Why Was Coretta Scott King's Funeral a Political Forum?

[BurgundyNGold]

Does anybody else feel that partisan political remarks made by Jimmy Carter and others during the funeral were just completely inappropriate? This was HER funeral and HER remembrance. These people should not have insulted her memory with their political diatribes.

How classless.

[redskin_rich]

What was said? I saw something on this but didn't read the story.

[BurgundyNGold]

What was said? I saw something on this but didn't read the story.
Jimmy Carter lambasted the adminstration's handling of Katrina and Rev. Joseph Lowery slammed Bush on Iraq and on his efforts to help the poor at home.

Here's a link to a story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-coretta8feb08,0,879695.story?coll=la-headlines-politics) about it.

None of it is necessarily wrong, but there's such a thing as the proper place and time for that sort of talk. A eulogy at a funeral for another person is not one of them, IMO.

[Spence]

Yeah, the Drudge Report was the first to really push this line and Fox News quickly picked it up and has been running with it ever since. I can see how some of the remarks would make some people, especially those on the right wing, feel uncomfortable. I expected her funeral to be political because her life was so political. I guess how you view it depends on your politics and whether or not you think funerals should necessarily be apolitical events.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yeah, the Drudge Report was the first to really push this line and Fox News quickly picked it up and has been running with it ever since. I can see how some of the remarks would make some people, especially those on the right wing, feel uncomfortable. I expected her funeral to be political because her life was so political. I guess how you view it depends on your politics and whether or not you think funerals should necessarily be apolitical events.
That's the thing. I saw it on CNN this morning and while I don't necessarily disagree with what was said, I just feel that this was her last big hurrah, you know? And what do some folks choose to do with it? Reduce it to a political scrum. I thought it was a disrespectful display for a classy lady.

[redskin_rich]

Jimmy Carter lambasted the adminstration's handling of Katrina and Rev. Joseph Lowery slammed Bush on Iraq and on his efforts to help the poor at home.

Here's a link to a story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-coretta8feb08,0,879695.story?coll=la-headlines-politics) about it.

None of it is necessarily wrong, but there's such a thing as the proper place and time for that sort of talk. A eulogy at a funeral for another person is not one of them, IMO.
I tend to agree with you but obviously the remarks were only made because Bush was there in attendance. The question would be, how would Mrs. King have felt about the comments made. Those close to her would know and its up to them if it was out of place or not.

[BurgundyNGold]

I tend to agree with you but obviously the remarks were only made because Bush was there in attendance. The question would be, how would Mrs. King have felt about the comments made. Those close to her would know and its up to them if it was out of place or not.
That's an interesting point. Maybe she would've said the same things herself, only she didn't get the chance. If her family had said that, I suppose I might be more inclined to agree, but I doubt that President Carter was over every Sunday for dinner. I think he was likely just a tactless old fool playing politics.

[redskin_rich]

That's an interesting point. Maybe she would've said the same things herself, only she didn't get the chance. If her family had said that, I suppose I might be more inclined to agree, but I doubt that President Carter was over every Sunday for dinner. I think he was likely just a tactless old fool playing politics.
I can't disagree with you there.

[Fathead]

There are lots of forums for bush bashing, I don't think this should have been one. Funerals should be for celebrating the life of the deceased, not trying to score points in politics. Of course, one could argue that just being in attendance is trying to score points in politics.

[Axegrinder]

Like marriages,some folks get married in a church,some on a boat,on the beach, or at any other venue,including the Justice of the Peace.


What your interpretations of what a funeral should be and what her family decided on may be two different things.
Who is to judge what is appropriate?

[BurgundyNGold]

Like marriages,some folks get married in a church,some on a boat,on the beach, or at any other venue,including the Justice of the Peace.

What your interpretations of what a funeral should be and what her family decided on may be two different things.
Who is to judge what is appropriate?
That's a convenient assessment, Axe. By that logic, anything could be deemed appropriate. Perhaps if I clucked like a chicken and urinated uncontrollably throughout the church while doing a nude interpretive dance as a tribute, that would be OK too? Assuming the family decided it was OK, of course. :rolleyes:

Those people were in a house of God providing remembrance and giving this woman her final recognition. Leaving aside any blasphemous implications, how could it not be a disrespect to her to lessen the spotlight of the occasion on her memory to redirect that light in the direction of presidential pot shots? Add in the fact that, for many, this funeral was a funeral for two. Her husband received no such state recognized funeral. It was, in a way, saying goodbye to both of them.

How DARE those politicians take away from that?! It's disgusting... even for poiticians.

[Axegrinder]

That's a convenient assessment, Axe. By that logic, anything could be deemed appropriate. Perhaps if I clucked like a chicken and urinated uncontrollably throughout the church while doing a nude interpretive dance as a tribute, that would be OK too? Assuming the family decided it was OK, of course. :rolleyes:

Those people were in a house of God providing remembrance and giving this woman her final recognition. Leaving aside any blasphemous implications, how could it not be a disrespect to her to lessen the spotlight of the occasion on her memory to redirect that light in the direction of presidential pot shots? Add in the fact that, for many, this funeral was a funeral for two. Her husband received no such state recognized funeral. It was, in a way, saying goodbye to both of them.

How DARE those politicians take away from that?! It's disgusting... even for poiticians.
From what I've seen reported,those soundbites were just a small portion of the overall event.

There's a big difference between uttering the truths that some people deny,ignore,or just don't want to hear and urinating in a church.
Dubya was there representing the country and those who spoke out against his policies were representing the country also.

[BurgundyNGold]

From what I've seen reported,those soundbites were just a small portion of the overall event.

There's a big difference between uttering the truths that some people deny,ignore,or just don't want to hear and urinating in a church.
Dubya was there representing the country and those who spoke out against his policies were representing the country also.
Nobody is debating whether or not what these people said were true. That's not the point. It's the forum in which these people chose express their opinions that's at issue. They weren't in studio at the McLaughlin Group speaking their perceived truths. This was at a frickin' eulogy at a frickin' funeral for as close to a national civil rights hero as our country had left for crying out loud. At the very least, I would think that people would recognize the gauche nature of the comments given the situation.

[dukeuch]

That's the thing. I saw it on CNN this morning and while I don't necessarily disagree with what was said, I just feel that this was her last big hurrah, you know? And what do some folks choose to do with it? Reduce it to a political scrum. I thought it was a disrespectful display for a classy lady.

I, of course, disagree. Bringing up King's beliefs and fights against injustice and pointing out their relavence today as well as 40 years ago is a perfectly appropriate eulogy. What better last hurrah than to say, "she fought the good fight irght up until the end"? This was not the rabid attack many news reports are trying to make it out to be.

[dukeuch]

I tend to agree with you but obviously the remarks were only made because Bush was there in attendance. The question would be, how would Mrs. King have felt about the comments made. Those close to her would know and its up to them if it was out of place or not.

Oh, I get it. When Bush showed up Carter put his "no-Bush" speech back in his pocket and pulled out his "Bush here" speech.

Please.

