Again 'dies'? I thought he was dead already. There is a difference between 'dies' and 'died' you know.
Or does my English grammar suck?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why I find it injust, is because it gives off a clear signal, namely: if a president commits a crime, and he resigns, he gets off, or, in other words: presidency offers immunity.
Any other person would have been persecuted to the maximum extent of the law, and pardoning Nixon gives off the signal that he was somehow more than 'mere mortals', which is a very bad thing, especially since presidents after him have shown to increasingly take power into their own hands (most recently Bush with his disgusting Bolton-scam), passing by parliament.[/QUOTE]
What is your point? Alot of criminals get off scot free everyday. hmmm, Parliament? lol. 'Mere Mortals'? lol. Morals maybe?
Any other person would have been persecuted to the maximum extent of the law, and pardoning Nixon gives off the signal that he was somehow more than 'mere mortals', which is a very bad thing, especially since presidents after him have shown to increasingly take power into their own hands (most recently Bush with his disgusting Bolton-scam), passing by parliament.[/QUOTE]
What is your point? Alot of criminals get off scot free everyday. hmmm, Parliament? lol. 'Mere Mortals'? lol. Morals maybe?
"EVERY President ever in office has committed crimes they would have been persecuted for if they weren't the president, so it's not like there Nixon is a major exception."
Uhh.... that doesn't make it better. Doesn't that mean they should *all* be prosecuted? No wonder they all get away with it! :)
But seriously... the excuse for pardoning Nixon was actually one of the better ones thats been offered up in politics, I feel. Too true, that lengthy trials are just one of many things that people use to distract 'people' from real issues. But that's just not good enough when one is dealing with a guy like Nixon. I'm just wondering, exactly how much of a criminal should a President be before he gets prosecuted?
And shit; if Ford was worried about 'distracting' the country with a lengthy trial, why didn't they just put something else on the tube?? Didn't they have complete control of the media like they do now? :P
Politicians should take a severe paycut, because at the moment they're all in it for the wrong reasons. Things like Nixon's full pardon just make it like a gentlemen's club with very little grasp of what is right and wrong.
Uhh.... that doesn't make it better. Doesn't that mean they should *all* be prosecuted? No wonder they all get away with it! :)
But seriously... the excuse for pardoning Nixon was actually one of the better ones thats been offered up in politics, I feel. Too true, that lengthy trials are just one of many things that people use to distract 'people' from real issues. But that's just not good enough when one is dealing with a guy like Nixon. I'm just wondering, exactly how much of a criminal should a President be before he gets prosecuted?
And shit; if Ford was worried about 'distracting' the country with a lengthy trial, why didn't they just put something else on the tube?? Didn't they have complete control of the media like they do now? :P
Politicians should take a severe paycut, because at the moment they're all in it for the wrong reasons. Things like Nixon's full pardon just make it like a gentlemen's club with very little grasp of what is right and wrong.
PS Earlier I said famous people die in 3s... you know, the 3rd one may well be Saddam Hussein. If he gets hanged as soon as the news channels are boasting.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Danny1 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thanks for posting this topic Dorian. After all the jokes at Mr.Fords expense, i think we should remember that he was awarded the navy cross for his brave acts during W.W.2 and that he was a outstanding football player at the university of Michigan.[/QUOTE]
Fighting at World War II I can understand...
Outstanding football player, who gives a shit.
Fighting at World War II I can understand...
Outstanding football player, who gives a shit.
My point, Zebonka, was that things were headed in that direction LONG before the pardon of Nixon. Politics has been a gentlemen's club since the founding of the country....none of the "founding fathers" or first members of the government on any level were ordinary farmers, merchants or settlers (despite what the history books like to make you think...that's call romanticizing history, and too often unfortunately passes for real history). They were all rich white men with the disposible income and time to devote to politics and governing the country. It started out as a gentlemen's club, so why in the world would time have changed that? Especially now that you have to have so much money to be able to mount a campaign to get you there because media is making everything so expensive. The pardon of Nixon may be symptomatic of the problem, but it didn't cause the problem and, to be honest, it was a pretty mild symptom of the problem. Other scandals, like Enron, Haliburton and the Abramhoff Lobbying Scandal, not to mention anything involving the War on Terror, are much worse than pardoning Nixon was.
