Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

How tacky can you get?

0 helpful
78 replies

by puppybreath

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The liberals can't even go to a funeral without turning it into a political circus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11173305/

Instead of celebrating the life and achievements of Coretta Scott King, let's slam the President and current administration.

How can anyone respect these opportunists? "Hey look! Another camera! What I can say to get my name in the headlines? Maybe I'll get invited to a talk show!"

A sad commentary on what's important to the liberals. It sure isn't respect and dignity during a solemn occasion.

78 replies

by maxwell edison

.
President Bush has more class in the tip of his little finger than the entire leadership of the entire Democrat Party and/or quasi Democrat Party affiliations put together.

(With the lone exception of Senator Joe Lieberman, who also has a lot of class.)

President Bush stands tall, stands firm, and remains respectful regardless of the mud thrown at him or by whom. The stark difference is amazing.

by x-marcap

The entire Democratic Party in Congress with the exception of Lieberman was acting like it was a great thing that Social Security reform was blocked. The Democrats will continue to try to keep Bush from being the President who saves Social Security.

The Lack of class and nastiness is unparalleled in the last 50 years.

The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to fix Social Security.

Tim

by puppybreath

I think Eleanor Roosevelt said it best:

Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people.

Seems like the conservatives spend their time on ideas and what's wrong with the country and the liberals spend their time bashing Bush and his administration.

by av .

I think the idea on the Democratic side is to keep shining the spotlight on the problems of the Bush Administration - the Iraq war, Katrina, poverty and civil rights, no matter how tasteless it is to do it at her funeral. Thats how divisive and bitter politics has become.

The Bush Administration is not a positive influence on this country as a whole. It has caused deep partisan divisions within our government and the people of this country.

It still doesn't make it right to bring that up at her funeral. It was supposed to be about her.

The state of politics in this country today is absolutely deplorable. Both parties.

by jdclyde

in the last year. Remember the circus the Parks funeral turned into?

Dear Voter, are you going to SERIOUSLY try to claim there wasn't "deep partisan divisions" through the whole Clinton Administration? Half of what was TRIED on President Bush was only PAYBACK for what happened to President Clinton.

Yes, the state of politics IS deplorable, but don't act surprised or pretend that it is anything new.

Note: I don't recall Republicans being disrespectful like this at any funerals. Shows just which party will REALLY stop at nothing to further their own agenda AT ANY COST. No class, and each and every one of them a national disgrace. Still proud to be a part of that pack of curs?

by av .

I'm sure though it was equally distasteful. Yes, there were always deep partisan divisions during the Clinton era, but the ones that exist now go back to the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote. I think that cast a pall over the presidency. No matter what side won, it would have been a hollow victory.

I'm not surprised at anything nowadays, but you have to think about how black people and poor people in the south feel about this Administration after the government response to hurricane Katrina.

I think neither party will stop at nothing to further their agenda. The Dems chose to do it at a funeral. How about Bush's "Mission Accomplished?"

You may swear I am a Democratic liberal, but I am actually a Republican looking for a party that I can respect again.

by montgomery gator

Agreed the funeral was not the place for politics.

As far as partisan divisions, it takes two sides for there to be division. Bush did not create the divisions. The divisions occurred due to the Democrats' extreme reaction to Bush's proposals and their nasty attitude towards him. Instead of trying to have a bipartisan dialogue, most Democrats just want to go on blaming Bush instead of trying to compromise and work with him.

One proposal I wish that the Democrats did fight harder was the Medicare prescription plan. They fought it, but for the wrong reasons. The right reason to fight it was that it is spending money we cannot afford, and transfers wealth from one group of citizens to another group. We need to reduce, and eventually eliminate "entitlements", not expand them.

by av .

The partisanship that exists now is just poison. Both sides hate each other and they aren't getting anything important done.

Bush is a polarizing figure and it hasn't helped this country. John Kerry never let go of his failed run. If Hillary runs, she is polarizing too. We desperately need a new kind of leadership now. Look at the shape our country is in. The worst thing we did was go to war in Iraq. The war is one big moneypit.

Dems just don't have a real focus as a party. They just stand for opposition to anything Bush does. I don't like Bush either, but get over it and get back to work. Medicare is a nightmare. Healthcare as a whole is just a mess.

There are too many entitlement programs. They're mismanaged. Rife with fraud. Some are necessary, but too much creates a welfare society. If you look at the Katrina hearings, you will get absolutely sick at our tax dollars wasted.

by jdclyde

the Rosa Parks was even worse, if you can imagine it.

Jackson, Sharpton, Faracon, all up in armes. You may remember I started a discussion about modern day racists? That is when Sharpton said that ANYONE that is against affirmative action is a modern day racist. What a sick, twisted ass.
http://tinyurl.com/9cbta

It was real ugly.

