About Us

I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
intrigued
by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
would
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
a fun
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.

Dave

These are the articles I've found via Google:

http://www.palomar.edu/woodworking/n...ts_carter.html

http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...f_Jimmy_Carter

wrote in message
news

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking.
I would love to see his work up close.

Thanks
--

Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately

"Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"

"I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."

He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made nice
green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little while
then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has been
about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past
Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan and First Pres. Bush
did for instance.

Walt Conner

David Stuve wrote:
I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
intrigued
by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
would
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
a fun
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.

Dave

These are the articles I've found via Google:

http://www.palomar.edu/woodworking/n...ts_carter.html

http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...f_Jimmy_Carter

I was a volunteer at the Habitat for Humanity Blitz Build in Watts, LA
about 10 years ago. All of the volunteers (over 1000 of us) met at the
USC campus for the big Rah-Rah speeches to kick the week off. Jimmy, of
course, was the keynote. When he was done, he came and sat in the crowd
with the rest of us - right next to me (along with his SS guys). We
exchanged greetings and shook hands.

I wasn't able to get near him the rest of the week, but he and his wife
were out swinging hammers with everyone else.

I was surprised at how short he really is. Otherwise, he seemed like a
pretty "regular" guy.

Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us. When Mad King
George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the rest
of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will never look
back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
the world a better place.

Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
without people feeling the need to rip on him as president? I wish he was
president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have. Besides -
Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
and an economy addicted to cheap oil.. And everyone seems to forget that
Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election. And as a final insult,
conservative columnist George Will delivered a stolen copy of Carter's
debate briefing notebook to Reagan, making sure that Reagan had memorized
catchy combacks to Carter's debate points - making it look like Reagan
actually understood the issues. A shameful time in our country's great
history.

Dave

"WALTER D. CONNER" wrote in message
news:sNFqf.45229$eI5.5360@trnddc05...
"Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"

"I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."

He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made
nice green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little
while then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has
been about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past
Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan and First Pres.
Bush did for instance.

Walt Conner

David Stuve wrote:
Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us.

Well the fact is that Reagan kept his mouth shut because his people
quit writing scripts for him.

... Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
the world a better place.

In the thirty years befor Camp David Egypt and Israel went to war
four times In the thrity years since, not once. He helped make the
world a better place.

--

FF

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:35:27 -0800, "David Stuve" wrote:

Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut?

Same reason retired CEO's of corporations keep their opinions to
themselves. They are no longer running things and because of their
previous position of authority, some within the various agencies who report
to the sitting president may tend to act more in line with the prior
leader's wishes than the current leader's wishes.

Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged.

This is more protocol and maintaining a reasonable sense of decorum.
Those former presidents had their 4 or 8 years to shape the landscape of
American life. To continue to attempt to influence events beyond
supporting their party's activities gives the appearance of attempting to
undermine the sitting president. Most of the former presidents have had the
dignity and wisdom to realize what that kind of activity during their terms
would have meant. How do you think that kind of thing looks to the rest of
the world (something about "a house divided" comes to mind).

I
think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us.

... and Truman, and Ike, and LBJ, and all of their predecessors who
survived their terms. Yep, none of them cared about the rest of their
constituents.

When Mad King
George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the rest
of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will never look
back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make
the world a better place.

Going to Havana and praising their health care system while excoriating
our own country was a real good move in that direction. He'd have been
better though of if he had stuck to habitat for humanity and woodworking.
Now he just appears to be a bitter old defeated politician trying to claim
another few minutes in the spotlight.

A former president(s) criticizing the sitting president in a time of war
on that war and military action does not help make the world a better
place. In fact, it most likely emboldens those whom we are fighting and in
so doing, puts our troops at more risk because the enemy will fight harder
knowing there is a possible source of division that they can exploit.

Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
without people feeling the need to rip on him as president?

Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

I wish he was
president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.

Why does one fairly mild comment regarding an ex-president have to lead
to a diatribe and interjection of one's personal politics against the
sitting president and several former presidents? You could have taken the
high road and ignored the comment, keeping this on the topic of woodworking
but chose instead to interject your own personal, vitriolic politics into
this thread.

