Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 11:56 PM

So, is he for real dead and for real buried yet? There just has to be a new story soon.

How about the American sailor rescued off Chile?

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

I'm listening to him interviewed on another network right now. He makes sense.

Nixon started to balk at what the international financiers wanted him to do (almost all U.S. presidents in the last century have acted on behalf of the international financiers). So when Nixon balked, the Watergate burglars were sent in to get caught intentionally (went back 4 times before the security guard caught them). Then the Washington Post govt propaganda machine started shaping the story...set up Bob Woodward to write the stories, and the testimony of John Dean and Alexander Butterfield put Nixon in a position where he had to resign.

Then later, Ford was told he had to pardon Nixon because Nixon had only 2 options 1) pardon and oblivion, or 2) spill the beans on the true nature of the intelligence agencies and how they had been used by the financiers to bring him down (a coup d'etat. Nixon wasn't stupid, he knew how he'd been had. That's why the Post and other papers reported he was acting "crazy"...if he ever did detail the true events, the financiers wanted the public to doubt him).

So Ford pardoned Nixon to protect the cover of the CIA, FBI, etc., not to "heal the country." These intelligence agencies he protected are the same military-industrial agencies that are now openly running the country under the Dept of Homeland Security. Keeping the lid on the coup was the short-term benefit to the pardon of Nixon, and the LONG-term benefit was to undermine confidence in the office of the presidency. Things have gone downhill for the office since then...each president more foul or barbarous than the last.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:44 PM

Oh, God, I just finished listening to this nut! That was
fun.

He has this theory that there is some kind of 'uber' government
that is pulling the strings on the executive branch--- who gets
into offic next and what there character is and what they'll do.

He's so far to the left that he's come full circle, and claims
Nixon was 'framed' for Watergate by guys WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION
who were executing a coup d'etat (he uses that word a lot) and who
conspired to get a Gerry Ford like character in the White House
so they could control what happened next, and then traces the whole
Bush dynasty back to those guys, bandying about names like Cheney
and Rumsfeld and using their involvement in the Bush administration
as a basis for it.

Phew!

And I though Rush Limbaugh was nuts!

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM

I listened to the program.

It's rather amusing.

Tarpley sounds just like Alan Ginsberg--- no I mean exactly.
Except Ginsberg, even in his wildest flights of fancy, made
much more sense.

If Ginsberg wrote a peyote-and-alcohol-fueled-stream-of-conciousness poem consisting of the names of politicians interspersed with paranoid
conspiracy-theory political terms randomly packed into run-on sentences and then recited it, it's what it would sound like:

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=17987

Really worth listening to for its amusement value, not so much
for the content but rather for the sound. It's a surrealistic
tone-poem caricature of itself.

The only thing is, Ginsberg was only half-serious, and this
guy clearly takes himself very seriously.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 01:37 PM

Guns & Butter
Wednesday, January 3, 2006, 1:00pm

"The Ford Presidency"
Interview with Webster Tarpley, author of The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. The Ford Presidency is analyzed, from Gerald Ford's participation on the Warren Commission; the Watergating of Richard Nixon; Ford's appointment to the Vice Presidency upon Spiro Agnew's resignation; his ascension to the Presidency with Nixon's resignation; the selection of Ford's Vice President; and the stolen 1976 Presidential election.

KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley 1pm PST, and streaming and archived at www.kpfa.org

http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/event/Guns-Butter-Webster-Tarpley-On-The-Ford-Presidency/san-francisco-ca/da3f31f0-67ee-4ad1-aeeb-

I haven't had time to listen to this yet, but I heard Tarpley talk for 5 minutes on Ford a week or so ago. Ford was just a flunky of the banking interests, same as most of the other federal politicians in the U.S. Especially interesting was how Ford played the blushing bride part when Reagan was about to be nominated for President. I recall the interviews at the time, with the talking heads asking Ford if he'd accept the Vice-President job under Reagan (would've been the first time a former Pres became VP). Ford indicated he would, then at the last minute he backed out and the only alternative Reagan had was Bush (he hated Bush, "voodoo economics"). So that was how Ford helped get the Bush dynasty going.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: voyager
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 09:52 AM

My family toured the Capitol Rotunda to visit Gerald Ford lying in state. When we left the building I signed the guess book -
'With Respect and Appreciation'.

