King's funeral

[Last Roman]

im watching clips from Correta King's funeral, and while I always appreciate flaming against Bush, I think it was shameful the way Carter, Clinton and others brought in politics into a funeral. They did did the same thing with Paul Wellstone's funeral. Sad

[Siblesz]

Bill Clinton brought up no politics to the funeral speech. He was actually very respectful and sincere.

[Big War Bird]

He was actually very respectful and sincere.

Sincere and Respectful in much the same way the Serpent was in the Garden of Eden.

But to the point, the dems haven't been able to hold it together when it comes to their opposition to President Bush. It comes from having no agenda of their own. All they have is criticism, so where ever there is a microphone and a camera, that is what they give.

[Siblesz]

Sincere and Respectful in much the same way the Serpent was in the Garden of Eden.

Show me a single quote from Clinton's speech that was directed against President Bush.

[Last Roman]

at a second look you're right, but others did

[Big War Bird]

I wasn't implying he had said anything against Bush, but he used his charm with the crowd that wanted to be charmed. A funeral isn't a time, however, to plug for Hillary 08.

[Siblesz]

I wasn't implying he had said anything against Bush, but he used his charm with the crowd that wanted to be charmed. A funeral isn't a time, however, to plug for Hillary 08.

I didn't know using his charm to give a wonderfully-expressed speech was considered disrespectful at an African-American funeral. After all, he was one of the few who actually humanized Mrs. King and talked about the woman, and not the President. The rest just bashed Bush and his policies. Ulterior motives? Possibly... but saying anything beyond the fact that he was being respectful at such an occassion is subject to poor perception and bias.

[Big War Bird]

I didn't know using his charm to give a wonderfully-expressed speech was considered disrespectful at an African-American funeral. After all, he was one of the few who actually humanized Mrs. King and talked about the woman, and not the President. The rest just bashed Bush and his policies. Ulterior motives? Possibly... but saying anything beyond the fact that he was being respectful at such an occassion is subject to poor perception and bias.

I'd call it superior preception and bias, it comes from having watched that sleaze ball for 15 years.

[Guderian]

What better place to attack the elitist policies of the the Bush Administration than at the King funeral. I don't think it was disrepectfull I think it payed tribute to what the Kings stood for.

GWB Snr on the other hand, what was he doing there? He is the one who campaigned against the King's civil rights movement in the 60's.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The one who really had it in for King was Bobby Kennedy. This was discraceful. With Bush sitting right there. These people have no respect for him, the office of the president nor Mrs King.

[danzig]

What better place to attack the elitist policies of the the Bush Administration than at the King funeral. I don't think it was disrepectfull I think it payed tribute to what the Kings stood for.

GWB Snr on the other hand, what was he doing there? He is the one who campaigned against the King's civil rights movement in the 60's.

There is a time and place for it and honoring a woman with her achievements at her funeral would seem to be a bit more respectful and important then bashing Bush, I mean come on every day is Bash Bush day by some people atleast they should show some respect at a funeral.

[Aristophanes]

What better place to attack the elitist policies of the the Bush Administration than at the King funeral. I don't think it was disrepectfull I think it payed tribute to what the Kings stood for.

GWB Snr on the other hand, what was he doing there? He is the one who campaigned against the King's civil rights movement in the 60's.

I don't believe you have any appreciation for what Mrs. King stood for. Certainly, if she stood for justice and truth, then her record was impugned by Carter and the sad cast of attendant Dems. If she stood for better relations between people, between blacks, whites, asians, and latinos, what purpose was served by any speech that day?

George Bush Sr was there because he was invited, and because the organizers were not anxious to exclude any Presidents merely due to actions, 40 years past, that we may not be entirely capable of understanding today. I know of men who fought the Civil Rights legislation for honourable reasons, men who could never be accused of racism. Try not to be so simplistic.

Is it customary to honour the dead by dishonouring the living?

BTW, Bush did not campaign against 'King's civil rights movement in the 60s' as Guderian has so erroneously alledged: he ran his Senatorial campaign on opposition to the Civil Rights Act. There is a, not entirely inconsiderable, difference.
BTW2 I really love your semantic gymnastics: "campaigned against the King's civil rights movement in the 60's." As if opposing the Act is synonymous with opposing anything or everything it stands for.

"Word tricks make you catch a case
So watch out that **** you say."

BTW3 I wouldn't be surprised if Bush Sr was against racial equity: I don't really like the guy, but for you to make a baseless accusation like that...

[Lord Rahl]

The Dems have no policies or ideas except for attacking Bush. Condi wasn't invited to attend and Jimmy Carter accused Bush of doing things that he himself had done. It was a funeral! Don't bring politics into it. That is just plain rude and shows no respect for those who are dead. That is the face of the Democratic party, anti-Bush and nothing else.

[Last Roman]

The Dems have no policies or ideas except for attacking Bush.

One of the Dems' (Barak Obama) actually said something constructive the other day. He pointed out what you just said right there. "We've been very good at saying no, but not good at saying yes." Basically, he wants the Dems' to get their agenda and platform back on track. If he manages to do that, I might go back.