Funny, from the majority of your posts that I recall, I always took you for a Dem. With saying things like you just did about Katrina, it isn't any wonder why.

It is a FACT that it was the Democratic Mayor and Governor that put and kept the people in harms way to begin with, and the it was the Governor that REFUSED help for the first few days.

After THAT, yes fema did not operate well. But then the government has never been good at moving quickly, have they?

As for respecting a party, while I don't agree with everything that Bush and the Republicans are and have done, I agree with almost NOTHING that the Democrats have and are doing.

Everything about the liberal progressive movement goes against everything I believe and is directly responsible for the sorry shape things are in on the streets.

As for popular vote, that has NEVER meant anything, and it never will. Only for people that don't understand balance of power. How about Bush getting the electoral AND popular vote against Kerry?

The problem that Gore had, is he acted like a spoiled rich kid. If he would have followed the dispute procedures instead of trying to change the rules half way through, there wouldn't have been all the controversy. The ONLY thing that the Supreme court said was no, you can NOT change the rules. That is it.

Oh well. Are you sure your not just a liberal in repuclicans clothing, like jck likes to pretend to be? :D

by av .

I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 because I didn't like where the country was headed under his leadership. I voted for him in 2000 though and at the time would have become extremely depressed if Al Gore won.

Al Sharpton is like a household name in NJ. If ever there is a race card to be played he has always been there over the years to play it. Thats his specialty.

I'm a registered Republican but I didn't vote that way in the last election. Not because Kerry was the greatest, but because I didn't like where the country was heading under Bush.

I think hurricane Katrina showed the total breakdown of our government, Democrats and Republicans, in responding to a disaster. Though the Mayor and Governor were responsible, FEMA should have stepped in sooner. It was an extreme disaster.

I can certainly understand why blacks in the south might feel animosity towards Bush. Though he isn't a racist, he can't relate to the needs of the poor, black or white. That house in the ninth ward of New Orleans might be all some of those people have in this world and its still a pile of rubble 6 months later after Bush said he would rebuild it into a glorious new New Orlean.

I can't relate to the Democrats either. They stand for nothing. In NJ where I live, the Democrats have ruined this state. There is so much corruption and high taxes I can barely afford to live here anymore. Republicans never win here except in local elections. I just don't understand why.

Am I a liberal in Republican clothing. No way. I am a moderate Republican that just doesn't agree with Bush.

by jdclyde

If you have two people running for office, you listen to what they have to say.

The first says he will remove obsticals from your path so you can empower yourself and become a success.

The second says it isn't fair, and not your fault that you are unsuccessful so they are going to GIVE you things to help you out.

The people that are voting will take that hand out, even though they see that it hasn't HELPED them ever improve their situation.

A PERFECT example WAS New Orleans. Democrat at state AND local level for DECADES, yet the poorest of the poor live(d) there.

If the Democrats social plans only continued to make that state WORSE instead of BETTER when they had TOTAL control it just shows that Democrats and everything they do to make peoples lives better are wrong and DON'T WORK.

Bush and rebuilding New Orleans. I take it you have no idea what it takes to build a house, or how long. Now apply that to three states. There are only so many contractors in the world and the FIRST priority is infrastructure. Why haven't many that didn't lose their homes still not go back yet? water and electricity.

I just went through the "Detroit Free Press" yesterday, and there was page after page of help wanted adds yet the over 9000 refugees that are in Michigan are unable to find employment. Why is that? Is it because the welfare state that the Democrats set them up in never prepaired them to survive in the workforce? Yes, that is EXACTLY what the problem is.

Years ago I read an article written by Ken Hamblin, (a black radio "personality") and he wrote "don't feed the blacks" and applied the same LOGIC of when you go to a national park. You hand feed all the animals in a national park, they never learn to forage and when you STOP handfeeding them, they starve. The same thing just happened to the citizens of New Orleans with their learned depenance on the state to take care of them.

Wake up people.

by bfilmfan

The only thing missing were those creepy people from Kansas that protest with their "God Hates (Put whatever ya don't like here)" signs.

I see in the news that many states are planning on blocking their protests.

Personally, I think they should let some of the offended relatives introduce this scum that hides under the cloak of First Amerndment Rights to God. I have a feeling that He/She/It doesn't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to people disrupting the dignity of others in their time of mourning.

Another thought would be that would could lock the creepy people and Jesse Jackson up in a steel cage match and sell tickets for charity. Then the only question is do I or Max have to bring the popcorn?

by jdclyde

I will get you a lifetime supply of popcorn!

(can you get Don King to make sure NONE of them make it out?)

by x-marcap

There will be so many people trying to see that one that I stayed up all night running my air popper and through 20 p..p..pounds of Orville...

