OT: Yes We Can

In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
> >more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
> The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
> originated at googlegroups.com .

Indeed.

--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:32 pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
>>>> more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>>> The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
>>> originated at googlegroups.com .
>> googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I
>> realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".
>>
>> Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
>> Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?
>>
>> --
>> Jack Novak
>> Buffalo, NY - USA
>> [email protected]
>
> Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
> Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.

Mozilla makes Firefox as a web browser. For email and newsgroup access,
Mozilla makes Thunderbird. Download from
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird
After downloading and installing Thunderbird, open the program, click on
Tools - Account Settings - Add Account, and fill in the blanks as requested.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Lew Hodgett took a can of maroon spray paint on March 7, 2008 04:58 pm and
wrote the following:

>
> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>
>> Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
>> Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.
>
> Your ISP provides the list of newsgroups, at least Earthlink.net does.
>
> After that, either OE6 or ThunderBird will work.
>
Charlie appears to be using wildblue.net as his ISP, going to that site
shows that they have partnered with Google, including their email. My
guess would be that they do not provide traditional usenet access.

--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You're all missing the point.
> Without a good leadership and a *working* majority in both House and
> Senate, who are doing the #right thing# and passing /working legislation
> that benefits the country as a whole/, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is
> going
> to change, except that the rich will get richerer and the poor poorer.

There is an old joke about a Senator who dies and goes to Heaven where he is
stopped at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter and told he has to choose between
Heaven and Hell, and he has to spend a day in each place before he makes up
his mind. So they send him to Hell where he is met by Satan who shows him
around. It turns out Hell is like a big country-club with tennis and
boating and horseback riding and has an awesome golf course were he meets
most of his old friends from politics for a game. Afterwards they all go to
the clubhouse where a hot jazz combo is playing and there is a hot-tub full
of Playboy bunnies and there's gourmet food and fine wine, everybody parties
until very late at night. He wakes up the next morning with one of the
bunnies beside him in bed, and he thinks Heaven will have to be really great
to top this. So they whisk him up to Heaven and it's nice, but kind of
dull. Most of his older relatives are there but hardly any of his political
pals, and they all drink tea and go for walks in beautiful gardens and read
in the biggest library he's ever seen and listen to a chamber orchestra and
discuss philosphy and art and history, he finds it all a bit dull. So at
the end of the day St. Peter asks the Senator if he's made up his mind. And
the Senator says "No offense, but I've seen Heaven and I've seen Hell and
frankly Hell seems like the place for me." "Okay," says St. Peter, "Your
choice." Whoosh, in an instant the Senator is in Hell, and it's nothing
like before. It's a horrific scene, the land is a ruin and the air is foul
with smoke, and his old pals from Washington are naked and filthy, covered
with scabs and sores and they're pawing through heaps of rotting garbage,
fighting each other for scraps of food, tormented by stinging insects and
rabid rats. There's sewage and decay and fear and agony as far as the eye
can see and the wails of the damned echo across the bleak landscape. As the
Senator stands stunned with horror, Satan walks up and says, "I know you're
confused, this isn't the Hell we showed you yesterday. But you have to
understand, yesterday we were campaigning, today you voted."

"Robatoy" wrote:

She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power.
Dude.... take a look at her, will you?

You can do better than that.

Lew

Jeff wrote:

> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 12:35 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 9:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> > > > > This gave me goose bumps:
>>
>> > > > >http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>>
>> > > >
>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>>
>> > > > I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the
>> > > > primaries.
>>
>> > > She's dangerous.
>>
>> > Enlighten us. How's she dangerous?
>>
>> She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power.
>> Dude.... take a look at her, will
>> you?http://grampyshouse.net/cliches/galleries/clintonh/clintonh.htm
>
> Are there specific policies that she advocates that fit your
> characterization of her as dangerous? She's not my preferred candidate
> but I'm not afraid of her or anything...

Can't speak for Robotoy, but some of the things that certainly are
frightening from a personal freedom standpoint:

1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US
economy with her National Health care plan. Why is this scary you ask,
isn't it compassionate and not scary? Look at how well national health
care has worked everywhere it has been tried. You like how Britain's
National Health care works? Canada is slipping into the same issues.
When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes
have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets
instituted. But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she
persists in the notion that her plan will work.

2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the oil
companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all manner
of neo-socialist utopian plans. Think about those words, "I'm going to
take those profits and ..." This is a person running for public office
essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a private
enterprise. *That* should scare anybody who works for a living and
especially those who have their own business. What this person is
effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much of
the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.

3. Charlie Tri (sp?), Norman Chieu (sp?), bus boys barely making minimum
wage, others in the lower class making the maximum allowed donation to her
campaign. Nope, no graft or corruption there.

4. Clinton Inc and the policy of personal destruction. Get in the Clinton's
way and they don't go after your viewpoint or ideas, they go after you
personally. Ask Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and others. The same people who
are going sub-orbital because of the sitting president wanting to be able
to monitor phone calls from the US to terrorist countries apparently don't
see a problem with one of the people from the former administration who had
cases of FBI files on US citizens that they were not permitted to have in
their possession.