And That's How We Feel About His Term in Office
voyager

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:44 AM

"felt his standing through a difficult period was never appreciated"--interestingly, that could be said of both Carter and Ford. Who knows, maybe Carter's term will be appreciated before he dies.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

Look at the Zapruder film on googlevideo. You see the bullet hit JFK between the shoulder blades. Computer geek or garbageman could see that one, but Ford said it hit him in the head, then passed through to do the damage to Conally. A big, big lie. JFK was shutting down the Rockefeller/Rothschild/Warburg/Saxe-Coburg/Mellon/Morgan owned Federal Reserve, and he got whacked for it. The people on the Warren Commission served the interests of private bankers over the interests of the people of the U.S. Ford violated his oath to the constitution and took us a giant step towards dictatorship. An especially warm place in hell for him.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Greg B
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 12:21 PM

And reading on in the same AP story---

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and
written an Internet book about it.

Well, gee--- I mean he should know. He is after al a 'computer
systems specialist.' I hear they're real smart cookies.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 11:13 PM

By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html
(Ford made sure Americans didn't get the truth about the JFK assassination, and he was rewarded with a "place in history." He's on the express train to hell right now.)

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 04:38 PM

Thanks GUEST. In the long run, maybe that is the best post. Oh, and for Ron and Barry, I was humming "Amazing Grace" to myself as I typed this.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 10:07 AM

I admired the man, felt his standing through a difficult period was never appreciated. Rest in Peace.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 09:54 AM

"In regards to Mr. Carter's spurring Detroit to produce more efficient vehicles. It was a real success. Japan benefited greatly."

Yep. But this was due to Detroit's unwillingness (I can't believe inability) to respond to consumer pressure.The relatively high-mileage autos produced in the US didn't even rise to the level of awful.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

OK Slag--

I may have to take back my compliment to you on moderating your language. You're just as aggressive as ever. And for some strange reason, have forgotten--gee, how could that happen?--to respond to my connection of Volcker and Carter.

So sorry if you don't like the Fed. It's possible that it affects you anyway.

And yes, as Barry notes, politics-only posters are not something this site is looking for. And it's painfully obvious that Barry has contributed far more to Mudcat musically than you have.

And you could try to do something to address the imbalance.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:40 AM

Not that I feel you are worthy of an answer but for others who may have been following this little discussion. I served four years in the USAF 1969 to 1973. And as I clealry stated earlier I worked for Dowell, a well servicing division of the Dow Chemical corp. Why? Gee? Let me think? Oh yeah, I remember! I needed a job and a little money wouldn't hurt either.

So who are you?

The Inquistion? Am I required to make so many "Music Posts" before I am allowed to express an opinion in the BS section? I suggest you do a more detailed search of the music threads. When I nail you outright for dishonesty, you demand answers on totally unrelated subjects? I hope your fan club is getting the full view of you. I've pretty much seen all I want to see.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Jan 07 - 02:26 AM

& you've been asked a question. You served where & when & you worked oil how & why? Are you only here down below the BS line, I don't see you debating or even contributing above in the music line?

Barry

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 02:08 PM

Well, just as an example of why it is a vain enterprize to debate with, say Mr. Finn. When you mischaracterize and misrepresent statements it is not an honest discussion. Who said I was pissed at the oil economy? It bothers me not one bit. I do fine with what I have. It might bother my fiance some but she's not sitting around wringing her hands. She has offers several times a year to sell her interest. Yawn. You assume facts not in evidence.

You refer to another thread about a statement in which I called someone a "janitor". That is a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote. I ASKED a QUESTION of someone's unstated employment. I said I didn't know whether they were a janitor or a senior analyst. Why didn't you say I called them a "senior analyst"? It's to no point and no avail to debate with someone who won't be honest. Which brings me back to my original question as to whether I should engage you in debate in the first place. I was right in my assessment. Futile and fruitless.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 07:17 AM

Slag---


There was in fact a shortage in the 70's--the time period in question. Caused primarily by OPEC--which at that time was much more united than it is now.   By the 70's the US had passed its peak of oil production. This is well documented.   I would hope you would recognize this. Ever heard of Hubbert? (sp)

So it is understandable that the government would now (in the 21st century) want to keep some US oil in the ground--against a future emergency.

I would think you would be in favor of deregulation of the domestic oil and gas industries--which Carter did in the 70's. Or do you question that he did this?


