Well, I got 28 out of 30, but I must not be too smart, since I couldn't figure out how to do a screen capture to prove it.

Matt, I agree that losing the war on terror would be a bad, bad thing. But I don't think that a Holy War to wipe out the infidels is the answer, whether the 'infidels' are the US or the Muslim world. The question, as I see it, isn't "What if we lose?" but rather "What does winning look like, and how do we get there?" This is much harder to answer.

G-code, None of us here (aside from yourself) know this family at all, yet we obviously are feeling a great deal of pain and concern for those involved. I know that there is nothing that we, here, could possibly do that would ease the pain of their loss, but if we can help in some other way, even if it's as simple as contributing to a trust fund, please let us know.

My guess is that the US is having Hussein tried by an Iraqi court for a number of reasons: 1) It is good and proper, as his crimes were against the Iraqi people, not the US. 2) It looks good at a time when the US is trying to convince its citizens and the world that Iraq is now a 'sovereign state.' 3) Iraq's legal system, presumably, does not allow the accused the same rights that he might have under a US system, and thus may prevent him from tying the proceedings in knots. On the other hand, it may be easier for him to turn it into a circus (as happened with Milosevic). 4) Similarly, Iraq's legal system may make it less likely that any of Hussein's 'insider info' regarding those who helped him along the way (Reagan and Rumsfeld) is aired in public. 5) If and when Hussein is found guilty, Iraq is far less likely to take heat from the world community for executing him, even if they use barbaric methods. 6) No Johnny Cochran.

Gettin' drunk and blowin' stuff up. Does this country know how to celebrate its birthday, or what!

There are no words...

I couldn't find a category that really fit. I was hoping for something along the lines of "Chinese counter-intelligence operative cleverly posing as a 'liberal Democrat' just to stir things up and keep you guys from getting any work done, so that your companies will all suffer and eventually fail, leading to the ultimate collapse of US manufacturing, so that all of your jobs will be shipped over here and China will take over the world. BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!! (signifies red menace) Not finding that, I put myself down as a'Liberal Democrat", but screw all of that social conscience crap. I'm just in it to meet feminist chicks.

Matt, that was horrible, tasteless, and cruel. Laugh-out-loud-funny, yes, but horrible, tasteless, and cruel, nonetheless.

I agree with some of it, but not with all of it. For example, I thought the Taco Bell dog was stupid. I won't mention the other comments I disagree with, as that would only cause this thread to run up to 200+ posts. But I agree that turkey bacon sucks.

If you are trying to bring about real social-political change in this country, turning over a comically shaped novelty vehicle is probably an effective way to go about it.

Matt, do you mean PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), or that Greek pocket bread?

The foam channel seal from MagnaLock is what I have used. As Marv said, wood workers tend to go for the cheap solution. I have also used MDF on some pretty complex 'multi part' jigs. What I would suggest is to figure out, as best you can, what pieces will share this jig. Then overlay them, aligned to any neccessary fixed location points, and find the common areas that you can seal off. Make sure that you have a vacuum port for each zone. I would only do your grid in the areas that you need. This is particularly important if you use MDF, as the core is somewhat porous, so anywhere you cut through the top you start to lose some vacuum. For this reason, only make your grid where you need it. If you have some vacuum zones that you need for some pieces, but not others, then what I do is put a threaded insert into the back of the jig where the vacuum port is, then countersink a hole around the port from the top. You can then close off that zone, when needed, with an allen-head cap screw with an o-ring around it. You can make some pretty flexible jigs with this method.

"Nasty ,filthy ,arrogant, ill-tempered ,donkey hater" that "Can easily transform itself (into an) elephant" Pooh, this kind of political name-calling belongs over on the Farenheit 9/11 thread! Or maybe it just confirms Chris' theory.

I don't follow NHRA, but I like racing and it really bothers me when I see people (or broadcasters) more interested in crahes than in the sport itself. I went to the local circle track races a couple of years ago to watch a friend of mine race, and two rows behind me was a man with his two young sons (like 6 years old). Through the whole race he kept telling them "Keep watchin'! I think someone's gonna crash! Keep watchin'!" And when someone finally did flip his car and get taken away in an ambulance, the guy couldn't withold his joy. "I told you! I told you he was gonna crash!" He never said a thing to the kids about who was winning, or how well anyone was driving. When the race was over, he just said "Okay, let's go."