There are many other numerous reasons to fear this person. She is
manipulative beyond the normal politician, vindictive, and philosophically
leans toward strong socialism. That should frighten anybody who believes
in financial and personal freedoms.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

>> 1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US
>> economy with her National Health care plan. Why is this scary you ask,
>> isn't it compassionate and not scary? Look at how well national health
>> care has worked everywhere it has been tried. You like how Britain's
>> National Health care works?
>
> Yes I do.
>
>>Canada is slipping into the same issues.
>> When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes
>> have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets
>> instituted.
>
> Gasp! In crease taxes when system gets overloaded. You mean don't give a
> "tax cut" ??
>
>
>> But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she
>> persists in the notion that her plan will work.
>
> Gasp! Fear change. Fear change. Stay the course!!
>
>>
>> 2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the
>> oil companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all
>> manner
>> of neo-socialist utopian plans. Think about those words, "I'm going to
>> take those profits and ..." This is a person running for public office
>> essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a
>> private
>> enterprise. *That* should scare anybody who works for a living and
>> especially those who have their own business. What this person is
>> effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much
>> of the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.
>
> Want to know what scares me?
>
> a.. The "surge"

Yeah, I bet, especially since it seems to be working.

> a.. Alberto Gonzales

Why? Aside from some issues with incompetence, he certainly didn't seem
to be bent on accumulating FBI files for the president or staging a
commando raid on an admittedly whacked out cult leader but at the expense
of many lives or assaulting a Florida family in order to return a 9 year
old boy to the Cuban communist paradise after his mother died getting him
to freedom

> a.. Talking about gun rights 2 hours after the Virginia Tech massacre

Oh, maybe because within 30 minutes of the VT massacre, the anti-gun crowd
had already started screeching for more gun laws?

> a.. Katrina

Yep, state governors should listen to their advisors. And city mayors who
don't evacuate their people with all available assets (such as school
buses)

> a.. Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank

Eh?

> a.. Losing 5 million E-mails

Yeah, that's a whole lot worse than holding FBI files of your political
opposition.


> a.. Reading my Pet Goat on 9/11

Oh please.


> a.. Valerie plame

Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the
NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My Word!
We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard
Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.

> a.. Firing the prosecutors

Perfectly within the perview of the sitting administration. The
prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the administration.

> a.. Invasion of the wrong country

Yeah, attacking Canada was a bad idea. Oh, we didn't attack Canada? Well
let's see. Afghanistan? Taking down the Taliban was a very good idea.
Iraq? You are aware that we were already flying daily missions over Iraq
and dropping ordnance ever since the end of the first Gulf war? It would
be so much better if Saddam were still in power with his sons torturing
soccer players and shredding dissidents while his own security guard was
still busy cutting out peoples' tongues and sawing off arms with sawzalls.
yeah, that was the wrong place to go after. I guess it's better when you
attack countries like Kosovo and Bosnia where we have absolutely no
national interest.


> a.. Denying global warming

Yep, let's all jump on the bandwagon of bad science because somebody made
a movie.

> a.. Dubai ports deal

Seems that got defeated.

> a.. Jeff gannon

You find a person who faked journalistic credentials more frightening than
political donors whose means are inconsistent with their donations but who
have ties to people from foreign countries who just might be trying to
influence political candidates?

> a.. Denying global warming

Really hung up on that bad science, aren't you?

> a.. Jack abramoff

That quieted down pretty quick when it was found that people from both
sides of the aisle were beneficiaries

> a.. Harriet meirs

Well, yeah. And that one didn't fly.


> a.. AWOL in the national guard

So you believe in the throbbing memo? Fake but accurate.


> a.. Illegal wiretaps

First you're griping because he didn't do enough on 9/11, now you are
griping because he's trying to stop the next attack. There is some debate
regarding the illegal part vs. the legislative branch overstepping their
authority regarding the executive branch

> a.. Terri Shiavo

Wow GW is the root of all sorts of evil I guess. It's too bad he took
exception to the idea of starving someone to death. Guess if she'd been in
Gitmo, things may have been different.

> a.. Losing $9 billion in Iraq

You need to expound upon this

> a.. Arsenic in Drinking Water

????

> a.. Misuse of the Patriot Act

How so? Has Bush used it to attack his opposition? What is wrong with
attempting to prevent the next terrorist attack?

> a.. Gitmo

Why?


> a.. Black CIA sites



> a.. Cheney shooting a guy

Be afraid, be very afraid

> a.. No bid contracts

You realize that Bill Clinton issued those to Halliburton, right?


> a.. No body armor

Why, is somebody coming after you?

> a.. Not catching Bin Ladin

When is the last time someone has seen him alive?



>
> Above bullets taken from:
> http://bushtheidiot.com/new1/?page_id=989

They seem to have left out the old canard about "tax cuts that only
benefit the rich".




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Hit "send" too soon

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

>> 1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US
>> economy with her National Health care plan. Why is this scary you ask,
>> isn't it compassionate and not scary? Look at how well national health
>> care has worked everywhere it has been tried. You like how Britain's
>> National Health care works?
>
> Yes I do.

Have you looked at the issues with wait times, the people who are dying
because they can't get the medical care they need because the system
doesn't have the doctors or funds available when they are needed? I guess
that's OK since everybody has to play in the same lottery.

>
>>Canada is slipping into the same issues.
>> When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes
>> have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets
>> instituted.
>
> Gasp! In crease taxes when system gets overloaded. You mean don't give a
> "tax cut" ??
>

You do realize that this has a detrimental effect on the economy, right?
Increasing taxes, especially on the most productive citizens tends to make
those productive citizens less productive because at some point, the reward
of the extra work is not worth the cost in terms of lost family time or
time away from doing things they like because taxes are taking too much to
make it worthwhile. So, the result is actually less tax revenue rather than
more tax revenue and a declining economy as well.


