[SKINNYPIG]

I take it you didn't see where I answered his questions.

I always forget that you are the know all end all on all things. I'm surprised that only made a carpenter as your profession when you had so much more potential, with all your knowledge. Let me be honest, the good thing is that old dried up coots like you, with your "40's & 50's style" ways will be dying off, and getting out of the way of progress soon enough. America is moving forward, and it appears that it isn't going to let people like you stand in it's way.

That is a matter of opinion. If America's position right now is to be considered "moving forward", it won't be long before we are forced to go in reverse.

[RunItUpTheGut]

We do put people in institutions for self mutalation, do we not?

In a sense, couldnt we do the same with gay men? If they believe its right, while hurting themselves, isnt that just as much grounds to lock them up as someone who cuts themself?

Just curious.

If were walking a fine line on everything, its very simple to question everything.

[TheRealThing]

Yea? I've worked for several idiots that knew somebody, or kissed a lot of butt, and got a superintendent position. :biggrin:

Yeah, and I've known a lot of fitters that bought a book out of state somewhere because it was too hard for them to get inducted into their own local. Unlike people like me who worked their way up through the ranks locally and one day got tapped on the shoulder by the man responsible for field operations of a large construction firm. Further, in my experience, construction companies never, and I mean never, call the hall for a superintendent. Supers are home grown borned-again hard, according to the business practices of the company for whose money they are charged to manage, down to the last dime. Your posts reveal your best, is to parrot rank and file union bravado. IMO, a lame and selfish point of view at best.

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, and I've known a lot of fitters that bought a book out of state somewhere because it was too hard for them to get inducted into their own local. Unlike people like me who worked their way up through the ranks locally and one day got tapped on the shoulder by the man responsible for field operations of a large construction firm. Further, in my experience, construction companies never, and I mean never, call the hall for a superintendent. Supers are home grown borned-again hard, according to the business practices of the company for whose money they are charged to manage, down to the last dime. Your posts reveal your best, is to parrot rank and file union bravado. IMO, a lame and selfish point of view at best.

As you well know, Ashland and Huntington have "local" fitters from both states in each local. Huntington takes KY people, and vice versa for Ashland.


You must have limited experience then. I know several times that companies have called pipefitter halls to hire a super.

[TheRealThing]

As you well know, Ashland and Huntington have "local" fitters from both states in each local. Huntington takes KY people, and vice versa for Ashland.


You must have limited experience then. I know several times that companies have called pipefitter halls to hire a super.

Yeah, I do well know. And I am not aware of any fitter apprentices from Huntington coming through an apprenticeship program in Ashland. Travelers 'buy' their books and are not likely products of an apprenticeship program. Craftsmen that go through an apprenticeship program come through a local which, is the traditional manner in which superior training and high a skill level is achieved and boasted of by the unions. A general foreman is not a superintendent. The two serve a completely different function. General Foremen are beholden to their union leadership to adequately represent the interests of the membership under their charge. Ideally this is a two way street. A hard day's work for fair pay. Superintendents work exclusively for one contractor and they are a prized commodity. Everybody associated with every craft on the whole project is under their authority. Though many times they still hold a book, they don't necessarily have to. They answer to and owe their allegiance to their company and their origins are normally that of lowly Carpenters.

You can kiss butt from here to Chicago, Texas or where ever. You're never going to preside over the spending of millions of some contractors dollars unless you're a proven top gun and even then, you still have to earn their trust first.

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, I do well know. And I am not aware of any fitter apprentices from Huntington coming through an apprenticeship program in Ashland. Travelers 'buy' their books and are not likely products of an apprenticeship program. Craftsmen that go through an apprenticeship program come through a local which, is the traditional manner in which superior training and high a skill level is achieved and boasted of by the unions. A general foreman is not a superintendent. The two serve a completely different function. General Foremen are beholden to their union leadership to adequately represent the interests of the membership under their charge. Ideally this is a two way street. A hard day's work for fair pay. Superintendents work exclusively for one contractor and they are a prized commodity. Everybody associated with every craft on the whole project is under their authority. Though many times they still hold a book, they don't necessarily have to. They answer to and owe their allegiance to their company and their origins are normally that of lowly Carpenters.

