He has done a lot of work with Habitat, you may find something at their
site.
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

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

"No" wrote in message ...
He has done a lot of work with Habitat, you may find something at their
site.
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

"CW" wrote

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

No doubt he is a better human than a top posting troll.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:38:20 GMT, "CW" wrote:

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

Jimmy Carter, IMHO, was too Good a Man for the office he held.

Lenny

CW wrote:
I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.

I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
pretty good.

--
Frank Stutzman

You do have a point.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.

I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
pretty good.

--
Frank Stutzman

"CW" wrote in message
news
You do have a point.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.

I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However,
considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was
pretty good.

--
Frank Stutzman


Apparently the group isn't aware of what President and Mrs. Carter have
accomplished since their White House days. If you are interested, check out
www.cartercenter.org.

TinWoodsmn wrote:



Apparently the group isn't aware of what President and Mrs. Carter have
accomplished since their White House days. If you are interested, check out
www.cartercenter.org.



And apparently you think that lots of fine charity work makes up for:

1) Presiding over simultaneous economic stagnation and skyhigh
inflation that just crippled the country. Granted, this was by no
means all his fault (Nixon helped with his idiodic wage and price
fixing), but Carter did literally nothing to stop the bleeding.
He could give away every hour of the rest of his life and every
dime he ever made and still never come close to making restitution
for the economic harm he enabled.

2) His regular support and even praise for dictators and despots like
Castro because they tow the Leftie line of jamming the government
into every facet of an individual's life. He seems incapable
of grasping that "healthcare for all" in Cuba really means
"equally LOUSY healthcare for all in Cuba". If he is going to
call out those of us adamantly opposed to government involvement
in private matters (like healthcare), the least he could do is
quit visiting Walter Reed and go to Havana when he's sick.

3) His undermining of a sitting president during wartime. It's his
privilege to say what he wishes, but doing this is just low class.
If he objects to current US policy, he should be using his stature
to *quietly* influence the halls of power because as a former President
he has uncommon access to the halls of power.

4) The hypocracy of writing about our "lost American values" and teaching
Sunday School, while he overtly supports a party that sees nothing
wrong with 3rd-trimester abortion, that thinks that people who work
hard should pay for the rehabilitation of crackheads and whores,
and that believes that no religious expression ought ever to be seen
in anything public whatsoever. I'm suprised any Baptist church
lets him in the door let alone teach anything.

For the record, I no Republican/Rightwinger - they have many sins to
atone for as well. I also am quite sure Carter is a well-intentioned
fellow, a fine husband and father, and a paragon of personal virtue. (In
fact, he and Joe Lieberman are just about the *only* high profile
Lefties that fit that description.) He was just a really lousy President
and his finger wagging about the rest of us and our morals is ludicrous.
When he stops supporting the flatout murder of 6-9 month old humans and
calls the Democratic party out for being the den of vipers it is, then
I'll start taking him more seriously.

'Sorry, but charity does not compensate for incompetence and self-appointed
moral guardianship of all the Rest Of Us...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Note crosposting and follow-ups.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

4) The hypocracy of writing about our "lost American values" and teaching
Sunday School,

You're the one doing the whining.

while he overtly supports a party that sees nothing
wrong with 3rd-trimester abortion, that thinks that people who work
hard should pay for the rehabilitation of crackheads and whores,
and that believes that no religious expression ought ever to be seen
in anything public whatsoever. I'm suprised any Baptist church
lets him in the door let alone teach anything.


I was aware that the Baptist Church was opposed to abortion.

I was not aware that they were opposed to the rehabilitation of
crackheads and whores.

Learn something new every day.

While we are on that subject, just what is the basis for the objection
of
certain 'evangelicals', to the Big Bang Theory? I always thought it
was
popular in Christian circles, "and God said, 'Let there be light.'" and
Bang! there was a Universe. Certainly the Pastor at the church where
my Astronomy Club used to meet liked it.

Yet recently I've recently read no less than three such persons
expressing
derision toward the theory, the specifics of those criticisms made it
clear
that they did not understand the theory, nor science in general, so one
presumes their opposition to have been religiously inspired.

--

FF

Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.

It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings
out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the
reasons would be facinating.

wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:07:10 GMT, Joe Barta
wrote:

Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.