Besides -
Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
and an economy addicted to cheap oil..

...assuming for a moment that your opinions are correct, he successfully
fixed this, how?

And everyone seems to forget that
Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election.

You forgot your tinfoil hat and forgot to mention the Bush SR-71 trip to
Iran. ;-)

Do you realize how illogical your statement is? Why in @#$% would the
Iranians want to have Carter defeated? He was the best friend they had
compared to what they knew would occur under Reagan. (Yeah, let's support
he person who is going to more than threaten military action against us and
send in more than a couple of helicopters. Really brilliant logic there.)

And as a final insult,
conservative columnist George Will delivered a stolen copy of Carter's
debate briefing notebook to Reagan, making sure that Reagan had memorized
catchy combacks to Carter's debate points - making it look like Reagan
actually understood the issues. A shameful time in our country's great
history.

So one comment regarding the ex-president becomes a political diatribe of
paranoid conspiracy theories. Certainly the other side never did anything
similar. Let's see, a couple of grandparents going Christmas shopping in
Florida turn on the cell phone receiver in their Cadillac (don't all
Caddies come with that option) and just happen to hear Newt Gingrich
discussing political strategy and then turn on the tape recorder (that
apparently comes with the Cadillac cell phone receiver). Seems there was a
similar instance in the prior debates that went the other direction.
Doesn't make it right, just makes sure that people realize that the other
side is not pristine in this issue.

Do you want to talk shameful? How about
1) Holding a news story until the Saturday before an election, then
releasing it in order to provide a last-minute shock to the election
process
2) Forging documents that supposedly showed that the sitting president had
received favorable treatment in the National Guard and getting those
documents promulgated by the main-stream media (anxious for anything it
could get to damage the president whether true or not)
3) Knowing that your candidate in New Jersey (under indictment for bribery)
was going to lose the election, having him drop out after the deadline for
withdrawing, then getting the state supreme court to allow breaking the
state law that indicated "no changes to ballots could be within 90 days
before an election"

Something about "people who live in glass houses" comes to mind here.

There was never any doubt that Reagan understood the issues, he had been
active since the mid-60's in identifying the direction he thought the
country should be headed and and what the US needed to do to unleash the
creativity and abilities of its citizens. Do you really think the
Republicans needed Jimmy's notebook to know what his positions were? [Well,
then again, maybe they needed the notebooks to know what positions he was
going to express, not necessarily what position he held]

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Maybe some people rip him for the same reason you rip Bush. Some people
can never leave politics out of anything.

David Stuve wrote:

Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
without people feeling the need to rip on him as president? I wish he was
president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.

"David Stuve" wrote in message
news:6JCdneWbMo6hpTbenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I
think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of
hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us. When Mad King
George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the
rest of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will
never look back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep
trying to make the world a better place.

Do you think 2 presidents in a row would be impeached? LOL

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:44 GMT, "WALTER D. CONNER"

wrote:

Reagan was too busy ****ting his diaper and trying to remember his own
name.
Bush Senior was too busy collecting his millions in payoffs from all the
favors
he did while in office.

And Clinton waited until he was almost out of office to pardon all of his
convict friends that helped keep him out of jail.

Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:29:44 GMT, "WALTER D. CONNER"

wrote:

Reagan was too busy ****ting his diaper and trying to remember his own
name.
Bush Senior was too busy collecting his millions in payoffs from all the
favors
he did while in office.

And Clinton waited until he was almost out of office to pardon all of his
convict friends that helped keep him out of jail.

Geroge H. Bush set the precedent for that.

--

FF

Crossposted to alt.politics
Followups to alt.politics

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:35:27 -0800, "David Stuve" wrote:

...
Freedom of speech is
the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged.

This is more protocol and maintaining a reasonable sense of decorum.
Those former presidents had their 4 or 8 years to shape the landscape of
American life. To continue to attempt to influence events beyond
supporting their party's activities gives the appearance of attempting to
undermine the sitting president.

