Bush continues to support Gonzales

[TexasTiger 13,017]

WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his embattled attorney general despite Justice Department documents that show Alberto Gonzales was more involved in the decisions to fire U.S. attorneys than he previously indicated.

Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors. On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Saturday that Bush continues to support Gonzales despite the latest disclosures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780/

[AURaptor 1,126]

Falsifying/ fabricating quotes for nothing more than dramatic effect is pretty much the bottom of the barrel, TT. Even for a Lib.

[AFTiger 282]

HOW TO BUILD A TEEPEE

by Ernest Thompson Seton

Making a Teepee

Many famous campers have said that the Indian teepee is the best known movable home. It is roomy, self-ventilating, cannot blow down, and is the only tent that admits of a fire inside.

Then why is not everywhere used? Because of the difficulty of the poles. If on the prairie, you must carry your poles. If in the woods, you must cut them at each camp.

A 10-foot teepee is the smallest size worth having for practical use. A larger one is easier to keep clear of smoke, but most boys will prefer the small one, as it is much handier, cheaper, and easier to make. I shall therefore give the working plan of a 10-foot teepee of the simplest form.

It requires 22 square yards of 6 or 8-ounce duck, heavy unbleached muslin, or Canton flannel (the wider the better, as that saves labor in making up), 100 feet of 3/16 inch clothesline, string for sewing rope ends, etc.

Get your material machine run together 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. Lay this down perfectly flat (Cut I). On a peg or nail at A in the middle of the long side put a 10-foot cord loosely, and then with a burnt stick in a loop at the other end draw the half-circle B C D.

Now mark out the two little triangles at A. A E is 6 inches, A F and E F each one foot; the other triangle, A R G, is the same size. Cut the canvas along these dotted lines.

From the scraps left over cut two pieces for smoke-flaps, as shown. In the long corner of each (H in No. 1, I in No. 2) a small three-cornered piece should be sewed, to make a pocket for the end of the smoke pole, or else a 2-inch hole right through.

Now sew the smoke-flaps to the cover so that M L of No. I is neatly fitted to P E, and N O of No. 2 to Q D.

Two inches from the edge B P make a double row of holes; each hole is 1 1/2 inches from its mate, and each pair is 5 inches from the next pair, except at the 2-foot space marked "door," where no holes are needed.

The holes on the other side, Q D, must exactly fit on these.

At A fasten very strongly a 4-foot rope by the middle. Fasten the end of a 10-foot cord to J and another to K; hem a rope all along in the bottom, B C D. Cut 12 pieces of rope each about 15 inches long, fasten one firmly to the canvas at B, another at the point D, and the rest at regular distances to the hem rope along the edge between, for peg loops. The teepee cover is now made.

For the door (some never use one) take a limber sapling 3/4 inch thick and 5 1/2 feet long, also one 22 inches long. Bend the long one into a horseshoe and fasten the short one across the ends (A in Cut II). On this stretch canvas, leaving a flap at the top in the middle of which two small holes are made (B, Cut II), so as to hang the door on a lacing-pin. Nine of these lacing-pins are needed. They are of smooth, round, straight, hard wood, a foot long and 1/4 inch thick. They skewer the overlapped edges together.

Storm Cap or Bull-boat

During long continued or heavy rains, a good deal of water may come in the smoke-vent or drip down the poles. To prevent this the Missouri Indians would sometimes use a circular bull-boat of rawhide on a frame of willows as a storm cap.

For a twelve-foot teepee the storm cap should be about four feet across and eighteen inches deep, made of canvas with a hem edge in which is a limber rod to keep it in circular shape. It is usually put on with a loose teepee pole, and sits on top of the poles as shown, held down if need be by cords to its edge.

The poles should be short and even for this.