You can kiss butt from here to Chicago, Texas or where ever. You're never going to preside over the spending of millions of some contractors dollars unless you're a proven top gun and even then, you still have to earn their trust first.

You do realize that people from KY go through Huntington's apprenticeship? I work as a traveler when I work at Ashland, but it's not my main gig. I have worked out of Ashland exactly twice in 6 years. Do you think travelers working at Ashland, out of Huntington all buy their books? If you do, you really are the moron I thought you were. In Huntington, I'm local. I full well know how the apprenticeship program works, I don't need your advice. As for the "general foreman" comment you were alluding to, you would be wrong there also. Although the companies call the hall for a GF, I have known of them calling for looking piping supers for particular jobs.

[TheRealThing]

(1) You do realize that people from KY go through Huntington's apprenticeship? I work as a traveler when I work at Ashland, but it's not my main gig. I have worked out of Ashland exactly twice in 6 years. (2) Do you think travelers working at Ashland, out of Huntington all buy their books? If you do, you really are the moron I thought you were. In Huntington, I'm local. I full well know how the apprenticeship program works, I don't need your advice. As for the "general foreman" comment you were alluding to, you would be wrong there also. Although the companies call the hall for a GF, (3) I have known of them calling for looking piping supers for particular jobs.

(1) - I said people from Huntington don't go through apprenticeships in Ashland.

(2) - Never came close to saying anything like this. But, you are a Kentucky resident with a WV book right?

(3) - You'll never sell me on this one.

[TheRealVille]

(1) - I said people from Huntington don't go through apprenticeships in Ashland.

(2) - Never came close to saying anything like this. But, you are a Kentucky resident with a WV book right?

(3) - You'll never sell me on this one.

1- They have before.

2- Yes, I am. Point?

3- I don't care.

[TheRealThing]

1- They have before.

2- Yes, I am. Point?

3- I don't care.

The point is this. You cannot make yourself stick with a debate on the issues at hand. You always make it personal and when anything comes back at you, you can never handle it.

[TheRealVille]

The point is this. You cannot make yourself stick with a debate on the issues at hand. You always make it personal and when anything comes back at you, you can never handle it.

You were the one that asked the questions. I answered the questions, then ask you your point in me being from KY with a WV book, which was in reference to people from KY going through Huntington's apprenticeship, then working at Ashland as a traveler. Unlike what carpenters used to do, we do not transfer our books to the local we are working in. Thus, I can be out of Huntington(after going through their apprenticeship), and work out of Ashland as a journeyman traveler.

(1) - I said people from Huntington don't go through apprenticeships in Ashland.

(2) - Never came close to saying anything like this. But, you are a Kentucky resident with a WV book right?

(3) - You'll never sell me on this one.

[TheRealThing]

If you didn't see Justice Samuel Alito's statement today about the same sex marriage cases on the docket of the SCOTUS. He said (paraphrased) "the states should make decisions like this and that the idea of same sex marriage is a new concept, even newer than cell phones or the internet. The people must decide if they want this or not" Told you so.

[TheRealVille]

If you didn't see Justice Samuel Alito's statement today about the same sex marriage cases on the docket of the SCOTUS. He said (paraphrased) "the states should make decisions like this and that the idea of same sex marriage is a new concept, even newer than cell phones or the internet. The people must decide if they want this or not" Told you so.

Alito isn't the only voice of the 9. Kennedy is most likely the swing vote. What did he have to say?

[TheRealThing]

Alito isn't the only voice of the 9. Kennedy is most likely the swing vote. What did he have to say?

Everybody on the court didn't publish a statement. Alito was offering the court's leaning on the matter at this point.