IIUC, your reasoning is that anyone, not merely a former president,
who voices any objections to any policies, no matter how heinous,
of the present President is 'undermining' the sitting President.

That is like saying that everyone is free to practice whatever religion
they chose so long as it involves a belief in God and is consistant
with
the doctrines of certain Protestant sects and so long as they don't
mind
their children being led in Protestant prayers and taught Protestant
doctrine in the public schools.

Most of the former presidents have had the
dignity and wisdom to realize what that kind of activity during their terms
would have meant. How do you think that kind of thing looks to the rest of
the world (something about "a house divided" comes to mind).

It looks to the rest of the world that freedom STILL means something
in the US.

...

Going to Havana and praising their health care system while excoriating
our own country was a real good move in that direction.

He's made a few blunders though never anything that could be attributed
to less than noble motives.

A former president(s) criticizing the sitting president in a time of war
on that war and military action does not help make the world a better
place.

That is unmitigated crap. Americans who understand that the sitting
President is leading the country to ruin and the war to defeat have a
duty to voice their opposition. The President of the United States of
America is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, NOT the
citizenry.

In fact, it most likely emboldens those whom we are fighting and in
so doing, puts our troops at more risk because the enemy will fight harder
knowing there is a possible source of division that they can exploit.

If I thought that if we all were to march in lockstep behind the
President then our enemies will lay down their arms and quit fighting
I'd be the first in line to kiss his ass.

Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here
without people feeling the need to rip on him as president?

Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

Hmm, reminds me of a converstaion between a pot and a kettle.

I wish he was
president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have.

Why does one fairly mild comment regarding an ex-president have to lead
to a diatribe and interjection of one's personal politics against the
sitting president and several former presidents?

I too, wish he were President now. Or at the very least I wish we
had another Christian president.

You could have taken the
high road and ignored the comment, keeping this on the topic of woodworking
but chose instead to interject your own personal, vitriolic politics into
this thread.

Adding, rather than injecting. He could also have crossposted to a
newsgroup where political discussions are on-topic, and set followups
there as well. That is the way UseNet is supposed to be used.

Besides -
Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US
and an economy addicted to cheap oil..

...assuming for a moment that your opinions are correct, he successfully
fixed this, how?

The Camp David Accords were the first, and to date the only major,
progress to peace in the Middle East in two generations.

And everyone seems to forget that
Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep
the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election.

You forgot your tinfoil hat and forgot to mention the Bush SR-71 trip to
Iran. ;-)

Indeed, the treason came later when arms were sold (giving aid and
comfort)
to an enemy nation.

Do you realize how illogical your statement is? Why in @#$% would the
Iranians want to have Carter defeated?

Aside from the observation that the Ayatolla wasn't exactly playing
with a full deck he had painted himself into a corner. He had
demanded
that the Shah be exchanged for the hostages. Once the Shah had
moved to Switzwerland, it was beyond the power of the US to return
him, but the Ayatolla could not release the hostages without losing
face.

Claiming responsibility for forcing Carter out of office gave him the
opportunity get out that situation without losing face.

He was the best friend they had
compared to what they knew would occur under Reagan. (Yeah, let's support
he person who is going to more than threaten military action against us and
send in more than a couple of helicopters. Really brilliant logic there.)

Carter never sold arms to Iran. Reagan did. Of course Reagan also was
happy to arm Iraq. He was Sadam Hussein's best friend too, or rather
Baldridge was.

Do you want to talk shameful? How about
1) Holding a news story until the Saturday before an election, then
releasing it in order to provide a last-minute shock to the election
process

Pretty bad.

2) Forging documents that supposedly showed that the sitting president had
received favorable treatment in the National Guard and getting those
documents promulgated by the main-stream media (anxious for anything it
could get to damage the president whether true or not)

I suspect the documents were forged by Bush supporters, knowing
that it they were used, they'd be exposed as forgeries and would
by association discredit the story CBS was already going to run
based on interviews. Just my personal conspiracy theory.