It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush
brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion
of the reasons would be facinating.

Count the dead in Iraq.


Exactly why I mentioned "intelligent and rational". One can get this
sort of blather anywhere.

Joe Barta wrote:

Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.


It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings
out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the
reasons would be facinating.

Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the ideological
Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and honor in the
neverending quest for power... i.e., There is neither reason nor
intelligence being brought to bear from the Left (though both
certainly appear on an individual level) when it comes to political
matters. They just want to win at any cost.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush
brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion
of the reasons would be facinating.

Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the
ideological Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and
honor in the neverending quest for power... i.e., There is
neither reason nor intelligence being brought to bear from the
Left (though both certainly appear on an individual level) when it
comes to political matters. They just want to win at any cost.


I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average
people that normally might not be that interested in politics or
current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme.
Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and
those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid,
and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening
they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think
it's about a quest for power. Actually I'd think a bit of "mob
mentality" might have something to do with it.

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average
people that normally might not be that interested in politics or
current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme.
Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and
those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid,
and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening
they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think

Interesting question - to tie it back to Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure either
really deserves their infamy.

I think the reaction to GW comes from the fact that he's the "Face man." As
such he gets to bask in the limelight of the astoungly effective Republican
PR machine. (Gets guaranteed standing ovations, mostly speaks only to
carefully picked audiences, almost never answers questions that aren't
vetted first, etc.) On the down side, that role makes him the lightning rod
for criticism every time someone in his administration does something wrong.
The lightning rod effect is probably magnified due to the efforts to make
him seem so heroic. Go around telling people how good or perfect you are
and you'll experience a similar increase in criticism.

The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but
in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a
thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to
long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's
positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority
of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues.
And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a
Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of
negatives reported in the last five years:

There's loyalty oaths that had to be signed to see him during 2004,
responding slowly and poorly to the Katrina disaster, torturing POWs, secret
CIA prisons overseas, a screwed up invasion of Iraq, failure to bring Bin
Laden to justice, mass firings of people who disagree with GW, huge
deficits, jobs and capital going overseas in record amounts, and corruption
in congress. And now the NSA is spying on American citizens.

Bush isn't directly responsible for many of those things, but as 'CEO' and
face man he sets the tone for the administration, and the buck does stop at
his desk.

Dave

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve" wrote:

.... snip
The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but
in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a
thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to
long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's
positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority
of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues.
And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a
Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of
negatives reported in the last five years:

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.


.... snip


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

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

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve"
wrote:

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all
of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.

Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my experiences
say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it seemed like
every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other channels did.
Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and seems to be aimed
purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me nervous - Bill
O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at and intimidating
people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much more open minded.
As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least I think they're
jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree with her. The
other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and Fox prefers to
report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre circus atmosphere
to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I believe. Personally
I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get people's hearts
pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and they'll keep watching.

After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes." It's
just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story as "US
Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued success."
There's a lot of spin in that headline.

Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more than
just one source.

Dave

"David Stuve" wrote in message
news:1YednXTkMtDIjzPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve"
wrote:

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you?
If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all
of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant
that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.

Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my
experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it
seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other
channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and
seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me
nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at
and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much
more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least
I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree
with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and
Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre
circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I
believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get
people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and
they'll keep watching.

After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes."
It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story
as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued
success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.

Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more
than just one source.


Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we
came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers.
Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters
were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the
action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.

But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that
results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then
parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on
better reasons for the bloodshed.

Merry Christmas all.

And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions
in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.

Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that,
understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different
things.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm


"Charles Self" wrote in message
...
"David Stuve" wrote in message
news:1YednXTkMtDIjzPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve"

wrote:

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do
you?
If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources
as all
of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from
the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published
verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that
fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators
on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the
slant
that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.

Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US
I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY
ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my
experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during
2004 it
seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the
other
channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal,
and
seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts
make me
nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by
raging at
and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't
much
more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at
least
I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't
agree
with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in
Iraq and
Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this
bizarre
circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're
#1 I
believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights
phenomenon. Get
people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and
they'll keep watching.

After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I
realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since
Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops
invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their
homes."
It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same
story
as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued
success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.

Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from
more
than just one source.


Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as
we
came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with
teenagers.
Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's
reporters
were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed
the
action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.

