[TheRealThing]

Because you presumed I only work shutdowns, and my scope of duty was limited. You then said you worked Industrial/Commercial, which is more demanding. I clued you in that every job I do is Industrial or Commercial, and I too had been a super. In a hundred years, will it really matter what you built? We done pecker measuring now? It really does nothing for the discussion.

But it was fine for you to define my career in the way you did, right? Remember the scaffold remark? But, you go ahead and imagine yourself up on the high ground, I'm good with that.

[TheRealVille]

But it was fine for you to define my career in the way you did, right? Remember the scaffold remark? But, you go ahead and imagine yourself up on the high ground, I'm good with that.

You are the one that likes to feel big and tell about being a super, every chance you get. I never name what I do, to show what I know about pipe, unless it is brought up, that my knowledge is limited. It is limited, to pipe, but I'd be willing to bet I can run circles around you in laying out, and running piping jobs. Come to think of it, forget the 100 years, does it even really matter right now what you built? Projects are still being built, and finished on time, with you retired, and they don't even give you a second thought on these construction jobs anymore. You weren't gone a month, until some other guy stepped up. Feel big all you want, jobs are still getting done without you, but even with you on the job, you would have never gotten it done without someone like me, that can run piping systems. There isn't even a need to name construction on a sports board, in the politics section. Nobody really gives a damn what either of us did, or do.

[TheRealThing]

You are the one that likes to feel big and tell about being a super, every chance you get. I never name what I do, to show what I know about pipe, unless it is brought up, that my knowledge is limited. It is limited, to pipe, but I'd be willing to bet I can run circles around you in laying out, and running piping jobs. Come to think of it, forget the 100 years, does it even really matter right now what you built? Projects are still being built, and finished on time, with you retired, and they don't even give you a second thought on these construction jobs anymore. You weren't gone a month, until some other guy stepped up. Feel big all you want, jobs are still getting done without you, but even with you on the job, you would have never gotten it done without someone like me, that can run piping systems. There isn't even a need to name construction on a sports board, in the politics section. Nobody really gives a damn what either of us did, or do.

Just not willing to take ownership of your post? Suits me. The impact my posts have on you is truly amazing, even if 90% of what I post does go over your head, you do seem to retain some of it very well, LOL. I'm pretty sure I'll get by alright without your psychoanalysis, even if it is free, much less your damning assessment of my spiritual sted. I admit, I left the door open by giving a snipit of my resume and I took a swipe at you at the same time. I haven't known many fitters who claimed to be plumbers too and there isn't much call for fitters on commercial work so it was an honest mistake. Ready to move on to new fields of disagreement?

[TheRealVille]

well since we are talking about going back to the 50's

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of...ual-1.html

I see we have skipped right over your "good ole, prosperous, 50-60's" link.

[TheRealThing]

I see we have skipped right over your "good ole, prosperous, 50-60's" link.

I saw the link and wondered what the point was for posting it in the first place, meaningless numbers without a basis for comparison. I'll give you some fiscal 'depth of field', let's take 1965. Two cheeseburgers a fry and milk shake cost a whopping .69 cents. It was nothing to pull up to a pump and ask for a dollar's worth of gas, at .29 cents a gallon that went pretty far. My car, an Impalla, was a nice car, for which I paid $300 dollars cash on the barrell head at a local dealership. The average house payment was only $95.00 a month (many folk's payment was more like $70.00 dollars) because one could buy a house for $15,000. A new home went for around $22,000, ($139.00 a month) and that would have been in a nice neighborhood BTW. If Mom spent $20.00 at the grocery store she needed help to get all the bags inside the house.

I see your penchant for posting about things of which you know nothing about has not abated. The 60's were the golden days of American history, I lived it and I know the difference. But, I'm sure you will feel compelled to dispute with me even though all you can do is look things up to gain a perspective from which to post from. And as I mentioned, high paying jobs were everywhere. I had my choice of Armco, Ashland Oil, or to enter an apprenticeship from among three building trades unions.