>
>> But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she
>> persists in the notion that her plan will work.
>
> Gasp! Fear change. Fear change. Stay the course!!
>

Yes, in this case I fear change in the same way I would fear someone
lighting a match in a dark explosives locker. Yes, they are *doing*
something, the only problem is that what they are doing is going to lead to
disastrous results. Not all change is good change. Other countries have
tried it and have a trail of problems in their wake, why would this attempt
be any different?

Secondary question, just exactly how big is this problem you are trying to
solve relative to the cost you are looking at incurring to solve it?
Especially when one examines the demographics of those not covered by
insurance, a significant portion are those in the younger age brackets who
are generally quite healthy and are taking a risk (yes, there is a gamble)
that they will stay that way until they reach an age they think they will
need insurance.




>>
>> 2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the
>> oil companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all
>> manner
>> of neo-socialist utopian plans. Think about those words, "I'm going to
>> take those profits and ..." This is a person running for public office
>> essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a
>> private
>> enterprise. *That* should scare anybody who works for a living and
>> especially those who have their own business. What this person is
>> effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much
>> of the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > a.. Valerieplame
>>
>> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the
>> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
>> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My Word!
>> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard
>> Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>>
>
> Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?
>
You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?

> Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
> think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
> for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality
> of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?
>

Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified that they did what you
said for the purposes you imply?


> I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
> Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
> persons who told him mishandled classified information.
> Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
> others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
> of that exercise is clear.
>
>

Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence and
all):

* The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her
husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not
Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was Richard
Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.
* Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip who
loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters"
and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling
Novak about Plame's identity."
* It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked for
the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence
that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available
evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing"
anyway.)
* In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that he
was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this information
from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared the White House
would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source--possibly to
embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about
Bush's Iraq policy."
* Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in
comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was
Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was
Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his
investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage go
public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"

From: <http://www.lesjones.com/posts/003606.shtml>

Other sources are available with the same information, this one was nice
and succinct.

Bottom line, the administration had nothing to do with this "leak", it was
done by the shadow government that's been attempting to undermine the Bush
administration since its inception.




> --
>
> FF

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lee Michaels wrote:

>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Woehl"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Mark and Juanita,
>>>I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong
>>>reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
>>>enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
>>>change so I am unsubscribing.
>>>Roger
>>
>> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
>>
>> What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What,
>> exactly,
>> about the subject line led you to believe that the post was
>> woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post
>> that
>> was clearly marked as off topic?
>>
> Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
> more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
> But since I am a rough, tough, macho internet denizen, i can cope. I can
> deal with it.
>
> <G>

Yes we can! :-)


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Roger
>>> Woehl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Mark and Juanita,
>>>>I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the
>>>>wrong
>>>>reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
>>>>enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
>>>>change so I am unsubscribing.
>>>>Roger

Just curious why he singled me out. It's not like I was the OP for this
OT thread. Maybe mine was the last entry he had read to him and it stepped
on his last nerve?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:42 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 7:32 pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
>>>>> more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>>>> The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
>>>> originated at googlegroups.com .
>>> googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I
>>> realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".
>>> Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
>>> Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?
>>> --
>>> Jack Novak
>>> Buffalo, NY - USA
>>> [email protected]
>> Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
>> Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.
>> Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to list any groups, never mind
>> choose them. I've tried OE, Opera, FF, and given up, so I use Google,
>> which is a PITA, as you know, because there are NO filters, so I get
>> to look at all the silly shit from the porn queens (there are no
>> kinds), guys worrying about the size of my pecker, and other guys
>> wanting to sell me replica Timex watches or cheap Gucci shoes.
>
> If I was going to pirate a watch brand, Timex would be MY first choice
> as well.. LOL

Not to mention a GENUINE cubic zirconium. I switched to Mozilla when I
found out that AOL was going to quit supporting Netscape. You need to
crank up IE and go to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/. Download
Thunderbird (the mail and newsgroup software) and Firefox (the web
browser). The installation software for Thunderbird will lead you
through setting up the newsgroups. RTFM and you'll be OK.
luck,
jo4hn

"Charlie Self" wrote:

> Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
> Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.

Your ISP provides the list of newsgroups, at least Earthlink.net does.

After that, either OE6 or ThunderBird will work.

Lew

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Mar 4, 9:35 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> > a.. Valerieplame
>>
>> >> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to
>> >> the
>> >> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
>> >> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My
>> >> Word!
>> >> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning
>> >> Richard Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>>
>> > Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?
>>
>> You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?
>
> How can Armitage 'admit' to something Wilson allegedly did?
>

Oh please Fred, you know what I meant. As far as Wilson having revealed
her name, there are numerous sources that indicate in years prior to this
silly hoopla the he mentioned his wife worked for the CIA.

>>
>> > Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
>> > think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
>> > for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality
>> > of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?
>>
>> Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified
>> that they did what you said for the purposes you imply?
>
> What other purpose could there possibly be?
>

Oh, let's try this. A pretty-much unknown guy by the name of Joe Wilson
gets sent to Niger to "investigate" the sale of yellow-cake uranium to
Iraq, comes back and says, nope, no yellow cake sales in Niger. Now, aside
from the fact that his investigation was as thorough as the old
skit, "nope, no vikings here, we're just simple farmers, the huts were on
fire and cows wandering the streets when we got here", he had an agenda and
used this trip to promote it. When he was asked who sent him, he made the
statement that he was sent directly at the behest of Dick Cheney. Cheney's
office indicates they had nothing to do with sending him. Don't you think
that a comment saying, well, his wife is an employee of the CIA in the same
division that would investigate this kind of thing and it appears that
*she* recommended him for this trip might be just a tiny bit relevant to
the overall story here?