[BurgundyNGold]

I, of course, disagree. Bringing up King's beliefs and fights against injustice and pointing out their relavence today as well as 40 years ago is a perfectly appropriate eulogy. What better last hurrah than to say, "she fought the good fight irght up until the end"? This was not the rabid attack many news reports are trying to make it out to be.
Did you actually watch the eulogies or are you pulling stuff out of your posterior again?

[BurgundyNGold]

Oh, I get it. When Bush showed up Carter put his "no-Bush" speech back in his pocket and pulled out his "Bush here" speech.

Please.
Do you really think that Carter would've brought up the administration's abysmal response to Katrina if he wasn't there? Well, in your words ....

Puh-lease.

[redskin_rich]

Oh, I get it. When Bush showed up Carter put his "no-Bush" speech back in his pocket and pulled out his "Bush here" speech.

Please.
I was referring to a few specific remarks made during the speech, not the entire speech. Of course, I'm also making the assumption that Carter has enough brain cells to improvise a sentence or two rather than just read a prepared speech verbatim.
But feel free to carry on with the notion that Carter would have brought up surveillance and wiretapping regardless of whether Bush was there or not, I could use a laugh this morning.

[akhhorus]

That's an interesting point. Maybe she would've said the same things herself, only she didn't get the chance. If her family had said that, I suppose I might be more inclined to agree, but I doubt that President Carter was over every Sunday for dinner. I think he was likely just a tactless old fool playing politics.

Well, the angle I heard, that made a lot of sense was that King and her husband used the pulpit for political change and weren't afraid from that base to say things that needed to be said. In the strict sense that it was a generic funeral, the topics were wrong; but considering how the Kings fought power from that medium, it was appropriate in that way.

And if Bush is so insulated that he can't handle (or his supporters percieve that he can't handle) someone questioning him in public, then we're all in deeper poop than we think.

[Spence]

Certainly, President Bubble Boy isn't accustomed to being exposed to criticism. He had his campaign people and even the Secret Service [which is illegal] forcibly ejecting people who didn't support him from his 2004 campaign rallies. Even some of his own supporters admit he gets upset/angry at the delivery of bad news. He looked like he wanted to strangle a cat when the Dems jumped to their feet and cheered during the State of the Union speech when he mentioned that his Social Security privatization plan went nowhere.

I can't climb inside the heads of those who spoke at the funeral. Certainly, the late Mrs King's husband often peppered his eulogies with political commentary and he delivered A LOT of eulogies for fellow civil rights activists slain while fighting the good fight. Rev King's funeral itself was a pretty political affair.

Maybe people should include a small note in their will. Something like "Keep politics out of my funeral" or "Please feel free to discuss the things I cared about in life."

[dj_stouty]

This is an interesting discussion.

Just a hypothetical...

What if Bush started pushing his social security reform in his eulogy speech, but backed it up later, by saying Coretta would have stood up for future generations being financially stable?

[RedskinsDave]

Paul Wellstone approves. :rolleyes:

[Ibleedburgundy]

If anyone has the right to complain, it's the King family and friends, and I don't hear them complaining. Everyone else can have their opinion but ultimately, this was their funeral and they can celebrate her life any way they choose. Judging by the standing ovations, I'd say they appreciated those strong words. Keep in mind these were all causes that Coretta Scott King believed in deeply as a result of her life struggles. These are the issues that made up her life and they are appropriate for HER funeral. GWB was in attendance, but to expect the family and friends to put a muzzle on her life-long causes is wrong. I think Coretta Scott King would have been very happy with the way the funeral went and that's all that matters here.

Here is an article that states it much better than I can:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060202/cm_thenation/1555886

[Spence]

What if Bush started pushing his social security reform in his eulogy speech, but backed it up later, by saying Coretta would have stood up for future generations being financially stable?It would seem pretty weird. Discussions of poverty, civil rights, and war took place at the King funeral. Those are all things Rev. King spoke and wrote about often. Obviously, poverty was a central issue for him, he was the pre-eminent leader of the civil rights movement, and ferociously opposed to the Vietnam War. Whether those subjects should be discussed at the funeral of his widow is a matter of personal taste, but they all clearly issues important to the people in question.

How does Social Security privatization figure into it?

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, the angle I heard, that made a lot of sense was that King and her husband used the pulpit for political change and weren't afraid from that base to say things that needed to be said. In the strict sense that it was a generic funeral, the topics were wrong; but considering how the Kings fought power from that medium, it was appropriate in that way.
This is actually an excellent stream of logic. Certainly, MLK used the pulpit to preach all sorts of things -- many of them political. And it worked very well. However, this wasn't Sunday in the church in Mobile. This was a funeral, what usually is a somewhat solemn event that focuses on remembrance of the person who has passed. The fact that folks took swipes at the President -- who was good enough to come to pay his respects -- was about as uncouth a use of the pulpit as perhaps I've ever seen.

And if Bush is so insulated that he can't handle (or his supporters percieve that he can't handle) someone questioning him in public, then we're all in deeper poop than we think.
I would think that pretty much any other forum would and should be OK. But if we don't have respect for the fact that the office of the POTUS showed up to pay his respects, at least have respect for the fact that is another person's service.

[BurgundyNGold]

This is an interesting discussion.

Just a hypothetical...

What if Bush started pushing his social security reform in his eulogy speech, but backed it up later, by saying Coretta would have stood up for future generations being financially stable?
Interesting hypothesis. I think that the messenger has as much to do with the acceptability as the message in this case. At least with the folks that were in that church. ;)

Personally, I think using a eulogy as a segue to discussions about Katrina or anything else political -- including social security -- is just disrespectful. People aren't, or at least shouldn't be there to listen to that crap. They're there to pay their last respects. The whole direction this thing went sickens me.

[VTBob]

I tend to agree with BnG, I'd consider her funeral a time to mourn, not to make political statements - now I realize Mrs. King was a political woman, and this may be what she wanted...but I dunno, I just consider a funeral a time for mourning and reflection, not political bashing...

...along those lines, this is I believe the ONLY time I've agreed with Bill O'Reilly, Carter was making an ass of himself...

[BurgundyNGold]

I tend to agree with BnG, I'd consider her funeral a time to mourn, not to make political statements - now I realize Mrs. King was a political woman, and this may be what she wanted...but I dunno, I just consider a funeral a time for mourning and reflection, not political bashing...

...along those lines, this is I believe the ONLY time I've agreed with Bill O'Reilly, Carter was making an ass of himself...
Is that what he said? If I'm agreeing with that guy on anything, I'm not sure what to think anymore, lol.

[dj_stouty]

Interesting hypothesis. I think that the messenger has as much to do with the acceptability as the message in this case. At least with the folks that were in that church. ;)

Personally, I think using a eulogy as a segue to discussions about Katrina or anything else political -- including social security -- is just disrespectful. People aren't, or at least shouldn't be there to listen to that crap. They're there to pay their last respects. The whole direction this thing went sickens me.

Thats my point. I think they used this forum incorrectly to fuel their own ambitions. It was selfish IMO. Maybe SS was a bad analogy Spence, but if the President tried it with a more pertinent subject, he would have been slammed from here to kingdom come.