[TheRealVille]

I saw the link and wondered what the point was for posting it in the first place, meaningless numbers without a basis for comparison. I'll give you some fiscal 'depth of field', let's take 1965. Two cheeseburgers a fry and milk shake cost a whopping .69 cents. It was nothing to pull up to a pump and ask for a dollar's worth of gas, at .29 cents a gallon that went pretty far. My car, an Impalla, was a nice car, for which I paid $300 dollars cash on the barrell head at a local dealership. The average house payment was only $95.00 a month (many folk's payment was more like $70.00 dollars) because one could buy a house for $15,000. A new home went for around $22,000, ($139.00 a month) and that would have been in a nice neighborhood BTW. If Mom spent $20.00 at the grocery store she needed help to get all the bags inside the house.

I see your penchant for posting about things of which you know nothing about has not abated. The 60's were the golden days of American history, I lived it and I know the difference. But, I'm sure you will feel compelled to dispute with me even though all you can do is look things up to gain a perspective from which to post from. And as I mentioned, high paying jobs were everywhere. I had my choice of Armco, Ashland Oil, or to enter an apprenticeship from among three building trades unions.

You were talking about the good ole 50-60's and failed to acknowledge the tax rate for the highest earners. Look at the top and bottom tax brackets. You do also realize that prices have went up on everything through the years, right? Are you saying prices, and wages should go back to the rates when you were a teen? How much were you making an hour when you were paying thoses prices?

[TheRealThing]

You were talking about the good ole 50-60's and failed to acknowledge the tax rate for the highest earners. Look at the top and bottom tax brackets. You do also realize that prices have went up on everything through the years, right? Are you saying prices, and wages should go back to the rates when you were a teen? How much were you making an hour when you were paying thoses prices?

I didn't fail to mention the tax rates for CEO's and plant managers, that meant nothing to the gist of my post. vector's intent was not to argue tax rates, you'd have to get him to explain why he posted the link, that is one reason why I saw no reason to respond to it. My point was that money bought a lot more in those days, I thought that would have been self evident by the levels of income listed in the table. What I am saying is that unlike the ominous and threatening dark cloud which hangs over America of 2012, the 50's and 60's were a time of great promise. Nobody I know ever thought they would not land a great job. Some folks were just not up to the call but, most succeeded in attaining their slice of the pie. A nice home, a new car, a good living were all easily attainable in a culture in which one naturally expected to go out and work. And companies were glad to give them the jobs they were seeking. You still had to be careful, budget wisely and be responsible, but success was a forgone conclusion. I made about $25 dollars a week at my part time job but I made much better money that summer at Armco around $2.75 an hour.

[TheRealVille]

I didn't fail to mention the tax rates for CEO's and plant managers, that meant nothing to the gist of my post. vector's intent was not to argue tax rates, you'd have to get him to explain why he posted the link, that is one reason why I saw no reason to respond to it. My point was that money bought a lot more in those days, I thought that would have been self evident by the levels of income listed in the table. What I am saying is that unlike the ominous and threatening dark cloud which hangs over America of 2012, the 50's and 60's were a time of great promise. Nobody I know ever thought they would not land a great job. Some folks were just not up to the call but, most succeeded in attaining their slice of the pie. A nice home, a new car, a good living were all easily attainable in a culture in which one naturally expected to go out and work. And companies were glad to give them the jobs they were seeking. You still had to be careful, budget wisely and be responsible, but success was a forgone conclusion. I made about $25 dollars a week at my part time job but I made much better money that summer at Armco around $2.75 an hour.

While companies were paying a 90% tax rate, btw. America doesn't want to be nowhere near the 50's, and the ones that try to hold America there, won't be holding very much longer. I don't want to sound mean, but you are stuck way back there, and America wants to go on, and will.