But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action
that
results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because
then
parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist
on
better reasons for the bloodshed.

Merry Christmas all.

And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's
actions
in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.

Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing
that,
understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very
different
things.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat
in Congress than the center."

todd

todd said:

Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat
in Congress than the center."

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.



Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
todd said:

Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score
to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
Democrat
in Congress than the center."

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.

Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human?
That is one vile woman.

Charles Self wrote:

"Greg G." wrote in message
...

todd said:


Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score
to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
Democrat
in Congress than the center."

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.


Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human?
That is one vile woman.

All those big words she uses are confusing?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Charles Self wrote:

"Greg G." wrote in message
...

todd said:


Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is
closer
to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the
CBS
Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on
whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the
study
says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets
except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a
score to
the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets,
including
the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average
Democrat
in Congress than the center."

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting.
Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly.
I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.


Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
human? That is one vile woman.

All those big words she uses are confusing?


Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
contain a major number of big words.

Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently
is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy,
Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.

I AGREE

"Guess who" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.

Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
kinds of abuse.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.

Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
kinds of abuse.

Guess who wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.

Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that
ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other
kinds of abuse.

Like the OT crap you just posted?

Charles Self wrote:
SNIP

Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
human? That is one vile woman.

All those big words she uses are confusing?



Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
contain a major number of big words.

It's not a practical option. Any nuclear detonation in the Middle East
will cause radioactive particles to encircle the globle courtesy of
the jet stream. A far better option is to send Iran our "best and
brightest" like Babs Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney,
Tim Robbins, etc. With their deep understanding of geopolitcs
and their "help", we'd have Iran begging for mercy (the extraction
of those aforementioned bozos) and willing to do our ever bidding.


Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently
is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy,
Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way
of ruling the world.


Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.

Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.

BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Let's get back to talking Woodworking and stop this crap. Go to another
newsgroup if you want to talk politics.



"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Charles Self wrote:
SNIP

Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something
human? That is one vile woman.

All those big words she uses are confusing?



Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran"
contain a major number of big words.

It's not a practical option. Any nuclear detonation in the Middle East
will cause radioactive particles to encircle the globle courtesy of
the jet stream. A far better option is to send Iran our "best and
brightest" like Babs Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney,
Tim Robbins, etc. With their deep understanding of geopolitcs
and their "help", we'd have Iran begging for mercy (the extraction
of those aforementioned bozos) and willing to do our ever bidding.


Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement
consistently is just going for shock value. She should get together with
your buddy, Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a
sensible way of ruling the world.


Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.

Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.

BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave wrote:

Let's get back to talking Woodworking and stop this crap. Go to another
newsgroup if you want to talk politics.

1) This group has wandered Off Topic for many years.

2) You are not the group's Den Mother so quit handing out advice.
Do you moderate conversations with your friends when you're all
sitting around the coffee shop?

3) Learn to use filters.

4) Whoever started this thread did so *on* topic and then the
thread drifted *off* topic. When this happend, the subject should
have been changed to note this fact and it was not. This was
a Bad Thing. I have now fixed it in this subthread.

5) Relax and have a lovely week...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.

One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
to do so.


Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.

Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
vile.

BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...

Can you believe he got half a billion bucks? For what? I really don't need
anyone to teach me how to cuss, and that seems to be all he does. He's not
even talented at it.

By the way, you're wrong about his IQ, unless he wears a terribly small
shoe. He has the IQ of a Pet Rock or a Pet Rock buyer.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm



Thanks Steve, that was an interesting read. I think the study is flawed -
their metrics are just way too simple. I'm no expert, but I've seen bias
show up in editorial decisions of what to cover, and then the opinion
pieces - neither of which is covered by the study.

examples:
I could run stories all day long challenging the administration, bring
guests on who call the administration a bunch of cruel jerks that would make
Scrooge look like Mother Theresa, and cite a few studies by the Rand
corporation in a story about national defense and be branded on the right
politically?

Or run terror alerts all day, wave the flag and try to make GW look heroic
no matter what, cynically urgent stories about "Christmas Under Attack", a
few hours of Hannity and O'Reilly complaining that our social safety net is
wasteful and for sissies, and that John Kerry looks French and you don't
trust him. Put up one chart by the Brookings Institute on the economy and
you're politically on the Left?

