He apparently ‘punished the rich’. This does come from an upper class perspective however and Wolsey giving the poor any kind of privilege would be frowned upon by the rich. One factor that all three sources agree on is that Wolsey would go against law and tradition if it meant being more just. The second source shows this by showing that when the law is acting unjustly, ‘the mayor sent them to Newgate gaol for 11 days’, Wolsey is the man that people would expect to help them. This contrasts with the traditional approach because men such as the Mayor and Alderman should have their way without interference if it meant exploiting the poor.
He abhored society but couldn’t help, but be a part of it. Do I believe that society is corrupt? Yes, I do . I do not believe in going on such lengths to separate myself from it, I believe in bettering it. With the people at Emory he was distant and rude.
He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges who did attend. This seemed to confirm in the minds of the judges that Charles, even when he was on trial for his life, remained arrogant and therefore a danger to others as he could not recognise his own faults. This trial is unfair in so many ways: Firstly the setting up of the court that was to try Charles 1st was written by forerunner. Secondly, the fact that people weren’t allowed into the trial just because they didn’t agree with it, in my opinion this is the most unfair part of the trial because everybody is entitled to their opinion, even back then. Thirdly, only just over half of the 46 judges agreed to the trying of Charles 1st.
This means that even if it was his responsibility to deliver the order he would not have done so because, as it also states in Source 3, he is headstrong so he is self-willed, portraying that Nolan is to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade by refusing to follow orders. Source 2 implies that Lucan was to blame and not Nolan, however, the man who wrote the
Evans was clearly a racist, evil man that found any words to sugarcoat the evil he wanted to inflict. He obviously has no respect for people as humans if he can call another being “parasites” and claim that part of being American is keeping the people inbred. Clancy on the other hand just seems to want to be fair and logic while keeping the law firm. He is more logic in the sense that he realizes immigrants are not problems, they are people, but people can be difficult as well. He makes it clear that all immigrants have positive and negatives because they are people not because their race makes any difference in their functionality as a hard working human.
During of which, he displayed a passive acceptance of injustice, and went on to discredit those indictments. Even before he came into office, Clinton's morals and integrity came into question. Americans saw these questionable qualities he had, but chose to ignore them and hope for the best. The charms of Bill Clinton may have wooed voters to vote for him, but at the end the passive acceptance of injustice proved to be a crucial mistake. Having morality issues did not hinder his ability to gain an office at the White House, but the flaws that Clinton possessed proved a problem : "The 'character issue' stemmed from allegations of infidelity which Clinton refuted in a television interview in which he and Hillary
However, no monetary amount could correct the trauma that was brought upon this man by his own government. This in turn caused many Americans to question the actual usefulness of the Patriot Act. The feeling is that it doesn’t work and it allows government to skip important steps in trying to prove people are guilty or were truly involved in a crime. While there was without a question a mistake made, it is the knowledge gained from experiences such as this one in which government officials can reflect on and use better judgment in the
These were not laws but were important to peace. Probably the most radical part was the clause which set up an elected group of 25 barons to check that the king did as was promised. Only three clauses in the Magna Carter are still valid today. One says that London and all other towns and ports shall enjoy their ancient liberties and customs. Many people think that King John was a bad King, this is largely due to stories surrounding Robin Hood and the fact he charged high taxes and imprisoned people without good reason.
I felt Kane’s argument was a bit ineffective since he kept focusing more on Jim Getty (his competition) thus making him look like a bad person. It seemed as if Boss Jim Getty had committed some crime, however Kane did not explain what he had done wrong. I do feel that he made those who were classified in the lower-class happy that someone wanted to do something to help them. However, Kane forgot to mention what his promise to help this class of people would entitle. I believe that without mentioning what you would like to do in order to help people out you leave the audience doubting if your promise will live up to it.
According to him there is no escape from the weight of means and ends (Ramsay, 33). We often hear people while faced with certain difficult situations saying that the end does not justify the means but rarely have we ever thought of what that means. In reality, this means for example that one cannot result to stealing as a way of satisfying his/her needs as this would be considered immoral and punishable by law. Whatever the end is, one is not supposed to result to immoral behavior to achieve that