The 8 pounds of butter are thawing....

Tim

by charliespencer

There's a Kansas church that's using military funerals to stage anti-homosexual protests. They claim these soldiers killed in Iraq died making the U.S. safe for gays, so they should be condemned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060121/NEWS/601210405

Google soldiers funerals church gays.

As a retired service member, I love it when people exercise their freedom of speech to condemn those who make sacrifices defending it.

by maxwell edison

.
Now if the pastor who was part of conducting the service and/or others who were speakers at the service did it, then you might have a valid comparison.

Moreover, if conservative elected representatives, either past or current, turned that Kansas funeral into a political rally taking pot-shots at a Democrat president who was in attendance, again, you'd have a valid comparison.

Try again, dude.

by charliespencer

It's tacky to use the pulpit at a funeral for any purpose other than to praise the deceased and offer comfort to the family and friends. The liberals slamming the administration were invited speakers, and most were friends of the King family, and did not pass unfavorable judgement on Mrs. King.

The point is these bleeding hearts were INVITED to speak at the funeral. The anti-gay protestors are showing up uninvited and unwanted, refusing the requests of families and clergy to leave, and condemning dead servicemen they never met. I do not support the war they died in, but their sacrifice should not be slandered before their families at graveside by total strangers.

by jdclyde

A small group of religious nutcases is NOT representative of "Conservatives".

I'm up to a road trip to florida to kick some nutcase a$$ if you are! B-)

jck! Get an extra batch of brew on!

by charliespencer

And a small group of speakers at the King funeral isn't represntative of liberals either, is it? Yet you didn't point that out to Puppybreath. Why not?

I'm trying to point out that both groups have reprehensible factions that often distort public forums to fit their agenda. At least the liberals at the King funeral were invited to speak and didn't crash the event.

by maxwell edison

I'm in no way condoning what those "creepy people" (thanks BFilmFan) are doing. It's despicable, if you ask me. However, they are not part of the political main-stream, but rather a bunch of in-bred loony tunes. They do not get a spot on the podium to use it as a political soapbox. Find such a comparison, and then you'll have something. But you could look as long and as hard as you'd like, you won't find it -- except ONLY when the Democrats have done it.

And for the record, I'll never forget what the "left" did to me in the early 70s, and to my brother returning from Vietnam, when we were seen by them in public while in uniform. The loony-left got their name for a reason.

by x-marcap

Let's be a bit calmer... The despicable action of taking a memorial about a person and their faith shows that... OOPS that is the Democratic faith. Anything that isn't their agenda is evil...

I apologize i didn't think it was an exercize of their faith, and I was wrong. It is their hope of salvation.

Tim

by jck

I agree...a funeral isn't a place to take potshots at others...it's a time and place to celebrate the life of someone you cared for.

Those who got up there and took negative standing to others in attendance...should be ashamed and chastised in the press.

If it had been my mother's funeral, I would have walked up there and escorted them out...current or former president or not...I would allow no one to disrespect my mother like that...not even family...or a president hiding behind the Secret Service. They would have to shoot me dead before I'd let someone disgrace my mother at her own funeral.

But IMHO it wasn't a liberal who was most disrespectful, it was a conservative...Bernice, the youngest daughter of Rev. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King, who is a black evangelical preacher.

Instead of mentioning the achievements of her mother most, or what she learned from her mother most, or even talking about what her father had taught her about keeping peace and showing love and fairness through the legacy of his teachings most...

She got up there and preached a sermon more about what's wrong with the world and what God wants...rather than praising her mother...

A fine way to eulogize your mother...give a sermon...that's ultimate respect for the dead, eh?

Don't believe me, go read the transcript. Who is mentioned most in the eulogy? God. Not "mother" or "father"...but God.

Coretta would love her anyways...she was forgiving and loving and carried on her husband's legacy with pride.

by x-marcap

With faith Death is "The start of something really good" Without Faith Death is utter defeat.

by jck

and her mother had faith...Bernice's faith will earn her mother nothing.

God judges you on your own actions...not of those close to or around you.

Bernice was preaching...not eulogizing.

If I were her older brother, I'd have told her afterward my thoughts.

Just sad...her mother lies there dead...and she gets up and gives a sermon...rather than paying respects to her and speaking of her mother's actions in life and her mother's achievements.

Sickens me.

by jdclyde

to talk about god at the funeral of someone that thought they were doing god work their whole life?

How disgraceful to talk about the things that were important to Coretta and WERE what gave her life meaning? Remember, the Kings were VERY religious. They came from a time when Democrats weren't ashamed to prase God, and it was their FAITH that gave them strength.