>>
>> > I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
>> > Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
>> > persons who told him mishandled classified information.
>> > Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
>> > others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
>> > of that exercise is clear.
>>
>> Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence
>> and
>> all):
>>
>> * The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her
>> husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not
>> Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was
>> Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.
>
> Novak says he had two (2) sources. Who was the other?
>

Love your debating technique Fred. You get shown where you're wrong and
throw out another, "well, what about ...?". I'm not playing that game.

>> * Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip
>> who
>> loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters"
>> and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of
>> telling Novak about Plame's identity."
>
> I can believe that.
>
>> * It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked
>> for
>> the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities
>> Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence
>> that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available
>> evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing"
>> anyway.)
>
> Why was the information passed to Armitage, 'a notorious gossip'?
>

I don't know Fred, why don't you ask the people in the State Department
and CIA who hate the Bush administration and have been overtly and covertly
undermining the administration for the past 7 years? Why are you so
offended by this so-called security violation that wasn't while not
addressing my original question regarding why it was seemingly OK to leak
little things like the fact we were monitoring Al Quaeda satellite phone
conversations in Afghanistan or tracking money through international banks?
Little things that *really* caused the loss of serious national security
secrets and most likely have contributed to real soldiers' deaths, yet the
Valerie Plame "case" was worthy of an inquisition?

>> * In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that
>> he
>> was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this
>> information from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared
>> the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's
>> source--possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been
>> unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy."
>> * Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in
>> comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was
>> Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was
>> Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his
>> investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage
>> go public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"
>
> Novak says he had more than one source.
>

What the @#$% difference does that make?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:

> On Mar 7, 11:29 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Cheney's
>> office indicates they had nothing to do with sending him.
>
>
> Must be true then....Mark, Mark, Mark......

That and they had the documentation to back it up. Look, I know you don't
like the current administration, but in this case, one should logically ask
the question why the office of the VP would even think of sending someone
like Wilson on that kind of junket. You've got to give them a little bit
of credit that they would at least send someone who both had the
credentials and was supportive of the administration.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

NuWave Dave wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> That and they had the documentation to back it up. Look, I know you
>> don't
>> like the current administration, but in this case, one should
>> logically ask
>> the question why the office of the VP would even think of sending
>> someone
>> like Wilson on that kind of junket. You've got to give them a little
>> bit
>> of credit that they would at least send someone who both had the
>> credentials and was supportive of the administration.
>
> I thought it WAS his area of expertise, that Wilson had considerable
> experience in that area of intelligence or at least that his connections
> were in that part of the world.

He was a former ambassador to Niger. His wife was a WMD analyst at the
CIA.

Good chronology:
<http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame>

> And, who can account for Cheney's motives anyway? They were turning
> over every rock they could trying to find SOMETHING to support their
> rush to war.
>

Which reinforces the question why they would send a third tier player like
Wilson to gather this kind of information.


> Dave in Houston

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:53 am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Woehl"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mark and Juanita,
>>>> I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong
>>>> reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
>>>> enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
>>>> change so I am unsubscribing.
>>>> Roger
>>> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
>>> What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What,
>>> exactly,
>>> about the subject line led you to believe that the post was
>>> woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post
>>> that
>>> was clearly marked as off topic?
>> Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
>> more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>>
>> But since I am a rough, tough, macho internet denizen, i can cope. I can
>> deal with it.
>>
>> <G>
>
> I just grin and bear it. I sweep the pile of useless electrons off the
> floor every day then recycle them by posting silly shit.
> As far as being a touch, macho internut is concerned, let's just say
> my keyboard is all stainless steel, I operate it with a hammer and my
> monitor is made out of bullet-proof glass. My chair, of course, has a 5 point
> harness. I wear a helmet and wear a bib.

Ya must be a lumberjack.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=clPYfaTvHT0

On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:35 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 9:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> > > > > This gave me goose bumps:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>
> > > > >http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>
> > > > I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> > > She's dangerous.
>
> > Enlighten us. How's she dangerous?
>
> She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power.
> Dude.... take a look at her, will you?http://grampyshouse.net/cliches/galleries/clintonh/clintonh.htm

Are there specific policies that she advocates that fit your
characterization of her as dangerous? She's not my preferred candidate
but I'm not afraid of her or anything...

>> She's dangerous.
>
> I think they are ALL dangerous.
>
> Wayne


http://www.i-cynic.com/

> 1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US
> economy with her National Health care plan. Why is this scary you ask,
> isn't it compassionate and not scary? Look at how well national health
> care has worked everywhere it has been tried. You like how Britain's
> National Health care works?

Yes I do.

>Canada is slipping into the same issues.
> When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes
> have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets
> instituted.

Gasp! In crease taxes when system gets overloaded. You mean don't give a
"tax cut" ??


> But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she
> persists in the notion that her plan will work.

Gasp! Fear change. Fear change. Stay the course!!

>
> 2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the oil
> companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all
> manner
> of neo-socialist utopian plans. Think about those words, "I'm going to
> take those profits and ..." This is a person running for public office
> essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a
> private
> enterprise. *That* should scare anybody who works for a living and
> especially those who have their own business. What this person is
> effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much of
> the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.