And I'd like to hear you acknowledge that Carter put in Volcker---probably the single most important move in the 70's to bring inflation under control. When the Fed tightens, it takes a while for those moves to be registered in the economy--which is why the 1981 inflation rate reached 13.5%. But a few years later it was down to about 3%. Due to Volcker's strategy, not anything that Reagan did.

If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

But thanks for moderating your language.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM

SRS was the first to mention Carter but only using him as a time line in history. Joe was the first with an opinion about his term. In my defense of Carter & my high high opinion of him I was demonized by Slag. I still hold my opinion of Jimmy(read through the thread) as do others, & even to this day he works to better the planet he lives on. While Slag you took a very negative personal tone towards me & still you say "It is sort of personal but I won't go there". You've got balls. You worked the oil fields & invested in them & when they won't produce you get pissed at others because your invested support of the industry didn't pay off. No wonder it's personal. When the government doesn't want to dip into it's reserve it's still a shortage, it doesn't matter if it's caused by the US, OPEC or because it can't be mined or pumped fast enough, it's still a shortage. Was it Jimmy's fault you're not getting your fair share? It seems that you've been everywhere. How & where did you work with oil that you're so informed & where were you & when did you serve during the Vietnam war (that's another fact you used in defence of your self in another thread). Seeing as you are attacking other folks in other threads calling them "janitors" when they've used the same reasonings, I'm calling you here on this thread to do the same as you're asking others to do on other threads. Try not to go your personal attack route this time please.

Barry

Barry

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 06:59 PM

Ron, it may be anecdotal but I was working in the oil industry in the mid 70's. I worked for Dowell, Haliburton's compaetition. This was in the Bakersfield area. Exploration and development of new wells was and remains today an on-going process. When the new wells were brought in they were immediately capped, that's CAPPED and the oil was not pumped out of the ground. In the Elk Hills reserves (note the word "reserves") they were actually pumping oil back into the ground. Granted, much of this was the Naval Reserve but the same went on (goes on) on the private leases. My fiance onws portions of three wells in Texas and derives a small royalty check from each. In all it amounts to about $150.00 a year. Why? The government won't let them take the oil out of the ground. I repeat: THERE WAS NO OIL SHORTAGE. Period! Rather, our country's strategy is to use the rest of the world's oil before it continues to use our own at any appreciable rate.

In regards to Mr. Carter's spurring Detroit to produce more efficient vehicles. It was a real success. Japan benefited greatly.

And as far as Carter personally, well, there you have me, my friend. It is sort of personal but I won't go there. Let's just say that it touches a nerve that has little to do with his blundering or this thread. I'll try to reign in on my personal animosity toward him. I will repeat, however ( I don't know if it was in this thread or another!?) that while I believe Mr. Carter is a sincere and honest man I don't believe politics and especially the Office of President were suited to his talents. I hear he swings a mean framing hammer. Or oar.

And please note: You, I and just about everybody else who has an opinion on our Nation and its leaders would probably quail at the enormity of the job and its inherent responsibilities were we or they thrust into it. Who, in their right mind would want it? Not me. I'm with Johnson on this one, "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." That man certainly had a way with words.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 05:46 PM

I know their reasons. To demonize anyone to the left of Attila the Hun.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 05:40 PM

But he was a better president than his current reputation implies--and does not get credit for many accomplishments--he's particularly trashed by those who worship Reagan-- (for reasons known only to them).

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Cruiser
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 05:35 PM

Carter is a good, intelligent man. That is why he did not make a good politician and president. Being an honest brilliant nuclear physicist does not automatically confer status as a dishonest political scientist or puppet president.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:17 PM

Slag--you did not bring up Carter first (Nor did I). But you sure as hell attacked him. Don't whine when asked to defend your position.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:56 PM

Slag--

You attacked Carter--intemperately, I believe.   I happen to believe Carter did a much better job--in bad circumstances--than you and other giant intellects give him credit for. Besides being the only genuinely good man the US had as president in the 20th century. (And the 21st is starting out dreadfully.) And you have come up with precisely zero evidence to support your slander.

By the way, I'm a registered Republican--just one who believes in examining facts when reaching a conclusion.

It would be appreciated if you would moderate your language--and be willing to support what you say with evidence.

I stand ready to support everything I say with facts--not your style, it appears.