Or better yet, run whatever you want but don't cite anybody, just lace your
coverage with "some say" or "there are those who say" and then enter your
pro- or ant- bias there. Your citation ratio is 0 - does that mean you're
politically neutral?

Or what if your politician for comparison is a rabid idealogue who rages all
day on the senate or house floor using emotion and innuendo to make ugly
slurs against the Left or Right and never uses citations to back up their
crazy arguments. Are they centrist?

Wow, the more I write the less I like their metrics. I'd be very interested
to see who's funding this study. It smells like one of those "here's the
conclusion we want, make something fit" studies used all too often in
politics these days.

Dave

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.

One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
to do so.


Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
Michael Moore and Al Franken?




Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.

Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
vile.
.... snip


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

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

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

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:25:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
Michael Moore and Al Franken?


They are not Political Commentators.

"Political Commentator" is a term that the media uses to describe a
half way house between Editorial Staff and Some Asshole Off The
Street.

Michael Moore and Al Franken, in this instance, would fall into the
latter category.

So would you - or I.

Unless someone pays them.

In this case, someone does.

I personally believe that this brings them under the umbrella of
Editorial Staff. But - WTF do I know.

BTW - Fox News is a ****ing joke.

("Remember The Maine")



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Charles Self wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That*
is vile.


One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others
to do so.

However good or bad Coulter's ideas are (and she's expressed both kinds)
there are just *ideas*. What happened "over 30 years ago" *killed*
another person. There's a huge difference, morally and qualitatively,
between good/bad ideation and manslaughter.

You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
in this claim. For all the gory details see:

"The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive
and the Secret History of the KGB"

http://tinyurl.com/dg22s

This is a primary source from a former KGB senior officer who
defected in the 1980s and confirms widespread Communist
infiltration throughout the West at almost frightening levels.

McCarthy got painted with a brush that started long before he
was ever in office by HUAC - The *House* UnAmerican Activities
Committee - McCarthy was a *senator*. He was a depicable paranoid
drunk, but he was right about some things, and Coulter has been
almost alone in giving him his due.


Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.


Sure she's hyperbolic but so is pretty much every commentator on all
sides in popular culture. Any civilization that has the short attention
span to actually require shows like "Deal Or No Deal" and "Fear Factor"
isn't going to listen to thoughtful political commentary. It has to
be dished out like Reality TV. Coulter can be outrageous sometimes
but she is consistently funny. The rest of gasbags in that space
(O'Reilley, Hannity, Franken, the New York Times entire editorial staff ...)
are neither interesting NOR funny. Give her some credit...


Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment
is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are
vile.

BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred
of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size.
I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again
accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...


Can you believe he got half a billion bucks? For what? I really don't need
anyone to teach me how to cuss, and that seems to be all he does. He's not
even talented at it.

By the way, you're wrong about his IQ, unless he wears a terribly small
shoe. He has the IQ of a Pet Rock or a Pet Rock buyer.



In retrospect, I think he's a genius for getting that much money on
so little actual ability. It is his audience that has the IQ of
shoeleather...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 26 Dec 2005 18:15:05 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
in this claim. For all the gory details see:



Did you go to college?

If you did, does the concept of Academic Freedom have any resonance?

If every teacher at the college level is to be judged by what meetings
they attended, and I mean, attended, which is different than the
degree of participation breathlessly proclaimed by your reference,
then the whole concept goes to hell.

And it is a fine concept.

When I was at school I had a course in Marxism.

Does that make me a Marxist?

If I had chosen to work for the government and Fox News dug up the
fact that I had taken a course on Marxism, and referred to it as:

"Mr. Watson was heavily involved in Marxist thought as a young man.",

Without explaining further, without misstating the fact but ignoring
the context of the facts - would you be OK with that?

Oppenheimer was an academic, who went to work for the government, as
so many do. When Joe decided to go after he and others,Joe acted very
much like Fox News.

That is why I call Fox News -


The New McCarthyism.





Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Subject

That outfit would screw up a wet dream.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all.
*That*
is vile.

One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile.
She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites
others
to do so.


Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
Michael Moore and Al Franken?




Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is
entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties
shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty
entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that
it is.

Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their
entertainment
is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they
are
vile.
... snip

Actually, I don't much like them, but I don't recall them delighting in the
concept of nuking another country, so, no, they're not vile, at least not in
the same sense as Ms Coulter.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:04:25 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:12:26 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her
either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her
ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into
a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all.
*That*
is vile.

One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years
ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile.
She
would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites
others
to do so.


Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like
Michael Moore and Al Franken?


... snip
Actually, I don't much like them, but I don't recall them delighting in the
concept of nuking another country, so, no, they're not vile, at least not in
the same sense as Ms Coulter.


Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to them. Ann Coulter is mild
compared the vehemence they exhibit. [But then, they exhibit their vitriol
from a political viewpoint more to your liking]

Michael Moore calls conservatives paranoid, yet travels the country with
a raft of bodyguards who, at book signings would order people to "take
their hands out of their pockets" (Geoff Olson, "Common Ground" December
2003). When asked by Bill Maher how he got ordinary Americans to say
incredibly stupid things, Moore replied it was easy, he just turns on the
camera and doesn't interrupt them. A person who publishes a book called
"Stupid White Men" and then subtitled it in Germany to "Stupid White Men,
Settling the Score with Bush" seems meet the definition for 'vile'. He has
made statements in Germany criticising Americans' intelligence and asking,
"should such an ignorant people lead the world?"

Moore pales in comparison with Al Franken in the vileness department;
Franken makes Coulter look like a nun. At a black tie dinner in
Washington, Franken went up to Karl Rove and said, "I'm Al Franken, I hate
you and you hate me". Rove told him, "I haven't met you. You seem like a
nice fellow, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't hate you" (Newsweek,
March 29, 2004). One of his comments directed toward John McCain, "Anybody
could get captured. Essentially he sat out the war". In the April 26,
1976 Harvard Crimson, while Franken was writing for SNL, "I just don't like
Homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding
[reference to Hasty Pudding Club which he was not asked to join while he
was at Harvard]. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in
Philedelphia" Seems like that is the very definition of vile. There are
numerous other examples, most of which are much more than some statements
made by a political commentator that border more on hyperbole than outright
personal attacks.



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

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

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

Tom Watson wrote:

On 26 Dec 2005 18:15:05 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:



You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said
for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was -
was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US
generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated
in this claim. For all the gory details see:




Did you go to college?

Yes. And Graduate School. And I taught Grad School as well.


If you did, does the concept of Academic Freedom have any resonance?

It does. It is also a distant memory, killed off primarily by the
drooling chimps on the political Left in this case. See this for many
pungent examples:

http://www.thefire.org/

Moreover, there have always been reasonable limits to academic freedom.
I taught in a private Catholic university. I am not Catholic. I was not
"free" to denigrate Catholicism, promote Protestantism, or otherwise
thwart the stated religious position of the school. Similarly, the
physics professors were not "free" to teach that the sun revolved around
a flat earth.

These days "adademic freedom" mostly gets trotted out by the Left when
they want public monies to continue running their collectivist madrassas
in the public university system. The organization referenced above is
one of the few left actually interested in true academic discourse.


If every teacher at the college level is to be judged by what meetings
they attended, and I mean, attended, which is different than the
degree of participation breathlessly proclaimed by your reference,
then the whole concept goes to hell.


There is a profound difference between a bunch of ignorant Smelly
Hippies going to a Berkeley lecture on the joys of Marxism and active
Communist infiltration of the US government from FDR forward. Mitrokhin
details this and many other Communist activities like KGB funding of the
'anti war' movement in the 1960s in exquisite detail.

Did HUAC and McCarthy go too far? Of course. Congress Critters almost
always do. But their deeply held suspicions about the malodorous
presence of Communism in US government was well founded. And *that* is
what Coulter has been almost alone in defending.


And it is a fine concept.

When I was at school I had a course in Marxism.

Does that make me a Marxist?

Depends whether or not you bought the nonsense Marx peddled.


If I had chosen to work for the government and Fox News dug up the
fact that I had taken a course on Marxism, and referred to it as:

"Mr. Watson was heavily involved in Marxist thought as a young man.",

Without explaining further, without misstating the fact but ignoring
the context of the facts - would you be OK with that?

