Lucky...

Lest it didn't support your argument. Because I defined a word by the defintion, didn't change it, but in parenthesis clarified it, that's dishonest? Maybe in your world. I see you totally avoided teh alteration term you brought in. Nice. I didn't alter the word at all, esp in a substantive way, I merely clarified it and placed that clarification in parenthesis, you were fooled by that, called me on it and are doing what you can to misdirect any embarassment you have for it. It's ok, it was a big word, after all.

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......

More like a pic of me pissing on it... So you fantasize about pissing on Bill? Isn't there a term for that?

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.

All I've ever heard was about how Clinton fucked that up. Apparently the citizens and gov of Kosovo feel differently than do the neo-cons of the US......I wonder if Iraq will errect a statue of GWB All I've ever heard is how we should mind our own business and not go into foreign countries. Apparently the citizens and gov of Kosovo feel differently than do the isolationists of the US. I wonder how many libs will be irate over the fact a US President has a statue in another country. We spent time, money, and American lives on Clinton's war just so he could have a statue in their country? I researched and the article I read states 2 Americans died in that conflict. No tto undermine those 2 heroes, just as all the heroes of Iraq/Afghanistan, but the good done vs the cost in Kosovo was very good. Now, do I wish we would stay out of other's business in virtually all cases, yes. But if we must stick our noses in, this was a successful conflict. I don't care about the statue, just the appreciation from a land we invaded, helped, policed, etc. Many South Viet Nameese I've spoken with don't appreciate out interference either.

Here you altered the published definition in order to make it fit your argument. Yea, I cut-n-pasted: 2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences And for clarity I submitted: (causes to happen) after, "precipitates." So it looked like: 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences So in order to alter it I would have had to: to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course. Did I alter the meaning of the word? Any word in the defintion? No, I brought clarity to it and placed it in parenthesis. I would have had to alter the meaning before it's really altered and since I placed my clarification in parenthesis, it didn't effecct part of the defintion anyway. I haven't ever seen you that depserate. EDITED TO ADD: Precipitate: http://www.answers.com/topic/precipitate 2.To cause to happen, especially suddenly or prematurely So I just defined for clarity, not altered. Again, your depseration.

So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. What? I do not see it as a neo-con-dictionary-whatever- thing. That's none of my biz. Crouching down in a bush, behind the courtains of an open window, covered in a car - aiming at people filling their car with gaz - shooting at them is that easy, it does not need any highly trained sniper. It's just malicious killing. Sniper killing. Has nothing to do with any political tendency. Man, I'm such a simple mind. I agree, I was just observing you following the dictionary definition and others morphing that defintion perhaps to that if what their diddy told them. In another forum we were talking about Imperialims and I asserted that teh US is Imperialistic, I provided the dictiuonary definiton and he said he didn't like that definition. So I said the same thing as you guys did here, that you can't change the definition to support your claims, beliefs, teachings, etc. The DC sniper was a sniper by virtue of his acts and their corresponding dictionary defintions.

LOL. That's a new site. At first I thought it was satire, now I see it's real . That's getting saved to favs when I neeed a laugh. Yea, fossils are overrated.

10/10 irony score. Shw me where I've used a definition of a word other than the one published. Esp from a guy who wouldn't respond to examples in publication where the catalyst and the cause can be and are sometimes the same. Yet still carried on like they MUST be different.

So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit.

All I've ever heard was about how Clinton fucked that up. Apparently the citizens and gov of Kosovo feel differently than do the neo-cons of the US......I wonder if Iraq will errect a statue of GWB

