[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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!"
[/QUOTE]
"Oh come on!"
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
Ahh...thanks for the correction there, Caspar. To be honest, I've only taken American History part I, which ended in about 1900. Never bothered to take the second half, since it wasn't in my area (Medieval/Early Modern Europe is my specialization). Again, I bow to the correction :-)
Lacking id
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]
Ahh...thanks for the correction there, Caspar. To be honest, I've only taken American History part I, which ended in about 1900. Never bothered to take the second half, since it wasn't in my area (Medieval/Early Modern Europe is my specialization). Again, I bow to the correction :-)
Lacking id
I agree that politics lack ideals as well as backbone, but I do not agree that one should just throw idealism overboard. In fact, I think that every person is obliged to act according to his or her own sense of moral virtue, and see no reason not to practice what I preach.
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
Double post
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree that politics lack ideals as well as backbone, but I do not agree that one should just throw idealism overboard. In fact, I think that every person is obliged to act according to his or her own sense of moral virtue, and see no reason not to practice what I preach.
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list.
Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list.
Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree that politics lack ideals as well as backbone, but I do not agree that one should just throw idealism overboard. In fact, I think that every person is obliged to act according to his or her own sense of moral virtue, and see no reason not to practice what I preach.
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list.
Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.[/QUOTE]
I just named three out of dozens of possibilities. It's a stylistic figure known as a 'tricolon', which is used because an enumeration of three entities forms a solid, presentable whole, and is far more pleasant to read than an exhaustive list.
Furthermore, the aim of the post was to prove that the claim of NO good consequences of idealism is false, not to provide a complete list of examples where idealism proved helpful.
I appreciate your addition, and agree with it, but wish to make it understood that the ommission, and many others with it, was made on purpose.
As for idealism that worked:
- The '74 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, which was bloodless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
- Gandhi
- Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list.
Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.[/QUOTE]
I just named three out of dozens of possibilities. It's a stylistic figure known as a 'tricolon', which is used because an enumeration of three entities forms a solid, presentable whole, and is far more pleasant to read than an exhaustive list.
Furthermore, the aim of the post was to prove that the claim of NO good consequences of idealism is false, not to provide a complete list of examples where idealism proved helpful.
I appreciate your addition, and agree with it, but wish to make it understood that the ommission, and many others with it, was made on purpose.
You are a wonderful debating partner, Caspar. However, I'd be careful using Wikipedia as a source because it's very shakey. If you are going to use it, make sure you check where they got their info from...some things on Wiki are very good, but others are not so good. (Numerous students of mine have gotten into trouble for this same type of thing)
Ghandi's idealism did work in the sense that it got the British out of India, and effectively signaled the end of the British Empire, but there was more to his message than that. As we speak, Indians are killing themselves in battles over religion (mainly Hindu vs. Muslim, but sometimes Christianity in there too) and one major part of Ghandi's message was unity among all Indians, and I don't ever remember hearing the fine print of "Only until the British are out" attatched to that. Martin Luther King is a good example as well, however it's not a true example of idealism winning either, because it is a battle that still rages on. African Americans may have equality before the law, but neither they nor I would call them completely equal. Heck, women of any color still aren't equal to men in a lot of respets, and that was a movement which started decades before MLK.
My point about Idealism isn't that it's bad...I generally think it's a good thing. My problem with it is that people want it all or they want nothing when it comes to idealism, and nothing gets accomplished that way (like suddenly we will wake up and everything will be perfect and ideal). People need to be willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen in small steps, and build from there. Also, idealism is a two way street, and not all idealism is good (After all, Hitler's Final Solution of a Master Race is by definition a form of idealism, as is most Catholic Christian doctrine which was used to justify colonialism, the expansion and inevitable Christianization of all people). If people weren't so lazy, put in the time and effort to make idealism work without expecting instant results, we'd be much closer to the idealism that we seek (although getting everyone to agree on what ideal is opens up a whole other can of worms).
Ghandi's idealism did work in the sense that it got the British out of India, and effectively signaled the end of the British Empire, but there was more to his message than that. As we speak, Indians are killing themselves in battles over religion (mainly Hindu vs. Muslim, but sometimes Christianity in there too) and one major part of Ghandi's message was unity among all Indians, and I don't ever remember hearing the fine print of "Only until the British are out" attatched to that. Martin Luther King is a good example as well, however it's not a true example of idealism winning either, because it is a battle that still rages on. African Americans may have equality before the law, but neither they nor I would call them completely equal. Heck, women of any color still aren't equal to men in a lot of respets, and that was a movement which started decades before MLK.
My point about Idealism isn't that it's bad...I generally think it's a good thing. My problem with it is that people want it all or they want nothing when it comes to idealism, and nothing gets accomplished that way (like suddenly we will wake up and everything will be perfect and ideal). People need to be willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen in small steps, and build from there. Also, idealism is a two way street, and not all idealism is good (After all, Hitler's Final Solution of a Master Race is by definition a form of idealism, as is most Catholic Christian doctrine which was used to justify colonialism, the expansion and inevitable Christianization of all people). If people weren't so lazy, put in the time and effort to make idealism work without expecting instant results, we'd be much closer to the idealism that we seek (although getting everyone to agree on what ideal is opens up a whole other can of worms).
I didn't use Wiki as a source, more as a pointer for anyone who didn't know the terms.
Didn't think you did...I was sure you knew what those were before you cited them. :-)
I wish he'd hurry up already! He just keeps dying..
Tuesday was supposed to be the last of it I thought.. that's why they rushed to make it a national day of no mail in his honor. Now I see that he's moving on to Michigan to continue dying Wednesday. Geez.
Gerald Ford: Dead on Tour '07. I think James Brown is opening for him in Cleveland.
Tuesday was supposed to be the last of it I thought.. that's why they rushed to make it a national day of no mail in his honor. Now I see that he's moving on to Michigan to continue dying Wednesday. Geez.
Gerald Ford: Dead on Tour '07. I think James Brown is opening for him in Cleveland.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bubbles the bunny wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now I see that he's moving on to Michigan to continue dying Wednesday. Geez.
Gerald Ford: Dead on Tour '07. I think James Brown is opening for him in Cleveland.[/QUOTE]
Wow... You rock. ;)
Gerald Ford: Dead on Tour '07. I think James Brown is opening for him in Cleveland.[/QUOTE]
Wow... You rock. ;)
with surprise guest appearance by Saddam Hussein.
I believe the touring act you're all searching for the name of is "The Hole in the Ground Gang".
Taking new members...
Taking new members...