Putting Up the Teepee

Twelve poles also are needed. They should be as straight and smooth as possible; crooked, rough poles are signs of a bad housekeeper--a squaw is known by her teepee poles. They should be 13 or 14 feet long and about 1 inch thick at the top. Two are for the smoke-vent; they may be more slender than the others, and should have a 4-inch crosspiece lashed on them about 2 feet from the top. Last of all, make a dozen stout short pegs about 15 inches long and about 1 1/2 inches thick. Now all the necessary parts of the teepee are made.

This is how the Indian tent is put up: Tie three (some use four and find it stronger) poles together at a point about 1 foot higher than the canvas, spread them out in a tripod the right distance apart; then lay the other poles (except three including the two slender ones) in the angles, their lower ends forming a small circle. Bind them all with a rope, letting its end hang down inside for an anchor.

Now fasten the two ropes at A (Cut I) to the stout pole left over at a point 10 feet up.. Raise this into its place, and the teepee cover with it, opposite where the door is to be. Carry the two wings of the tent around till they overlap and fasten together with the lacing-pins. Put the end of a vent-pole in each of the vent flap pockets or else through the holes there, outside of the teepee. Peg down the edges of the canvas at each loop. Stretch the cover by spreading the poles. Hang the door on a convenient lacing-pin. Drive a stout stake inside the teepee, tie the anchor rope to this and the teepee is ready for weather. In the center dig a hole 18 inches wide and 6 inches deep for the fire.

The fire is the great advantage of the teepee, experience will show how to manage the smoke. Keep the smoke-vet swung down wind, or at least quartering down. Sometimes you must leave the door a little open or raise the bottom of the teepee cover a little on the windward side. If this makes too much draught on your back, stretch a piece of canvas between two or three of the poles inside the teepee, in front of the opening made and reaching to the ground. The draught will go up behind this.

By these tricks you can make the vent draw the smoke. But after all the main thing is to use only the best and driest of wood. This makes a clear fire. There will always be more or less smoke 7 or 8 feet up, but it worries no one there and keeps the mosquitoes away.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Let's not set the site up for a libel suit by attributing quotes to someone that were never said. You know better than that, Tex.

Bark like a koolaid guzzling moonbat all you want. Stick to the facts.

I fixed the topic title.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Thanks T.I.S. Sadly, there are some on the Left who have decided pretty much anything is ok to do in order to make their opinions heard. Point is, lying and deception doesnt' really make their case at all. But whether they're going # 2 on the US Flag, or making up bogus quotes, the Left can't escape how horrifically wrong it is. They simply can't help it.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Let's not set the site up for a libel suit by attributing quotes to someone that were never said. You know better than that, Tex.

Bark like a koolaid guzzling moonbat all you want. Stick to the facts.

I fixed the topic title.

You're a major hypocrite, but that's not new. The owner of this site routinely does the same thing. If he's honest, he'll readily admit that. You've never "fixed" those. BTW, you know nothing about libel. No reasonable person would conclude that I was actually attributing those quotes to Dubya. This is just another example of a petty person with a little taste of power and promptly abusing it. No surprise, I guess.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The owner of this site routinely does the same thing.

Link?

You quoted a person as saying something he didn't say. I fixed the misleading thread title. Nothing hypocritical at all about what I did. I didn't change anything in your post.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The owner of this site routinely does the same thing.

Link?

You quoted a person as saying something he didn't say. I fixed the misleading thread title. Nothing hypocritical at all about what I did. I didn't change anything in your post.

You take the time to read David's threads and you will find more than one example of the same thing. If you want to make a post that articulates for those who can't see the obvious, that's one thing. Editing a thread that I start for no good reason other that it comes from a different political view than your's, is an abuse of your power. We might as well change the name of this forum to "Right Wing Crackpot Agreement" forum if you are allowed to do this.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I didn't change anything in your post. I edited the ficticious quote you attributed to the president in the title. If you can point out anywhere in the article where Bush said what you quoted him as saying, I will gladly change it back with due apologies.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I didn't change anything in your post. I edited the ficticious quote you attributed to the president in the title. If you can point out anywhere in the article where Bush said what you quoted him as saying, I will gladly change it back with due apologies.