Want to know what scares me?

a.. The "surge"
a.. Alberto Gonzales
a.. Talking about gun rights 2 hours after the Virginia Tech massacre
a.. Katrina
a.. Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank
a.. Losing 5 million E-mails
a.. Reading my Pet Goat on 9/11
a.. Valerie plame
a.. Firing the prosecutors
a.. Invasion of the wrong country
a.. Denying global warming
a.. Dubai ports deal
a.. Jeff gannon
a.. Denying global warming
a.. Jack abramoff
a.. Harriet meirs
a.. AWOL in the national guard
a.. Illegal wiretaps
a.. Terri Shiavo
a.. Losing $9 billion in Iraq
a.. Arsenic in Drinking Water
a.. Misuse of the Patriot Act
a.. Gitmo
a.. Black CIA sites
a.. Cheney shooting a guy
a.. No bid contracts
a.. No body armor
a.. Not catching Bin Ladin

Above bullets taken from:
http://bushtheidiot.com/new1/?page_id=989

On Feb 3, 9:20=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:43 pm, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> > >>> This gave me goose bumps:
> > >>>http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=3DBHEO_fG3mm4
> > >>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba=
...
> > >> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> > > She's dangerous.
>
> > I think they are ALL dangerous.
>
> > Wayne
>
> None are anywhere close to as dangerous as the incumbent.

And I don't think he's quite done yet either. 3 undersea internet
cables cut (actually 4) almost all of Iran is without service. Who
knows what that means... but FOUR cables in a very short time? Pardon
me, but that's too strange considering that maybe one a year is
considered 'often'. Dragging anchors......who does that?

On Mar 4, 9:35 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > a.. Valerieplame
>
> >> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the
> >> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
> >> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My Word!
> >> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard
> >> Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>
> > Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?
>
> You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?

How can Armitage 'admit' to something Wilson allegedly did?

>
> > Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
> > think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
> > for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality
> > of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?
>
> Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified
> that they did what you said for the purposes you imply?

What other purpose could there possibly be?

>
> > I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
> > Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
> > persons who told him mishandled classified information.
> > Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
> > others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
> > of that exercise is clear.
>
> Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence and
> all):
>
> * The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her
> husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not
> Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was Richard
> Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.

Novak says he had two (2) sources. Who was the other?

> * Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip who
> loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters"
> and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling
> Novak about Plame's identity."

I can believe that.

> * It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked for
> the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities
> Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence
> that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available
> evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing"
> anyway.)

Why was the information passed to Armitage, 'a notorious gossip'?

> * In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that he
> was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this information
> from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared the White House
> would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source--possibly to
> embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about
> Bush's Iraq policy."
> * Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in
> comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was
> Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was
> Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his
> investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage go
> public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"

Novak says he had more than one source.

>
> From: <http://www.lesjones.com/posts/003606.shtml>
>
> Other sources are available with the same information, this one was nice
> and succinct.
>
> Bottom line, the administration had nothing to do with this "leak", it was
> done by the shadow government that's been attempting to undermine the Bush
> administration since its inception.
>

Evidently, it was the shadow government, presided over by Cheney,
that leaked the information to Armitage, eh?

--

FF

On Feb 2, 8:06=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> > This gave me goose bumps:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=3DBHEO_fG3mm4
>
> >http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>
> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.

She's dangerous.

On Mar 7, 11:29=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:


> Cheney's
> office indicates they had nothing to do with sending him.


Must be true then....Mark, Mark, Mark......

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>> This gave me goose bumps:
>>> http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>>> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> She's dangerous.

I think they are ALL dangerous.

Wayne

On Mar 7, 11:29 pm, tough guy or gal Mark or Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 9:35 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> > a.. Valerieplame
>
> >> >> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to
> >> >> the
> >> >> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
> >> >> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My
> >> >> Word!
> >> >> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning
> >> >> Richard Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>
> >> > Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?
>
> >> You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?
>
> > How can Armitage 'admit' to something Wilson allegedly did?
>
> Oh please Fred, you know what I meant.

Just like you knew exactly what I was asking and so changed
the subject.

> As far as Wilson having revealed
> her name, there are numerous sources that indicate in years prior to this
> silly hoopla the he mentioned his wife worked for the CIA.

How many of those sources testified under oath?

Even if it is true, do you see the difference between telling
a friend or family member and publishing the information
in the NYT?

>
>
>
> >> > Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
> >> > think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
> >> > for purely political purposes? What do you think of the morality
> >> > of attacking a woman for revenge on her husband?
>
> >> Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified
> >> that they did what you said for the purposes you imply?
>
> > What other purpose could there possibly be?
>
> Oh, let's try this. A pretty-much unknown guy by the name of Joe Wilson
> gets sent to Niger to "investigate" the sale of yellow-cake uranium to
> Iraq, comes back and says, nope, no yellow cake sales in Niger. Now, aside
> from the fact that his investigation was as thorough as the old
> skit, "nope, no vikings here, we're just simple farmers, the huts were on
> fire and cows wandering the streets when we got here", he had an agenda
> and
> used this trip to promote it.

What evidence is there that he 'had an agenda'?

> When he was asked who sent him, he made the
> statement that he was sent directly at the behest of Dick Cheney.

Which is exactly true.

>Cheney's
> office indicates they had nothing to do with sending him.

If they did, they lied. I wasn't aware that it was ever disputed.

> Don't you think
> that a comment saying, well, his wife is an employee of the CIA in the same
> division that would investigate this kind of thing and it appears that
> *she* recommended him for this trip might be just a tiny bit relevant to
> the overall story here?

Since she didn't reccomend him, no.

Perhaps you never read Novak's op ed piece.