People were there to honor Mrs. King....not hear something they would get attending a session of congress. If they wanted to talk about politics, they had a long, long list of things to talk about that involved Mrs. King and her Husband.

I guess people will do anything for attention.

[Spence]

People were there to honor Mrs. King....not hear something they would get attending a session of congress.Honoring Mrs King and talking politics need not be mutually-exclusive. As I wrote above, whether one appreciates politics at such events is a matter of personal taste. However, let's not fall for the conclusion that the remarks were terribly unpopular. I mean, the Fox News Channel didn't like it much, that's true, but a lot of the more pointed political comments got a lot of applause from the people actually in attendance. As you'd expect, people at the funeral were overwhelmingly liberal and/or Democratic, so those remarks would go down pretty well with that crowd. I guess nobody told them Sean Hannity would be listening...and not happy. Or maybe they just didn't care what he thinks.

[skinfanatic]

i think these kind of funerals always turn into political forums, esp given her history. maybe its the media coverage that cause the politicians to lose control and have to be classless.

[Axegrinder]

I think that they were honoring her,her life's work,and pointed out that it wasn't yet finished by highlighting some examples of why that is.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think that they were honoring her,her life's work,and pointed out that it wasn't yet finished by highlighting some examples of why that is.
Then you didn't read the transcripts. ;)

[Axegrinder]

Then you didn't read the transcripts. ;)
[Just wondering]
Were the Bush administration and it's followers cherry picking the transcripts too?

[BurgundyNGold]

[Just wondering]
Were the Bush administration and it's followers cherry picking the transcripts too?
I'm not a Bush follower in the least, but when I saw the soundbite on CNN, I figured it would be a good idea if I read the transcripts too. So I could get the proper context without someone telling me what I should think.

[Spence]

I really think this is a matter of personal taste. Either you think political remarks are appropriate at a funeral or you don't. Me, I've got no problem with it, as long as they relate to the life of the deceased. These comments clearly did. That doesn't make them all right, it just makes them all right with me.

[BurgundyNGold]

I really think this is a matter of personal taste. Either you think political remarks are appropriate at a funeral or you don't. Me, I've got no problem with it, as long as they relate to the life of the deceased. These comments clearly did. That doesn't make them all right, it just makes them all right with me.
I guess that's what it's going to have to come down to.

[dukeuch]

Did you actually watch the eulogies or are you pulling stuff out of your posterior again?

Did not watch, read.

By the way, what else have I "pulled out of my posterior"? Please enlighten me as to where I have mis-stated facts.

[BurgundyNGold]

Did not watch, read.

By the way, what else have I "pulled out of my posterior"? Please enlighten me as to where I have mis-stated facts.
Suffice to say, you have no credibility. I'm done with that and will not be getting into it on this thread.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm not a Bush follower in the least, but when I saw the soundbite on CNN, I figured it would be a good idea if I read the transcripts too. So I could get the proper context without someone telling me what I should think.

How novel.

[dukeuch]

Do you really think that Carter would've brought up the administration's abysmal response to Katrina if he wasn't there? Well, in your words ....

Puh-lease.

Of course I do. Even if Carter's remarks were meant directly and personally to Bush (and I don't think they were, I think they were directed towards our policies and failings in general, in terms of the kinds of injustices King spent her life fighting to one degree or another) Bush's presence would not have made a difference. I guess your view is that Carter could not count on Bush getting the message unless he was actually in the audience?

Puh-lease, indeed.

[CNYSkinFan]

Politics, theater and the Redskins are large parts of my life. When I die I want people to remember me, my relationship to my wiofe daughter and even hell my dogs. But if tyhey relate how I carried myself politically to any current events I would not be ashamed, in fact I would definitely be for it. And since the funeral would be about me (I would hope) then of course it should be in accordance to how I lived my life.

But of course the GOP and the right wing are going to try and turn this thing into some Wellstone type fairy tale, but it is not sticking. Why? Because the country is tired of all the excuses and the smokescreens. Bush may have gone to the well a few too many times and they can not excuse every little thing by playing the "This is not appropriate now" card.

If Ms. King's family did not mind then I don't see how those on the right could possibly have any say in this.

[BurgundyNGold]

Of course I do. Even if Carter's remarks were meant directly and personally to Bush (and I don't think they were, I think they were directed towards our policies and failings in general, in terms of the kinds of injustices King spent her life fighting to one degree or another) Bush's presence would not have made a difference. I guess your view is that Carter could not count on Bush getting the message unless he was actually in the audience?

Puh-lease, indeed.
Carter would not have made those comments if Bush were not in attendance. If so, he would have done so many times before now and there would be a public acknowlegement of it, much like Clinton's comments about the wiretapping last week.

You're wrong.

[dukeuch]

This is an interesting discussion.

Just a hypothetical...

What if Bush started pushing his social security reform in his eulogy speech, but backed it up later, by saying Coretta would have stood up for future generations being financially stable?

I guess he would have done so without being able to point out to any history of King supporting reforms such as he proposed. I think Carter could point out many examples of her fighting the type of injustice he spoke about.

[BurgundyNGold]

Politics, theater and the Redskins are large parts of my life. When I die I want people to remember me, my relationship to my wiofe daughter and even hell my dogs. But if tyhey relate how I carried myself politically to any current events I would not be ashamed, in fact I would definitely be for it. And since the funeral would be about me (I would hope) then of course it should be in accordance to how I lived my life.

But of course the GOP and the right wing are going to try and turn this thing into some Wellstone type fairy tale, but it is not sticking. Why? Because the country is tired of all the excuses and the smokescreens. Bush may have gone to the well a few too many times and they can not excuse every little thing by playing the "This is not appropriate now" card.

If Ms. King's family did not mind then I don't see how those on the right could possibly have any say in this.
So, IYO, were the political attacks on a sitting President in attendance warranted during a eulogy?

[CNYSkinFan]

Paul Wellstone approves. :rolleyes:

and there it is.

[dukeuch]

Thats my point. I think they used this forum incorrectly to fuel their own ambitions. It was selfish IMO. Maybe SS was a bad analogy Spence, but if the President tried it with a more pertinent subject, he would have been slammed from here to kingdom come.

People were there to honor Mrs. King....not hear something they would get attending a session of congress. If they wanted to talk about politics, they had a long, long list of things to talk about that involved Mrs. King and her Husband.

I guess people will do anything for attention.

By the way, any word on King's family having the kind of problems with Carter's eulogy that you and the GOP seem to be having?

[CNYSkinFan]

So, IYO, were the political attacks on a sitting President in attendance warranted during a eulogy?
Speaking truth to power was a big part of King's legacy. I would think that he and she would approve. But I don't know. All I know is the only people complaining are the so called offended right wing and not King's family. THAT to me says a whole lot.