Double standard based on political viewpoints.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No reasonable person would conclude that I was actually attributing those quotes to Dubya. This is just another example of a petty person with a little taste of power and promptly abusing it. No surprise, I guess.

Even the non journalist can decipher between faux quotes and ones presented in accepted journalistic fashion. Look at any tabloid journal, and you'll see that NONE of them present false quotes in that manner. By presenting ficticious quotes as being made by Bush to be true, you are stepping over the line. Don't get bitter any anyone else for correcting the mistake YOU made. There was no 'abuse' of power here, only an abuse of freedom on YOUR part, TT. The abuse of freedom via deception and fraud. You want to play that game over at Democratic Underground, or Moveon. org? ....have at it. Those kooks are use to living in a fantasy world anyway. Homey don't play there here.

How's about you get over yourself or get lost. Either would be preferable.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

No reasonable person would conclude that I was actually attributing those quotes to Dubya. This is just another example of a petty person with a little taste of power and promptly abusing it. No surprise, I guess.

Even the non journalist can decipher between faux quotes and ones presented in accepted journalistic fashion. Look at any tabloid journal, and you'll see that NONE of them present false quotes in that manner. By presenting ficticious quotes as being made by Bush to be true, you are stepping over the line. Don't get bitter any anyone else for correcting the mistake YOU made. There was no 'abuse' of power here, only an abuse of freedom on YOUR part, TT. The abuse of freedom via deception and fraud. You want to play that game over at Democratic Underground, or Moveon. org? ....have at it. Those kooks are use to living in a fantasy world anyway. Homey don't play there here.

How's about you get over yourself or get lost. Either would be preferable.

This ain't journalism, junior TIS. This ain't even a blog. It's a forum where average Joes express themselves. But it wouldn't be abuse of power if it were consistent regardless of political viewpoint. But it isn't consistent. That's the point (du jour) that you don't get.

Here's a link to a thread on which I called David on the same thing, and you defended him doing it:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=164323

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Apples and oranges, Tex. Durbin did refer to US troops as Nazi's and Gulag guards. Bush didn't say what you quoted him as saying. BTW, You directly attributed a quote to the president that you know he didn't make. Instead of doing that, you could have went with something like "Bush doesn't care for the truth" or whatever your side wants to call it. Instead, you decide to consciously misrepresent what the president and the article you linked stated. If you were a politician, Charles Schumer would be calling on you to resign.

[AURaptor 1,126]

This ain't journalism, junior TIS. This ain't even a blog. It's a forum where average Joes express themselves. But it wouldn't be abuse of power if it were consistent regardless of political viewpoint. But it isn't consistent. That's the point (du jour) that you don't get.

Hey TT, if it bothered you so much then, why'd you turn around and do it yourself? And yes, while technically the example you offer isn't a direct quote, the MEANING was clearly stated by Durbin, as he compared our troops to the Khmere Rouge, NAZIS, etc..... You show here Bush came remotely as close to Durbin, then I'll cut you some slack.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Apples and oranges, Tex. Durbin did refer to US troops as Nazi's and Gulag guards. Bush didn't say what you quoted him as saying. BTW, You directly attributed a quote to the president that you know he didn't make. Instead of doing that, you could have went with something like "Bush doesn't care for the truth" or whatever your side wants to call it. Instead, you decide to consciously misrepresent what the president and the article you linked stated. If you were a politician, Charles Schumer would be calling on you to resign.

Apples and oranges in two ways--- 1) one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, thus the different treatment from you for "attributing quotes" to people. 2) I readily admit that it is a rhetorical device meant to imply that Bush has essentially taken that position and that it is not an actual quote-- David, against all facts and reason, refused to admit that it wasn't an actual quote.

Durbin DID NOT MAKE THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. Bush DID NOT MAKE THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. In both instances, the poster was making the assertion that what the respective people "quoted" had said had essentially the same meaning as the supposed "quote." (although David inexplicably continued to insist that it was Durbin's quote, even though his own article and transcript showed otherwise.) I readily recognized that I wasn't actually asserting he had made the quote.