!) He never suggested
or implied that Wilson was unqualified or had an agenda.

2) The statement that his wife worded for the CIA was a
sentence by itself that was not even apparently relevent to
the rest of the article.

3) Nova could just as well have identified her employer as
her cover instead of the CIA. That would not have compromised
herself or the other agents.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
> >> > Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
> >> > persons who told him mishandled classified information.
> >> > Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
> >> > others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
> >> > of that exercise is clear.
>
> >> Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence
> >> and
> >> all):
>
> >> * The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her
> >> husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not
> >> Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was
> >> Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.

Again, why would Armitage need to know that Plame w
orked for the CIA? What was the reason fo giving him that
information in the first place? Why did Cheney's people
circulate that information among people who had no need
to know?

>
> > Novak says he had two (2) sources. Who was the other?
>
> Love your debating technique Fred. You get shown where you're wrong and
> throw out another, "well, what about ...?". I'm not playing that game.

IOW, you don't want to address the issue.

>
>
>
> >> * Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip
> >> who
> >> loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters"
> >> and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of
> >> telling Novak about Plame's identity."
>
> > I can believe that.
>
> >> * It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked
> >> for
> >> the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities
> >> Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence
> >> that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available
> >> evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing"
> >> anyway.)
>
> > Why was the information passed to Armitage, 'a notorious gossip'?
>
> I don't know Fred, why don't you ask the people in the State Department
> and CIA who hate the Bush administration and have been overtly and covertly
> undermining the administration for the past 7 years?

That's rich. The DOD and VP spent the first four years of the
administration marginalizing and undermining the State Department.
Unless of course you thing it is proper for the Secretary of Defense
and VP to set foreign policy without so much as consultation with
the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.

> Why are you so
> offended by this so-called security violation that wasn't

It, like the Linda Tripp persecution was a direct attack on
a rank and file person in the national security apparatus
of our country. These people deserve respect and protection.
It is a gross abuse to use them as political pawns. The two
jerks who released Tripp's records instead of passing the
request to the FOIA officer should have done time. Same
for Berger and Libby.


> while not
> addressing my original question regarding why it was seemingly OK to leak
> little things like the fact we were monitoring Al Quaeda satellite phone
> conversations in Afghanistan or tracking money through international banks?

Those are not OK and are indeed a serious matter.

> Little things that *really* caused the loss of serious national security
> secrets and most likely have contributed to real soldiers' deaths, yet the
> Valerie Plame "case" was worthy of an inquisition?

See above.

>
>
>
> >> * In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that
> >> he
> >> was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this
> >> information from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared
> >> the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's
> >> source--possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been
> >> unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy."
> >> * Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in
> >> comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was
> >> Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was
> >> Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his
> >> investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage
> >> go public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"
>
> > Novak says he had more than one source.
>
> What the @#$% difference does that make?

In the Congressional hearings a chart was produced that showed
how the information regarding Plame's identity was circulated
through the administration. There were two primary sources
at the top of the chart who were responsible for every one
else (pretty much none of whom had a need to know) knowing
it. One of those was LIbby. The other was never identified.
Rove was not on the chart.

There was a conspiracy to circulate information so that
it would leak out.

The motivation was revenge against Wilson. They attacked
his wife, in order to get at him, and didn't consider the danger
to other agents in the field to be as important.

--

FF

On Feb 4, 11:04=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> =A0 Can't speak for Robotoy, but some of the things that certainly are
> frightening from a personal freedom standpoint:
>
> 1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US
> economy with her National Health care plan. =A0Why is this scary you ask,
> isn't it compassionate and not scary? =A0Look at how well national health
> care has worked everywhere it has been tried. =A0You like how Britain's
> National Health care works? =A0Canada is slipping into the same issues.

True. On a provincial level, there has been a lot of 'adjustment'.
Locally, the CEO has been blown out of his job and ran out of town.
Serious cut-backs have increased the workload of many health
professionals.

> When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes
> have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets
> instituted. =A0But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she
> persists in the notion that her plan will work.
>
> 2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the oil=

> companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all manne=
r
> of neo-socialist utopian plans. =A0Think about those words, "I'm going to
> take those profits and ..." =A0This is a person running for public office
> essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a privat=
e
> enterprise. =A0*That* should scare anybody who works for a living and
> especially those who have their own business. =A0What this person is
> effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much of=

> the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.

2 for 2. We have the same predators looking to get their hands even
deeper into our pockets. There has to be some sense to the monopolies
who serve up energy to our citizens. We have enormous amounts of oil
and natural gas reserves and that stuff is selling well on world
markets. Why can't the Canadian people get a break from that? In a
country which has the second largest land mass in the world, the most
lumber and land per capita. a lot of Canadians can't afford their own
homes. Many of the large corporations are cross-border units. If
Hillary starts appropriating profits from those guys, we're going to
get screwed too.
>
> 3. =A0Charlie Tri (sp?), Norman Chieu (sp?), bus boys barely making minimu=
m
> wage, others in the lower class making the maximum allowed donation to her=

> campaign. =A0Nope, no graft or corruption there.

I can't comment on that. But sounds like business as usual in the
political game.
>
> 4. Clinton Inc and the policy of personal destruction. =A0Get in the Clint=
on's
> way and they don't go after your viewpoint or ideas, they go after you
> personally. =A0Ask Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and others. =A0The same peopl=
e who
> are going sub-orbital because of the sitting president wanting to be able
> to monitor phone calls from the US to terrorist countries apparently don't=

> see a problem with one of the people from the former administration who ha=
d
> cases of FBI files on US citizens that they were not permitted to have in
> their possession.

