just your fantasy. Didn't you write this: More like a pic of me pissing on it... So not only is it your deal, but you want photos of it to memorialize it too.