This is why you claimed you edited my title: "attributing quotes to someone that were never said..." David clearly did the same thing-- in fact, it is not uncommon for him to do so.

Several days ago, Alberto said:

"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

Here's what I posted:

WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his embattled attorney general despite Justice Department documents that show Alberto Gonzales was more involved in the decisions to fire U.S. attorneys than he previously indicated.

Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors. On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Saturday that Bush continues to support Gonzales despite the latest disclosures.

The Justice Department now admits that Gonzales did, in fact, participate in such discussions, even though he firmly asserted previously he did not. He was not telling the truth. And Bush immediately says he firmly supports him anyway. If Clinton had done the same thing you would have no problem with someone using the same rhetorical device that I did. At least admit that much.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

This ain't journalism, junior TIS. This ain't even a blog. It's a forum where average Joes express themselves. But it wouldn't be abuse of power if it were consistent regardless of political viewpoint. But it isn't consistent. That's the point (du jour) that you don't get.

Hey TT, if it bothered you so much then, why'd you turn around and do it yourself? And yes, while technically the example you offer isn't a direct quote, the MEANING was clearly stated by Durbin, as he compared our troops to the Khmere Rouge, NAZIS, etc..... You show here Bush came remotely as close to Durbin, then I'll cut you some slack.

My biggest problem with David's use of it was his hard-headed insistence that it was Durbin's quote. You'll notice in that same thread I said Durbin was right to apologize for what he did actually say.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Apples and oranges, Tex. Durbin did refer to US troops as Nazi's and Gulag guards. Bush didn't say what you quoted him as saying. BTW, You directly attributed a quote to the president that you know he didn't make. Instead of doing that, you could have went with something like "Bush doesn't care for the truth" or whatever your side wants to call it. Instead, you decide to consciously misrepresent what the president and the article you linked stated. If you were a politician, Charles Schumer would be calling on you to resign.

Apples and oranges in two ways--- 1) one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, thus the different treatment from you for "attributing quotes" to people. 2) I readily admit that it is a rhetorical device meant to imply that Bush has essentially taken that position and that it is not an actual quote-- David, against all facts and reason, refused to admit that it wasn't an actual quote.

Durbin DID NOT MAKE THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. Bush DID NOT MAKE THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. In both instances, the poster was making the assertion that what the respective people "quoted" had said had essentially the same meaning as the supposed "quote." (although David inexplicably continued to insist that it was Durbin's quote, even though his own article and transcript showed otherwise.) I readily recognized that I wasn't actually asserting he had made the quote.

This is why you claimed you edited my title: "attributing quotes to someone that were never said..." David clearly did the same thing-- in fact, it is not uncommon for him to do so.

Several days ago, Alberto said:

"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

Here's what I posted:

WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his embattled attorney general despite Justice Department documents that show Alberto Gonzales was more involved in the decisions to fire U.S. attorneys than he previously indicated.

Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors. On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Saturday that Bush continues to support Gonzales despite the latest disclosures.

The Justice Department now admits that Gonzales did, in fact, participate in such discussions, even though he firmly asserted previously he did not. He was not telling the truth. And Bush immediately says he firmly supports him anyway. If Clinton had done the same thing you would have no problem with someone using the same rhetorical device that I did. At least admit that much.

TIS, I see when your double standard is outlined for you, you run and hide.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

What double standard? I said my piece and counted to three. The issue is done as far as I'm concerned, unless you want to continue acting like a baby over it.

You ----->

[TexasTiger 13,017]

What double standard? I said my piece and counted to three. The issue is done as far as I'm concerned, unless you want to continue acting like a baby over it.

The avoid the issue AND call names approach...I'm shocked!