I don't think The Clintons have an exclusive on that style. The fact
that during an interview Bill Clinton said that he'd love to have Rove
on his team, proves that.
>
> =A0 There are many other numerous reasons to fear this person. =A0She is
> manipulative beyond the normal politician, vindictive, and philosophically=

> leans toward strong socialism. =A0That should frighten anybody who believe=
s
> in financial and personal freedoms.

All those points and more. Well put.

r

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> This gave me goose bumps:
>
> http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-obama-music-video/
>
>
I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That and they had the documentation to back it up. Look, I know you
> don't
> like the current administration, but in this case, one should
> logically ask
> the question why the office of the VP would even think of sending
> someone
> like Wilson on that kind of junket. You've got to give them a little
> bit
> of credit that they would at least send someone who both had the
> credentials and was supportive of the administration.

I thought it WAS his area of expertise, that Wilson had considerable
experience in that area of intelligence or at least that his connections
were in that part of the world.
And, who can account for Cheney's motives anyway? They were turning
over every rock they could trying to find SOMETHING to support their
rush to war.

Dave in Houston

In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Woehl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark and Juanita,
>I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong
>reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
>enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
>change so I am unsubscribing.
>Roger

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What, exactly,
about the subject line led you to believe that the post was
woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post that
was clearly marked as off topic?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> This gave me goose bumps:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>>
>> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-obam
>> a-music-video/
>>
>>
> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
You're all missing the point.
Without a good leadership and a *working* majority in both House and
Senate, who are doing the #right thing# and passing /working legislation
that benefits the country as a whole/, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is going
to change, except that the rich will get richerer and the poor poorer.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark and Juanita,
I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong
reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
change so I am unsubscribing.
Roger


"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > a.. Valerieplame
>>>
>>> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the
>>> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
>>> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My
>>> Word!
>>> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard
>>> Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>>>
>>
>> Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?
>>
> You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?
>
>> Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
>> think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
>> for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality
>> of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?
>>
>
> Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified that they did what
> you
> said for the purposes you imply?
>
>
>> I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
>> Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
>> persons who told him mishandled classified information.
>> Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
>> others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
>> of that exercise is clear.
>>
>>
>
> Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence
> and
> all):
>
> * The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her
> husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not
> Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was Richard
> Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.
> * Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip who
> loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters"
> and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of
> telling
> Novak about Plame's identity."
> * It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked for
> the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities
> Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence
> that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available
> evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing"
> anyway.)
> * In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that he
> was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this
> information
> from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared the White House
> would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source--possibly to
> embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about
> Bush's Iraq policy."
> * Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in
> comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was
> Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was
> Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his
> investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage go
> public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"
>
> From: <http://www.lesjones.com/posts/003606.shtml>
>
> Other sources are available with the same information, this one was nice
> and succinct.
>
> Bottom line, the administration had nothing to do with this "leak", it
> was
> done by the shadow government that's been attempting to undermine the Bush
> administration since its inception.
>
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article <iYGzj.5189$W%2.4644@trndny04>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:

>googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I
>realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".

So just filter anything coming from Google Groups, without regard to the From:
address, and allow what few posts may remain, having a gmail address, to come
through. (See second example below.)
>
>Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
>Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?

Certainly. There are two ways to go about it.

First, exactly what you asked for:
* score:+100 from:@gmail.com
* score:-100 from:[email protected]
* drop score:100

Second, easier and nearly as effective:
* drop message-id:google

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 8, 8:08 am, "NuWave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > That and they had the documentation to back it up. Look, I know you
> > don't
> > like the current administration, but in this case, one should
> > logically ask
> > the question why the office of the VP would even think of sending
> > someone
> > like Wilson on that kind of junket. You've got to give them a little
> > bit
> > of credit that they would at least send someone who both had the
> > credentials and was supportive of the administration.
>
> I thought it WAS his area of expertise, that Wilson had considerable
> experience in that area of intelligence or at least that his connections
> were in that part of the world.

He had considerable experience in that part of the world.
I don't know about his expertise in proliferation issues, but
the question being investigated was not technological.

I had always read that Wilson was sent in response to a
request by Cheney to send someone to Niger. I have
never before heard that Cheney denied making that request.

> And, who can account for Cheney's motives anyway? They were turning
> over every rock they could trying to find SOMETHING to support their
> rush to war.
>

I'd like to know if any EVER suggested to them that the Iraq-
Niger yellowcake documents were legitimate.

That seems to be unlikely.

--

FF

On Feb 2, 9:43 pm, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> >>> This gave me goose bumps:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
> >>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
> >> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> > She's dangerous.
>
> I think they are ALL dangerous.
>
> Wayne

None are anywhere close to as dangerous as the incumbent.

On Feb 4, 12:35=A0pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> > > > This gave me goose bumps:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=3DBHEO_fG3mm4
>
> > > >http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba=
...
>
> > > I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> > She's dangerous.
>
> Enlighten us. How's she dangerous?

She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power.
Dude.... take a look at her, will you?
http://grampyshouse.net/cliches/galleries/clintonh/clintonh.htm

On Mar 5, 7:32 pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
> >>more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
> > The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
> > originated at googlegroups.com .
>
> googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I
> realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".
>
> Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
> Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> [email protected]

Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.
Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to list any groups, never mind
choose them. I've tried OE, Opera, FF, and given up, so I use Google,
which is a PITA, as you know, because there are NO filters, so I get
to look at all the silly shit from the porn queens (there are no
kinds), guys worrying about the size of my pecker, and other guys
wanting to sell me replica Timex watches or cheap Gucci shoes.

