It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Carter Seeks Vote in U.N. Against U.S.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:39 AM
Before we start calling for the heads of ex-Presidents, there needs to be a little history lesson. Presidents have been disagreeing with each other since the office was first instituted. Sometimes, these little spats would turn into out and out insults:

President John Adams said about ex-President George Washington:

The history of our Revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin's electrical rod smote the earth and out sprang General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his rod---and thenceforward these two conducted all the policies, negotiations, legislatures, and war.

Smith, Page. John Adams. New York: Doubleday, 1962: 380-381.

President Thomas Jefferson remarked about President John Adams:

Mr. Adams and his Federalists wish to sap the Republic by fraud, destroy it by force, and elect an English monarchy in its place.

P.L. Ford, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.vol.8. New York: Putnam, 1892-1899: 67.

And yes, oh my, the comments between "Presidents" get nastier.

President James K. Polk said about President Andrew Johnson:

Professing to be a Democrat, he has been politically if not personally hostile to me during my whole term [as president]. He is very vindictive and perverse in his temper and conduct. If he had the manliness or independence to manifest his opposition openly, he know he could not be again elected to his constituents.

Allan Nevins, ed., Polk: The Diary of a President. New York: Capricorn, 1968:362.

President Ulysses S. Grant bitterly sniped at President James A. Garfield after his days in office:

Garfield has shown that he is not possessed of the backbone of an angle-worm.

Badeau, Adam. Grant in Peace. Hartford: Scranton, 1887: 534.

President Woodrow Wilson(once a college professor before the oval office) wrote about the history of the United States. He really had a negative view about President Ulysses S. Grant:

The honest, simple-hearted soldier had not added prestige to the presidential office. He himself knew that he had failed...that he ought never to have been made President.

Wilson, Woodrow. A History of the American People. vol. 5. New York: Harper & Bros., 1902: 112.

In light of this, should Mr. Carter deserve to be tried for treason for his comments? Or, are you that hard-hearted enough to put all of the former Presidents who dissented with one another on trial?

[edit on 17-3-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by vuoto
By the way, if you Google "Goddamn piece of paper" you will find some very good articles about President Bush's view of American values as delineated in our Constitution.

Thank God for a few courageous people like Senator Feingold and President Jimmy Carter, who understand that until we show the world that we value the rule of law, by bringing the criminal who currently resides in the White House to justice, we will never regain our status as Leader of the Free World. It is our choice to make: Will we struggle to maintain control of the world through military force, negating our belief in Liberty and Equality, or will live up to the great ideal that the great men who wrote our Constitution envisioned?

What a shame that small men today, like our sitting president and his boss, Dick Cheney, can trample on the legacy of great men like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc.

Uh, okay. We need to take this guy Thompson's word on this surely...
He talked with three unnamed people who had a meeting in the OO and actually talked to a lib leftist rag about the convo in the Oval and what the Prez said....uh, they call that political suicide my froind!!!

If Bush is so anti-Constitution, then why does he promote STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS TO THE SUPREME COURT???? You think this is a hint to what he thinks?????

Get out of the Blue and get a clue.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The UN is mired in so much scandal that how can anybody take it seriously these days.

And how about the some 180 countries who voted for the resolution creating the new UN Council on Human Rights, while only four countries (the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, the U.S. and Israel) voted against? Are they all "mired in scandal", "slaves" or "not to be taken seriously"?

In my view, if the U.S. votes against a resolution where 180 countries voted for it, and insists all the other countries are wrong, there is only one word for that: arrogance.

<< 1   >>

log in