Here's another perspective: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013472.html Boeing Gone; Who's to Blame? Remember a couple of years ago, when a bunch of us ridiculed the notion that Forbes named Washington State in the top five best states for business? Some of their criteria was laughable, and their analysis moreso. We knew what most businesses knew: that on the most important points to businesses (business costs and quality of life), Washington State failed. And on other factors like "regulatory climate" and "outlook" we incredibly scored well: to the former, Washington scored highly because we employ people to help guide businesses through the regulatory morass; but that doesn't diminish the fact that there are massive regulatory roadblocks in the first place; to the latter, well, our "outlook" -- which includes ever-increasing spending, even in the face of a recession -- is the reason why we're facing significant tax increases, if Gregoire and the Democrats get their way. So what it's saying is that we have to bend over and let corporations have their way over labor, EPA and any other aspect they want or they'll threaten to leave. A lot of acft corps have left Long Beach and come to Williams AFB in Mesa, AZ because we hang the Swastika high, just as Carolina does. All you have to do is say fuck the EPA,fuck taxes and fuck labor and you'll have the corporations running for you. A strict definition of Corporatism, a perfect breeding ground for fascism.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, somehow a guy, when stuck posts , 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. I post 1 citation of a typical Boeing contract and posted 2 independent citations as to how these sources feel this is what Boeing is doing. WHat you want is that notarized confession, which doesn't exist. Reasonableness would dictate it's easily a preponderance that Boeing is effecting a strike by being combative/neglectful with the union so they strike, so the delay can be considered beyond their control and all late fees absolved. 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]; Well, some murder trials have less that and they end up with convictions. As for wrongdoing, it's not considered wrongdoing for Boeing to refuse to negotiate with teh Machinists Union, that's where I think you're lost. It's a mere contract strategy, not a crime and not even a tort. Most importantly, using a criminal standard, we must look at opportunity and motive; Boeing had major doses of both. Boeing had a major motive to let the labor situation go to strike in regard to the 787 lateness, it was written about all over the place in objective and credible articles. I think some buyers even cancelled their contracts because of this. Riiiiight, my opinion and that of several reliable, objective publications. Look, it's a typical contract strategy. You cat as if it was something sinister, it's fascist American corporate business politics as usual. You mean like me? You haven't been following along, have you? I've worked for Boeing, Douglas, Rockwell and sooo many others for years, I know how they're built and by whom. Just because a guy can drive a rivet doesn't mean he's smart enough to understand contracts or know when he's being fucked as compared to other nations. The US us a great example of that. I bet if a national bill was introduced to require employers to give us 30 days vacation per year, no exceptions, the fascist lobbyists would scare the working stiffs into believing that businesses would lay everyone off if that happened and it would be voted down - that's my definition of stupid, as they don't understand that businesses in W.E. operate under that and still make a profit.

Case in point; mask your inability to adddress issues with alleged humor - we all see who's right.

I wonder if anyone in SC has ever got another poster to type so many words in response to so few? I got him to write an entire paragraph in response to a single "."

Again, the diddy rule? Nothing scientific? WHat makes American blue collars more intelligent than European blue collars? In WE they get between 4 and 9 weeks vacation per year - fed law. In WE their workweek is sometimes 35 hrs per week. They get gov paid medical and if tehy strike, they almost always win. Yea, they're stupid Funny - we seem not to have the same issues with labor riots and massive unemployment of the young - on vacation and broke between the ages of 18 and 27. All the doctors in France go on vacation at the same time and thousands die during a heat wave. So Sarkozy gets elected on the promise of goodbye gravy train. You've actually got a Nazi Party in England, dude. These parties form BECAUSE of how screwed people feel. There is nothing you have written to show me that you are out to help anybody. Rather, you are out to screw certain others. Perhaps some form of self-examination as to why you feel the need to refer to people as stupid is needed. This is uncharacteristically scattered, show refs and make sense of it. As for me helping others, I, personally want to help myself, but I want rules so most/all will benefit. I'm not claiming to be mother Theresa, as it sounds as if you think I have that self-impression, I want to compel the US to do that. Of course you take any effort to better the masses as an attack, that's how you and other rich folks justify your position of greed. What's refreshing is when some rich people find the ability to support a position of a reasonable baseline of care. Rare at times, but refreshing. I only called the class, from which I reside, as stupid when they promote policies that grossly help the rich, hence hurt themselves. It would be like Roman era Christians throwing themselves to the lions.

You roll it off as if you already kew that. (rolls eyes) Well, if Boeing ever revealed that they meant to enter a stike via non-cooperation with labor, that would move them out of the, "boyond their control" element and they could be held to pergormance. But then we have guys like you that DEMAND ABSOLUTE PROOF or it couldn't be true. I cited 3 major sources that support thetheiry of THOUSADS OF PEOPLE, of course that won't be enough for you, you need Boeing's CEO to deliver a notarized statement before you're satisfied. I guess if you were on a jury you would ignore the jury instruction of 'beyind a reasonable doubt' and develope one of absolute proof. We convict people of capital crimes everyday using the BARD stabdard, I think Boeing's encouraging of the strike is well known by people in teh industry, AKA not you. If you want to disbelieve what's obvious to insiders and outsiders, ecellent by me. You'll rarely get murder defendants to admit their guilt, and you'll rarely get corporations to admit their collusion or ill-business practices. If you want absolute proof in areas that require strong circumstantial evidence then you'll be there alone enjoying your company. Perfect, thank you. And then we look at OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE like the notion there was a beef between the 2 teams, the hit player's pitcher hit the other teams big hitter, someone stood and watched a homerun leave the park in disrespect.....AND NOW WE CAN MORE EASILY CONCLUDE IF THERE WAS A MOTIVE. Thank you for spelling it out for yourself. As with Boeing, if there was no lateness involved with the 787 or other reasons for Boeing to benefit from a long strike, we could conclude that whatever labor issues Boeing had with the Machinists Union were stand alone. Again, you want a declaratory statement from Boeing or you won't believe it, a standard that is impossible, and you want to ignore the usual standard of preponderance in this case, so your logic prohibits you from believing what thousands agree is the truth - enjoy.

Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach I see your point, but his plans are for lowering unemployment, continuing market growth, continuing GDP, bringing jobs here, etc. I see how your argument could work in relation to HC, but not to the larger overall economic issues. Maybe they are not against the goals set, but how they intend to try to get there. The end result may be different depending on the route you take to get there. Right, if it doesn't involve tax cuts it can't be viable, that's my point; neo-conservative's goals are to lower taxes and call it the great elixer....whatever happens after that is what it is, but lowering taxes is all that matters.

Yep, all guesswork: 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]; See, when I say something, I actually know what I'm talking about and I don't have to scurry to delete it and run; you ought to try it. But of course you'll be smug and consider this mountain of evidence not to establish how Boeing welcomed the strike, I mean, they were months behind and just snubbed the union, so everyone in aviation and many not in aviation know it was in Boeings; best interest to strike so they can claim events beyond their control.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass the grey poupon … In other words, you have nothing on which to base your assertion. Who would have suspected that? Oh no, I had this, how could you miss? I'll be kind enough to repost part of the post above yours: I opined; we are officially out of Bush's Great Recession, but are still in it from a realistic perspecctive. Of course that's what teh NBR does, they factor that in, so they say we are not. Strict economists say we're out but recovery needs to further. I stated NBR rather than NBER, if you read it I think you know what I was saying. Also, they aren't the authority, it's one version. Again, strict economists say that we're out, NBER factors in reality and we are not, but it isn't 0 or 100%, there are degrees of recovery and the fact that 2 indicators are waaaaay + is an upbeat sign.

I wonder if anyone in SC has ever got another poster to type so many words in response to so few? I got him to write an entire paragraph in response to a single "."

Stark inferrence that rolling over is better. Unions are bad, etc. It was teh buzz in the bussiness, the one I've been in all my life. Is Boeing gonna come out and say that? No, that would be breach if they released they intentionally came out with that, but there was a schedule clause in Boeing's contract for 787 delivery that if their unions struck, they would be let out of late costs to buyers. I'lltry to dig up the bets I can, but it isn't actually going to be bragged about. 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. See, when I say something, I actually know what I'm talking about and I don't have to scurry to delete it and run; you ought to try it. Oh good point, the American workforce should just roll over then and take even less to keep them here. See, this is where guys like Obama, the guy you claim to have voted for, , this is where they need to come in and HARSHLY PENALIZE companies for outsourcing jobs. Fuck tarriffs for incoming products, let's penalize US-based companies, companies that love our low corporate tax rate, let's tax the fuck out of them for sending out jobs. You idea of rolling over for corporate daddy is what has led us here, our European conterparts laugh at us as we call ourselves tough, then stab each other in the back as corporate America rolls in the dough.

Again, the diddy rule? Nothing scientific? WHat makes American blue collars more intelligent than European blue collars? In WE they get between 4 and 9 weeks vacation per year - fed law. In WE their workweek is sometimes 35 hrs per week. They get gov paid medical and if tehy strike, they almost always win. Yea, they're stupid Where did I say they were smarter than their European counterparts? What makes American blue collars as bright as WE blue collars, if I must break it down? All of your arguments lately come to semantics since you can't make a point. Again, 4-9 guaranteed fed law vacation per year, better pay, guaranteed HC; how are the workers there not brighter than us? They demand, they strike and they win. We roll over and advocate more luxury for the rich; why? Several reasons, but it is all nonsensical.

Probably the most constructive thing you've written. Amazing, you post such assured things about Obaam's election being as a result of his color, yet you aren't able to back it, but you stand by it when your theory is blown out. Why do I act surprised?

So no words, just emoticons? As in, pictures are easier? I see, obviously you don't want a debate and won't even discuss the data. You went from 4 words to 1 word; what next? < a 5-letter word? And you didn't respond to your silly claim that I was abusive in PM, did you? Uh huh, your silence is loud. Your not even addressing the issue or the data, just posting so you can be the last. Do you still assert that Obama was elcted because he is black, as you asserted formerly? Here's this again: And you still haven't touched my data, you deleted, you conceeded, then you recanted that, now you claim to be right, yet you aren't touchinmg the data which shows you're wrong. Don't worry about me, go refuet the data from the census bureau I posted. Of course you know it's right and you're wrong, which is why you deleted your ridiculous assertion.