Only you could find carrying on someones life work disgraceful. Do you really think that it was inconsistant with how the Kings lived and died? With GOD as a part of their lives, leading them to fight for what was right.

Ultimate respect for the dead. If they believe in God and that is where they got their strenght from (which is was and they did) then it is HIGHLY respectful. Not all Democrats hate God, and MANY blacks are VERY religious.

A new low for you.

by jck

Coretta Scott King was Christian, but her life's work following the death of her husband was not religiously affiliated. She worked for the civil rights of people.

Maybe you, as a member of the radical right, need to learn that not everything is about God.

To be a Christian does not mean that everything you do in life is about God.

And as a matter of fact, you disgrace God by saying that Democrats are ashamed of God.

Maybe Democrats don't have to stand on a soap box for attention to be Christian? Maybe they understand that having God in your life and your heart is enough and you don't have to make a spectacle of yourself to be Christian?

Fact is, Pastor Bernice King mentioned God far more times in reference to what He wants for the world and what is WRONG with the world, rather than mentioning what her mother (and even her father) had done RIGHT for the world out of respect for either or both of them.

I'm not ashamed of what I said. I am dead on. That girl got up there and shot off a sermon Pat Robertson would be proud of about God and what is wrong with country, rather than showing the openness and love that her mother showed in being a CHRISTIAN and telling the good that her mother did in carrying on her father's legacy.

Nice try, but not everything in life is about God...even when you are a preacher...especially your mother's funeral.

I encourage you to go read about Mrs. King's work against apartheid, for gay acceptance, for non-violence, and for childrens' education.

by maxwell edison

At the start of the eulogy for her mother, Bernice King said she is there to "celebrate" Coretta Scott King; a "beacon of hope, a king in her own right, a woman of authority, a woman of power, a woman of grace, a woman of strength (and) a woman of dignity. .....What God is saying to us today through the transition of Coretta Scott King is that we here in this world are suffering from complications of cancer - materialism and greed and selfishness and arrogance and elitism and poverty and racism and perversion and obscenity and militarism," Bernice King preached.

REV. BERNICE KING, Coretta Scott King's Daughter: So let everything right now that have breath praise thee Lord for the life of Coretta Scott King, a stalwart, a beacon of hope, a King in her own right, a woman of authority, a woman of power, a woman of grace, a woman of essence, a woman of strength, a woman of dignity.

We praise the Lord for Coretta Scott King and her example of life.

----------

jck - You only proved, YET AGAIN, that you are a total imbecile.

by maxwell edison

He hasn't defended his comments because he CAN'T defend his comments.

How low can you go, jck?

Not only is jck's message wrong and out-of-line, but how in the world could he suggest Bernice King is a conservative? Not from what I've read about her. I wonder how he knows her political leanings. The answer is, he doesn't.

jck, can you spell L-O-S-E-R ?

by jdclyde

It is OBVIOUS that she MUST be a conservative, because she is religious? This MUST be the conclusion he drew.

If you talk about GOD and good works, instead of Bush Bash, you MUST be one of those nasty Republicans! I mean, what religious NUT would talk about GOD at the funeral (IN A CHURCH) of a religious woman?

Back to my original statement, That this really IS a new low. It has been a long spiral down over the last 5 months that I have noticed.

When it comes to politics, religion, rights and responsibilties, jck you have lost all credibilty lately and it really is a shame to see you act this way.

by jck

I was very busy the first 2 weeks of February...and...after that, I was in Europe for 2.5 weeks on vacation.

You can request the transcript from the King Foundation.

Bernice King is a conservative. I didn't say Republican, you assumptive lepton. Read f***ing English and stop pretending you know so much.

Now, go back to your little hole-in-the-wall office, look at your emails, and pretend you actually do something there.

I'm going back to work...something you need to learn the meaning of, you worthless, pious paperpusher.

by jdclyde

would be sickened by a preacher giving a sermon in a church at the funeral of a very religious person.

Just about every funeral I have gone to has had a sermon, and I have gone to far more than I am happy with.

by jdclyde

preacher, minister, rabbi, sage or whatever you may have how disgraceful it is to discuss god at a funeral and you will fine their answer is much closer to mine than yours.

I know you won't do this, but it just goes to show where you stand in your religion.

Disgracing God by disgracing Democrats? It is one thing to not follow the teaching that say "Go fourth, making deciples of all nations", it is quite another to feel that religion must be hidden from all aspects of your life or someone else might get offended.

Remember singing as a kid this song? Must never have understood it, huh?

[i]This little light of mine, I?m going to let it shine
This little light of mine, I?m going to let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.
Hide it under a bushel, NO, I?m going to let it shine.
Hide it under a bushel, NO, I?m gunna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.
[/i]

Now run off and see if your light has gone out.

by jdclyde

as I said at the top of this thread
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=189351&messageID=1945927

It was bad enough to be a nutjob about politics, but then to think this was the most disgusting thing.....

