King funeral turns political.... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 02-08-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Hey, Ustwo: you've been asked twice in this thread to expand on the "If Carter had had stones when he was president" comment. I was glad to see that I'm not the only one who doesn't know what the hell you were referring to.

You've either not noticed those requests, or you've ignored them. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the Carter comment wasn't just a hit-and-run cheap shot. So, could you say more about what you meant?

Iran, hostages, you recall?

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Iran, hostages, you recall?

I don't think that situation was about balls. As a matter of fact, Carter did quite a bit. President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Carter did a hell of a lot to try and get the hostages freed. The reason that Reagen was able to succed was the Iran-Iraq War. This made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election (posslby what you are refering to as the publics thinking Carter didn't have balls). After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident. (info from www.infoplease.com)

Reagen caved to the terrorists. He gave them their frozen assets, immunity, and weapons.

/end threadjack

Ustwo · 02-08-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't think that situation was about balls. As a matter of fact, Carter did quite a bit. President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Carter did a hell of a lot to try and get the hostages freed. The reason that Reagen was able to succed was the Iran-Iraq War. This made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election (posslby what you are refering to as the publics thinking Carter didn't have balls). After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident. (info from www.infoplease.com)

Reagen caved to the terrorists. He gave them their frozen assets, immunity, and weapons.

/end threadjack

Really?

Carter does nothing effectual, Reagan wins, and the Iranians were scared shitless that he would invade and handed them over.

Now we get to deal with a nuclear Iranian wack job of a government, a government that would not exsist if, Carter had the stones then.

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Really?

Carter does nothing effectual, Reagan wins, and the Iranians were scared shitless that he would invade and handed them over.

Now we get to deal with a nuclear Iranian wack job of a government, a government that would not exsist if, Carter had the stones then.

Carter sent in troops, halted oil imports from Iran, and froze Iranian assets in the United States. Reagan gave them their money back, bought their oil again, and sent them weapons. Who has the balls?

Charlatan · 02-08-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Really?

Carter does nothing effectual, Reagan wins, and the Iranians were scared shitless that he would invade and handed them over.

Now we get to deal with a nuclear Iranian wack job of a government, a government that would not exsist if, Carter had the stones then.

Do you really want to get into this?

If Eisenhower and Churchill handn't overthrown the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and then propped up the Shah's subsequent brutal regime (all so they could keep oil money flowing into US and UK companies), there wouldn't have been eventual overthrow of the Shah by fundamentalist forces. Fundamentalist forces that took the US Embassy by strom and lead to the spread of fundamentalism, in general, in throughout the region.

American policy has and continues to exacerbate the whole "issue of the Middle East". To quibble over who did what seems rather pointless.

Pretty much the whole history of American involvment in the Middle East has been one giant fuck up.

dksuddeth · 02-08-2006, 11:36 AM

well, it only took til the second page before the disrespect at a funeral turned to political partisanship and blame laying.

pan6467 · 02-08-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

well, it only took til the second page before the disrespect at a funeral turned to political partisanship and blame laying.

And you are surprised by this?

As I stated before, the psuedo outrage by the Neo-cons was and is nothing more than grandstanding and an act at trying to play that they are better and have more class.

As shown above, they attack anyone who dares hjave an opinion different than them and they will use someone's faults (addictions, illnesses, and so on) to try to bully, harrass and silence, because they can't win on issues. But I guess seeing how people aren't outraged that they use those forms of attacks it's ok to hurt people, but heaven forbid activists speak out at the funeral of an activist against the President.

Yet, when it comes down to it, the only thing that truly bothered them at the funeral was that people spoke the truth against Bush.

Again, I am waiting to hear how nonpartisan and how glowingly Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and so on spoke of Mrs. King the past few days.

I'm sure they in no way shape or form used her death to make partisan grandstandings.

Again, she was a political activist who spoke out, and as such perhaps people spoke out the way they believed she would have wanted them to.

stevo · 02-08-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As shown above, they attack anyone who dares hjave an opinion different than them and they will use someone's faults (addictions, illnesses, and so on) to try to bully, harrass and silence, because they can't win on issues.

Come on Pan, do you really believe this? Name one issue that will give the dems any sort of power at the polls in november. just one.

Poppinjay · 02-08-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I would imagine that he is referring to Carters non-intervention in Iran during the throwover and US hostage taking.

As related to a Muslim terrorist cartoon?

Man, Osama bin Laden is like Mastercard, but opposite. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... he's everywhere you DON'T want to be.