How about calling McCain "the Manchurian Candidate" and claiming
he had an illegitmate black child?

How about claiming that Ann RIchards was a Lesbian?

How about submitted forged documents to the IAEA, obstructing the
same weapons inspection program the Bush administration had
demanded only a few months earlier?

How about Bush refusing to testify under oath before his own 9-11
comission? How about Cheney and RIce ALSO refusing to testify
under oath? How about Alberto Gonzales comitting perjury at his
own confirmation hearings for Attorney General?

How about rendition? How about the Bybee memo?

How about if we prosecute the crimes of the present, as a deterrant
to future crime, rather than using past crimes to excuse them?

--

FF

David Stuve wrote:
I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
intrigued
by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently
he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he
would
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
a fun
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.

PBS sometimes runs biographical pieces on the ecent President as
part of their _American Experience_ series.

Either as part of that series or a separate program about Ronald Reagan
showed him working on his ranch. During the time between the
Republican convention of of 1976 and the 1980 Presidential campaign
he spent a lot of time building a _very _ strudy wooden fence around
a paddock and near to it. Evidently it was built using trees felled
from the property.

--

FF

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking; I should
never type angry. Politically, I'm a moderate born of Republican parents.
In fact, I still get signed pictures and love letters from Bush & Cheney
hoping I'll become a big donor. The politics of this country have turned so
far right that I guess I do look like a leftie.

I see red when people blindly spout the party line - Clinton and Carter are
to blame for everything, and the Republicans are the party of "Middle
American Values (tm)". I can't even listen to the AM dial on the radio any
more due to right-wing talk shows frothing about those evil liberals, how
good outsourcing is for the economy, and how GW is the second coming.

Like many presidents before him, GW, or as I like to call him "Mad King
George" has much to be ashamed of, but his are of an almost incredible
magnitude - and all of which should make Conservatives angry:

-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"
-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
him
-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam
(-Iran was headed in a moderate direction until we invaded Iraq, the
population panicked and elected a crazy man who will cause us grief in the
future)
-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war
-torturing prisoners of war
-maintaining a network of secret prisons around the world to hide the
torture
-running up massive deficits that we'll be paying for decades
-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work
-doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
we've ever seen
-losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina - and then
lying and saying he was never asked for help
-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him
-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
oversight

Did we win the cold war? Or did we just absorb the bad behavior of the
Stalinists?

Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.

Dave

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;

And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.

-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"

Your interpretation was flawed.

-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
him

Ditto.

-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam

Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.

-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war

Bush is in Britain now?

-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work

Yawn.

-doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
we've ever seen

What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
credit for more power than he has.

-losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -

Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)

and then
lying and saying he was never asked for help

The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.

-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him

Yawn.

-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
oversight

We'll see.

Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.

Crossposted to alt.politics.
Follow-ups set to alt.politics

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;

And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.

-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him"

Your interpretation was flawed.

-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with
him

Ditto.

-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam

Saddam claimed he had WMD.

Like when, 1989?

Got a cite?

The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.

-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war

Bush is in Britain now?

Not to my knowledge. AFAIK he was also in the US when the
US sent the forged documents to the IAEA. DO you have
a point?

-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work

Yawn.

Of course you don't care about violations of black letter law. What
matters
to you is who does it, right?

...

The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
would have been a seriouf of constitutional protections.

-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him

Hell, he gives the screwups medals of freedom and promotes them.

...

Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.

Well, if you don't want to read stuff like this in rec.woodworking,
don't post stuff like this in rec.woodworking.

--

FF

David Stuve said:

snip

Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.

Balance is a valued commodity.
Peace be with you in your endeavor, Dave.

Greg G.

You know, for as long as I can remember, people have lamented over
"ruined" newsgroups. Well boys and girls, newsgroups don't get ruined.
At any given point in time in every group there is a certain amount of
off-topic posting, more off-topic replying, sniping, bitching,
flaming, whining, ranting and the occasional complaint that yet
another newgroup has gone to ****.