[TheRealThing]

While companies were paying a 90% tax rate, btw. America doesn't want to be nowhere near the 50's, and the ones that try to hold America there, won't be holding very much longer. I don't want to sound mean, but you are stuck way back there, and America wants to go on, and will.

LOL, is that the best you can do? I'm glad you don't want to sound mean but you're kidding yourself if you think you just dropped some big revelation on my head. Embracing sexual deviancy, and fiscal suicide are hardly goals worth pursuit by the folks of this country. As I keep reminding you, the liberal la-la's idea of fiscal plenty is inseperably knit to the fancies of Keynesian economics. Fortunately in this day in time, we have very accurate accounts of the attempts made to 'test drive' that particular theory. We even tried it in the United States and as the result of having tried it and having seen that doesn't work, we then rejected Keynesian economics out of hand. We already know what success looks like as we now have 237 years of American economic workings in the books. America will go on, just not much farther cause like the farmer who ate his own seed there will be no recourse. Unfortunately, we must deal with the fact that Obama has four more years to sufficiently strangle us.

[vector]

I saw the link and wondered what the point was for posting it in the first place, meaningless numbers without a basis for comparison. I'll give you some fiscal 'depth of field', let's take 1965. Two cheeseburgers a fry and milk shake cost a whopping .69 cents. It was nothing to pull up to a pump and ask for a dollar's worth of gas, at .29 cents a gallon that went pretty far. My car, an Impalla, was a nice car, for which I paid $300 dollars cash on the barrell head at a local dealership. The average house payment was only $95.00 a month (many folk's payment was more like $70.00 dollars) because one could buy a house for $15,000. A new home went for around $22,000, ($139.00 a month) and that would have been in a nice neighborhood BTW. If Mom spent $20.00 at the grocery store she needed help to get all the bags inside the house.

I see your penchant for posting about things of which you know nothing about has not abated. The 60's were the golden days of American history, I lived it and I know the difference. But, I'm sure you will feel compelled to dispute with me even though all you can do is look things up to gain a perspective from which to post from. And as I mentioned, high paying jobs were everywhere. I had my choice of Armco, Ashland Oil, or to enter an apprenticeship from among three building trades unions.

what happened to all the union members ?
could it have been regan firing all those airtraffic controllers?
this country prosper real good after ww2 roosevelt put regulations on the banks after the depresion union membership was at it's highest in this country i would say we had no right to work laws in our states then regan took over put i believe donald regan as sec of tres lifted just about all the regulation's that roosevelt put in place and the rich ran wild one mess after another still digging out of there mess

[TheRealThing]

what happened to all the union members ?
could it have been regan firing all those airtraffic controllers?
this country prosper real good after ww2 roosevelt put regulations on the banks after the depresion union membership was at it's highest in this country i would say we had no right to work laws in our states then regan took over put i believe donald regan as sec of tres lifted just about all the regulation's that roosevelt put in place and the rich ran wild one mess after another still digging out of there mess

I would say this post is a series of detatched ramblings, but that wouldn't serve to distinguish it from any of your other posts. Let's just say there aren't many historians who feel disposed to down the Reagan administration's fiscal wizardry. The least of our problems hasn't got the first thing to do with any sort of union squabbles.

[TheRealVille]

The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

The September 11 attack resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration - from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.
"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback," Turner said, referring to the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and FBI. "There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community," he said.

The House Intelligence Committee was not satisfied with Turner's statement.

"The statement released this evening by the DNI's spokesman regarding how the Intelligence Community's talking points were changed gives a new explanation that differs significantly from information provided in testimony to the Committee last week," said committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen. "Chairman Rogers looks forward to discussing this new explanation with Director Clapper as soon as possible to understand how the DNI reached this conclusion and why leaders of the Intelligence Community testified late last week that they were unaware of who changed the talking points."

The White House on Friday said it made only one change, substituting the word "mission" for "consulate."

The FBI requested a change in language which originally stated the U.S. "knew" Islamic extremists participated in the attack. According to a U.S. intelligence official the wording was changed to "there are indications" Islamic extremists participated.