We see exactly what this man think of his religion and is willing do stoop to in order to distort anything to make a political slam.
[b]
The only logical reason would be that he posted that as nothing more than flamebait. This is stupid beyond anything he ususally posts, so that HAS to be the answer. He wanted to stir the hornets nest and we fell for it. How embarrassing! :8}

by charliespencer

I'm just answering PB's question, "How tacky can you get?" Both are disgusting.

One is taking advantage of a family friendship and a national audience to advance an agenda only slightly related to the moment and grossly inappropriate.

The other, while only witnessed by small audiences each time, is inflicted uninvited on families, condemning the dead, attributing their sacrifices to a cause they probably didn't support.

It's tacky to use a funeral to take potshots at the government. It's repulsive to use it to take potshots at a deceased soldier who is also a complete stranger.

by maxwell edison

....but rather the who.

There are extreme fringe elements on both sides (or all sides) of the political spectrum, each having it's specific agenda. To expect anything other than disgusting displays from any of them would only lead to disappointment.

But in this case (and other cases as well), we're talking about the main-stream political leaders. For former President Carter to use this as a political soapbox to criticize the current Bush administration -- with President Bush, himself, in attendance -- is the epitome of crass. I used to respect President Carter, even though I've disagreed with his ideology, but no more. He's gone totally off the deep-end.

It's kinda' like tantrums. You might expect as much from toddlers, but not adults. The same sentiment applies. You can expect crass behavior from the anti-gay (or anti-anything) fringe wackos, but not from the party leadership.

So it's not the what, but rather the who (plus the where) that defines tacky in this case. I'd challenge you or anyone to find similar circumstances or things uttered about Carter or Clinton by Bush or Bush or Reagan (when he was alive) or Ford. It just doesn't happen. You can not find any applicable comparison. Why don't you just admit it?

And where I see former President Carter as showing the epitome of crass, President Bush, on the other hand, shows only the epitome of class.

by charliespencer

"it's not the what, but rather the who"

You mean if Carter has sat there with his hands folded in his lap and not said anything at all, he'd still be tacky? I can agree that his message was way out of line, but that's a "what", not a "who". I'm understanding you to say that people cannot display different behaviour at different times; "Tacky once, tacky always." Please correct my misinterpretation.

As Jimmy Buffett once said, "I can be real romantic on some occasions and real trashy on others."

by x-marcap

From the Mayonaise Jar on Fun & Wagnal's porch comes the question, and I in my borderline mystical manner will correctly answer the question without ever hearing the question itself...

My answer: JCK Doesn't realize that Faith in God is the reason religious people do things for other people.

The question: What part of "Do unto others..." is JCK too stupid to understand.

He either is a CME Christian and will be spit out, (read the bible to find that answer) and never know why, or someone who is anti-religion in public life.

by montgomery gator

I know the reference, from Revelation, and it refers to lukewarm Christians being spit out, but what do you mean by CME?

The only CME I know of is the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, a predominantly black denomination, similar to the AME (African Methodist Episcopal). I think God would accept CME members who truly believe in Jesus as their personal savior as well as any other true Christian believer.

by x-marcap

Christmas, Mother's Day, Easter...

They have no use fore Christ at any other time of the year...

by jdclyde

you are comparing people that are represenative of and for the Democratic party/liberals that showed they have no class and will do anything to advance their agenda.

The point in contention is that the anti-gays are NOT represenatives for anything but their small church. They have not been chosen by the masses as spokesmen and leaders.

Being invited to an event does not excuse your behavior, and of the two, the gay-haters ARE the worse of the two without a doubt. That does not excuse Bush-haters for anything they say or do just because you can find someone worse.

Don't make excuses for the inexcusable.
Don't classify "Conservatives" with religious nuts. If this really WAS supported by the conservatives, there would be hundreds of thousands, instead of a small handful of people needing their asses kicked.

I would love to say any vetrians organization firmly persuade them to go away, and it would be a shame if the sheriffs were busy across town at that time.

I do not support HATE groups, which is why I CAN'T support the Democratic party, because they are at the top of being an intolerant hate group.

by maecuff

Even more than the KKK? Or other groups that espouse violence? My husband and I are registered Democrats (Which, of course, makes me a bleeding heart liberal..that drives me nuts.. it's not ALL one or the other.) Anyway, In doing some volunteer phone work during the last presidential election, I had TWO people tell me that if they knew where I was calling from, they would come there and KILL me. Yes. Kill me. Because they were republicans and and Bush supporters. Personally, I do not feel hatred for anyone who disagrees with my politics. I'm glad we can disagree.