I'm curious why I'm seeing statements like, "the deomcrats disgusted me..." "This is one of the worst things the democrats have done..."

Which democrats? Reverend Lowery? Which senator is he?

Meanwhile, I can't help notice that the fact that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were conciously NOT invited to the dais for this service seems to be ignored here by those up in arms about that democratic standard bearer and house minority whip, Rev. Lowery.

pan6467 · 02-08-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Come on Pan, do you really believe this? Name one issue that will give the dems any sort of power at the polls in november. just one.

So that excuses the personal attacks?

If the GOP is so secure that they can win on issues, then why lower themselves to the above personal attacks?

Of course, issue wise there is the fact that in the budget wher the talk about median income it has fallen each year Bush has been president. But that's gotta be wrong doesn't it? I mean our economy is booming and there's the tax cuts that are making everyone's lives better, right? I mean just because the sales taxes, property taxes and other taxes have gone up making it more expensive on the poor, that's a non-issue the Dems couldn't possibly capitalize on?

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 01:26 PM

I believe the LA Times gives a more complete description of the funeral as a whole. No mention of shaking heads on the part of 41 and 43. Rather, I think father and son were very gracious. There was also more pageantry than solemnity present. I agree with those that said this is much ado about nothing. Some folks just need to be angry.

TruthOut Link

Quote:

A Eulogy for King, a Scolding for Bush
By Richard Fausset and Peter Wallsten
The Los Angeles Times

Wednesday 08 February 2006

The funeral for the civil rights leader becomes a platform for criticizing the president's policies.

Lithonia, Ga. - A day of eulogizing Coretta Scott King turned into a rare, in-person rebuke of President Bush, with a succession of civil rights and political leaders assailing White House policies as evidence that the dream of social and racial equality pursued by King and her slain husband was far from reality.

Bush and his wife, Laura, sat on stage as more than 10,000 cheered suggestions from several speakers that the 1960s civil rights movement led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. - and fostered by his widow since his assassination - remains alive and that its goals have not been fully realized. They cited the debates in Washington over the war in Iraq, the recovery from Hurricane Katrina and government eavesdropping.

Tuesday's six-hour service, much of it carried live nationally on cable television, marked an unusual combination of political pageantry and civil rights history. The spectacle included humor, interpretive dance, gospel and classical music, shouting and testifying, and a list of dignitaries that made room for three former presidents, poet Maya Angelou and singer Michael Bolton.

But it also included pointed political commentary, much of it aimed at Bush. The president and his wife watched as the sanctuary at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta filled with raucous cheers for their White House predecessors, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton - a reminder that five years into his term, Bush and the Republican Party have not found the acceptance across black America that GOP strategists had hoped.

"This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over," former Democratic President Carter said to applause. "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

Carter, who has had a strained relationship with Bush, drew cheers when he used the Kings' struggle as a reminder of the recent debate over whether Bush violated civil liberties protections by ordering warrantless surveillance of some domestic phone calls and e-mails.

Noting that the Kings' work was "not appreciated even at the highest level of the government," Carter said: "It was difficult for them personally - with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI." Bush has said his own program of warrantless wiretapping is aimed at stopping terrorists.

The most overtly partisan remarks came from the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protege and longtime Bush critic, who noted Coretta King's opposition to the war in Iraq and criticized Bush's commitment to boosting the poor.

"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," Lowery said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."

As the barbs flew, Bush seemed to take the heat in stride, smiling at times, giving Lowery a standing ovation and even pulling the civil rights leader in for a bear hug.

The president received polite applause before and after his seven-minute eulogy, in which he said he attended the service "to offer the sympathy of our entire nation at the passing of a woman who worked to make our nation whole."

"As a great movement of history took shape, her dignity was a daily rebuke to the pettiness and cruelty of segregation," the president said.

Sitting with Bush on the stage by King's flower-draped casket were three ex-presidents: Clinton, Carter and the president's father, George H. W. Bush, along with one potential presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat from New York.

The Clintons flew to Georgia with the Bushes aboard Air Force One, giving the couples a chance to chat. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who has spent months traveling the country addressing African American groups and who this week leveled attacks at Sen. Clinton's potential candidacy, spoke with the former first lady but told reporters that his criticisms of her did not come up.

The appearance by Bush, who decided over the weekend to rearrange his schedule and attend the service, came as his approval rating among black Americans has slipped to the low single digits in some surveys - a direct response, some strategists believe, to the government's failed response to Katrina.