Besides, the point in the long and drawn out trial would have been what? He was already out of office, publicly disgraced and humiliated, and would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career and life were over, Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would have relieved tensions at the moment, but would have distracted the country and the government from bigger issues (Vietnam and the Recession) and made things worse in the long run. Besides, they were in shallow water anyway with whether Ford could even be president. Until they knew for sure that he could be without challenge, running a trial would have been dangerous, since no one knew who the top man should be, or whether they could even constitutionally have a trial. Criminal trial, yes, but not a Presidential Misconduct trial, because Congress couldn't be sure who had the authority to authorize such a trial, since they didn't know for sure if the guy in the Oval Office could even be there. So a Presidential Misconduct trial could never have happened anyway. The only thing there could have been was a criminal trial, and Ford recognized that not only would it have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, and would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation and inability to hold another position in what he lived for...Politics) but that it would garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government and the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with the bigger storm clouds in the sky. Besides, you think Nixon could have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the world anyway? Mercy is not always a bad thing, as long as it's not overused.
Besides, the point in the long and drawn out trial would have been what? He was already out of office, publicly disgraced and humiliated, and would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career and life were over, Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would have relieved tensions at the moment, but would have distracted the country and the government from bigger issues (Vietnam and the Recession) and made things worse in the long run. Besides, they were in shallow water anyway with whether Ford could even be president. Until they knew for sure that he could be without challenge, running a trial would have been dangerous, since no one knew who the top man should be, or whether they could even constitutionally have a trial. Criminal trial, yes, but not a Presidential Misconduct trial, because Congress couldn't be sure who had the authority to authorize such a trial, since they didn't know for sure if the guy in the Oval Office could even be there. So a Presidential Misconduct trial could never have happened anyway. The only thing there could have been was a criminal trial, and Ford recognized that not only would it have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, and would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation and inability to hold another position in what he lived for...Politics) but that it would garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government and the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with the bigger storm clouds in the sky. Besides, you think Nixon could have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the world anyway? Mercy is not always a bad thing, as long as it's not overused.
The wierd thing about this is the parrallelism with two years ago, when a former president
(Ronald Reagan, now Gerald Ford) and a legend of soul music(Ray Charles, now James Brown)
died within a few days of each other.
(Ronald Reagan, now Gerald Ford) and a legend of soul music(Ray Charles, now James Brown)
died within a few days of each other.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My point, Zebonka, was that things were headed in that direction LONG before the pardon of Nixon. Politics has been a gentlemen's club since the founding of the country....none of the "founding fathers" or first members of the government on any level were ordinary farmers, merchants or settlers (despite what the history books like to make you think...that's call romanticizing history, and too often unfortunately passes for real history). They were all rich white men with the disposible income and time to devote to politics and governing the country. It started out as a gentlemen's club, so why in the world would time have changed that? Especially now that you have to have so much money to be able to mount a campaign to get you there because media is making everything so expensive. The pardon of Nixon may be symptomatic of the problem, but it didn't cause the problem and, to be honest, it was a pretty mild symptom of the problem. Other scandals, like Enron, Haliburton and the Abramhoff Lobbying Scandal, not to mention anything involving the War on Terror, are much worse than pardoning Nixon was.
Besides, the point in the long and drawn out trial would have been what? He was already out of office, publicly disgraced and humiliated, and would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career and life were over, Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would have relieved tensions at the moment, but would have distracted the country and the government from bigger issues (Vietnam and the Recession) and made things worse in the long run. Besides, they were in shallow water anyway with whether Ford could even be president. Until they knew for sure that he could be without challenge, running a trial would have been dangerous, since no one knew who the top man should be, or whether they could even constitutionally have a trial. Criminal trial, yes, but not a Presidential Misconduct trial, because Congress couldn't be sure who had the authority to authorize such a trial, since they didn't know for sure if the guy in the Oval Office could even be there. So a Presidential Misconduct trial could never have happened anyway. The only thing there could have been was a criminal trial, and Ford recognized that not only would it have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, and would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation and inability to hold another position in what he lived for...Politics) but that it would garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government and the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with the bigger storm clouds in the sky. Besides, you think Nixon could have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the world anyway? Mercy is not always a bad thing, as long as it's not overused. [/QUOTE]
Yah, I get all that, really..... the point is - that there are worse examples, does not make the lesser evils any more acceptable. To me its just a very bleak outlook that nobody is doing anything to change any of that corrupt behaviour.
I cannot accept the idea that we should let criminals off with a pardon because there were worse cases before and after. It's corrupt. He shafted people and got away with it. When you're presented with someone who has been that dishonest and corrupt, you have an opportunity to *change* things; it doesn't have to be a case of 'well the rest of them get away with it, so he can too'. Nixon should have been a turning point with regards to the prosecution of high-up jackasses. Just think - if we'd START taking these liars to trial, then we'd set up a trend where people are accountable, as opposed to just letting the whole corrupt mess continue to fester.