Republicans and Democrats, anti-war, pro-war, anti-bush, pro-bush..they are all vitriolic. There is so much rancor on both sides that there will never be a peaceful agreement. Because BOTH sides would rather gouge out their own freaking eyes before they would admit that maybe, just maybe, the other guy has a point.

by jdclyde

I don't see the KKK in the news or in my life, so I tend to forget about them. Are they still active?

I will give you that point. The KKK are more hateful than the Democratic party.

I would wish no harm on a Democrat in general, but anyone that thinks groups like NAMBLA should have been supported by the ACLU to post their how-to on seducing young boys is sick and is contributing to future crimes against kids.

As for the rest of your post, it is right in line with what I have been saying for the last week about partisan politics being way out of hand across the board, and it just happens to be the Democrats turn to play obstructionist to keep anything good from happening that Bush could claim credit for. And that is EXACTLY what they have been doing.

by x-marcap

The Al Frankens, and Michael Moores, etc. really make Democrats look bad. Also, Pat Robertson makes Republicans look bad. The difference is that Clinton, Carter, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Randel were elected to high office. These are the people making most of us who can't stand Evil, abortion, treachery, and treason to run for the right while holding our nose... We hate the stink but I'd rather be up to my neck in the one side's muck than shoetop deep in the other.

As for people wanting to Kill you, you must have been like the woman, who badgered me until I lost my temper at her. She was raising money for Bill Clinton's legal defense fund. I told her not to call again. She did. She said that she would come to my door, I said I would slam it in her face. She said She'd knock it down... I told her any intruder would be shot...

She had the police called on me... I explained what was said. They laughed at me. Then one of the Police got called and she gave him enough grief the phone company disconnected her personal phone... Enough complaints, or the right complaint.

Pro-Bush, I am not. Anti-Liar,Anti-idiot, I certainly am... Add anti-Kerry, and anti-Gore, and anti-Clinton. Gore I know personnaly from his time in the Army. (Marines had to guard him), Clinton I met in the 1992 election. (major dislike) I liked Jim Trafficant(D) because he made me laugh. I like Sherrod Brown (D), I despise G. Voinovich(R).

I can't stand lies from D or R sides. However, Dems outlie the Republicans many to one, politically... From what I can tell.

by charliespencer

Puppybreath asked "How tacky can you get?" My contention is there is something at least as tacky on the conservative side, but that neither of these actions should be considered representative of the "rank and file" on either side.

"Don't make excuses for the inexcusable."

I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'm saying there are jerks on both ends of the political spectrum. Some are more visible than others. That's all.

by x-marcap

I was actually hoping the Howard Dean would get the nomination for President. I thought that would be enough for a serious third Party to be created.

Then I thought that the Democrats would have a nominee who was a decent Human being. They gave us Kerry. He was a Navy officer. 'nuff said.

Did you notice he came back to attack a judge and try to rally support for a filibuster... The liberals are afraid of judges who can read...

Tim

by charliespencer

I wish I could say otherwise, but the nuts in the white sheets are still with us in the southern U.S. Many of them are hiding under the guise of "Southern Heritage" organizations. (NOTE: Most Southern Heritage groups are not connected with the KKK or any other hate groups.)

by jdclyde

that sucks. The world would be a better place with them gone. Of course, it would be nice if the same aliens that come and take them away would take Sharpton and Jackson with them.

That would be a whole lot of racism gone all at once.

by maxwell edison

First of all, I've learned that it's rather pointless debating an issue, any issue, with a person who is hell-bent on proving his or her side of the argument. That's why I stopped trying. And I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone around here say something like, "That's a good point, I didn't look at it that way, and perhaps I'll change my opinion". I could wait for hell to freeze over before someone changes an opinion, much less converts from an ideology, based on a rebuttal I might present against an argument, regardless of how convincing that rebuttal may be. Most people argue an issue with a predetermined desired conclusion as the driving force, and they work backwards looking for reasons to justify it.

I'm digressing a bit, here, but if someone wants to criticize President Bush, for example, and they present their reasons why, they will never move an inch from that position regardless of how effective or valid an argument may be that's contrary to their stated reasons. (See my ACLU rebuttals in another thread to further illustrate my point. I'd bet a dollar to dirt that the guy I was challenging will neither change his "opinion", and/or will just never reply.)

Anyway, my initial point was that comparing those wacko Kansas people, what they were doing, and how they were doing it, to the prominent people who were the subjects of the initial discussion is an extremely flawed and stretched comparison. That's what I mean by "the who". Just like you can't compare a toddler's tantrum in pre-school to one displayed by some Senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate! It's just a silly comparison.