Rest assured that this, like most other popular groups, will continue
to function just fine and at least one third of the discussion will be
useful and on-topic. As for the other two thirds, if you don't like
it, ignore it and quitcher cryin.

Joe Barta

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:05:09 GMT, Joe Barta wrote:

Also, don't reply to the OTers. Doing so gives them validity. Don't
reply and they will go away eventually. I put them in a "killfile".

Stinky

You know, for as long as I can remember, people have lamented over
"ruined" newsgroups. Well boys and girls, newsgroups don't get ruined.
At any given point in time in every group there is a certain amount of
off-topic posting, more off-topic replying, sniping, bitching,
flaming, whining, ranting and the occasional complaint that yet
another newgroup has gone to ****.

Rest assured that this, like most other popular groups, will continue
to function just fine and at least one third of the discussion will be
useful and on-topic. As for the other two thirds, if you don't like
it, ignore it and quitcher cryin.

Joe Barta

"Reagan was too busy ****ting his diaper and trying to remember his own
name"

It takes a really sick person to say such a thing.

Walt Conner

I agree. I disagreed with Reagan on a lot of things, but that is a very
cruel remark.

WConner wrote:
"Reagan was too busy ****ting his diaper and trying to remember his own
name"

It takes a really sick person to say such a thing.

Walt Conner

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!

Crossposted to alt.politics.
Follow-ups set to alt.politics

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005 09:58:05 -0800, wrote:

Crossposted to alt.politics.
Follow-ups set to alt.politics

Follow-ups fixed.

No, you didn't fix them. You misdirected this thread again.

I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IN ALT.POLITICS DAMMIT!

What you do or do not want is not relevent. Usenet is divided up
into newsgroups according to topic for very good and obvious
reasons. Just WTF do you think you are to put a higher priority
on some bizarre quirky preference of your own?

If I
did, I'd have subscribed there. This thread was started in rec.woodworking
by somebody ostensibly discussing woodworking.

Which you said was inapproriate, yet somehow, you seem to think it is
not inapproriate for YOU to do so.

Dave Hinz wrote:

...

Saddam claimed he had WMD.

Like when, 1989?

Got a cite?

He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about your
"open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
anything else

False. He did not provide me with any cites in which Saddam
Hussein admitted having WMD. Also, AFAIK, Saddam Hussein
has never been on either side of the aisle.

As to "careful study and search for the truth", maybe you should have
at least considered reading the exchange once before responding to it?

-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work

Yawn.

Of course you don't care about violations of black letter law. What
matters
to you is who does it, right?

You will gain tons more credibility in this regard if you were to
simultaneously call for an all-out investigation in determining who leaked
to the press the fact that the NSA was monitoring phone calls from areas in
foreign countries with Al Quaeda activity to people in the US.

That was never a secret.

Oh, BTW,
this was shortly after 9/11 (remember that date? Just in case you, like
many in the opposition party seem to have forgotten, that is when agents of
Al Queada hijacked 4 jetliners and destroyed the World Trade Center and
flew one into the Pentagon. At the time, we were seriously trying to
determine whether additional attacks were in the offing) *That* is a
serious breach of national security, was probably classified with handling
caveats in addition to the highest level of classification and *seriously*
undermines our effort to defeat the terrorists.

Again, it was NEVER a secret that the NSA intercepts and monitors
telecomunications. The fact that you didn't know that doesn't mean
that everyone else, espeicially al Queda, shared your ignorance.
What was, and still is a secret are the identities of the persons whose
telecomunications were being monitored.

The warrants issued by FISA were, and still are secret. The program
NEVER was secret. Al Queda had no way of knowing whether or not
FISA had issued warants to monitor their communications.

Did you even think for a second before you wrote that, or are you just
regurgitating your talking points for this week?

The only thing that was a secret and no longer is, is the fact that the
Bush
Administration bypassed FISA oversight. NO classified information was
released by that revelation.

The Plame issue was a non-issue. Plame was *not* working as a covert
agent when her identity as a CIA employee was discussed. The current NSA
issue is one of those things that is

First and foremost it is a moral issue. Taking political revenge on a
man
by attacking his wife is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is
something no
Christian would ever consider doing.