[BurgundyNGold]

By the way, any word on King's family having the kind of problems with Carter's eulogy that you and the GOP seem to be having?
This was what we call "implied characterization", DJ. Apparently, you're a Republican now. :rolleyes:

[BurgundyNGold]

Speaking truth to power was a big part of King's legacy. I would think that he and she would approve. But I don't know. All I know is the only people complaining are the so called offended right wing and not King's family. THAT to me says a whole lot.
I'm complaining and I happen to agree with the comments. I just think it was disrespectful to take the spotlight off of the final remembrance of CSR during her eulogy to make political points. Any political points.

[dukeuch]

Suffice to say, you have no credibility. I'm done with that and will not be getting into it on this thread.

Not that again. I will attempt to "save" my credibility, if you tell me what I can produce to do so. Obviously, I cannot provide timed, dated photos, but I have lots of other stuff. PM me if you (and the moderators here) prefer.

[Spence]

This was what we call "implied characterization", DJ. Apparently, you're a Republican now. :rolleyes:Well, DJ is a Republican.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, DJ is a Republican.
I guess that works out then, lol. I'm more concerned because this particular poster has a history of such tactics as part of his "argument" style.

[dukeuch]

This was what we call "implied characterization", DJ. Apparently, you're a Republican now. :rolleyes:

Nope, "implied charachterization" is when O' Reilly calls Michael Moorer a "propagandist" and then say "Joseph Goebels was a propogandist too". It is a fact that DJ happens to agree with the majority of the GOP comments on this particular issue, and I am implying nothing more than agreement between the two on this issue.

[CNYSkinFan]

I'm complaining and I happen to agree with the comments. I just think it was disrespectful to take the spotlight off of the final remembrance of CSR during her eulogy to make political points. Any political points.
BnG, but in all humility...who are you to be offended? For that matter who am I? The family of Ms. King were not offended, or at least I remember reading nothing of that sort. THe audience of the funeral were not offended, besides those on the right who were called out for their policies. This is false drama. Corretta Scott King was a good person who lived a public and political life. To speak about how she felt about her politics and what she went through and their relevance to today is not just aceeptable, I think it should be at a funeral. We are honoring her, not us. Her family is the only one who has the right to be offended by this. And if they are not then I will not presume to be offended for them.

[dukeuch]

I guess that works out then, lol. I'm more concerned because this particular poster has a history of such tactics as part of his "argument" style.

Amazing, you have a problem with me calling a Republican a Republican. Well, I'd be pretty PO'd if someone called me that too.

[BurgundyNGold]

Nope, "implied charachterization" is when O' Reilly calls Michael Moorer a "propagandist" and then say "Joseph Goebels was a propogandist too". It is a fact that DJ happens to agree with the majority of the GOP comments on this particular issue, and I am implying nothing more than agreement between the two on this issue.
By making the connection between the two, you are implying that they are the same. In this case, this is apparenty true. In others, it is not. You get a pass for lucking out on the fact that DJ happens to be a Rep.

[Spence]

Fellas, you all have strong feelings on this issue and, as I've noted several times, I think both sides have a case to make. I've certainly made mine. My concern is that this is going to turn into another one of the Potomac's infamous pissing matches, where the goal is no longer to argue, but merely to score points off the other person. I know none of us go into a thread intending to do it, but it somehow seems to happen anyway. If you've got something new to add, please do so. Otherwise, let's not walk down this path again. Thanks.

[dj_stouty]

I may be a Republican, but I posted this hypothetical because I was more interseted in reading the responses; not to go fishing for a debate.

I have no problems with politicians talking about politics when honoring a woman's life that has influenced our current politics. However, to use the platform as a way to attack an attending President who was also there to honor her was a bit distasteful.

[dukeuch]

I may be a Republican, but I posted this hypothetical because I was more interseted in reading the responses; not to go fishing for a debate.

I have no problems with politicians talking about politics when honoring a woman's life that has influenced our current politics. However, to use the platform as a way to attack an attending President who was also there to honor her was a bit distasteful.

And all I am saying is that it seems to me that Carter would have delivered the same message whether Bush was in attendance or not. Others may disagree, that's fine. I think that Carter's record speaks for itself; this is not a guy who goes for personal attacks, although he has endured many. Suppose Carter was planning on saying exaclty what he did regardless of Bush's attendance, should he have then shelved those remarks?

[BurgundyNGold]

And all I am saying is that it seems to me that Carter would have delivered the same message whether Bush was in attendance or not. Others may disagree, that's fine. I think that Carter's record speaks for itself; this is not a guy who goes for personal attacks, although he has endured many. Suppose Carter was planning on saying exaclty what he did regardless of Bush's attendance, should he have then shelved those remarks?
You have absolutely no evidence of this, so why should anyone bother to consider it? And when it comes to handing out advice on presidential leadership, I'm thinking that Carter should STFU unless he wants to be reminded of the "H" word.

[dukeuch]

You have absolutely no evidence of this, so why should anyone bother to consider it? And when it comes to handing out advice on presidential leadership, I'm thinking that Carter should STFU unless he wants to be reminded of the "H" word.

I don't have any evidence, just like you don't have any proof that he would not have said what he did if Bush was not there. We are debating here, giving our opinions. Trying to apply logic to our arguments based on what incomplete evidence we have. I give mine, you give yours. That's the way it works.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't have any evidence, just like you don't have any proof that he would not have said what he did if Bush was not there. We are debating here, giving our opinions. Trying to apply logic to our arguments based on what incomplete evidence we have. I give mine, you give yours. That's the way it works.
I'm not stating opinion. I'm stating fact.

FACT: President Bush was in attendance
FACT: Former President Carter used his time during his part of the eulogy to assault the administration's failure after Katrina.

I'm speaking to what I know to be true. You, however, are speaking to hypotheticals.

YOUR OPINION: President Carter would've made those remarks even if Bush wasn't in attendance.

What you're suggesting is far from fact. Using Carter's lack of public criticism in the vast majority of his public opinions as of late, there is NO baseline evidence that would lead a reasonable person to make that assessment. There are no dots to connect. You just put out a single dot and expect that to be considered worthy of consideration. Well, it isn't. That's all I'm pointing out.

[CNYSkinFan]

You have absolutely no evidence of this, so why should anyone bother to consider it? And when it comes to handing out advice on presidential leadership, I'm thinking that Carter should STFU unless he wants to be reminded of the "H" word.
BnG you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary but insist on it's veracity with your own opinion of Carter as basis. Carter has never been one to shy from saying what he thought, even in his own presidency which in many ways was his downfall.

You can't clam the truth mantle when you just don't know. Of course even if what you suppose is true (that Careter changed or altered his speach because Bush was there) isn't that a testament to Corretta Scott King and her husband? Did they not take EVERY opportunity to speak truth to power? I doubt GW calls up Carter for advice on hot button topics so this is his one opportunity to actually speak truth to power unflinchingly.

It seems to me Carter and his ilk are always in a no win situation with the right wing. If he did not say what he said at the funeral and then a week later talked about the wire tapping I suppose you would of them proclaimed him to be a coward and unafraid to say things with Big old bad GW in the room.

And Carter has been extremely critical of the current administration in it's entirety during their stay in the WH. This was his highest profile opportunity to publicly proclaim his position on this topic AND CSK's. And using an example of an abuse of wiretapping in CSK's life is a direct link to the dangers of Bush's actions I would think is a perfectly legit and fair criticsm.