The drumbeat of criticism began early on with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration for publicly saying the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest against an anti Muslim video on the web even though the Republicans claim the administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack.

The harshest criticism has focused on Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who used the talking points as the basis for comments she made on Sunday talk shows five days after the attack. During her appearances, Rice said a small number of people came to the mission in reaction to demonstrations occurring in Cairo over the anti-Muslim film, but the Benghazi protest was hijacked by armed extremists. She never mentioned terrorists.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said this isn't about parsing words. "There was some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That's my concern," Rogers said last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Former CIA Director Petraeus told lawmakers last Friday there were multiple streams of intelligence, some that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. But other intelligence indicated the violence at the Benghazi mission was inspired by protests in Egypt over the anti Muslim video.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.

More here: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19...?hpt=hp_t2

[Bob Seger]

what happened to all the union members ?
could it have been regan firing all those airtraffic controllers?
this country prosper real good after ww2 roosevelt put regulations on the banks after the depresion union membership was at it's highest in this country i would say we had no right to work laws in our states then regan took over put i believe donald regan as sec of tres lifted just about all the regulation's that roosevelt put in place and the rich ran wild one mess after another still digging out of there mess

I hope there is someone else out there that can decipher what you wrote, because I cant make heads or tails out of this rambling mess.

[nky]

what happened to all the union members ?
could it have been Reagan firing all those air traffic controllers?
this country prosper real good after ww2 Roosevelt put regulations on the banks after the depression union membership was at it's highest in this country i would say we had no right to work laws in our states then Reagan took over put i believe Donald Regan as sec of Tresa lifted just about all the regulation's that Roosevelt put in place and the rich ran wild one mess after another still digging out of there mess

You're favorite movie right? [Image: http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9G...v4EfTHfQ88]

You need to read why the US prospered after World War II.

[TheRealThing]

More here: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19...?hpt=hp_t2

You can post this wagon circling blather until you turn bluer in the face, LOL. You're looking to be talked into something, I prefer to use my own intellect to judge what I know to have happened, against the ever mutating baloney which has emanated from the "Ministry of Truth 2012".

Define Irony; Hillary Clinton is on her way to Israel to broker a peace deal between Hamas and Jerusalem. :please: To this day she is still prone to lie about the non existent video associated with the Benghazi attacks. She really needs to take Pelosi with her. We could call the negotiations team "Morons are U.S.". The hot spot will freeze over long before Obama darkens any doors in Jerusalem, he's managed to visit just about every other middle eastern regime though and is begging for an audience with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[TheRealVille]

You can post this wagon circling blather until you turn bluer in the face, LOL. You're looking to be talked into something, I prefer to use my own intellect to judge what I know to have happened, against the ever mutating baloney which has emanated from the "Ministry of Truth 2012".

Define Irony; Hillary Clinton is on her way to Israel to broker a peace deal between Hamas and Jerusalem. :please: To this day she is still prone to lie about the non existent video associated with the Benghazi attacks. She really needs to take Pelosi with her. We could call the negotiations team "Morons are U.S.". The hot spot will freeze over long before Obama darkens any doors in Jerusalem, he's managed to visit just about every other middle eastern regime though and is begging for an audience with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

No US President, except Carter, has visited during their first term. Ronald Reagan never visited at all. Bush didn't visit until Jan. 2008, at the end of his 2nd term. Obama has visited Israel as a candidate.

[TheRealVille]

^Bill Clinton visited 4 times during his 8 years. By all those visiting figures, I don't think democrats need any advice on when, or how many times, to visit Israel, by any republicans, TRT.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^Bill Clinton visited 4 times during his 8 years. By all those visiting figures, I don't think democrats need any advice on when, or how many times, to visit Israel, by any republicans, TRT.

Did he have a "lady friend" there?

[TheRealThing]

^Bill Clinton visited 4 times during his 8 years. By all those visiting figures, I don't think democrats need any advice on when, or how many times, to visit Israel, by any republicans, TRT.