Secondly, Plame's status as a liason to the FBI on WMD issue was
classified, which qualifies her for protection under the statute.

Third, consider the effect on morale. Not only can our CIA operatives
not
rely on this administration to protect them, they now know that they
may
be attacked at any time as retailation against someone else in their
family.

--

FF

Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember
who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever.
What can you think of that is better since he became president? And don't
blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.

Steve

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;

And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.

-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with
him"

Your interpretation was flawed.

-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals
with
him

Ditto.

-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam

Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.

-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war

Bush is in Britain now?

-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work

Yawn.

-doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
we've ever seen

What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
credit for more power than he has.

-losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -

Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)

and then
lying and saying he was never asked for help

The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.

-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him

Yawn.

-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no
Judicial
oversight

We'll see.

Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop
to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.

snip
He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
your
"open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
anything else

Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.

Steve

"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
nk.net...

Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade
another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first
and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war
criminal.

Wrong, both sides agreed to invade. It was only later that the left flip
flopped with tails between their legs claiming bad intelligence. It was
expected of them to go the other way. Totally predictable.
It is the same old same old. One side is against the other side regardless
of what is right.

Steve Peterson wrote:

Someone on TV said ( I don't think I
remember who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our
worst president ever.

Someone on TV says a lot of things. A lot of those someones are not
really worth paying attention to. Surely you know that, so why repeat
such a lame statement?

Steve Peterson wrote:

Bush is a war criminal.

Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who
wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted
around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:56:57 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:

snip
He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
your
"open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
anything else

Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.

A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after
insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the
2001 resolutions gave the president that authority). The second resolution
was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them
in the 2002 elections. Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one
person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that
only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.

Steve

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:52:11 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:

Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember
who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever.

Oh, somebody on TV said it, thus it must be true. Dang (slaps forehead,
if I'd have only known, after all someone on TV said ....) Someone on TV
also said that a National Guard commander typed a memo in the 1970's
detailing how Bush was given special treatment -- that turned out to be
forged documents. The person who most strongly pushed that story on TV
never really did admit that a forgery had occurred (what was the phrase,
"the documents were fake, but factually correct"?) When looking at
statements, there are 1) facts, 2) opinions, 3) feelings, and 4) beliefs.
What you saw on TV was someone stating an opinion based upon their opinions
formed from their beliefs. Did they cite any facts that backed up their
statement?

What can you think of that is better since he became president?

Let's see, the economy is recovering quite nicely from the Clinton
recession. The stock market has recovered from both the 2000 "correction"
and the severe drop that occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate has
achieved what is considered virtual full employment (around 5%). The
housing market has been humming along and doing very well. The deficit has
decreased during the past year. Afghanistan is no longer controlled by a
bunch of wild-eyed islamofascists who harbor terrorists and terrorist
training camps and is well on the way to a democratic society. Iraq just
held not one, not two, but three elections in which the people were able to
freely choose those they want to lead them and a constitution. This after
decades during which anything even resembling dissent got one's tongue cut
out or worse.

The only good news for the Dems is the fact that the housing market took
a large drop this past month. Anybody want to take any bets how much play
that is going to get over the next month? That will get huge play time to
illustrate how we live in a soup-line America in which everyone is just one
paycheck away from living under an underpass somewhere. The sad thing is
that the opposition party has set themselves up such that for them to do
well, the rest of America must suffer some setback or major tragedy.

Are things perfect? No, but to paint Bush as the worst president ever is
the ultimate in hyperbole.

And don't
blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.

Steve

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:35:19 -0800, David Stuve wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Probably would have been a good thing. Funny thing was, that there was
really only one comment made in that vein. Now you've managed to turn
that
into an excoriation of not just the sitting president, but all former
presidents who didn't share your party affiliation or apparent left-wing
views.

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking;

And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.

-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with
him"

Your interpretation was flawed.

-ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals
with
him

Ditto.