And again only CSK's family can be offended by her funeral. Perhaps you are just offended because someone said something bad about the president in public in a forum he was at. That to me is not that offensive either.

[BurgundyNGold]

BnG you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary but insist on it's veracity with your own opinion of Carter as basis. Carter has never been one to shy from saying what he thought, even in his own presidency which in many ways was his downfall.
An asteroid will be hitting the Earth tomorrow. Prove me wrong.

That is how this poster does business. I am simply pointing out that the poster has no evidence to support his specious argument.

You can't clam the truth mantle when you just don't know. Of course even if what you suppose is true (that Careter changed or altered his speach because Bush was there) isn't that a testament to Corretta Scott King and her husband? Did they not take EVERY opportunity to speak truth to power? I doubt GW calls up Carter for advice on hot button topics so this is his one opportunity to actually speak truth to power unflinchingly.
This is a matter of opinion to which I have already spoken. I found it gauche and disrespectful. I personally think that the speech was written knowing that Bush was going to be there. For the same political reasons, I believe that it would've lacked any punch whatsoever if Bush wasn't there and therefore would not have likely been written or given that way.

It seems to me Carter and his ilk are always in a no win situation with the right wing. If he did not say what he said at the funeral and then a week later talked about the wire tapping I suppose you would of them proclaimed him to be a coward and unafraid to say things with Big old bad GW in the room.
He could've just showed up and paid his respects. Clinton spoke and gave a rousing address that was both thoughful and poignant. Instead, Carter took the low road, showing a distinct lack of class in the process.

And Carter has been extremely critical of the current administration in it's entirety during their stay in the WH. This was his highest profile opportunity to publicly proclaim his position on this topic AND CSK's. And using an example of an abuse of wiretapping in CSK's life is a direct link to the dangers of Bush's actions I would think is a perfectly legit and fair criticsm.
Again, this was Mrs. King's moment, not that of here eulogizers. The display by both President Carter and to a lesser extern Rev. Lowery were both inherently disrespectful to her memory. Any "yeah, buts" to that rather direct point is really just making excuses.

And again only CSK's family can be offended by her funeral. Perhaps you are just offended because someone said something bad about the president in public in a forum he was at. That to me is not that offensive either.
Like I said before, I do not necessarily disagree with the statements and in any other forum would likely have sided with President Carter's and to a lesser degree Rev. Lowery's assessments. Please read that line twice so that I do not have to repeat myself again.

This was a fricken' funeral, CNY. It was supposed to be a reflection of THE WOMAN'S life, not a punchlist of agenda items for a dismal ex President and a politically conscious preacher. That is what I am offended by and what anyone who has respect for the dead should at least have an understanding of.

[RedskinsDave]

It seems to me Carter and his ilk are always in a no win situation with the right wing. If he did not say what he said at the funeral and then a week later talked about the wire tapping I suppose you would of them proclaimed him to be a coward and unafraid to say things with Big old bad GW in the room.

You know darn well that is bunk.

[CNYSkinFan]

An asteroid will be hitting the Earth tomorrow. Prove me wrong.

That is how this poster does business. I am simply pointing out that the poster has no evidence to support his specious argument.


This is a matter of opinion to which I have already spoken. I found it gauche and disrespectful. I personally think that the speech was written knowing that Bush was going to be there. For the same political reasons, I believe that it would've lacked any punch whatsoever if Bush wasn't there and therefore would not have likely been written or given that way.


He could've just showed up and paid his respects. Clinton spoke and gave a rousing address that was both thoughful and poignant. Instead, Carter took the low road, showing a distinct lack of class in the process.


Again, this was Mrs. King's moment, not that of here eulogizers. The display by both President Carter and to a lesser extern Rev. Lowery were both inherently disrespectful to her memory. Any "yeah, buts" to that rather direct point is really just making excuses.


Like I said before, I do not necessarily disagree with the statements and in any other forum would likely have sided with President Carter's and to a lesser degree Rev. Lowery's assessments. Please read that line twice so that I do not have to repeat myself again.

This was a fricken' funeral, CNY. It was supposed to be a reflection of THE WOMAN'S life, not a punchlist of agenda items for a dismal ex President and a politically conscious preacher. That is what I am offended by and what anyone who has respect for the dead should at least have an understanding of.

Again I ask...how many of Ms. ing's family has complained about any of the eulogizers? The exact same amount as Paul Wellstone's family...none. This to me is more relavant then any complaints from people who have not met Ms. King (including myself) and do not know what she would have wanted.

Your right it was Ms. King's funeral and if her family had wanted they coould have put a gag rule on the eulogizers....They did not and I suspect they did not do so in honor of Ms. King and her wishes. And if anyone finds anything on where the family of Ms. King complains I will renounce all of the speaches they were offended by.

Until that time it is damn presumptious of ANYONE to say what is right or wrong at the funeral. Who are any of us to judge how Ms. King would have wanted her funeral to be held? Only the family can know that, only the family can judge.

The rest is just whining.

[CNYSkinFan]

You know darn well that is bunk.
Sorry I know no such thing. Modus Operandi of the GOP lately is deny, dissemble, and distrust. They would do anything they can to take away from the wire tapping scandle because it is the real deal. They messed up and they know it. No CIA to fall back on here, no faulty intelligence. Either they are right and it signals an unprecedented expansion of executive power or they are wrong and broke the law and commited an impeachable offense.

[higgybaby]

I may be a Republican, but I posted this hypothetical because I was more interseted in reading the responses; not to go fishing for a debate.

I have no problems with politicians talking about politics when honoring a woman's life that has influenced our current politics. However, to use the platform as a way to attack an attending President who was also there to honor her was a bit distasteful.


I agree with you on this. I don't think that this reasonable, hypothetical was given the serious consideration that it has deserved.

[RedskinsDave]

Sorry I know no such thing. Modus Operandi of the GOP lately is deny, dissemble, and distrust. They would do anything they can to take away from the wire tapping scandle because it is the real deal. They messed up and they know it. No CIA to fall back on here, no faulty intelligence. Either they are right and it signals an unprecedented expansion of executive power or they are wrong and broke the law and commited an impeachable offense.

And the MO for libs is to wait until someone dies and then use their pulpit for politics instead of honoring the person who died.

[BurgundyNGold]

Again I ask...how many of Ms. ing's family has complained about any of the eulogizers? The exact same amount as Paul Wellstone's family...none. This to me is more relavant then any complaints from people who have not met Ms. King (including myself) and do not know what she would have wanted.

Your right it was Ms. King's funeral and if her family had wanted they coould have put a gag rule on the eulogizers....They did not and I suspect they did not do so in honor of Ms. King and her wishes. And if anyone finds anything on where the family of Ms. King complains I will renounce all of the speaches they were offended by.

Until that time it is damn presumptious of ANYONE to say what is right or wrong at the funeral. Who are any of us to judge how Ms. King would have wanted her funeral to be held? Only the family can know that, only the family can judge.