Or--if you can't stand the heat.....


Thread creep?---well who brought up Carter to begin with? Not I, friend.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:47 PM

Slag--

You must enjoy hair-splitting. There's a future in teaching philosophy for you.

OPEC decided to cut production. That caused a shortage. Obviously they co-ordinate together--or at least did in the 70's.

But the shortage--caused by their decision--was real. Sorry if you don't like it.

At least you acknowledge the existence of OPEC--and don't think it's just Big Oil causing an artificial shortage--or do you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'd also like to know precisely what if anything you disagree with as to my economic history of the 70's. Are you one of the giant brains who think Reagan whipped inflation all on his little lonesome? Or are you willing to give credit to Carter for putting Volcker in as head of the Fed?   Or is this all too complicated for you?

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 12:23 PM

Carter did have another major accomplishment--the requirement that automakers produce a greater proportion of higher-mileage cars provided the only balance-of-trade benefits we've enjoyed in God knows how long. As I recall, these restrictions were eliminated by George W. "Addiction-to-Oil" Bush.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:18 PM

Ron, is there that much less oil in the world today! Quite a bit but no one is crying "Shortage!" just now. The so-called shortage of '71-'72 was a matter of collusion and price-fixing. What is it that you think OPEC does? And then, God bless the oil co.s,; they start a TV campaign telling the American consumer that the wordl is running out of oil. No more cars, no more plastics for medical equipment, Gosh, just no more life as we know it. The reality was they were setting the stage for a huge price gouge. It worked so well that many other "take-for-granted" commodities started having "shortages". I mean, after all , there was only so much to go around wasn't there? And it was about this time Bunky Hunt decided there should be a silver (Ag, that is) shortage. That was ripe because of the shift away from silver backing in '64 of US monies.   It was a phoney oil shortage, that's P-H-O-N-E-Y. Phoney and Uncle Sugar knew it and if they didn't collude directly, they certainly saw where they could benefit indirectly both as individuals and in the increase of control and power of the government itself.

No president stands alone in this country. FDR came close but that was a different situation altogether. Any leader is only as good as the men he puts into key position. He gives those men direction and goals and they provide the feedback and there needs to be a certain amount of flexibilty for that to work, otherwise all you have is a rubberstamp cabinet and advisers. To be honest, I'm a little rusty on Paul Volker (God I hope I spelled that right?). If I've nothing better to do in the nest few weeks I may read up on him a little. Just to let you know, I am no big fan of the Federal Reserve System either but that's grist for a different mill.

If you want me to be fair in this respect for Carter, i.e., that he was no better than his men and that he was the "focus" of the criticisms for his adminstration if not directly responsible for the misteps then give George Bush his due. Apply the same standard.

Beyond the give and take of the information and the limitations of the forum itself, Ron, you need to lighten up some. You don't make yourself look very civil. Its a BS section and each thread has a topic. Try to stay on topic and I'll do the same. I think this thread had something to do with Gerald Ford, didn't it?   Happy New Year to ya!

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:44 PM

Bye. 100.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:27 PM

Guest--still waiting for you to have the guts to stand behind anything you say--but hell hasn't quite frozen solid enough yet, I'm afraid.

Enjoy your soliloquy.

Real life is calling me. Bye.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:23 PM

Ron - still waiting for you to find the preview button.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:22 PM

Slag--still eagerly waiting for you to tell us why there was no oil shortage in the 70's.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:15 PM

John--you still don't read very carefully.

Exactly where did I say high inflation was Reagan's fault?    What I said was that Reagan got credit for Volcker's successful campaign against inflation--and that Carter, who put Volcker in to do the job, got no credit--and in fact is still attacked by many people who have no idea about economics and the role of the Fed. I hope that does not include you.

I did point out that inflation peaked in 1981--which illustrates the point I made about lag times.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM

John, Ron and all. Yes. regardless of anything else, one must admit that Carter was sincere in his efforts and that he did try. He (and this may be his worst fault, as a politician!) is an honest man.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 03:58 PM

Ron, I have noticed that some of the posters--not just at this topic--attack other posters as being, in essence, illiterate, and therefore not credible in their opinions because of making simple spelling errors and such in haste. When I read your post, I missed your minor errors, and actually felt sad that you felt the need to correct it defensively. Now I have re-read that posting, and understand better.