Civil rights leaders and Democrats also have criticized Bush's 2007 budget plan announced this week, which would increase defense spending while maintaining tax cuts for wealthier Americans and reducing aid to the poor.

For Bush, the service offered a rare face-to-face encounter with some of the traditional, liberal civil rights leaders, such as Lowery, whom he has avoided since taking office.

Though Bush has never addressed an NAACP convention as president, he has instead sought to build black support by reaching to more conservative pastors and business leaders sympathetic to his entrepreneurial vision of government.

New Birth and its pastor, Bishop Eddie L. Long, have been at the center of those outreach efforts; Long and other leaders of black mega-churches have met on several occasions with Bush at the White House to discuss directing money to faith-based charities, combating poverty and AIDS in Africa, among other topics.

But as the speeches continued Tuesday, the scene reflected the uphill struggle that Republicans have faced in courting African Americans, even before Katrina focused attention on black poverty.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) drew roars of approval when he invoked the 1960 phone call placed by his brother, then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, to Coretta King to pledge his help in freeing her husband from jail. Kennedy also mentioned the call placed by another brother, Robert F. Kennedy, JFK's campaign manager, to a local judge to inquire why Martin Luther King Jr. could not post bond. He was freed the next morning.

The sanctuary burst into applause when Sen. Kennedy said: "Robert called the judge."

Historians say that many African Americans had been backing Republicans until that moment, and they credit the Kennedy phone calls with securing the black vote for Democrats in 1960 and ever since. Bush's opponents won more than 90% of the African American vote in 2000 and 2004.

But for all of the bare partisanship, the service offered light moments and conviviality.

Former President Bush poked fun at Lowery, joking that he used to keep a score card in his Oval Office desk of their interactions. It was Lowery 21, Bush 3, he said, adding: "It wasn't a fair fight."

The elder Bush, who as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1964 spoke out against the Civil Rights Act pursued by the Kings, acknowledged that the service was an unusual experience.

"I come from a rather conservative Episcopal parish," Bush said. "And I haven't seen anything like this in my life."

Of all the assembled politicians, the applause was most thunderous for Bill Clinton.

"I'm honored to be here with my president and my former presidents," Clinton said, his wife standing at his side.

As he spoke, the crowd cheered and laughed. A few women shouted "Hillary for president," and both Clintons smiled.

The former president seemed to appreciate the undercurrent.

"This has been, I must say, a brilliantly executed and enormously both moving and entertaining moment," he said.

Bush deserved credit for attending the service, said Donna Brazile, one of the country's most prominent Democratic strategists who managed Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign against Bush and worked for Coretta King in the 1980s. In recent weeks, she has met with Bush and spoken on several occasions with his chief political advisor, Karl Rove, about rebuilding New Orleans.

"They know they have to rebuild the foundations, and they have to rebuild a new platform with which to reach African American voters," said Brazile, who watched the service on television.

"President Bush listened, he stayed for three hours and there were times that you could tell visibly he knew that the sermon was intended for his ears only."

Brazile said the criticism of Bush was part of a tradition in the civil rights movement of "speaking truth to power." Bush "took it in the spirit of the moment," she said, "which was a testament to who Coretta Scott King was."

Willravel · 02-08-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I believe the LA Times gives a more complete description of the funeral as a whole. No mention of shaking heads on the part of 41 and 43. Rather, I think father and son were very gracious. There was also more pageantry than solemnity present. I agree with those that said this is much ado about nothing. Some folks just need to be angry.

/article

Thank you for getting us back on track.

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 03:55 PM

Another successful thread jack, wasn't it?

martinguerre · 02-09-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...

Yeah, Lott didn't speak. He wasn't invited, and if he'd had any sense...wouldn't have shown his face.

We celebrated his life...and he was a politician. A damn good one, and a passionate one. Why the people who never respected him in life showed up for his memorial is beyond me.

kutulu · 02-10-2006, 09:01 AM

I'm surprised by the amount of trolling in this thread.

Marvelous Marv · 02-10-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

As for carter's remarks...that King was targeted by secret wiretaps is a matter of record. We can't forget that the memory we claim to honor now was of a movement deeply targeted by our government from the highest levels as subversive.

The only thing i can't figure is why a fragile political figure would want to be at an iconoclast's funeral.

Does that mean you've figured out which men were president ("highest levels")from 1961 to MLK's death in 1968, during which time they did nothing to stop the wiretaps?