And what started my challenge in the first place was your title, "As tacky as the conservatives". Well, no, it's not - not even close. In fact, it's not even worthy of attempting to compare. The "conservative" in your argument is some wacko, inbred, insignificant, self-anointed, "minister" (and I use that title with extreme reservation) from Nowhere, Kansas (I love Kansas, by the way); and you're suggesting that it's comparable to the person the Democrat Party likes to portray as the greatest ex-president in American history? Give me a friggin' break! That's what I mean by "the who".

But I don't expect you to concede my point, much less change your mind. That sort of thing just doesn't happen around here, especially when it comes to politics. And if YOU can show me a comparison that's a little closer to an ex-president compared to an ex-president, then I will concede YOUR point and change MY mind. But I think hell will freeze over before you can find one.

by charliespencer

Okay, now I understand your "who, not what" statement. I don't expect to change your mind, and I admit I rarely get mine changed in the Misc. forum. But now I have a better understanding of your position.

Thank you.

by faradhi

The problem with the Democratic Party is that they are not giving voters something to vote FOR. They are hoping to get elected by people voting against Bush.

by montgomery gator

That the quote was from Eleanor Roosevelt. She was known as a liberal Democrat, and her husband, FDR, was the one that greatly expanded the Federal Government with the New Deal and started Social Security, starting the whole big mess with a huge government, high taxes, and huge deficits. We would be a lot better off today if we did not have the New Deal and LBJ's poorly-named "Great Society" programs.

by maxwell edison

I believe that FDR was the worst president in American history for the sole reason he started the United States on the road to socialism. Read the American Socialist Party platform of 1932, and you couldn't tell it wasn't the Democrat Party platform of today. And one of FDR's vice presidents was actually a socialist! The only reason Roosevelt's Democrat Party didn't outwardly embrace socialism is only because of the "S-Word", and it wasn't politically expedient. I honestly believe that Roosevelt was a closet socialist, and he along with his merry band of socialist misfits actually infiltrated the Democrat Party to advance their socialist agenda.

On the other hand, Roosevelt was a great war time president.

But thinking out-loud, here, maybe he wasn't that great. Maybe if someone else was in the White House between 1932 and 1940, not only could we have avoided planting all those socialist seeds, but the entire European and Japanese build-up to the war would have been different. What if ....... ?

Okay, Dilemma solved. FDR was the worst - period. Not only did he start the American flavor of socialism, but he single-handedly created the environment for World War II to start. Yea, that's the ticket. He was a conniving and diabolical socialist, who actually wanted that war! (Some might say that's right-on.) And he WAS, after all, very dishonest with the American people. He WAS dishonest, as he hid his disability!

And what would have happened if Harry Truman (I love Harry Truman) wouldn't have ended the thing?

by montgomery gator

...that FDR chose Harry S Truman as his last VP instead of the socialist guy. Who was the socialist VP, and for which of FDR's term did he serve? Harry S Truman was the last of the good Democrat presidents. JFK was OK, his supply-side tax cuts were an excellent idea that Reagan borrowed, but Truman was better.

Sometimes it seems that God has put certain people in certain places for certain times. Truman seems to have been one of those. George Washington is another. I believe that Washington was protected by God during many battles in both the French and Indian War and the War of Independence, so that he would be our first president. Washington was often in the thick of the fighting in both wars, with horses shot from under him, men wounded and dying around him, and bullet holes through his hat and coat, but not once was he wounded by a bullet or shrapnel. A little ironic that Washington's picture is on the Purple Heart medal when he was never wounded in battle.

by jamesrl

I might grant you your argument about the initiation of American socialism, though these things are never the work of one individual, even a president. But to posit that he created the environment for WWII to start? Absolute and utter poppycock. The primary instigator of the European war was the Nazi movment which started after WWI, when FDR was still a political neophyte. If you want to look at the cause of the conditions which lead to the rise of the Nazi party, look at the victors of WWI and the terms of the peace - they utterly ravaged the German economy setting up the seeds of resentment in Germany - opening the way for a nationalistic movement.

You think Hitler was socialist? Why did he have so much support among German Capitalists and even the former monarchists (who helped him convince the elected leader to step aside in 1933)?

Have you read Conrad Black's book on FDR? Conrad Black is one of the world's top capitalists and an arch conservative. Conrad thinks FDR is a hero for taking the US out of its isolationist stance and making it a superpower.