As to the content, you make some interesting points that I haven't previously thought about, and on first blush probably disagree with most. I definitely disagree about high inflation being Pres. Reagan's fault; economies don't turn on a dime--if you will excuse the pun.

Pres. Carter did a well in brokering the Israel/Egypt treaty. In fact, it is probably the only good thing he did, imnsoh opinion, during his term in office.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 03:01 PM

"hypocrisy" should have been the end of the sentence. So sorry if this bothers you, John.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:55 PM

If it's all the same to you, John, I like to avoid charges of hypocrisy--since I actually prefer easily decipherable posts--and even grammatically correct ones--- I try to correct my own mistakes--soon.

You're of course free to do whatever you want--but somehow I think you knew that.

By the way, do you disagree at all with my depiction of US economic developments in the 70's---or do you by some chance just like to snipe at trivia?

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:43 PM

Lordy, what have we come to that we find it necessary to correct our own spelling and punctuation in a separate posting! Has argumentation gotten so petty?

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 09:24 AM

"disagree"

"This should be fine with you, right?"

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 09:17 AM

Slag--


1) I'm not fighting Barry's battles for him. He can and does do that nicely, thank you. However, if you are careless, have the decency to not criticize somebody else for the same failing.

You are careless.


2)   Very interesting to know your chosen conspiracy theory. It seems every crackpot on Mudcat has at least one--and you've fallen right into place. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why there was no oil shortage in the 70's.

3) The economic history of the 70's in the US is actually quite interesting, I find.

Here's a thesis--it may be considered "thinking outside the box"--no doubt one of your favorite cliches. Since it's not a conspiracy theory, you may not be able to follow it. If so, my condolences.

A good argument can be made , in referring to economic developments, that the greatest power of the US president is to appoint the chairman of the Fed.

In the 70's, this is what happened.

Nixon appointed Burns, who believed in easy money. Since Nixon was trying to have guns and butter (hope that's not too technical for you), and the oil crisis--which was real, by the way--was in full swing, interest rates and inflation soared. In 1979 Carter replaced William Miller, his first choice to head the Fed, with Paul Volcker, who believed in tightening the money supply to tame inflation. This in turn worsened unemployment--so in 1979-80, Carter had the worst of all worlds--since the oil crisis was still on. But Volcker's medicine was the right one for inflation--and if Carter had been re-elected, he would have reaped the benefits. Instead Reagan did--through no merit of his own. In fact inflation peaked in 1981 at 13.5%. And Carter was vilified (look it up) by giant thinkers like your good self--who, unsurprisingly, don't seem to grasp the power of the Fed, nor the lag time in policy changes.

Also, re: foreign policy--if you don't think the Camp David accords, brokered by Carter--which have resulted in a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel, were worthwhile, you need to adjust your priorities. Perhaps you'd prefer continued war between these 2. If so, you are in a minority. Thinking people all disagreee with you.

One more thing: as I recall, you claim to be a conservative--that is, one who believes in letting market forces work. Carter deregulated the airline industry--and oil and gas produced in the US. This should be fine with you, right. Or are you just a conservative when it doesn't hurt you?

Hoping you can write a coherent sentence this time, I eagerly await your reply.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 12:43 AM

Cobra, if I'm not mistaken, it's Malewne Rewd.
But since it's all Taig now anyway, it's a moot (mute?, mewt?) point.
Oops! One nearly got away.
It's Nar, not now.

Seamus

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST,from Area 51
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 11:11 PM

OK fellow denizens of the Milky Way Galaxy (another Human redundancy). Please help me to understand content of this rope. And please Ron Davies, forgive me for not being as well versed in the proper use of the English grammar and spelling as you are well versed.

Am I to understand that former President Ford, Gerald ( 1 ea.) came to the idea on his own accord to pardon the former lying, cheating, dirty speech talking President of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon? He came to this idea in order to heal your injured nation? This pardon prevented facts about the crime or crimes that the Nixon (2 ea.) person may have been involved in from coming to public knowledge?

How does this "heal" a nation? How does the element plumbum become lead and not led? Where is Barry going? And is Mr. TRUBRIT now the sole arbiter of all that is true and correct in this rope?

You people of Earth are most incomprehensible to we extra-terrestrial emagrie's. I do tend to agree with "Blah, blah, blah" as this does make sense in my native language.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:14 PM

And BTW Greggie boy, there is a historic precedent for impeachment after resignation.