The rest is just whining.
I guess if they roasted Mrs. King and the family didn't contradict former and the sitting POTUS, that would be OK too. :rolleyes:

Remind me never to let you give a eulogy at the funeral of anyone I know. Apparently anything goes if the grieving familiy members don't see fit to contradict your behavior.

[CNYSkinFan]

I guess if they roasted Mrs. King and the family didn't contradict former and the sitting POTUS, that would be OK too. :rolleyes:

Remind me never to let you give a eulogy at the funeral of anyone I know. Apparently anything goes if the grieving familiy members don't see fit to contradict your behavior.
And remind me to not let you go to my funeral. Or else what my family my consider appropriate may hurt your delicate sensitivity.

[CNYSkinFan]

And the MO for libs is to wait until someone dies and then use their pulpit for politics instead of honoring the person who died.
Sometimes they are one in the same Dave. Of course...I am sure you know better then Ms. King's family.

[CNYSkinFan]

I guess if they roasted Mrs. King and the family didn't contradict former and the sitting POTUS, that would be OK too. :rolleyes:

Remind me never to let you give a eulogy at the funeral of anyone I know. Apparently anything goes if the grieving familiy members don't see fit to contradict your behavior.

and btw tht is a bad example because that is ACTUALLY what I want at my funeral...but that is a whole nother story.

[RedskinsDave]

Sometimes they are one in the same Dave. Of course...I am sure you know better then Ms. King's family.

Maybe if you keep repeating that, it will remove the classlessness of what happened.

[BurgundyNGold]

And remind me to not let you go to my funeral. Or else what my family my consider appropriate may hurt your delicate sensitivity.
Apparently in your book, anyone who considered what Carter and Lowery did to be in poor taste is either a Raging Rep looking for blood or is somehow overly sensitive. I don't think that's the case at all and I thought you were deeper than that. In fact, I was just thinking a few minutes ago about a similar situation.

Have you ever been at a social dinner table when another person brought up subject matter -- say bodily functions or grisly murders -- that was just not appropriate for the forum? Obviously, the person who brought it up didn't know any better or else they would not have broached that particular topic, but that makes it no less a classless act.

That's what I think may have happened here. However, if Carter did know better -- and I think he should have -- then he is a social brute of the worst kind and should be ashamed of himself or at the very least mildy embarassed. As should the person who might well have ruined the appetite of the other diners with his faux pas in the example I mentioned earlier.

[BurgundyNGold]

and btw tht is a bad example because that is ACTUALLY what I want at my funeral...but that is a whole nother story.
OT, of course, but I plan on throwing a big ol' party. I want everyone to remember my going out and a crazy party is just the ticket. ;)

[dukeuch]

I'm not stating opinion. I'm stating fact.

FACT: President Bush was in attendance
FACT: Former President Carter used his time during his part of the eulogy to assault the administration's failure after Katrina.

I'm speaking to what I know to be true. You, however, are speaking to hypotheticals.

YOUR OPINION: President Carter would've made those remarks even if Bush wasn't in attendance.

What you're suggesting is far from fact. Using Carter's lack of public criticism in the vast majority of his public opinions as of late, there is NO baseline evidence that would lead a reasonable person to make that assessment. There are no dots to connect. You just put out a single dot and expect that to be considered worthy of consideration. Well, it isn't. That's all I'm pointing out.

Of course you are stating opinoin when you say that he would not have made the comments had Bush not been there, remember?:

Do you really think that Carter would've brought up the administration's abysmal response to Katrina if he wasn't there? Well, in your words ....

Puh-lease.

Looks like you were asking what my opinion is, I have offered my opinion, so why so angry? And by the way, you must know that the basic logic of your arguemnt, that Bush was there, Carter said it, so therefore Carter said it because Bush was there, is not correct. As for Carter's lack of Criticism in his public opinions, take a look at his most recent book. It sold a lot of volumes, and I think was a pretty public statement.

[BurgundyNGold]

Of course you are stating opinoin when you say that he would not have made the comments had Bush not been there, remember?:

Looks like you were asking what my opinion is, I have offered my opinion, so why so angry? And by the way, you must know that the basic logic of your arguemnt, that Bush was there, Carter said it, so therefore Carter said it because Bush was there, is not correct. As for Carter's lack of Criticism in his public opinions, take a look at his most recent book. It sold a lot of volumes, and I think was a pretty public statement.
If he want to express is opinions in a book, well, that's a pretty good forum to do it. Just not when standing over the body of another person delivering their eulogy.

And is there anything in particular in that book that you wish to cite -- specifically an attack agains the current administration that Katrina showed that race is inequitable in this country -- or are you just throwing mud in the water?

BTW, Let's not get confused here on what has actually happened in this thread. You introduced into the conversation without provocation:


Suppose Carter was planning on saying exaclty what he did regardless of Bush's attendance, should he have then shelved those remarks

I thought that was a stretch because, once again, you were speaking in hypotheticals. Myself and everyone else on this thread were speaking to what ACTUALLY happened. This business of speaking in hypotheticals seems to be a recurring theme with you.

So, I pointed that out:


You have absolutely no evidence of this, so why should anyone bother to consider it?

To which you replied:


I don't have any evidence, just like you don't have any proof that he would not have said what he did if Bush was not there.

In this post, what you have tried to do is to get me to validate your hypothetical by coming over to Fantasyland and argue with you. Pressing people into arguing off topic hypotheticals also seems to be a recurring theme with you.

So, I tried to remind you that I was dealing in what actually happened at the funeral and what was actually said. Meahwhile, you are trying to draw this thread off into podering the possibilities of events in a multiverse or something.

I'm not stating opinion. I'm stating fact.

FACT: President Bush was in attendance
FACT: Former President Carter used his time during his part of the eulogy to assault the administration's failure after Katrina.

I'm speaking to what I know to be true. You, however, are speaking to hypotheticals.

YOUR OPINION: President Carter would've made those remarks even if Bush wasn't in attendance.

What you're suggesting is far from fact. Using Carter's lack of public criticism in the vast majority of his public opinions as of late, there is NO baseline evidence that would lead a reasonable person to make that assessment. There are no dots to connect. You just put out a single dot and expect that to be considered worthy of consideration. Well, it isn't. That's all I'm pointing out.
To which you respond that I am offering opinion in this post? Hardly. This post shows the facts of what actually happened, a recount of your opinion and pointed out that opinion in and of itself is not on par with fact. That's about it.

Now, in a separate post I did offer my opinion that Carter would not have made the statements that he did if the POTUS was not in attendance, and I've offered up history of Carter's comparative silence on attacking the administration in recent months to show that he use the eulogy as a stage for politics. If you wanted to talk about why I felt that way, you should've replied back to one of those posts for clarity.

In the meantime, you are presenting your unsubstantiated opinion (Carter would've said the same things is Bush wasn't in attendance) as being as valid as one that is substantiated by past events (Carter said those thing strictly because Bush was in attendance). While your opinion may turn out to be right to this point it isn't even close to being fact. The opinion you presented is not on par the one I advanced because you have not bothered to substantiate it. Do you have the right to your opinion? Of course, but not all opinions are created equal. Especially those that don't really have anything to back them up.