On Mar 7, 8:42=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:32 pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michae=
ls" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find =
much
> > >>more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
> > > The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post =
which
> > > originated at googlegroups.com .
>
> > googlegroups and ".gmail.com". =A0I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I=

> > realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".
>
> > Doug, do you know of a way to =A0block all "gmail.com" posts except
> > Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?
>
> > --
> > Jack Novak
> > Buffalo, NY - USA
> > [email protected]
>
> Jack, if you can show me how to get this damned computer to set up a
> Firefox or other NG account, I'd be delighted to use it.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to list any groups, never mind
> choose them. I've tried OE, Opera, FF, and given up, so I use Google,
> which is a PITA, as you know, because there are NO filters, so I get
> to look at all the silly shit from the porn queens (there are no
> kinds), guys worrying about the size of my pecker, and other guys
> wanting to sell me replica Timex watches or cheap Gucci shoes.

If I was going to pirate a watch brand, Timex would be MY first choice
as well.. LOL

On Feb 3, 10:43=A0pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:27:02 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 3, 9:20=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 9:43 pm, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> > > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> >> > >>> This gave me goose bumps:
> >> > >>>http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=3DBHEO_fG3mm4
> >> > >>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-=
oba...
> >> > >> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primarie=
s.
>
> >> > > She's dangerous.
>
> >> > I think they are ALL dangerous.
>
> >> > Wayne
>
> >> None are anywhere close to as dangerous as the incumbent.
>
> >And I don't think he's quite done yet either. 3 undersea internet
> >cables cut (actually 4) almost all of Iran is without service. Who
> >knows what that means... but FOUR cables in a very short time? Pardon
> >me, but that's too strange considering that maybe one a year is
> >considered 'often'. Dragging anchors......who does that?
>
> International copper theft???
>


Super Pure Glass thieves?

In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
>more objectionable than a few off topic posts.

The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
originated at googlegroups.com .

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 5, 12:00 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > a.. Valerieplame
>
> Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the
> NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent,
> employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My Word!
> We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard
> Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.
>

Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?

Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi
think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents
for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality
of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?

I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard
Armitage needed to know that information, hence the
persons who told him mishandled classified information.
Further, they passed that information to Armitage and
others without mentioning that it was classified. The object
of that exercise is clear.


--

FF

On Feb 2, 9:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> > > This gave me goose bumps:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>
> > >http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>
> > I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>
> She's dangerous.

Enlighten us. How's she dangerous?

On Mar 5, 9:53=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger =A0Woe=
hl"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Mark and Juanita,
> >>I really am tired of your OT blithering. =A0You use this site for the wr=
ong
> >>reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. =A0I, for one, would like to be able =
to
> >>enjoy this site for its intended purpose. =A0I have no hope that you wil=
l
> >>change so I am unsubscribing.
> >>Roger
>
> > Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
>
> > What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What,
> > exactly,
> > about the subject line led you to believe that the post was
> > woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post
> > that
> > was clearly marked as off topic?
>
> Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much=

> more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
> But since I am a rough, tough, macho internet denizen, i can cope. =A0I ca=
n
> deal with it.
>
> <G>

I just grin and bear it. I sweep the pile of useless electrons off the
floor every day then recycle them by posting silly shit.
As far as being a touch, macho internut is concerned, let's just say
my keyboard is all stainless steel, I operate it with a hammer and my
monitor is made out of bullet-proof glass.
My chair, of course, has a 5 point harness. I wear a helmet and wear a
bib.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Woehl"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark and Juanita,
>>I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong
>>reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to
>>enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will
>>change so I am unsubscribing.
>>Roger
>
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
>
> What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What,
> exactly,
> about the subject line led you to believe that the post was
> woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post
> that
> was clearly marked as off topic?
>
Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
more objectionable than a few off topic posts.

But since I am a rough, tough, macho internet denizen, i can cope. I can
deal with it.

<G>

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much
>>more objectionable than a few off topic posts.
>
>
> The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which
> originated at googlegroups.com .
>

googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I
realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".

Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:59:28 -0800, Robatoy wrote:

> I just grin and bear it. I sweep the pile of useless electrons off the
> floor every day then recycle them by posting silly shit.

I knew it! I knew it!

:-)

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <iYGzj.5189$W%2.4644@trndny04>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except
>>Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?
>
>
> Certainly. There are two ways to go about it.
>
> First, exactly what you asked for:
> * score:+100 from:@gmail.com
> * score:-100 from:[email protected]
> * drop score:100
>
> Second, easier and nearly as effective:
> * drop message-id:google
>

Thanks Doug.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:27:02 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 3, 9:20 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 9:43 pm, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Robatoy wrote:
>> > > On Feb 2, 8:06 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> > >>> This gave me goose bumps:
>> > >>>http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4
>> > >>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/02/celebrities-debut-oba...
>> > >> I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.
>>
>> > > She's dangerous.
>>
>> > I think they are ALL dangerous.
>>
>> > Wayne
>>
>> None are anywhere close to as dangerous as the incumbent.
>
>And I don't think he's quite done yet either. 3 undersea internet
>cables cut (actually 4) almost all of Iran is without service. Who
>knows what that means... but FOUR cables in a very short time? Pardon
>me, but that's too strange considering that maybe one a year is
>considered 'often'. Dragging anchors......who does that?


International copper theft???

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com