I'm searching for a particular term here... is it the '
Besides, the point in the long and drawn out trial would have been what? He was already out of office, publicly disgraced and humiliated, and would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career and life were over, Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would have relieved tensions at the moment, but would have distracted the country and the government from bigger issues (Vietnam and the Recession) and made things worse in the long run. Besides, they were in shallow water anyway with whether Ford could even be president. Until they knew for sure that he could be without challenge, running a trial would have been dangerous, since no one knew who the top man should be, or whether they could even constitutionally have a trial. Criminal trial, yes, but not a Presidential Misconduct trial, because Congress couldn't be sure who had the authority to authorize such a trial, since they didn't know for sure if the guy in the Oval Office could even be there. So a Presidential Misconduct trial could never have happened anyway. The only thing there could have been was a criminal trial, and Ford recognized that not only would it have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, and would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation and inability to hold another position in what he lived for...Politics) but that it would garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government and the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with the bigger storm clouds in the sky. Besides, you think Nixon could have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the world anyway? Mercy is not always a bad thing, as long as it's not overused. [/QUOTE]
Yah, I get all that, really..... the point is - that there are worse examples, does not make the lesser evils any more acceptable. To me its just a very bleak outlook that nobody is doing anything to change any of that corrupt behaviour.
I cannot accept the idea that we should let criminals off with a pardon because there were worse cases before and after. It's corrupt. He shafted people and got away with it. When you're presented with someone who has been that dishonest and corrupt, you have an opportunity to *change* things; it doesn't have to be a case of 'well the rest of them get away with it, so he can too'. Nixon should have been a turning point with regards to the prosecution of high-up jackasses. Just think - if we'd START taking these liars to trial, then we'd set up a trend where people are accountable, as opposed to just letting the whole corrupt mess continue to fester.
I'm searching for a particular term here... is it the '
Does anyone else remember that SNL skit with Dana Carvey?
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
I know what you mean, Zebonka. And I understand what you are saying. I'm not saying that the system shouldn't be changed, because it definatly needs to be. But it's past the point where a single person can change it now, so we shouldn't expect change without dismanteling the entire system. The thing has languished and become more and more corrupted for so long now that there is no hope of politicans getting the balls to change it, they all have too much to loose. So the only option at this point would be to scrap the whole thing that start over, which I don't see coming anytime soon.
Change is needed, and change is good, but don't hold your breath that it's coming.
Change is needed, and change is good, but don't hold your breath that it's coming.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does anyone else remember that SNL skit with Dana Carvey?
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
[/QUOTE]
Check my first reply :\
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
[/QUOTE]
Check my first reply :\
I found out how Gerald Ford really died.
Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris.
I suspected as much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why I find it injust, is because it gives off a clear signal, namely: if a president commits a crime, and he resigns, he gets off, or, in other words: presidency offers immunity.
Any other person would have been persecuted to the maximum extent of the law, and pardoning Nixon gives off the signal that he was somehow more than 'mere mortals', which is a very bad thing, especially since presidents after him have shown to increasingly take power into their own hands (most recently Bush with his disgusting Bolton-scam), passing by parliament.[/QUOTE]
First off, the US doesn't have a parliament, but I realize you probably meant to say Congress, so I'll let that one slide.
Second, EVERY President ever in office has committed crimes they would have been persecuted for if they weren't the president, so it's not like there Nixon is a major exception. Do you think any of the Presidents since Nixon will be brought up on charges against them? Clinton won't ever get charged in the world court for the stuff he's done (Whitewater Scandal), and I guarantee you Bush Jr. won't get brought up on charges either. Hell, Roosevelt never got brought to trial for the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Operating under the assumption that Justice is always fair and blind is a nice concept, and isn't neccessarily a bad goal. But lets face reality here...Justice can be bought, has been bought, will continue to be bought and isn't anywhere near blind. What Ford did in pardoning Nixon isn't nearly as damaging to anyone as what Bush is doing now, or what Clinton did when he was in office (there were a lot of shady dealings going on there that most people don't like to acknowledge). At least Ford's pardon didn't kill anyone, and I don't think it caused any major disruptions in American's views of politics, since the views were already at their most jaded at that time, and have only become more jaded since with the acts of succeeding Presidents. You may not agree with his decision, that's fine, you don't have to, but on the damaging scale to America from 1-10, I'd say this pardon barely rates at all.