[Ibleedburgundy]

It's interesting that a debate about funeral conduct is going straight down party lines.

I hope you guys on the right realize, by condemning the way this funeral went you are condemning Coretta Scott King herself.

[BurgundyNGold]

It's interesting that a debate about funeral conduct is going straight down party lines.

I hope you guys on the right realize, by condemning the way this funeral went you are condemning Coretta Scott King herself.
Obviousy, and as per usual, you didn't bother to even read the "debate" of which you speak or you wouldn't have posted this. I have said repeatedly that I didn't have a problem with the comments, only the forum with which they were presented.

So which side of "party lines" does that put me on? I suppose that anybody who doesn't agree with you in inherently a Rep, again as per usual. I believe that this is called "demonizing" those who think differently from you. That is indeed interesting that you would employ such tactics.

BTW, if being polar opposite to whatever than stellar intellectual endeavors that you have planned for any given day makes someone Republican, then that alone is ample reason for one to run out and change their voter registration card to "Republican".

[dukeuch]

If he want to express is opinions in a book, well, that's a pretty good forum to do it. Just not when standing over the body of another person delivering their eulogy.

And is there anything in particular in that book that you wish to cite -- specifically an attack agains the current administration that Katrina showed that race is inequitable in this country -- or are you just throwing mud in the water?

BTW, Let's not get confused here on what has actually happened in this thread. You introduced into the conversation without provocation:


I thought that was a stretch because, once again, you were speaking in hypotheticals. Myself and everyone else on this thread were speaking to what ACTUALLY happened. This business of speaking in hypotheticals seems to be a recurring theme with you.

So, I pointed that out:


To which you replied:


In this post, what you have tried to do is to get me to validate your hypothetical by coming over to Fantasyland and argue with you. Pressing people into arguing off topic hypotheticals also seems to be a recurring theme with you.

So, I tried to remind you that I was dealing in what actually happened at the funeral and what was actually said. Meahwhile, you are trying to draw this thread off into podering the possibilities of events in a multiverse or something.


To which you respond that I am offering opinion in this post? Hardly. This post shows the facts of what actually happened, a recount of your opinion and pointed out that opinion in and of itself is not on par with fact. That's about it.

Now, in a separate post I did offer my opinion that Carter would not have made the statements that he did if the POTUS was not in attendance, and I've offered up history of Carter's comparative silence on attacking the administration in recent months to show that he use the eulogy as a stage for politics. If you wanted to talk about why I felt that way, you should've replied back to one of those posts for clarity.

In the meantime, you are presenting your unsubstantiated opinion (Carter would've said the same things is Bush wasn't in attendance) as being as valid as one that is substantiated by past events (Carter said those thing strictly because Bush was in attendance). While your opinion may turn out to be right to this point it isn't even close to being fact. The opinion you presented is not on par the one I advanced because you have not bothered to substantiate it. Do you have the right to your opinion? Of course, but not all opinions are created equal. Especially those that don't really have anything to back them up.

Look, it was your opinion that Carter said what he did BECAUSE Bush was in the audience. That is your opinion, fine. I disagree, that's all.

[BurgundyNGold]

How this thread became a politcal debate is beyond me. The whole point of the thread was to ask WHY people had to inject politics into a woman's eulogy. Whether left or right, such activity is equally repugnant.

[BurgundyNGold]

Look, it was your opinion that Carter said what he did BECAUSE Bush was in the audience. That is your opinion, fine. I disagree, that's all.
I don't disagree that's what I said, but if you wish to take that up, don't quote a post about something else. BTW, at least I backed up my opinion by mentioning that Carter had not lambasted the administration about Katrina and the inequities of race in other public forums. That much is fact.

After some research, I have found that in his latest book, your latest attempt to cloud the subject, Carter did not mention the administration's terrible handling of the Katrina aftermath. That too is fact.

As such, the logical conclusion is that Carter does not talk often about the POTUS in public when given the chance -- which is the established tradition of behavior and social grace as per 200+ years of ex-Presidents, I might add.

Yet, on this particular day, with Bush in attendence, he decided to levy a political slap at him about Katrina. Well, if you choose to believe that Carter would've done that even if Bush wasn't there in light of the absence of such behavior in the past to support such a conclusion, then I guess you can continue right on down your fool's path.

[CNYSkinFan]

How this thread became a politcal debate is beyond me. The whole point of the thread was to ask WHY people had to inject politics into a woman's eulogy. Whether left or right, such activity is equally repugnant.
You are surprised that a thread talking about political speach at funerals of public figures posted in a political forum became political?


On that note I am surprised that eating so many donuts has caused my girlish figure to go away lol.

My point, as I have posted ad nauseum is simply this. It is up to the individual families and what they deem important. And Dave there isa reason I keep posting this. And that is because the supposed party of family values rarely takes into account individual family's beliefs and decisions in favor of what they think a family should think and do. Whether it be Wellstone's memorial or King's, Schiavo or a variety of issues lately, they are trampling on the family decisions in each of those cases in the hoppes of replacing them with their own decisions.

So I will state it again and continue to state it. At a memorial or funeral, the only people who can or should claim what the remembered would want is their surviving family members and in some cases close personal friends. Everyone esle is just guessing at best.

[dukeuch]

How this thread became a politcal debate is beyond me. The whole point of the thread was to ask WHY people had to inject politics into a woman's eulogy. Whether left or right, such activity is equally repugnant.

I guess it's because she was a political figure, as was her husband. Her husband, by the way, injected some politics in a few eulogies he delivered. Again, judging from her families (lack of) response, I guess they don't mind, and will also guess (just a guess here, B&G, no need to remind me that I can't read their minds) that since they don't mind, and they probably would object if they thought Corretta herself would have objected (further disclaimer; it is my OPINION that the family would have probably known what King would have objected to, there is no way I can actually know) so I fugure she probably would not have objected either. Actually, she might have been very proud (last disclaimer, I cannot know this for a fact, this is my opinion, and I am saying "might").

I guess the most obvious reason it became a political debate is becuase the name of this thread is "Why was COretta Scott Kings Funeral a Political Forum?"

[BurgundyNGold]

I guess it's because she was a political figure, as was her husband. Her husband, by the way, injected some politics in a few eulogies he delivered. Again, judging from her families (lack of) response, I guess they don't mind, and will also guess (just a guess here, B&G, no need to remind me that I can't read their minds) that since they don't mind, and they probably would object if they thought Corretta herself would have objected (further disclaimer; it is my OPINION that the family would have probably known what King would have objected to, there is no way I can actually know) so I fugure she probably would not have objected either. Actually, she might have been very proud (last disclaimer, I cannot know this for a fact, this is my opinion, and I am saying "might").
Well, it's a good thing that everything works out to line up just as you would have it be in your little world. :rolleyes:

I guess the most obvious reason it became a political debate is becuase the name of this thread is "Why was COretta Scott Kings Funeral a Political Forum?"
Look deeper. I asked a question about how is became a political debate instead of a woman's funeral. Now, we have folks proclaiming that people who think one way are on the left while people who think another are on the right. How did THAT happen? Am I to undertand that the only people who have a sense of respect and moral decency regarding final reflection of a person before they are put to rest and who think that political salvos coull wait until AFTER the service are on the right?