Ustwo · 02-10-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Yeah, Lott didn't speak. He wasn't invited, and if he'd had any sense...wouldn't have shown his face.

We celebrated his life...and he was a politician. A damn good one, and a passionate one. Why the people who never respected him in life showed up for his memorial is beyond me.

You know this is why liberals make bad company at parties. If you can't put away your political differences at a funeral, you have deep issues. You may not agree with someone you respect, and even like.

I guess this thought isn't allowed in the 'group think' that dominates the left these days.

Marvelous Marv · 02-11-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

More proof that some people just do not understand the meaning of class, dignity, and respect.

I'm surprised they didn't charge admission.

Link

Quote:

King’s legacy tangled in commercialism
By LEONARD PITTS Jr.
Miami Herald

I interviewed Coretta Scott King once. It cost $5,000.

In 1985, I approached the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta seeking both that interview and permission to use old audio of Coretta’s husband for a radio documentary. I was told it would cost five grand for the audio rights, and it was made clear that unless the money was paid there would be no interview.

The ethical constraints of a radio production house are different from those of a news organization; we made the deal. I didn’t like it, but I rationalized it by telling myself it was an honor to contribute to the upkeep of a legendary legacy.

Amazing what you can make yourself believe.

Coretta Scott King died this week, five months after suffering a heart attack and stroke. She is being widely and lavishly eulogized. “A remarkable and courageous woman,” said the president. “A staunch freedom fighter,” said the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The praise is deserved. There was majesty and grace in Coretta Scott King, a strength of heart that was displayed nowhere more clearly than at her husband’s death. Like Jacqueline Kennedy before her, she mourned inconceivable loss with awesome dignity. Since then, she has been a tireless defender of the dream her husband articulated in August 1963.

She shielded it against racism, pessimism and defeatism. She was less successful against commercialism.

And I don’t mean the piddling $5,000. That’s a small symptom of the larger malady. I refer you to the King family’s 1993 lawsuit against USA Today for reprinting the “I Have A Dream” speech and their subsequent licensing of King’s image and voice for use in television commercials, one of which placed him between Homer Simpson and Kermit the Frog. Then there’s the attempt to sell his personal papers for $20 million. Perhaps most galling was the family’s demand to be paid to allow construction of a King monument on the Washington Mall.

Yes, it’s all legal. But if Dr. King’s life taught us nothing else, it taught us that legality and morality are not necessarily the same.

I don’t mind the King family making money. But not at all costs, and certainly, not at the cost of Martin Luther King’s dignity. Granted, dignity is subjective, and you might draw the line in a different place than I. But I suspect most of us would agree that when a martyr, minister and American hero becomes a TV character hawking cell phones with Homer Simpson, that line has been well and truly crossed.

Coretta Scott King founded the King Center, and it has always been controlled by the family. So it seems plain that she approved this money-grubbing, or at least tolerated it. And as a result, her kids have lost their minds.

Particularly the sons, Martin III and Dexter, recently seen publicly feuding over which one will have the six-figure job of running the King Center. Meantime, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution tells us the facility is in need of more than $11 million in repairs and that $4.2 million of Center money has been paid since 2000 to a company Dexter owns. This would be the same Dexter who, in 1995, visited Graceland for tips on how to exploit his father’s image as Lisa Marie Presley has exploited hers.

Martin Luther King, it seems necessary to say, was not Elvis Presley. He was a man who stood for something and died for something. That something was not profit. That something belonged to all of us. One wonders if the loss of their mother will shock his children into understanding this.

I’d like to think so. But had you visited the King Center Web site three days after Coretta died looking for a tribute, here’s what you’d have found: a press release, a quote from Dr. King, and a request for money. “Make an online donation in loving memory,” it said.

You can do it if you want. Me, I gave at the office.

ASU2003 · 02-12-2006, 07:16 AM

I don't have a problem with what went on at her funeral. True, it wasn't the standard eulogy, but she wasn't a standard person.

The only reason this is a problem is because G.W. Bush and his Dad was there. If the same things had been said, and they weren't sitting 20 feet away, nobody would have had a problem.

There is a thing called free speech, you might not always agree with what is being said, but censorship is much worse.

djtestudo · 02-12-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I don't have a problem with what went on at her funeral. True, it wasn't the standard eulogy, but she wasn't a standard person.

The only reason this is a problem is because G.W. Bush and his Dad was there. If the same things had been said, and they weren't sitting 20 feet away, nobody would have had a problem.