Do you have no stones of your own? Are you incapable of speaking in your
own defense? Are you so tender and delicate that the first sign of
accusation would have you running to hide? Given your many blustering
posts here, I rather doubt anyone could accuse you of much of anything
without some sharp retort on your part.


Oppenheimer was an academic, who went to work for the government, as
so many do. When Joe decided to go after he and others,Joe acted very
much like Fox News.

Excuse me Sparky, but the fear that Oppenheimer might be an active
Communist again turns out to have great basis in reality. Go read
"Bombshell" by Albright et al for (again) an detailed analysis of the
considerable presence of Communist agents among the US atomic community
throughout the end of WWII and thereafter. There was an active Communist
presence at all levels of the atomic research world that ultimately led
to the bomb being given to the Soviets. And these were not of the the "I
attended a meeting and listened to Marxist drivel" variety. These were
confirmed ideological Communists working for a foreign power while a
part of a key US defense system.

But for the Professionally Enlightened Thinkers like you, it's just too
mean to go after people suspected of such things. If, say, we today
discovered the chief scientist of Los Alamos (the place where they do nuke
weapons simulation) was a radical Islamist, you'd no doubt be outraged
if the US government actually did something about it. Never let sanity
get in the way of Political Correctness.

Again, HUAC and McCarthy behaved badly ... and the rest of the Congress
went along with it, at least for a while. But that doesn't change the
fundamentally correct basis upon which they were proceeding. There *was*
Communist intelligence presence in virtually every strata of US
government, public institutions, and popular culture. It represented an
active an ongoing attempt by the Soviets to overthrow the US. The Soviet
intention of world domination never wavered except at the very end. It
merely changed tactics over time.

The problem with most people who grew up in North America and/or only in
the last 30 years is that you don't grasp how profoundly evil Communism
actually is. You're deeply concerned about "Free Speech" and "Academic
Freedom" without grasping that neither exist at all in a
Communist/Collectivism system. You don't begin to grasp the horrors
foisted upon 10s of millions of people by the Communists in the first
half of the 20th Century alone. Stalin killed between 20 and 30 million
of my countrymen in *less than 3 years* (thus making Hitler look like a
mere piker) and that was before WWII even got started. Having a high
degree of suspicion and fear of Communism was utterly justified in the
1940s-1980s. The behavior of the Soviets, Chinese, Mongolians, Cubans,
Angolans, etc. fully justified the West treating Communism as the cancer
that it was. Only in the halls of the Western academy, filled with
drooling Lefties, could Communism ever have been given a serious voice.



That is why I call Fox News -


The New McCarthyism.

You live in a world of illusion. Fox _news_ is not bent particularly
more to the Right than ABC/NBC/CBS news is bent to the Left. What makes
Fox different is that their _editorial_ bias is to the Right. So what?
For years the major networks and CNN have flogged a bias to the Left in
their editorial mumblings (listen to Lew Dobbs groan on with collectivist
fervor about the evils of offshoring, for instance). I say good for the
Right for finally fighting back. While I almost always disagree with
both the Left and Right on policy matters, in the absence of Fox there
would be NO balance - the whole mainstream news machine would be where
it was 20 years ago - completely tilted Left. Fox itself is not
"fair and balanced" editorially, but they bring balance to a previously
very tilted playing field.

But the real story here is None Of The Above. For the first time since
the Left collectivized the West in the 1940s and forward, people who hate
collectivism are fighting back. The Left is now faced with real critique
by Conservatives, Libertarians, and all manner of people who actually
value freedom. What we're finding, of course, is that the Left is
ideologically, spiritually, and intellectually a vacuum. It is a bag
of lousy ideas glued together with condescension and contempt for
"the people". Moreover, we now can examine the results of the 20th
Century lab experiment in collectivism and see the incredible damange
and suffering wrought at the hands of a system that Western Lefties
defended regularly.

And that's why there is so much screaming about Fox. It is one of many
places that expose the Left for the fraud that it is. Make no mistake
about it, the Right has plenty of really bad ideas. But the Right hasn't
been running things for 70 years. For most of the past century it has
been the Left that controlled culture, politics, policy, art,
literature, and the academy as a whole. It is high time the Left got
hoisted on its own petard...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 27 Dec 2005 13:25:03 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:



Fox itself is not
"fair and balanced" editorially,


Thank you.



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)