In 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap, accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap's resignation should abort the case. The Senate proceeded with the trial, but Belknap was narrowly acquitted. A number of the Senators who voted for acquittal explained that they felt they lacked jurisdiction because of his resignation. (Incidentally, Belknap is the only cabinet member ever impeached.)

By contrast, when in 1926 Illinois District Judge George English, impeached for various acts of wrongdoing, resigned from office six days before the scheduled commencement of his trial in the Senate, the matter was discontinued. The same was true, of course, when Richard Nixon resigned just prior to adoption of articles of impeachment by the House.

The Belknap precedent aside, is there any logic to impeaching and trying an official who is no longer in office? One answer might be the value of establishing a precedent that certain misconduct is (or is not) impeachable. But there's a more direct, practical reason why Congress might choose to proceed even after a resignation. As we have seen, one potential punishment of impeachment is disqualification from future office. Suppose an embattled president resigned, with an eye towards running in the next election. To preclude this possibility, Congress might choose to go ahead and impeach, try, and convict the President, and disqualify him from holding future office.

Evidence suggests that the Framers of the Constitution concurred in this conclusion -- they did not regard resignation as automatically precluding impeachment or conviction.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:02 PM

Hey people, when will you realize that it's not worth talking at all to some character who refuses to give a name or a handle? Of course his paranoid world-view is faintly amusing--(why do I think it has to be a male?) Just let him enjoy his soliloquy--and the rest of us will carry on discussing the topic.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:42 PM

The standards of conduct of former presidents?

Yup, know all about it. However, I believe such "gentlemen's agreements" are very bad for democracy.

As to the already resigned/can't be impeached argument...how original, that one.

My answer: the quid pro quo.

The quid pro quo means Nixon was willing to resign immediately (handily avoiding the impeachment), in exchange for Ford giving him a complete pardon so he could also avoid criminal prosecution.

Dandy little deal, that one.

Without Ford's pardon, the criminal proceedings would have begun, as they should have.

And before you go lecturing people in public about the Nixon pardon and the constitutional process regarding impeachment, you might consider Article I, Section 3, clause 7.

Don't know what that is?

Look it up, jackass.

"What it DID do was spare us a continuation of
the Watergate hearings ad nauseum."

Oh please, you are an adult citizen of the United States, aren't you? Were you so fucking traumitized you couldn't stand to see due process run it's course, and all branches of government live up to their constitutional mandates?

Poor fucking baby. People like you, who worship at the foot of your tv sets and swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker make me sick. It is people like you that are standing by, watching our government go down the toilet.

Of course, your tv propaganda induced amnesia never heard phrases like "historic precedent" and "Imperial Presidency"?

What a whiny, ill informed idiot you are.

I bet you loved the movie "Love Story" too.

Kiss, kiss.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: cobra
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:16 PM

"Slag - it's 'led', not 'lead' that's the past tense of 'lead'.
This recurring error on your part is most annoying."

Err, Seamus, never knew you were from the Malone Road. Why don't you call Sleg by his prapper name?

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:10 PM

Those of you who disagree with my discussion are looking through your blinders of anti-war or anti-bush sentiment. If you look at the syntax of Pres. Ford's statement with an open mind either inference is valid.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM

'I'm debating on whether to debate with a semi literate - your grammar and spelling are atrocious.....' - I think that is what you said....'your grammar and spelling are atrocious.....'

You know, I doubt that Mr. Finn needs me to fight his battles for him but having talked to him, I find him to be a charming, careful, thoughtful, very intelligent man....one's ability to spell in this insane world we live in seems to me to be very unimportant. I have an 18 year old son who tests 'in the top 95th percentile' of everything .,............whatever the hell that means ---- and he can't spell to save his life. But he can THINK even though severely dyslexic.......!

I haven't run this through for spell check but I have to point out that I am a summa cum laude graduate in English in an American school (earned in 3 years, not 4) and I couldn't personally give a shit if anyone can spell as long as a) they can think and b) they have human compassion.

Whatever happened to decent politeness and humanity. Go Barry!!!!!

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Greg B
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 06:02 PM

Guest you blithering idiot---

>The hype over Ford's "private views" (I guess Woodward's shopping for >another Pulitzer) over Iraq is a non-starter. Ford showed the same >cowardice by not speaking out honestly--and publicly--

Clearly you know nothing, NOTHING about the standards of conduct
of former US Presidents. They make it a rule to keep their opinions
to themselves regarding the sitting president once they've left
office.