[Hoot Gibson]

You cannot draw any conclusions from these dog and pony shows. If you could, then Obamacare would already be history. I don't blame Justice Thomas for refusing to play the game - although I did enjoy Scalia's question to Olson, "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?"

[TheRealVille]

Everybody on the court didn't publish a statement. Alito was offering the court's leaning on the matter at this point.

Kennedy spoke also. BTW, what I heard wasn't a statement from Alito, it was speaking to the lawyers, and happens to be the words you are posting here.Show us a link where it was a statement, or a video of his statement. I find it hard to believe they are making statements about anything today.

[TheRealThing]

You cannot draw any conclusions from these dog and pony shows. If you could, then Obamacare would already be history.

I know, and yet it just came out that Kennedy did in fact agree with Alito saying "You're really asking the court to go out into uncharted waters" In the end it will rest with the individual states where it belongs.

[TheRealVille]

I know, and yet it just came out that Kennedy did in fact agree with Alito saying "You're really asking the court to go out into uncharted waters" In the end it will rest with the individual states where it belongs.

I liked this from Kennedy.

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26...57757.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy is likely to have the support of the court’s four liberal justices when they meet later this week to decide the California case. They could decide to write an opinion that strikes down the California ballot measure on the grounds that it denies same-sex couples a right to marry. Or they could vote to dismiss the appeal, which also would have the effect of voiding Prop. 8.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...1924.story

[Hoot Gibson]

Kennedy spoke also. BTW, what I heard wasn't a statement from Alito, it was speaking to the lawyers, and happens to be the words you are posting here.Show us a link where it was a statement, or a video of his statement. I find it hard to believe they are making statements about anything today.

Are you serious? For somebody was so sure that the Court would decide something this week, you sure don't know much about the process. These oral arguments are the equivalent of public hearings in Congress. Justices can and do make statements and badger the lawyers on both sides. The Justices who participate often delight in making the lawyers squirm as much as possible and they also enjoy lecturing them and ridiculing their logic.

It is a mistake to draw any conclusions from any questions or statements made during these sessions. The cases are decided based on the written briefs filed with the Court, after the Justices lobby each other to support their respective positions. They will generally take a quick vote. If the vote is lop-sided, then they usually don't spend much time reaching a decision but in any case, they will not publish or communicate the decision until late in the current session.

[TheRealVille]

Are you serious? For somebody was so sure that the Court would decide something this week, you sure don't know much about the process. These oral arguments are the equivalent of public hearings in Congress. Justices can and do make statements and badger the lawyers on both sides. The Justices who participate often delight in making the lawyers squirm as much as possible and they also enjoy lecturing them and ridiculing their logic.

It is a mistake to draw any conclusions from any questions or statements made during these sessions. The cases are decided based on the written briefs filed with the Court, after the Justices lobby each other to support their respective positions. They will generally take a quick vote. If the vote is lop-sided, then they usually don't spend much time reaching a decision but in any case, they will not publish or communicate the decision until late in the current session.

TRT tried to make it look like Alito was making a statement for the court, when in fact he was making that statement to one of the lawyers. A far cry from a "court" statement. He isn't the spokesman for the court.

[WideMiddle03]

TRT tried to make it look like Alito was making a statement for the court, when in fact he was making that statement to one of the lawyers. A far cry from a "court" statement. He isn't the spokesman for the court.

and you tryed to make it look like the court was going to decide something this week :lame:

[TheRealVille]

I know, and yet it just came out that Kennedy did in fact agree with Alito saying "You're really asking the court to go out into uncharted waters" In the end it will rest with the individual states where it belongs.

No, it didn't just come out. I saw this reported on pretty early today. Don't just post part of his words, post them all. No, wait, I already did, or at least the context of them :lame:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy is likely to have the support of the court’s four liberal justices when they meet later this week to decide the California case. They could decide to write an opinion that strikes down the California ballot measure on the grounds that it denies same-sex couples a right to marry. Or they could vote to dismiss the appeal, which also would have the effect of voiding Prop. 8.