I really want to machine a human head. Just what kind of machining operations do you want to perform on this head, and is it's owner a willing participant? Welcome to the forum. Great alias, by the way. I'm pleased to say I survived 12 years as a woodworker and can still play guitar. I think that moving into programming had something to do with that.

Peter, I thought Primary Colors was excellent. As someone who did vote for Clinton (twice!), I thought the whole thing was summed up perfectly in the suicide note from the Kathy Bates character, which he reads at the end. The note just says "I am so f$#@ing disappointed in you!" Oh, and Travolta did an excellent Clinton. Who'd a' thunk it? Wag the Dog was good, too. I liked how none of the characters ever stopped for even one second to consider the morality of what they were doing. Either of those is far better than sappy crap like Dave or The American President.

Matt, My sympathies to you and your family. I hope your relative is okay, and recovers quickly. Also, please accept my apologies for unknowingly having chosen a horrible time to make jokes about ammo and killing. It was entirely unintentional but, in light of events, looks extremely callous. I'll look forward to resuming our spirited debate when things calm down on your end. Best wishes, Mark

Congratulations, John Martin Graney II! Those of us who've been there all look forward to reading your ruminations on baby poop, sleep deprivation, Dr. Suess, and the everyday amazement that tiny person brings to your life. Cheers to you, and to Mrs. John Martin Graney II.

Roy, Believe it or not, I actually agree with part of Midnight Oil's post, that invading Iraq was seen as a 'strategic neccessity' due to its location. Bush and his 'Vulcans,' particularly Wolfowitz, had been interested in Iraq for geo-political reasons well before 9/11. These reasons existed even before Saddam Hussein rose to prominence, as is clear from Wolfowitz's own writings and memos dating back to the Ford administration. Iraq is in a geographically key location for establishing control over the Middle East. The fact that Iraq, itself, is rich in oil is just icing on the cake. Oil was definitely a huge factor in going to war, but I disagree with those who believe it was the reason. That is a huge over-simplification of a much more complex subject. But it is just as much of an over-simplification to say that we invaded Iraq as part of a war on terror. Terror provided the opportunity and the justification to do what Bush's cabinet had wanted to do since before they were Bush's cabinet. In the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses, Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and others wrote "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Whether you agree with this statement or not is not the issue. The point is that the desire to secure control of Iraq existed prior to 9/11 and, going further back, prior to Saddam Hussein's rise to power (see Rise of the Vulcans). But simply having the desire wasn't enough. They needed a reason they could sell to the American people. In discussing the difficulties of repositioning US forces, the same 2000 report stated "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." On 9/11, the Bush administration got what it was looking for. I am not one of those conspiracy theorists who beleives that the adminsitration was involved in 9/11, nor that they welcomed it, but I solidly believe that they took advantage of it. Immediately after 9/11, Rumsfeld sent out a memo saying he wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough (to) hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL (Osama Bin Laden)" "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld already knew what he wanted to do, as he had known for years. A massive effort was put in motion to build a case for invading Iraq, using 9/11 as the justification. Information which was known to be bogus or from unreliable sources was dusted off and, if it fit their narrative, the administration used it. America was either told, or allowed to believe, that Iraq had been involved in 9/11, and that it posed an immenent threat to the US. At the time we went to war, a majority of Americans believed that Iraq had been behind 9/11, or even that the hijackers had been Iraqis. No imminent threat has ever been established. Rumsfeld now says 'Well, the administration never said the threat was imminent..' (though he, himself, did). No link to 9/11 has ever been found. Bush himself now says 'We never said Iraq was involved in 9/11', though they certainly did nothing to discourage that popular myth. Apparently, many here on the Forum still believe this, despite Bush's own admission. The administration had deeply held reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, but they did not trust the American people enough to tell us the truth. Instead they sold us this war on lies. That is a far greater crime than anything Clinton ever did while in the White House. Oh, wait, except for those 47 people he had killed. Forgot about that "fact". Oh, and Rek'd, better get down to WalMart. Sounds like you're out of ammo.