-using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam

Saddam claimed he had WMD. The Democrats in congress agreed that Saddam
had WMD (yes, I can provide the link to the cites. Again.) AQ didn't
like us. The stated reason for going to war, which the Democrats agreed
with (and now pretend they never heard of) was to keep Saddam from
giving the WMDs that all agreed he had, to AQ.

-lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war

Bush is in Britain now?

-outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work

Yawn.

-doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers
we've ever seen

What the HELL was Bush supposed to do about that? You give the guy
credit for more power than he has.

-losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina -

Yeah, because he controls the weather now (rolls eyes)

and then
lying and saying he was never asked for help

The Governor controls the National Guard and you (should) know it. Bush
sending federal troops into a state without a request from the governer
would have been a serious abuse of constitutional protections.

-never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with
him

Yawn.

-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no
Judicial
oversight

We'll see.

Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop
to
atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets.
Fun stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
Steve Peterson wrote:

Bush is a war criminal.

Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who
wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted
around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.

"Bush is a war criminal."

BS

"What can you think of that is better since he became president? "

Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately? Very short memory huh? Also,
the economy is great, check the actual figures, not the boys down at the
corner bar.

Walt Conner

crossposted to alt.politics
followups to: alt.politics

WConner wrote:
"Bush is a war criminal."

BS

"What can you think of that is better since he became president? "

Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately? Very short memory huh?

...

One month after taking office, obviously before Clinton's national
security
people were in place the World Trade Center in New York was attacked
by a foreign group with a half-dozen fatalities. There was no other
significant successful attack by a foreign paramilitary group within
the borders of the United for the remainder of the Clinton
Administration.

Nine months after Bush took office, by which time HIS national security
people were in place, the World Trade Center was attacked and 3,000
people killed.

Yes, you have a very short memory indeed.

--

FF

CW wrote:
Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.

I sugest you DAGS for the text of the 1949 Geneva conventions.
A declaration of war in s not a predicate condition for their
applicability.

I've read the the US has never fully ratified the 1949 conventions.
If you can find out which parts the US has rejected, please let me
know.

--

FF

note crossposting and followups.

Leon wrote:
"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
nk.net...

Both sides had the same "intelligence,"

False. AFAIK, no one otld the Congress that
the yellowcake documents were forgeries, something
that the Bush administration could harldynot have
known. No one told the Congress the truth about the
81mm Medusa missle tubes. No one told the Congress
that the only administration source for information
about the Iraqi bioweapons programs was a man who
had not been to Iraq in 15 years and was described by
German intelligance as a crazy drunk.

but only 1 decided to invade
another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first
and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war
criminal.

Wrong, both sides agreed to invade.

False. The Congress did not declare war, which would
have compelled the President to make war. The Congress
authorized the use of military force, which left that use
to the discretion of the President. That authorization was
necessary to force Iraq's compliance with UN 1441. Iraq
then complied with UN 1441, and Bush invaded anyways.

--

FF

Nore crossposting and followups

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:56:57 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:

snip
He's provided you dozens of cites. That you choose to ignore the fact
that both sides of the aisle agreeed that SH had WMD's says more about
your
"open-minded" politics and "careful study and search for the truth" than
anything else

Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another
country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then
flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.

A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after
insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the
2001 resolutions gave the president that authority).

False. The 2001 resolution authorized
the use of military force in response to the
attacks of September 11, 2001. It was not a
blanket authorization to make war any time,
any place, for any other reason. It also restricted
the President to necessary and proper actions.
The invasion of Iraq was neither, within the context
of the 2001 resolution.

The second resolution
was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them
in the 2002 elections.

ISTR The second resoution was acted on
at the request of the President. It was entirely
proper for the President to request it and entirely
proper for the Congress to pass it. The President
should then have supported the UN inpsections
that he had so adamantly inisted upon, instead
of materially obstructing them, and politically
undermining them.

Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one
person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that
only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.

It is accurate. The decision to invade was left to
the President. The Congress waived it's authority
to weigh in on that issue when it declared to include
any conditional language within the war powers
resolution.