[TheRealThing]

TRT tried to make it look like Alito was making a statement for the court, when in fact he was making that statement to one of the lawyers. A far cry from a "court" statement. He isn't the spokesman for the court.

Alito made a statement, it was quoted and reported on today's news. In fact, statements made by Kagan, Kennedy, and Alito regarding the case are the lead story this evening. I took it to be his opinion as any reasonable person would. All supreme court justices are routinely quoted by the press and everyone of those justices are spokesmen for the court.

[TheRealThing]

No, it didn't just come out. I saw this reported on pretty early today. Don't just post part of his words, post them all. No, wait, I already did. :lame:

Kennedy, "Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point."I guess you think this supports your prediction that the court will order the states to accept same sex marriage. :biglmao:

[TheRealVille]

Kennedy, "Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point."I guess you think this supports your prediction that the court will order the states to accept same sex marriage. :biglmao:

No, this suggest that it will go back to the court, who granted same sex marriage, before the voter referendum, like the US circuit court said.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[TheRealThing]

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point."

The California Supreme Court has already faced several challenges to prop 8. All the SCOTUS can do is interpret State Statutes (parallel to state courts), they can't write new law and they can't force folks to accept gay marriage.

[TheRealVille]

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point."

The California Supreme Court has already faced several challenges to prop 8. All the SCOTUS can do is interpret State Statutes (parallel to state courts), they can't write new law and they can't force folks to accept gay marriage.

Just like religion, think whatever gets you through life. Many lawyers have said the same thing today, that Kennedy's words make it pretty clear that he thought it should revert back to the 9th district's decision, which would make same sex marriage legal. I'm not going on what I want to happen, I'm going on what several lawyers are saying he referred to.

[WideMiddle03]

Just like religion, think whatever gets you through life. Many lawyers have said the same thing today, that Kennedy's words make it pretty clear that he thought it should revert back to the 9th district's decision, which would make same sex marriage legal. I'm not going on what I want to happen, I'm going on what several lawyers are saying he referred to.

:biglmao: :biglmao: :biglmao: :biglmao: :biglmao:

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

TRV I have a serious question for you. If gay marriage can't get a majority vote in the most liberal and gay accepting state of the union (loosing by almost 600,000 votes.) What in the world makes you think the majority of the country supports it? I don't care about an obviously skewered msm poll, when the people of (and I cannot stress this enough) the most liberal state in the union with the highest population of gays do not want this then how in the world do you think the majority of the rest of this country does?

[TheRealThing]

Just like religion, think whatever gets you through life. Many lawyers have said the same thing today, that Kennedy's words make it pretty clear that he thought it should revert back to the 9th district's decision, which would make same sex marriage legal. I'm not going on what I want to happen, I'm going on what several lawyers are saying he referred to.

Fine, in any event then, prop 8 clearly demonstrated the will of the people was not to allow legalized gay marriage in California. The referendum as the will of the people rules.

[Hoot Gibson]

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point."

The California Supreme Court has already faced several challenges to prop 8. All the SCOTUS can do is interpret State Statutes (parallel to state courts), they can't write new law and they can't force folks to accept gay marriage.

The Supreme Court can do pretty much whatever it wants. That may be the biggest danger in electing a socialist who does not believe in the Constitution president. Given enough Kegans on the Court, anything is possible. The Supreme Court is a reflection of our sick, semi-literate society.

However, I would not be shocked by a 7-2 or 6-4 decision, because any members of the SCOTUS that vote to require states to recognize gay marriage are essentially saying that the Constitution is subject to the whims of public opinion. The amendment process was devised as a safeguard against such unprincipled rulings but it will become irrelevant if the socialist freaks win this case. I suspect that more than 5 of the Justices are concerned about their legacy.

Who wants to be remembered by history as a key figure in the decline of our government's tradition of the rule of law and not of men? When the left starts winning cases such as this one, a dictatorship will not be far behind.