There is a thing called free speech, you might not always agree with what is being said, but censorship is much worse.

Just because it is allowed, doesn't make it right.

See the general discussion thread on Fred Phelps.

Charlatan · 02-12-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Just because it is allowed, doesn't make it right.

See the general discussion thread on Fred Phelps.

Are you trying to compare what Phelps does to people who were actually invited to speak at funeral? Is that really a legitimate comparison?

pan6467 · 02-12-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I'm surprised they didn't charge admission.

Link

Again proof that the GOP is using the funeral to just crucify the free speech and outspokenness from the funeral.

The Right on this board are talking about how tasteless and without class the funeral was held, and yet they go out of their way to tarnish the image.

If it wasn't about hatred and trying to get pity from the independants, and it was truly about class and taste and respect...... the above referenced post would have been started in a new thread.

Again, I ask how have the right talking heads talked about the deceased this past week? Did they show her respect and talk about her with due dignity, or have they slammed her and the family legacy as shown above?

martinguerre · 02-13-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know this is why liberals make bad company at parties. If you can't put away your political differences at a funeral, you have deep issues. You may not agree with someone you respect, and even like.

I guess this thought isn't allowed in the 'group think' that dominates the left these days.

It wasn't "a" funeral.

It was a memorial for a politician, one that we cared deeply about...it was about his public legacy, a poltical one. Why the hell should we have to "put away" the convictions of the deceased so that you feel welcome at a place you're clearly not invited to?

I'm sorry, but it would be clearly asinine for me to think that i'd feel politically comfortable at the memorial of a staunch conservative. These are such crocodile tears.

Marvelous Marv · 02-13-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

It wasn't "a" funeral.

It was a memorial for a politician, one that we cared deeply about...it was about his public legacy, a poltical one. Why the hell should we have to "put away" the convictions of the deceased so that you feel welcome at a place you're clearly not invited to?

I'm sorry, but it would be clearly asinine for me to think that i'd feel politically comfortable at the memorial of a staunch conservative. These are such crocodile tears.

I don't know much about Fred Phelps, but isn't he the one who says "God hates fags?"

If the political discussion at the memorial is fine with you, then you should have no objection to Phelps spouting that mantra at the funeral of a prominent gay person.

As was said earlier, because you CAN say it doesn't mean you SHOULD.

P.S. Bush couldn't win either way. Either he gets criticized for being at the funeral, or criticized for staying away.

martinguerre · 02-14-2006, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I don't know much about Fred Phelps, but isn't he the one who says "God hates fags?"

If the political discussion at the memorial is fine with you, then you should have no objection to Phelps spouting that mantra at the funeral of a prominent gay person.

As was said earlier, because you CAN say it doesn't mean you SHOULD.

P.S. Bush couldn't win either way. Either he gets criticized for being at the funeral, or criticized for staying away.

Uhhh...has Phelps been invited by a single family to speak?

This is not random polical speech! This is material and ideas being delivered by the loved ones of the passed, ideas that bear direct relevance to the memory of the departed. Do we really beleive in the sudden separation of political and politicians/social activists as soon as they shuffle loose the mortal coil?

These comparisons are silly at best.

I agree...he was in a no-win situation. That doesn't change anything...life is tough all over.

Marvelous Marv · 02-15-2006, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Uhhh...has Phelps been invited by a single family to speak?

This is not random polical speech! This is material and ideas being delivered by the loved ones of the passed, ideas that bear direct relevance to the memory of the departed. Do we really beleive in the sudden separation of political and politicians/social activists as soon as they shuffle loose the mortal coil?

These comparisons are silly at best.

I disagree, but I'll use another example. When Ronald Reagan died, I don't recall any speakers holding forth about what an asshole Bill Clinton is.

And please--ease off on the exaggeration. No one is trying to eliminate free speech. You act like we're asking for a permanent ban on expressing these ideas, when all that's being said is that reasonable standards of behavior/decency would be a good thing.

It seems that with the Democrats, "reasonable" is too much to ask.

magictoy · 05-25-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Much ado about nothing.

If the worst "partisan" thing said at the funeral was what Carter said, and the GOP are all up in arms and crying foul..... then they need to get lives.

As said above: A left winged activist, who was very vocal against what she deemed wre wrongs in society and government, has people saying left winged ideals and speaking out against the President....... OMG that is a fucking outrage how dare people speak out. How dare people criticize the president at the funeral of an activist who spoke out against the president while she was alive.... Send them all to prison camps, they must be terrorist sympathizers also, obviously they are unpatriotic, using that pesky 1st Amendment at a funeral.

