Jimmy Carter website

Page 1 of 6  

Is there a good website with some of Jimmy carter's woodworking. I would love to see his work up close.
Thanks
--
Greg
Cowboy Up has taken on a whole different meaning lately
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really intrigued by the enthusiasm in his voice when he talked about woodworking. Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture, and at Camp David he would sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be a fun person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
Dave
These are the articles I've found via Google:
http://www.palomar.edu/woodworking/newhtml/filbeck_meets_carter.html
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1987_November_December/The_Restoration_of_Jimmy_Carter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Apparently he's got his own shop and loves to make furniture,"
"I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president."
He was given a complete wood shop when he left office. He quietly made nice green wood rocking chairs at his home in Plains Georgia for a little while then he decided to interject himself into world affairs where he has been about as correct as he was in his Presidential days.Too bad all past Presidents can't keep their mouths shut as Pres. Reagan and First Pres. Bush did for instance.
Walt Conner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why do ex-presidents have to keep their mouths shut? Freedom of speech is the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, and should be encouraged. I think Bush and Reagan kept their mouths shut becuase in their heart of hearts they really didn't give a crap about the rest of us. When Mad King George gets impeached or manages to somehow cling to office through the rest of his term, he's going to go back to fishing and golf, and will never look back. Like him or not, Carter seems to really want to keep trying to make the world a better place.
Why can't we talk about Carter's love of woodworking on the wreck here without people feeling the need to rip on him as president? I wish he was president right now instead of the lying loser we currently have. Besides - Carter got a bum rap - Nixon and Ford left him with a world angry at the US and an economy addicted to cheap oil.. And everyone seems to forget that Reagan committed high treason when he negotiated with the Iranians to keep the hostages longer to hurt Carter in the election. And as a final insult, conservative columnist George Will delivered a stolen copy of Carter's debate briefing notebook to Reagan, making sure that Reagan had memorized catchy combacks to Carter's debate points - making it look like Reagan actually understood the issues. A shameful time in our country's great history.
Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Stuve wrote:

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

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

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

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

Going to Havana and praising their health care system while excoriating our own country was a real good move in that direction. He'd have been better though of if he had stuck to habitat for humanity and woodworking. Now he just appears to be a bitter old defeated politician trying to claim another few minutes in the spotlight.
A former president(s) criticizing the sitting president in a time of war on that war and military action does not help make the world a better place. In fact, it most likely emboldens those whom we are fighting and in so doing, puts our troops at more risk because the enemy will fight harder knowing there is a possible source of division that they can exploit.

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

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

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

You forgot your tinfoil hat and forgot to mention the Bush SR-71 trip to Iran. ;-)
Do you realize how illogical your statement is? Why in @#$% would the Iranians want to have Carter defeated? He was the best friend they had compared to what they knew would occur under Reagan. (Yeah, let's support he person who is going to more than threaten military action against us and send in more than a couple of helicopters. Really brilliant logic there.)

So one comment regarding the ex-president becomes a political diatribe of paranoid conspiracy theories. Certainly the other side never did anything similar. Let's see, a couple of grandparents going Christmas shopping in Florida turn on the cell phone receiver in their Cadillac (don't all Caddies come with that option) and just happen to hear Newt Gingrich discussing political strategy and then turn on the tape recorder (that apparently comes with the Cadillac cell phone receiver). Seems there was a similar instance in the prior debates that went the other direction. Doesn't make it right, just makes sure that people realize that the other side is not pristine in this issue.
Do you want to talk shameful? How about 1) Holding a news story until the Saturday before an election, then releasing it in order to provide a last-minute shock to the election process 2) Forging documents that supposedly showed that the sitting president had received favorable treatment in the National Guard and getting those documents promulgated by the main-stream media (anxious for anything it could get to damage the president whether true or not) 3) Knowing that your candidate in New Jersey (under indictment for bribery) was going to lose the election, having him drop out after the deadline for withdrawing, then getting the state supreme court to allow breaking the state law that indicated "no changes to ballots could be within 90 days before an election"
Something about "people who live in glass houses" comes to mind here.
There was never any doubt that Reagan understood the issues, he had been active since the mid-60's in identifying the direction he thought the country should be headed and and what the US needed to do to unleash the creativity and abilities of its citizens. Do you really think the Republicans needed Jimmy's notebook to know what his positions were? [Well, then again, maybe they needed the notebooks to know what positions he was going to express, not necessarily what position he held]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Crossposted to alt.politics Followups to alt.politics
Mark & Juanita wrote:

IIUC, your reasoning is that anyone, not merely a former president, who voices any objections to any policies, no matter how heinous, of the present President is 'undermining' the sitting President.
That is like saying that everyone is free to practice whatever religion they chose so long as it involves a belief in God and is consistant with the doctrines of certain Protestant sects and so long as they don't mind their children being led in Protestant prayers and taught Protestant doctrine in the public schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty bad.

I suspect the documents were forged by Bush supporters, knowing that it they were used, they'd be exposed as forgeries and would by association discredit the story CBS was already going to run based on interviews. Just my personal conspiracy theory.
How about calling McCain "the Manchurian Candidate" and claiming he had an illegitmate black child?
How about claiming that Ann RIchards was a Lesbian?
How about submitted forged documents to the IAEA, obstructing the same weapons inspection program the Bush administration had demanded only a few months earlier?
How about Bush refusing to testify under oath before his own 9-11 comission? How about Cheney and RIce ALSO refusing to testify under oath? How about Alberto Gonzales comitting perjury at his own confirmation hearings for Attorney General?
How about rendition? How about the Bybee memo?
How about if we prosecute the crimes of the present, as a deterrant to future crime, rather than using past crimes to excuse them?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, you're right Mark. I should have stuck to woodworking; I should never type angry. Politically, I'm a moderate born of Republican parents. In fact, I still get signed pictures and love letters from Bush & Cheney hoping I'll become a big donor. The politics of this country have turned so far right that I guess I do look like a leftie.
I see red when people blindly spout the party line - Clinton and Carter are to blame for everything, and the Republicans are the party of "Middle American Values (tm)". I can't even listen to the AM dial on the radio any more due to right-wing talk shows frothing about those evil liberals, how good outsourcing is for the economy, and how GW is the second coming.
Like many presidents before him, GW, or as I like to call him "Mad King George" has much to be ashamed of, but his are of an almost incredible magnitude - and all of which should make Conservatives angry:
-ignoring warnings about Bin Ladin because Clinton was "obsessed with him" -ignoring North Korea because Clinton was so interested in making deals with him -using 9/11 to satisfy his personal score with Saddam (-Iran was headed in a moderate direction until we invaded Iraq, the population panicked and elected a crazy man who will cause us grief in the future) -lying and using forged uranium documents to justify the war -torturing prisoners of war -maintaining a network of secret prisons around the world to hide the torture -running up massive deficits that we'll be paying for decades -outing a CIA agent active in nuclear arms proliferation work -doing nothing after 9/11 to stop the greatest layoff of American workers we've ever seen -losing America's most important port city to hurricane Katrina - and then lying and saying he was never asked for help -never firing people for screwing up badly - only those who disagree with him -*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial oversight
Did we win the cold war? Or did we just absorb the bad behavior of the Stalinists?
Oops, as Reagan famously quipped: there I go again. Off to the woodshop to atone for my rant... I'm making sliding drawers for my kitchen cabinets. Fun stuff.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Your interpretation was flawed.

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

Bush is in Britain now?

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

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

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

Yawn.
We'll see.

Yeah, I'm sure this was an accidental rant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Crossposted to alt.politics. Follow-ups set to alt.politics
Dave Hinz wrote:

Like when, 1989?
Got a cite?

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

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

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

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

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Dec 2005 09:58:05 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Follow-ups fixed. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IN ALT.POLITICS DAMMIT! If I did, I'd have subscribed there. This thread was started in rec.woodworking by somebody ostensibly discussing woodworking.