Thad, PLEASE post the link to where ever you got that from! And Cadist, one last tip: If the leopard's still on the loose, just make sure that any time you go out, you are accompanied by a slow-moving friend.

Dude, it was all on Entertainment Tonight. Actually, Scott, I do read a little now and then. Most recently I read Rise of the Vulcans; The History of Bush's War Cabinet, by James Mann. It's a very interesting book about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, and Armitage. It doesn't take sides (it's neither a glowing testimony to their brilliance, nor a condemnation of their malevolence), but instead simply recounts where they came from, the experiences which shaped their philosophies, and how they got to be where they are today. Some of the facts above are taken from that book, some from other news sources, and some are taken directly from documents, writings, or historical footage. James, on the other hand, apparently gets his 'facts' from that paragon of unbiased reporting Fox News. That, and web-based conspiracy theorists. There's accuracy for ya!

if he was willing to lie about that what major issue would he lie about in his job.. Jeepers! Such a person might lie about why we are going to war against Iraq, or about a connection to 9/11, or about an active nuclear program, or about arial drones that can reach the US, or about WMD, or about mobile weapons labs, or about helping the Bin Laden and Saud families get out of the US immediately after 9/11, or about terrorism having increased dramatically under Bush's watch, or about blowing the cover of a CIA agent, or about the expected cost of the war, or about how difficult it would be, or about having a 'coalition of the willing' that is actually mostly mercenaries, or about having been elected President, or about scrubbing voter rolls in Florida, or about being a 'moderate' on abortion, or about letting Enron and Exxon dictate US energy policy, or about who will benefit from his tax breaks, or about being 'fiscally responsible' while creating the largest national deficit in the history of the world, or about having met the official definition of "AWOL", or about removing Iraq from the list of 'terrorist nations' so that we could sell them weapons, or about selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages, or about funnelling the profits from such sales to terrorists in Central America, or about bugging the Democratic Headquarters, or about engineering the Watergate break-in, or... Yeah, I know some of these things go back further than George II, but his cabinet - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc, - were central to all of the above. They are a pack of liars, with Bush as the Chief Weasel. I can understand why conservatives hate Clinton, but I can't understand how you cannot hate Bush even more so.

Cadist, Leopards are cats, and any cat owner knows that if you want to pacify a cat, you give it a can of tuna. If you want to scare it off, just show it a pet carrier. If you want it to come running, use an electric can opener. We got mountain lions, bears, foxes and bobcats around here, but no leaopards.

G-code, it took me a while to respond to your links on the 9/11 thread, as they were pretty long and I had to wait until last night to read them. Personally, I have to split a bit from Jack on this one, as I think that the Slate review seemed pretty well researched, though I disagree with your assessment of Slate as being a 'liberal' magazine. There are plenty of news sources that often display a 'conservative' slant, but I would not broadly dismiss them as biased simply because I disagree with them. In reality, most news sources have the same bias, which is simply sensationalism. If it bleeds, it leads, and if people complain, then they must be watching. The political agenda is secondary to the ratings agenda. I have seen all of Michael Moore's films, and I am looking forward to seeing Farenheit 9/11, but I consider Moore to be an entertainer instead of a journalist. He is not at all unbiased, as he himself openly admits, and his films have a definite partisan agenda. For me, he is simply a liberal antidote to the equally biased, partisan, and unfounded rantings of Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and so many others. What I would point out to you is that none of the conservative blowhards mentioned above qualify as news journalists, according to the FCC. Their shows are entertainment, and that is how they avoid both fairness and accuracy rules, and equal-time laws. Simply put, they have chosen entertainment value over accuracy and accountability. Michael Moore fits right in with this group. None of them should be considered a reliable news source, whether you happen to agree with them or not. Oh, and James: Never in my life have I seen someone as morally bankrupt act so piously(sp?), dragged the office of the presidency through the mud, treated the White House like a frat house... he shoudl have been hanged, and if he would have pulled that crap 100 years ago, he would have been impeached Word for word, this is what I and many others (Democrats and Republicans) think of George W Bush.

There are plenty of liberals out there who don't have any sense of humor either. But you knew that already.