--

FF

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" wrote:

Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.

Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants, the
insurgents and terrorists that we are fighting (Geneva Convention does not
extend protection to "irregulars" and "spies") do not fall under protection
of the Geneva convention. That we are attempting to extend those
protections to such irregulars says more about us. [as does the Al Quaeda
bill of rights that Democrat John McCain got squirrelled into the latest
defense appropriations bill].

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
. ..
Steve Peterson wrote:

Bush is a war criminal.

Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who
wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted
around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Note crossposting and followups

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" wrote:

Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.

Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,

False.

You should read them before commenting on them.

The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
provisions.

The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
treatment
and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
exception, even our own citizens.

the
insurgents and terrorists that we are fighting (Geneva Convention does not
extend protection to "irregulars" and "spies") do not fall under protection
of the Geneva convention.

Again False. Protections for spies,sabotuers and civilians accused of
a beligerant act (e.g. guerillas or partisans not in uniform) not only
are found
in the 1949 Geneva Conventions but also in other international treaties

at least as far back as the early 20th century. Check out the Hague
Conventions.In the US protections for spies date back to a time befor
there even was a United States, by an act of the Continental Congress
in 1775.

Check it out for yourself and then let Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson
know for me, OK?

That we are attempting to extend those
protections to such irregulars says more about us. [as does the Al Quaeda
bill of rights that Democrat John McCain got squirrelled into the latest
defense appropriations bill].

The prohibition against torture in that bill was certainly not needed.
What was needed was enforcement of existing laws.

The UCMJ prohibits assault, battery, and acts of cruelty making it
impossible to torture a prisoner without violating the UCMJ. No
officer, not even the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to
order a violation of the UCMJ.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
My last response on this to you Fred. I'm tired of your @#$%'ing with
the follow-ups. I'm not playing that game.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:47:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On 24 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0800, wrote:

Note crossposting and followups

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:28:22 GMT, "CW" wrote:

Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away
with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva
Convention.

Given that the Geneva convention applies to uniformed combatants,

False.

You should read them before commenting on them.

The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend
to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a
refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT
justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those
provisions.

Fine Fred, yes the Geneva Convention addresses spies and saboteurs, not
allowing torture, but fully allowing execution of said spies and
saboteurs, they just have to be granted a trial prior to execution. They
are NOT treated as prisoners of war in the same manner as uniformed
regulars.

Good. I'm glad you took the time to read them.

Now, the nest time one of your idols prattles on about how the GCs
don't
protect someone, what are you gonig to think about him?

The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
treatment
and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without
exception, even our own citizens.

Therein lies the problem, we are now extending that "cruel and degrading"
treatment clause to include "making the terrorists uncomfortable".

No.

OTOH, water torture is tortue, no matter what you call it.

How were Habibullah and Dilawar killed?

Why?

Bottom line, with thinking like this, we are doomed as a country.

If by thinking like this you mean abandoning morality and rejecting
the rule of law, which you seem to advocate or at least excuse,
yes.

--

FF

David Stuve wrote:
I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
intrigued
at Camp David he would
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
a fun
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.

Dave

I wonder, when Jimmy smiles out in the shop, how much sawdust would you
think he can trap wit 'dem big ol' teeth?

Tom in KY, with a pretty dang big smile myself :-D

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NEW EXPERIENCE ON THE BLOCK(BID-PRO)	Money	Metalworking	1	July 7th 05 03:26 PM
NEW EXPERIENCE ON THE BLOCK(BID-PRO)	Money	Metalworking	0	July 7th 05 06:32 AM
NEW EXPERIENCE ON THE BLOCK(BID-PRO)	Money	Metalworking	0	July 7th 05 03:53 AM
NEW EXPERIENCE ON THE BLOCK(BID-PRO)	[email protected]	Metalworking	2	July 6th 05 04:28 PM
NEW EXPERIENCE ON THE BLOCK(BID-PRO)	Money	Metalworking	0	July 6th 05 01:07 PM

Menu

About Us