For good reasons: First, job is difficult enough without having a
former president, or two, or six publically second-guessing
what the current pres is doing. Second, the ex-President is
privy to certain information upon which he'd base his sideline
opinions, information which he is not free to share, perhaps
even in the form of an 'informed opinion' and certainly not
to publically justify that opinion.

Former Presidents take on the proper role of 'elder statesmen'
and can be extraordinarily effective in those roles.

They are, like good grandfathers are to parents, careful not to
undermine the ability of the sitting President to do his job, but
available for trusted counsel and consultation when asked.

They do these thing because they, themselves were accorded the
same respect when they were in the office.

>that he did >when he pardoned Nixon in order to put distance between >Nixon and the
>Republican Party.

Gerry Ford was not stupid. He knew there'd be fall-out and if
he wanted the Party distanced from Nixon, he'd have let the trial
play out and let the Party position Nixon as a 'bad apple.' Ford
was not particularly calculating--- if he said he did it to allow
the country and the administration to move on, that has to be
accepted at face-value.

>I've been watching all the cable news (including C-SPAM) this week, >and there are also "intimations" of the quid pro quo.

Where did you see this? The NPR report indicated that all Alexander
Haig was able to go back to Nixon with was that a pardon was not
out of the question, before the resignation. Not that it was
guaranteed.

>Future historians will be able to prove the quid pro quo, of that I >have no doubt.

Well, if you have no doubt...

>They will also show that Ford's decision to intervene and short >-circuit the constitutional process regarding impeachment has done >more damage to the constitution than was orginally thought.

Huh? Do you know the Constitution? Once Nixon resigned he was
no longer president and COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. It was NIXON
who 'short-circuited' the process, not Ford. If he'd not been
pardoned, Nixon likely would have been prosecuted for 'conspiracy,'
which is notoriously hard to prove. And it likely would have been,
at best 'conspiracy after the fact.'

>Ford's divine intervention in the impeachment process, which as I
>said was all about political expediency and NOT this revisionist >bullshit "healing the nation"

I don't think many people are saying 'healing.' It clearly didn't
heal the nation's relationship with the Republican Party. After
all do you really think Jimmy Carter could have won an election
without Watergate? What it DID do was spare us a continuation of
the Watergate hearings ad nauseum.

>crap we keep hearing repeated every news cycle right now (along with
>the idiotic Betty and me love story),

What is your issue with the guy? So he loved his wife and stuck
with her through thick and thin. Last time I checked, that was a
good thing.

>paved the way for the subverting of the constitution we have seen
>since 9/11 by both parties, ie the undermining of the constitution >with the Patriot Act, the executive branch putting themselves above >the law with the support of the courts (which has been relentless >since the Nixon administration), the Supreme Court intervention to >stop the Florida vote count in 2000, the abrogation of Congress' >oversight responsibilities and usurpation of it's constitutional >powers by both it's own members and the executive branch, blah blah >blah.

How about bird flu. Did Gerry Ford invent that too?

I fail to see the linkage. Gerald Ford exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL
powers to give a presidential pardon which, as it turned out, was
in the interest of the nation, to a president who had disposed of
himself rather neatly.

The notion of 'executive privilege' was really cemented by the
FDR administration, in their intervention in the economy during
the Depression.

How the silly Patriot Act relates to the Ford administration
eludes me--- especially as that administration seemed to be the
one to actually REDUCE US involvement in an undeclared war. As
I recall Ford didn't fight Congress on their reluctance to
continue to finance intervention in Viet Nam.

If you're talking about 'executive privilege' note that Nixon---
like Thomas Jefferson before him--- didn't prevail with that
argument.

In short, I find your arguments neither lucid nor cogent.

Subject: RE: Obit: President Gerald R. Ford, Dec. 26, 2006
From: Slag
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM

GUEST @ 3:52 does make a point I agree with, (oops! Sorry, Ron.) ... a point with which I agree. Both party's idealogues continue to try to make political hay of the situation(s) and prop up their positions. It's "Blah, blah, blah."

I know, we all go there from time to time but at some point it DOES just become noise. Let's plant Mr. Ford and move on (not " dot org").