Is it safe to say you oppose THIS law on 1st Amendment grounds?

Link

Quote:

Senate OKs cemetery protest bill
BY ALAN BJERGA
Eagle Washington bureau
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate passed a bill Wednesday that limits funeral protests at national military cemeteries, making it virtually certain that a federal response to Topeka minister Fred Phelps' pickets will become law.

President Bush is expected to sign the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which would prevent disruptions of military funerals at national cemeteries for one hour before and after a service.

But a daughter of Phelps said the legislation won't curb pickets led by Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. Margie Phelps called the bill an ineffective attempt to protect "patriotic pep rallies."

The bill also bans protests within 500 feet of those funerals. Offenders could face a fine and/or up to one year in prison under the bill.

"Loved ones of our fallen men and women in uniform have already made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "We must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

The bill, which passed the Senate by voice vote, passed the U.S. House of Representatives 408-3 earlier this month. It's not as broad as several other state and federal bills that target Phelps' church, whose members picket military funerals nationwide to protest what they claim is God's vengeance against America for supporting homosexuality.

Because most cemeteries aren't national cemeteries, the law won't affect most places where protests would occur. Roberts' spokeswoman Sarah Little said Congress supported narrower restrictions out of concerns that any limits applied to nonfederal property might not survive a court challenge.

Dozens of states have passed or are passing their own restrictions, she noted. An attempt to pass a picketing ban in the Kansas Legislature failed earlier this month when the House and Senate couldn't agree on language for a final bill.

The state House supported a broad ban, which the Senate feared would lead to a court challenge.

"Most places we picket are not federal, and we keep a good distance anyway," Margie Phelps said.

Phelps said the church doesn't intend to take any legal action against any picket legislation unless it truly would make it impossible for the protests to take place.

Westboro Baptist plans to picket a funeral at a Baptist church in Kentucky today, according to its Web site.

"We are very nimble and flexible," she said. "This evil law passed by the American Taliban, also known as the United States Congress, is not going to stop us from delivering the message that America is doomed," Margie Phelps said.

Cregg Hansen of Derby is a state co-captain of the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of motorcyclists who place themselves and a screen of U.S. flags between funeral mourners and Phelps picketers. Hansen said he wished the federal law went further, but that the group would continue providing a buffer as long as necessary.

"The Patriot Guard is going to be there regardless, to support the family and honor the soldier," he said.

pan6467 · 05-25-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Is it safe to say you oppose THIS law on 1st Amendment grounds?

Link

First and foremost there is a huge difference between people saying something at a funeral while paying their respects and someone throwing crap on a hearse or casket as it goes by.

That said, if the law prevents people from peacefully demonstrating on public grounds and prohibiting speech, then yes, I am against it.

In this particular case, they ban the protesters to 500 feet.... but do not ban the speech or demonstration..... but it is a very slippery slope and sets a nasty precedence.

Regardless of how crass or IMHO wrong the demonstration or speech is, it is a person's right to say it. I served in the Navy to protect a person's right to say what he/she wants, regardless of how I feel about it.

I look at it this way, you prohibit people protesting at funerals because someone is offended by WORDS. Then you prohibit people at schools, on the radio, in books, on television, in newspapers the right to speak out, because someone maybe offended, then you have to prohibit people from speaking out at all public places because someone maybe offended, and eventually, you get to the point where when a kid says something, he heard his parents say in the privacy of their own home, the thought police, the political correctness police, the school, childrens services and the government as a whole is investigating what was said in the privacy of one's home.

Oh wait....... we already do all those things to some degree.

02-08-2006, 11:36 AM	#46 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	well, it only took til the second page before the disrespect at a funeral turned to political partisanship and blame laying. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

02-08-2006, 03:55 PM	#53 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Another successful thread jack, wasn't it?

02-10-2006, 09:01 AM	#55 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I'm surprised by the amount of trolling in this thread.

02-12-2006, 07:16 AM	#59 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I don't have a problem with what went on at her funeral. True, it wasn't the standard eulogy, but she wasn't a standard person. The only reason this is a problem is because G.W. Bush and his Dad was there. If the same things had been said, and they weren't sitting 20 feet away, nobody would have had a problem. There is a thing called free speech, you might not always agree with what is being said, but censorship is much worse.