James

by charliespencer

The other half is they can't even keep their own membership in line. The Republicans will argue amonst themselves for three years and 364 days. On Election Day, they show up and vote as a block for the party nominees. The Dems are more fractured, and if they don't like the party nominee, they aren't leaving the house. Or maybe the Dem party members have more sense than the leadership and won't follow the senior members down the garden path...

by maecuff

Not like that at all. I had a call list, read from a script and if they didn't want to talk, I politely thanked them for their time. Twice, before I said more than two sentences, I was threatened with death. I have to admit, I DID laugh at them at that point.

by faradhi

I have heard of C&E as in Christmas and Easter. But not Mother's Day. Is that a Protestant thing?

by puppybreath

as long as it's being televised. They'll kill each other to get the most camera time, so with very little effort on our part, the problem will be solved.

by maxwell edison

Roosevelt dumped Wallace in favor of Harry Truman for the 1944 election. Wallace's extreme far-left desires even frightened the liberal Democrats of the day.

In 1948, Wallace actually ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket. (Progressive Party - Sound familiar?) And he was actually endorsed by the American Communist Party in that '48 election.

On your last paragraph - GWB is another.

by jdclyde

I would never advocate anyone killing them, but if something were to befall them, I can tell you I won't shed a single tear for any of them.

Some people being gone would truely make the world a better place, and the WORST of the three has to be Sharpton. Jackson does most of his scheming behind closed doors, while Sharpton is openly poisoning the well.

Can you believe he went on O'reileys show and DEFENDED openly using the funeral as a political tool??????

Anyone else hear when Jackson did a speech in the south a few months back and because he was talking to "dumb blacks" he sounded like a old southern minister, instead of the educated man he is? Can you say "talk down to"?

by maxwell edison

My message made only one real and valid point, and that's to acknowledge the beginnings of American socialism (which took only the first paragraph). It just kinda' grew from there to be sarcastic and silly.

From the point where I said, "But thinking out-loud...", I suppose I should have put in the normal disclaimer "sarcasm alert", but I didn't really think anyone would be taking me seriously.

by x-marcap

It is the third most attended day for Church in most areas. Mom lays on the guilt, and you go...

I am not a CME And I always thought that it was surprising that Palm Sunday wasn't the second highest attendance in the U.S.

by jamesrl

It never ceased to amaze me the number of people who don't believe but still dutifully show up for baptisms, weddings and funerals(primary participants not the spectators).

When my wife was teaching sunday school, some of the parents of kids who were being baptisez put their older kids into the sunday school during the service, and complained about the religious teachings to their kids. These were the same people who were swearing to raise their children in a Christian household and renouncing the devil (Anglican service, BCP).

Similarly these people wanted to be married in a church but objected to the idea that they would have to actually attend one for at least the weeks where the banns were published.

If you don't believe in the basics, why show up for the rituals? Some churchs turn these people away, others look at it hopefully, and hope that if they indulge these people that perhaps they can entice them into attending again.

On the other hand, I don't think that you must go to church to be a christian, and many church goes I know are far from Christian when they step outside of the church.

James

by jck

19 days of bliss and visiting friends and drinking pints with all sorts of people.

only bad parts were:
a) all the time I spent on trains and buses.
b) having to come back to the USA
c) the 6.5 hour flight delay sitting in Dublin Airport

That's about it. I hung out with people from all over the world. And, they actually were happy to meet an American with an open mind.

Next time, I'll probably be in your neck of the woods as I have to visit my other friends in Ipswich and Portsmouth and will travel to the east side of England.

Will let you know.

Until then..drink more Guinness :)

son

by maxwell edison

Where did I suggest that you called her a Republican? I suggested that you called her a conservative, something you said again. Go back and read it again, idiot.

You're not only an idiot, but you're an idiot that can't even read. And you never did tell us how you presume to know her political leanings.

This is too easy, proving you're an idiot, that is. You do it all yourself.

by jck

You're a moron, Max. You use allusory terminology and avoid direct reference and then when someone calls you on it you play innocent.

Go back to your vagueities of management and quit pretending you know anything other than how to kiss your boss' arse and smile like the car salesman you are.

I only ever said it was tacky that she used a eulogy of her mother to make a rant about what was wrong with the world and not the praise of a person that a eulogy is meant for during a funeral.

It was tacky...on the occasion of her mother's funeral...she makes a few statements about her mother, and uses the rest of the over half-hour she was at the podium to talk about the bad bad world.

That'd be like me eulogizing my mother who was a labor and delivery nurse...by getting up and talking about all useless twats like you who have been born during her lifetime of work.

Don't turn this into a political argument...it's about honour...which, you also evidently know nothing about.

by maxwell edison

Only a pompous ass, such as yourself, would suggest to one person (Rev. Bernice King) what may or may not be appropriate at the funeral of that person's mother. It's her call, not yours. She knows more about her own family, and what may or may not be appropriate, than you do. You have never been more wrong or idiotic in these threads. What a total and complete ass you are.

This discussion is closed to new replies.