QueenZone discussion #934506

Bubbles Puddifoot wrote: RIP Mr. Ford. The pall bearers should drop his casket, just for old times sake ;)

<font color=#FFFFFF> The Invisible Man wrote: Sadly, James Brown passed away Christmas day...I'm not kidding.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

Danny1 wrote: 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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: 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.

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: 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...

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

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.

Lester Burnham wrote:

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: 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...

Check my first reply :\

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote:

Lester Burnham wrote:

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: 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...

Check my first reply :\

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!"

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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: link - Gandhi - Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): link

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 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: link - Gandhi - Czech 'Velvet Revolution' (Havel): link

I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list. Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.

Bubbles the bunny wrote: 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.