Thirdly, the trend towards the executive branch becoming more powerful isn't reliant on Nixon's pardon...that was in the works long before Nixon came into office, and has more to do with shifting perceptions of what the executive branch should be and what it needs to respond to than on "Well, we did this in the past, so let's push the envelope." (For example, see the war against communism and the "domino theory" used by Kennedy and his predecessors) I'd even say terrorism (a relatively recent phenomenon in it's present form, which coincidently started in the 1970's) has more to do with expanding executive power than pardoning criminals. There is nothing more convienient in a power grab than to have an enemy you have to fight who is deadly, but who you can't see, and we can't tell you about or they'll get us all, so you just have to trust us to handle the situation. Besides, what more harm could Nixon have done after he resigned in disgrace? Nothing. [/QUOTE]
I see your point, but find it lacking in idealism and overly pragmatic.
Oh, and for a history student, you made a huge blooper:
"Hell, Roosevelt never got brought to trial for the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
They were dropped under Truman. Roosevelt died April 12th '45.
Any other person would have been persecuted to the maximum extent of the law, and pardoning Nixon gives off the signal that he was somehow more than 'mere mortals', which is a very bad thing, especially since presidents after him have shown to increasingly take power into their own hands (most recently Bush with his disgusting Bolton-scam), passing by parliament.[/QUOTE]
First off, the US doesn't have a parliament, but I realize you probably meant to say Congress, so I'll let that one slide.
Second, EVERY President ever in office has committed crimes they would have been persecuted for if they weren't the president, so it's not like there Nixon is a major exception. Do you think any of the Presidents since Nixon will be brought up on charges against them? Clinton won't ever get charged in the world court for the stuff he's done (Whitewater Scandal), and I guarantee you Bush Jr. won't get brought up on charges either. Hell, Roosevelt never got brought to trial for the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Operating under the assumption that Justice is always fair and blind is a nice concept, and isn't neccessarily a bad goal. But lets face reality here...Justice can be bought, has been bought, will continue to be bought and isn't anywhere near blind. What Ford did in pardoning Nixon isn't nearly as damaging to anyone as what Bush is doing now, or what Clinton did when he was in office (there were a lot of shady dealings going on there that most people don't like to acknowledge). At least Ford's pardon didn't kill anyone, and I don't think it caused any major disruptions in American's views of politics, since the views were already at their most jaded at that time, and have only become more jaded since with the acts of succeeding Presidents. You may not agree with his decision, that's fine, you don't have to, but on the damaging scale to America from 1-10, I'd say this pardon barely rates at all.
Thirdly, the trend towards the executive branch becoming more powerful isn't reliant on Nixon's pardon...that was in the works long before Nixon came into office, and has more to do with shifting perceptions of what the executive branch should be and what it needs to respond to than on "Well, we did this in the past, so let's push the envelope." (For example, see the war against communism and the "domino theory" used by Kennedy and his predecessors) I'd even say terrorism (a relatively recent phenomenon in it's present form, which coincidently started in the 1970's) has more to do with expanding executive power than pardoning criminals. There is nothing more convienient in a power grab than to have an enemy you have to fight who is deadly, but who you can't see, and we can't tell you about or they'll get us all, so you just have to trust us to handle the situation. Besides, what more harm could Nixon have done after he resigned in disgrace? Nothing. [/QUOTE]
I see your point, but find it lacking in idealism and overly pragmatic.
Oh, and for a history student, you made a huge blooper:
"Hell, Roosevelt never got brought to trial for the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
They were dropped under Truman. Roosevelt died April 12th '45.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does anyone else remember that SNL skit with Dana Carvey?
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
[/QUOTE]
Check my first reply :\[/QUOTE]
Lmao, sorry I missed that!
"Gerald Ford dead today, after an overdose of crack cocaine."
Lmaooo.
"Richard Nixon's corpse climed out of its grave and strangled Gerald Ford to death!"
"Gerald Ford was mauled senselessly by a lion outside a convience store."
"Gerald Ford dead today, and I'm gay!"
(If we're invaded by Zimbabwe):
"Allabumbay, hungalay, himba, Gerald Ford, cluck cluck allay humbay."
"Gerald Ford dead today..."
Forgive me, I couldn't resist. It's one of my favorites...
[/QUOTE]
Check my first reply :\[/QUOTE]
Lmao, sorry I missed that!
"Gerald Ford dead today, after an overdose of crack cocaine."
Lmaooo.
"Richard Nixon's corpse climed out of its grave and strangled Gerald Ford to death!"
"Gerald Ford was mauled senselessly by a lion outside a convience store."
"Gerald Ford dead today, and I'm gay!"
(If we're invaded by Zimbabwe):
"Allabumbay, hungalay, himba, Gerald Ford, cluck cluck allay humbay."