[CCTAU 3,344]

HOW TO BUILD A TEEPEE

by Ernest Thompson Seton

Making a Teepee

Many famous campers have said that the Indian teepee is the best known movable home. It is roomy, self-ventilating, cannot blow down, and is the only tent that admits of a fire inside.

Then why is not everywhere used? Because of the difficulty of the poles. If on the prairie, you must carry your poles. If in the woods, you must cut them at each camp.

A 10-foot teepee is the smallest size worth having for practical use. A larger one is easier to keep clear of smoke, but most boys will prefer the small one, as it is much handier, cheaper, and easier to make. I shall therefore give the working plan of a 10-foot teepee of the simplest form.

It requires 22 square yards of 6 or 8-ounce duck, heavy unbleached muslin, or Canton flannel (the wider the better, as that saves labor in making up), 100 feet of 3/16 inch clothesline, string for sewing rope ends, etc.

Get your material machine run together 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. Lay this down perfectly flat (Cut I). On a peg or nail at A in the middle of the long side put a 10-foot cord loosely, and then with a burnt stick in a loop at the other end draw the half-circle B C D.

Now mark out the two little triangles at A. A E is 6 inches, A F and E F each one foot; the other triangle, A R G, is the same size. Cut the canvas along these dotted lines.

From the scraps left over cut two pieces for smoke-flaps, as shown. In the long corner of each (H in No. 1, I in No. 2) a small three-cornered piece should be sewed, to make a pocket for the end of the smoke pole, or else a 2-inch hole right through.

Now sew the smoke-flaps to the cover so that M L of No. I is neatly fitted to P E, and N O of No. 2 to Q D.

Two inches from the edge B P make a double row of holes; each hole is 1 1/2 inches from its mate, and each pair is 5 inches from the next pair, except at the 2-foot space marked "door," where no holes are needed.

The holes on the other side, Q D, must exactly fit on these.

At A fasten very strongly a 4-foot rope by the middle. Fasten the end of a 10-foot cord to J and another to K; hem a rope all along in the bottom, B C D. Cut 12 pieces of rope each about 15 inches long, fasten one firmly to the canvas at B, another at the point D, and the rest at regular distances to the hem rope along the edge between, for peg loops. The teepee cover is now made.

For the door (some never use one) take a limber sapling 3/4 inch thick and 5 1/2 feet long, also one 22 inches long. Bend the long one into a horseshoe and fasten the short one across the ends (A in Cut II). On this stretch canvas, leaving a flap at the top in the middle of which two small holes are made (B, Cut II), so as to hang the door on a lacing-pin. Nine of these lacing-pins are needed. They are of smooth, round, straight, hard wood, a foot long and 1/4 inch thick. They skewer the overlapped edges together.

Storm Cap or Bull-boat

During long continued or heavy rains, a good deal of water may come in the smoke-vent or drip down the poles. To prevent this the Missouri Indians would sometimes use a circular bull-boat of rawhide on a frame of willows as a storm cap.

For a twelve-foot teepee the storm cap should be about four feet across and eighteen inches deep, made of canvas with a hem edge in which is a limber rod to keep it in circular shape. It is usually put on with a loose teepee pole, and sits on top of the poles as shown, held down if need be by cords to its edge.

The poles should be short and even for this.

Putting Up the Teepee

Twelve poles also are needed. They should be as straight and smooth as possible; crooked, rough poles are signs of a bad housekeeper--a squaw is known by her teepee poles. They should be 13 or 14 feet long and about 1 inch thick at the top. Two are for the smoke-vent; they may be more slender than the others, and should have a 4-inch crosspiece lashed on them about 2 feet from the top. Last of all, make a dozen stout short pegs about 15 inches long and about 1 1/2 inches thick. Now all the necessary parts of the teepee are made.

This is how the Indian tent is put up: Tie three (some use four and find it stronger) poles together at a point about 1 foot higher than the canvas, spread them out in a tripod the right distance apart; then lay the other poles (except three including the two slender ones) in the angles, their lower ends forming a small circle. Bind them all with a rope, letting its end hang down inside for an anchor.

