I saw Jimmy Carter on the Daily show a week or so ago and was really
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
sneak out to the carpenter's shed to work off tension. Sounds like he'd be
person to have over for dinner and 'talk shop' with.
These are the articles I've found via Google:
"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.
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
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
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
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
...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
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
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
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
the doctrines of certain Protestant sects and so long as they don't
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
-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
-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
-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
-*and this just in, he's had the NSA spying on Americans* with no Judicial
Did we win the cold war? Or did we just absorb the bad behavior of the
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.
And then, you reply with hundreds of lines of propaganda.
Your interpretation was flawed.
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?
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.
On 23 Dec 2005 09:58:05 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
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
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
by attacking his wife is morally unjustifiable. It certainly is
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
rely on this administration to protect them, they now know that they
be attacked at any time as retailation against someone else in their
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.
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.
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.
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.
I sugest you DAGS for the text of the 1949 Geneva conventions.
A declaration of war in s not a predicate condition for their
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
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
Note crossposting and followups
Mark & Juanita wrote:
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
The US _has_ ratified the Convention prohibiting torture inhuman
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
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
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.
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.