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

You will gain tons more credibility in this regard if you were to simultaneously call for an all-out investigation in determining who leaked to the press the fact that the NSA was monitoring phone calls from areas in foreign countries with Al Quaeda activity to people in the US. Oh, BTW, this was shortly after 9/11 (remember that date? Just in case you, like many in the opposition party seem to have forgotten, that is when agents of Al Queada hijacked 4 jetliners and destroyed the World Trade Center and flew one into the Pentagon. At the time, we were seriously trying to determine whether additional attacks were in the offing) *That* is a serious breach of national security, was probably classified with handling caveats in addition to the highest level of classification and *seriously* undermines our effort to defeat the terrorists.
The Plame issue was a non-issue. Plame was *not* working as a covert agent when her identity as a CIA employee was discussed. The current NSA issue is one of those things that is
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Crossposted to alt.politics. Follow-ups set to alt.politics
Mark & Juanita wrote:

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

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

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

False. He did not provide me with any cites in which Saddam Hussein admitted having WMD. Also, AFAIK, Saddam Hussein has never been on either side of the aisle.
As to "careful study and search for the truth", maybe you should have at least considered reading the exchange once before responding to it?

That was never a secret.

Again, it was NEVER a secret that the NSA intercepts and monitors telecomunications. The fact that you didn't know that doesn't mean that everyone else, espeicially al Queda, shared your ignorance. What was, and still is a secret are the identities of the persons whose telecomunications were being monitored.
The warrants issued by FISA were, and still are secret. The program NEVER was secret. Al Queda had no way of knowing whether or not FISA had issued warants to monitor their communications.
Did you even think for a second before you wrote that, or are you just regurgitating your talking points for this week?
The only thing that was a secret and no longer is, is the fact that the Bush Administration bypassed FISA oversight. NO classified information was released by that revelation.

First and foremost it is a moral issue. Taking political revenge on a man by attacking his wife is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is something no Christian would ever consider doing.
Secondly, Plame's status as a liason to the FBI on WMD issue was classified, which qualifies her for protection under the statute.
Third, consider the effect on morale. Not only can our CIA operatives not rely on this administration to protect them, they now know that they may be attacked at any time as retailation against someone else in their family.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip

Both sides had the same "intelligence," but only 1 decided to invade another country on the basis of faulty intelligence, having decided first and then flopping all over the place for an excuse. Bush is a war criminal.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong, both sides agreed to invade. It was only later that the left flip flopped with tails between their legs claiming bad intelligence. It was expected of them to go the other way. Totally predictable. It is the same old same old. One side is against the other side regardless of what is right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
note crossposting and followups.
Leon wrote:

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

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

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Peterson wrote:

Lots of people are war criminals depending on who you ask and who wins the war. War criminal is pretty subjective and has been batted around at so many people it really doesn't have much meaning anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did you notice that there was never a declaration of war? Easier to get away with things if you don't have to worry about details like the Geneva Convention.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

I sugest you DAGS for the text of the 1949 Geneva conventions. A declaration of war in s not a predicate condition for their applicability.
I've read the the US has never fully ratified the 1949 conventions. If you can find out which parts the US has rejected, please let me know.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Note crossposting and followups
Mark & Juanita wrote:

False.
You should read them before commenting on them.
The US has not ratified all of the Geneva conventions which does tend to complicate the issue as to exactlywhat our obligations are. But a refusal to regognize some of the convention, or parts of them does NOT justify saying that the Conventions themselves do not have those provisions.
The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman treatment and cruel aand degrading punishment which applies to everyone without exception, even our own citizens.

Again False. Protections for spies,sabotuers and civilians accused of a beligerant act (e.g. guerillas or partisans not in uniform) not only are found in the 1949 Geneva Conventions but also in other international treaties
at least as far back as the early 20th century. Check out the Hague Conventions.In the US protections for spies date back to a time befor there even was a United States, by an act of the Continental Congress in 1775.
Check it out for yourself and then let Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson know for me, OK?

The prohibition against torture in that bill was certainly not needed. What was needed was enforcement of existing laws.
The UCMJ prohibits assault, battery, and acts of cruelty making it impossible to torture a prisoner without violating the UCMJ. No officer, not even the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to order a violation of the UCMJ.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.