Carol! the Musical 26.12.2006 23:54 |
I just saw this on TV a minute ago.. I don't believe any articles on it have been made yet. EDIT: Here... link |
Lester Burnham 26.12.2006 23:57 |
I bet he was delicious. (seriously, that's too bad.) |
Ale Solan 27.12.2006 00:15 |
link |
john bodega 27.12.2006 00:26 |
Famous dead people come in 3s, you know. WHO WILL BE NEXT??! |
Deacon Fan 27.12.2006 00:39 |
Should be Tammy Faye next. She's down to 68 pounds with cancer according to her son. :( RIP Mr. Ford. The pall bearers should drop his casket, just for old times sake ;) |
iGSM 27.12.2006 02:29 |
*chortle* I'll always remember him as Homer's neighbour. I can't believe there's that much of an age gap between Ford and Bush Snr. |
thomasquinn 32989 27.12.2006 08:42 |
Ford, the guy nobody voted for. It was certainly a shock for the American people when he became president. Undoubtedly, that counted for something in his defeat by Jimmy Peanut. Not one of the major presidents here, he didn't do very much except clean up Nixon's shit (Vietnam), and start some token 'inflation-battles'. Oh, and he pardoned Nixon, which was was highly injust. |
Mr.Jingles 27.12.2006 09:01 |
Who would have thought that Bush Sr. could be this funny... link |
The Real Wizard 27.12.2006 10:56 |
Bubbles Puddifoot wrote: RIP Mr. Ford. The pall bearers should drop his casket, just for old times sake ;)Hahahaha! Second best laugh today. |
bitesthedust 27.12.2006 13:52 |
The President that no-one voted for. R.I.P. |
deleted user 27.12.2006 14:09 |
Sadly, James Brown passed away Christmas day...I'm not kidding. |
Lester Burnham 27.12.2006 14:18 |
<font color=#FFFFFF> The Invisible Man wrote: Sadly, James Brown passed away Christmas day...I'm not kidding.No one said you were, considering the thread about it is still on the front page. |
AspiringPhilosophe 27.12.2006 14:36 |
Just a question for Caspar....why was it unjust to pardon Nixon? Granted the man was the worst president in history (until now, that is) and many wanted him persecuted. But he recognized then what many now recognize with the benefit of hindsight....the pardon was needed to help the country move on. The country was already going through a constitutional crisis (could he even be president if he was never elected?) and was in the middle of the recession and the Vietnam mess...the last thing the country needed on top of all of that shit was a long and drawn out trial that would accomplish nothing but futher undermine the faith in government that most people already had after Watergate. He recognized the need to put the past in the past and move on to get started solving the issues that needed to be solved, even though he didn't get time to solve them. Actually I think it was a courageous decision, because he knew it would be very unpopular and could (and indeed did) cost him the re-election campaign two years later. And this has been aboslutely nuts, to tell you the truth. I'm at my parents house, which is 45 minutes north of Grand Rapids, where he was born and raised. They are going to bury him in GR, in the museum he dedicated and has named after him. Boy I'm glad I'm not going to be anywhere near GR that day....it will be insanity down there, he is extremely well beloved in this area (he was the congressional rep, and was re-elected 13 times in a row by HUGE margins) |
thomasquinn 32989 27.12.2006 14:40 |
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. |
AspiringPhilosophe 27.12.2006 16:20 |
<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. |
Rick 27.12.2006 17:50 |
Again 'dies'? I thought he was dead already. There is a difference between 'dies' and 'died' you know. Or does my English grammar suck? |
Crezchi 27.12.2006 18:36 |
<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.What is your point? Alot of criminals get off scot free everyday. hmmm, Parliament? lol. 'Mere Mortals'? lol. Morals maybe? |
john bodega 27.12.2006 20:41 |
"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. |
john bodega 27.12.2006 20:42 |
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. |
Mr.Jingles 27.12.2006 20:46 |
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.Fighting at World War II I can understand... Outstanding football player, who gives a shit. |
AspiringPhilosophe 27.12.2006 22:10 |
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. |
Knute 27.12.2006 22:51 |
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. |
john bodega 27.12.2006 23:05 |
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.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 ' |
KillerQueen840 27.12.2006 23:18 |
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... |
AspiringPhilosophe 27.12.2006 23:42 |
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. |
Lester Burnham 28.12.2006 02:48 |
<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 :\ |
john bodega 28.12.2006 04:43 |
I found out how Gerald Ford really died. Chuck Norris. |
iGSM 28.12.2006 07:21 |
I suspected as much. |
thomasquinn 32989 28.12.2006 08:35 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I see your point, but find it lacking in idealism and overly pragmatic.<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. 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. |
KillerQueen840 28.12.2006 10:48 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Lmao, sorry I missed that!<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 :\ "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." |
Lester Burnham 28.12.2006 12:04 |
<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote:"Oh come on!"Lester Burnham wrote: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!"<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 :\ |
AspiringPhilosophe 28.12.2006 13:56 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: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 :-)CMU HistoryGirl wrote: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.<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. Lacking id |
thomasquinn 32989 29.12.2006 08:19 |
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 29.12.2006 08:59 |
Double post |
Mr.Jingles 29.12.2006 08:59 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list.<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 Another form of non-violent spread of idealism. |
thomasquinn 32989 29.12.2006 11:04 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: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.Mr.Jingles wrote:I would add Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights movement to that list. Another form of non-violent spread of idealism.<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 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. |
AspiringPhilosophe 29.12.2006 13:02 |
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). |
thomasquinn 32989 29.12.2006 13:09 |
I didn't use Wiki as a source, more as a pointer for anyone who didn't know the terms. |
AspiringPhilosophe 29.12.2006 13:12 |
Didn't think you did...I was sure you knew what those were before you cited them. :-) |
Deacon Fan 03.01.2007 00:55 |
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. |
Dan C. 03.01.2007 01:16 |
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.Wow... You rock. ;) |
Mr.Jingles 03.01.2007 09:08 |
with surprise guest appearance by Saddam Hussein. |
john bodega 03.01.2007 10:13 |
I believe the touring act you're all searching for the name of is "The Hole in the Ground Gang". Taking new members... |