Now fasten the two ropes at A (Cut I) to the stout pole left over at a point 10 feet up.. Raise this into its place, and the teepee cover with it, opposite where the door is to be. Carry the two wings of the tent around till they overlap and fasten together with the lacing-pins. Put the end of a vent-pole in each of the vent flap pockets or else through the holes there, outside of the teepee. Peg down the edges of the canvas at each loop. Stretch the cover by spreading the poles. Hang the door on a convenient lacing-pin. Drive a stout stake inside the teepee, tie the anchor rope to this and the teepee is ready for weather. In the center dig a hole 18 inches wide and 6 inches deep for the fire.

The fire is the great advantage of the teepee, experience will show how to manage the smoke. Keep the smoke-vet swung down wind, or at least quartering down. Sometimes you must leave the door a little open or raise the bottom of the teepee cover a little on the windward side. If this makes too much draught on your back, stretch a piece of canvas between two or three of the poles inside the teepee, in front of the opening made and reaching to the ground. The draught will go up behind this.

By these tricks you can make the vent draw the smoke. But after all the main thing is to use only the best and driest of wood. This makes a clear fire. There will always be more or less smoke 7 or 8 feet up, but it worries no one there and keeps the mosquitoes away.

Are there illustrations that go along with this. THIS sounds like an interesting topic.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

What double standard? I said my piece and counted to three. The issue is done as far as I'm concerned, unless you want to continue acting like a baby over it.

The avoid the issue AND call names approach...I'm shocked!

I'll say it again for you

You quoted a person as saying something he didn't say. I fixed the misleading thread title. Nothing hypocritical at all about what I did. I didn't change anything in your post.

I'll not get bogged down responding to a post you made then later decided to go back and edit.

Do you need for me to send you a box of pampers? I will because I am that kind of a guy. You need something...I'm there for you. I'm charitable that way....it's how I roll.

Otherwise, get over it, man.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, Durbin did compare our troops to Nazis. When are you going to give this up? Are you ever going to give this moonbattery up?

From Aljazeera

US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis,

Washinton Post

Durbin Defends Guantanamo Comments I guess he is defending what he didnt actually say according to Tex...

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) drew a White House rebuke yesterday for comparing the treatment of prisoners at the naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the interrogation tactics of the Nazis and the Soviet gulags.

Again, the Nazis and the Socialist Soviets MURDERED, BUTCHERED, KILLED MILLIONS of people. To the Left, all that is meaningless during debate. They seem to think in their child like minds that the first one to call another NAZIS, or compare another to the NAZIS wins the debate.

Moonbattery...

Durbin quotes un-named FBI source. Says Soldiers act just like the NAZIS that MURDERED millions.

Turns out Durbin made up the facts in the email where he said US soldiers acted like Nazis.

BTW, Tex. I never said that Durbin Said they were Nazis? You claimed I did, but in fact I did not.

[AURaptor 1,126]

More proof that Dems and Libs hate America.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

BTW, Tex. I never said that Durbin Said they were Nazis? You claimed I did, but in fact I did not.

You entitled this thread:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=164118

Durbin: "US Troops are Nazis"

This is the whole point. You attributed a quote to him that he didn't say in the title. I did the same thing on this thread and I had mine edited out and was told by the mod:

You quoted a person as saying something he didn't say. I fixed the misleading thread title. Nothing hypocritical at all about what I did.

Double standard, plain and simple. Anyone with a functioning brain stem can see that.

[DKW 86 7,440]

BTW, Tex. I never said that Durbin Said they were Nazis? You claimed I did, but in fact I did not.

You entitled this thread: Durbin: "US Troops are Nazis"

This is the whole point. You attributed a quote to him that he didn't say in the title.

Double standard, plain and simple. Anyone with a functioning brain stem can see that.

Tex, I never said Durbin said anything other than what he apologized for saying and was quoted as saying a thousand times over...SSDD with you guys....