[Rush Limbaugh]

This Obama

MCCAIN RELEASES LETTER TO OBAMA
For Immediate Release
Monday, Feb 06, 2006

Washington D.C. *– Today, Senator McCain sent the following letter to Senator Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform. The following is the text from that letter:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama

United States Senate

SH-713

Washington, DC 20510


Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.



Sincerely,





John McCain

United States Senate

[Hellenic Hoplite]

A dog is respected when doing what is the natural thing and chews bones. However he is not when he is president of the white house, as you should have guessed already.

edit: Apologies for calling Bush a dog. Dogs don't lie. Nor do they cause wars with countless thousands of dead. Nor do they tax anybody to give it right to the arms industry as they take it. But then again, dogs also aren't being voted for by fools. No, Bush is obviously not a dog.

[Last Roman]

politics as usual

edit: first off, how the hell did you get that letter? second, what was this letter over? and third, what Obama may have actually done and McCain's interpertations of whatever Obama did could be very different.

edit again: never mind what the letter was over, I only skimmed it the first time

[Guderian]

I don't believe you have any appreciation for what Mrs. King stood for. Certainly, if she stood for justice and truth, then her record was impugned by Carter and the sad cast of attendant Dems. If she stood for better relations between people, between blacks, whites, asians, and latinos, what purpose was served by any speech that day?

The women gave her life to the civil rights movement, I think she'd have appreciated it that her work was continued even after her death. Isn't that what she did after Mr King was assasinated?

I know of men who fought the Civil Rights legislation for honourable reasons, men who could never be accused of racism. Try not to be so simplistic.

I understand it all too well, racists of the past were honourable yes, the KKK was a honourable christian organisation, racism was honourable back then too. Saying that I don't think GWB Snr was in the same class of racism as the leaders of the KKK, he was more of an opportunist racist.

BTW, Bush did not campaign against 'King's civil rights movement in the 60s' as Guderian has so erroneously alledged: he ran his Senatorial campaign on opposition to the Civil Rights Act. There is a, not entirely inconsiderable, difference.
BTW2 I really love your semantic gymnastics: "campaigned against the King's civil rights movement in the 60's." As if opposing the Act is synonymous with opposing anything or everything it stands for.
...

BTW3 I wouldn't be surprised if Bush Sr was against racial equity: I don't really like the guy, but for you to make a baseless accusation like that...

How is that a accusation baseless? the man opposed the civil rights act, he called those who supported it extremists and called the act itself an affront to the constitution. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that he was against the civil right's movement of the 60's. Unless of course you know something that I don't.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The women gave her life to the civil rights movement, I think she'd have appreciated it that her work was continued even after her death. Isn't that what she did after Mr King was assasinated?

What does the war in Iraq have to do with the civil rights movement?

I understand it all too well, racists of the past were honourable yes, the KKK was a honourable christian organisation, racism was honourable back then too. Saying that I don't think GWB Snr was in the same class of racism as the leaders of the KKK, he was more of an opportunist racist.

The KKK a christain organization? They hated catholics who are the original christians. Thats like calling the Nazis a christain organization. Both are simply biggoted race based organizations. Now Sen Byrd was a member of the KKK and Gores father fillibustered the civil rights amendment and Robert Kennedy tapped Kings telephones. Without a warrant I might add. These people are all democrats.

[Aristophanes]

The women gave her life to the civil rights movement, I think she'd have appreciated it that her work was continued even after her death. Isn't that what she did after Mr King was assasinated?

I don't believe you can demonstrate that Carter's[and the others'] actions or words somehow were more conducive to the common good that simply honouring the woman and her actions in the usual funeral fashion. You're absolutely oblivious to the consequences of trampling over the mores of civil discourse. [maybe there's somewhere that's still holy enough that partisan politics can be left at the door]
Way to side-step the question I posed! What, don't you have an answer?

I don't believe you have any appreciation for what Mrs. King stood for. Certainly, if she stood for justice and truth, then her record was impugned by Carter and the sad cast of attendant Dems. If she stood for better relations between people, between blacks, whites, asians, and latinos, what purpose was served by any speech that day?

You deliberately obfuscate, invoking 'civil rights'; today a catch-all, mean-anything phrase that is totally distorted from whatever it mean back in the 50s and 60s.

I understand it all too well, racists of the past were honourable yes, the KKK was a honourable christian organisation, racism was honourable back then too. Saying that I don't think GWB Snr was in the same class of racism as the leaders of the KKK, he was more of an opportunist racist.

You simplistic puke. If you don't have a sufficiently nuanced mind to understand that a person could be opposed to the 'civil rights act' by virtue of legal flaws, loopholes or piggy-backed ideals and legislation, you really aren't equipped to debate with anyone other than minors.
If you believe that pieces of legislation have only the consequences that are intended, or that the consequences intended are always the ones announced, you are desperately naive.

Honourable people, much more honourable than you,[they were capable of intellectual honesty] opposed the particular Civil Rights Act as it became manifest because they believed there were provisions which could lead to future unintended consequences.

How is that a accusation baseless? the man opposed the civil rights act, he called those who supported it extremists and called the act itself an affront to the constitution. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that he was against the civil right's movement of the 60's. Unless of course you know something that I don't.

Mild flame removed - imb39