The region had not been destablized by a novice administration during the visits you spent all that time looking up. See, how much of a positive force I am in your life? Now however, since the present administration's guiding hand has inspired the ill concieved 'arab spring-up and start WWIII', movement. I think, as do others, that a show of support for Israel would be productive toward achieving a temporary peace. As you should know, the arab world believes America lacks the backbone to confront them. Even to the point of Iran's recent attempt to shoot down an American drone over international waters, followed immediately by a globally televised nose thumbing from Ahmandinejahd to Obama. To which Obama immediately said, oh wait, actually he just backed down and didn't say a thing. But, here is what Iranian officials said after the election was over and the announcement was finally made 8 days after the actual incident--- "Iran issued a bellicose warning to the U.S. over the weekend, after American officials disclosed last week that the Islamic republic had tried to shoot down a U.S. drone in international airspace near the Iranian coast on Nov. 1. “Yes, we opened fire, and it was with warning shots. If they do it again, they can expect an even stronger response,” said Gen. Amir-Ali Hadjizadeh, adding that the drone entered Iranian airspace and “had to turn around because of the immediate reaction by fighters of the Revolutionary Guards.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012.../?page=all


Trust me, they so need the advice of republicans.

[TheRealVille]

The region had not been destablized by a novice administration during the visits you spent all that time looking up. See, how much of a positive force I am in your life? Now however, since the present administration's guiding hand has inspired the ill concieved 'arab spring-up and start WWIII', movement. I think, as do others, that a show of support for Israel would be productive toward achieving a temporary peace. As you should know, the arab world believes America lacks the backbone to confront them. Even to the point of Iran's recent attempt to shoot down an American drone over international waters, followed immediately by a globally televised nose thumbing from Ahmandinejahd to Obama. To which Obama immediately said, oh wait, actually he just backed down and didn't say a thing. But, here is what Iranian officials said after the election was over and the announcement was finally made 8 days after the actual incident--- "Iran issued a bellicose warning to the U.S. over the weekend, after American officials disclosed last week that the Islamic republic had tried to shoot down a U.S. drone in international airspace near the Iranian coast on Nov. 1. “Yes, we opened fire, and it was with warning shots. If they do it again, they can expect an even stronger response,” said Gen. Amir-Ali Hadjizadeh, adding that the drone entered Iranian airspace and “had to turn around because of the immediate reaction by fighters of the Revolutionary Guards.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012.../?page=all


Trust me, they so need the advice of republicans.

I thought you had previously stated that Islamists were friendly to Obama? Make your mind up. I wish you could see my mother in law's FB page. You and her are on about the same level. She get's her world knowledge from the same kooks you do. :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

I thought you had previously stated that Islamists were friendly to Obama? Make your mind up. I wish you could see my mother in law's FB page. You and her are on about the same level. She get's her world knowledge from the same kooks you do. :biglmao:

When did I ever say that? Now, if the truth be known, I do in fact believe Obama is a man devoid of any real national identity. With only the residual effects of his father's biases mixed in with whatever values his grandparents were able to imprint on him. And that crude olio then having been baked in the liberal ovens of Occidental, and although nobody can explain how he could have possibly qualified for acceptance, Columbia and Harvard. And viola, we have our own dear half baked Keynesian, sociopath. No, I didn't say that Islamists were friendly to Obama, his burning effigies wrapped in the American flag were enough to convince me what the arab world thinks of our president. I think he has sucked up like no other has to them, but to no avail.

Here are some (familiar) character traits of sociopaths;

Profile of the Sociopath
Glibness and Superficial Charm


Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.


Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."


Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.


Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.


Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.


BTW, I'm sure your mother-in-law is a fine lady. She sounds really smart too.

[TheRealVille]

^ She is, she's just clueless.

[TheRealThing]

^ She is, she's just clueless.

LOL, there maybe hope for you yet.