WTF?

[dukeuch]

I don't disagree that's what I said, but if you wish to take that up, don't quote a post about something else. BTW, at least I backed up my opinion by mentioning that Carter had not lambasted the administration about Katrina and the inequities of race in other public forums. That much is fact.

After some research, I have found that in his latest book, your latest attempt to cloud the subject, Carter did not mention the administration's terrible handling of the Katrina aftermath. That too is fact.




Dude, first of all, Carter talked about more than just the administration's failings regarding Katrina.

Second, I challenged your arguement that Carter has not made public criticisim's as of late, no limiting to Katrina:

What you're suggesting is far from fact. Using Carter's lack of public criticism in the vast majority of his public opinions as of late, there is NO baseline evidence that would lead a reasonable person to make that assessment. There are no dots to connect. You just put out a single dot and expect that to be considered worthy of consideration. Well, it isn't. That's all I'm pointing out.

So I said there is a book where he brings out lots of criticism (I have read parts of it, by the way, not all, but parts)

Lastly, without even looking yet, I'll bet Carter made some public comments about the administration's failings regarding Katrina prior to King's funeral. Think I'm right or wrong? As, in your opinion, his "silence" on the matter until this eulogy proves he did it only becuase Bush was there, if proven otherwise, will your opinion change?

[BurgundyNGold]

You are surprised that a thread talking about political speach at funerals of public figures posted in a political forum became political?
No I a surprised that it became a pissing contest between the left and the right right in the middle of her eulogy. Well, it could've become one if Bush 1.0 didn't try and lighten thinks up a bit. Really, the foundational question for the thread was why did the funeral break down into a political event? I don't know how many times I have to say this, but...

IT WAS A FUNERAL!

Somehow, folks in the thread took that to mean that Reps thought it was in bad taste and Dems thought it was just fine. I just don't get that. I mean, I can understand how Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and those idiots would take offense. They're taking advantage of the situation for political capital. I can understand that, as despicable as it is. I was referring more to the fact that there shouldn't have been anything for those clowns to even have as a talking points on the matter after a friggin' funeral. It should've been a respectful event that gave them nothing but the opportunity to praise a great woman. Instead, Carter and Lowery had to take potshots during a eulogy which opens the whole damn thing up for the mediots and the politicos.

It seems the same thing has happened up in this thread. That's what I was driving at. I just don't see how this is a left and right issue. I think it's a respect issue.

On that note I am surprised that eating so many donuts has caused my girlish figure to go away lol.

My point, as I have posted ad nauseum is simply this. It is up to the individual families and what they deem important. And Dave there isa reason I keep posting this. And that is because the supposed party of family values rarely takes into account individual family's beliefs and decisions in favor of what they think a family should think and do. Whether it be Wellstone's memorial or King's, Schiavo or a variety of issues lately, they are trampling on the family decisions in each of those cases in the hoppes of replacing them with their own decisions.

So I will state it again and continue to state it. At a memorial or funeral, the only people who can or should claim what the remembered would want is their surviving family members and in some cases close personal friends. Everyone esle is just guessing at best.
So Carter was guessing that Mrs. King would've like to levy a political attack during her funeral?

Man, everybody could've had a big ol' cage match afterwards and I wouldn't've cared. But I think that what happened was disrespectful to her memory and a black eye for the entirety of the American political establishment.

[Axegrinder]

Did the issue of stem cell research come up during Reagans funeral?

[BurgundyNGold]

Dude, first of all, Carter talked about more than just the administration's failings regarding Katrina.

Second, I challenged your arguement that Carter has not made public criticisim's as of late, no limiting to Katrina.
I was referring specifically to Katrina, but by most accounts, he let the administration off light in his latest book. I wouldn't be surprised if Carter made a comment about FEMA during Katrina relief. A lot of people did. Hell, even Kanye West had an opinion. Considering that FEMA was an agency that Carter created, I would expect that he might have a comment or two when the hurricane hit But that was like 5 months ago. Please, feel free to show me where he has recently berated the administration in public for Katrina.

My point is, if he hasn't been harping on the administration about Katrina or any other issue on a regular basis, a la Cindy Sheehan, why bring it up during the eulogy of a national figure if not for political reasons? And what would make you or anyone else think that he would bring it up if Bush wasn't there? If he wanted to talk to Bush about Katrina or anything, I'm certain that he could've gotten an audience at some point in the last 5 months. I'm sure that he knows how to worl a phone and I'd be surprised is he didn't have the number to the White House.

So I said there is a book where he brings out lots of criticism (I have read parts of it, by the way, not all, but parts)
Which book would that be? I wouldn't want to have to discuss hypotheticals.

Lastly, without even looking yet, I'll bet Carter made some public comments about the administration's failings regarding Katrina prior to King's funeral. Think I'm right or wrong? As, in your opinion, his "silence" on the matter until this eulogy proves he did it only becuase Bush was there, if proven otherwise, will your opinion change?
It is possible that Carter made a few comments about FEMA's dismal performance at some point. Probably 5 or 6 months ago when it was all happening. I'm sure Clinton did too. Both go against the grain of the tradition of ex-Presidents, although I would say that Clinton has been surprisingly restrained. I don't think anybody loves the spotlight more than him and I am quite impresed that he's been as reserved as he has been.

And yes, if you can prove that Carter has a history of using public forums recently to levy political attacks against the administration -- especially on Katrina -- my opinion is open to change. I can show a few threads where my opinions have either changed or where I have met someone halfway after vigorous debate. Can you say the same?

[BurgundyNGold]

Did the issue of stem cell research come up during Reagans funeral?
I don't know, did it? How about elaborating a bit on that, Axe? Oh, and adding how it is relevant to this disucssion would be nice too.

[dukeuch]

I was referring specifically to Katrina, but by most accounts, he let the administration off light in his latest book. I wouldn't be surprised if Carter made a comment about FEMA during Katrina relief. A lot of people did. Hell, even Kanye West had an opinion. Considering that FEMA was an agency that Carter created, I would expect that he might have a comment or two when the hurricane hit But that was like 5 months ago. Please, feel free to show me where he has recently berated the administration in public for Katrina.

My point is, if he hasn't been harping on the administration about Katrina or any other issue on a regular basis, a la Cindy Sheehan, why bring it up during the eulogy of a national figure if not for political reasons? And what would make you or anyone else think that he would bring it up if Bush wasn't there? If he wanted to talk to Bush about Katrina or anything, I'm certain that he could've gotten an audience at some point in the last 5 months. I'm sure that he knows how to worl a phone and I'd be surprised is he didn't have the number to the White House.


Which book would that be? I wouldn't want to have to discuss hypotheticals.


It is possible that Carter made a few comments about FEMA's dismal performance at some point. Probably 5 or 6 months ago when it was all happening. I'm sure Clinton did too. Both go against the grain of the tradition of ex-Presidents, although I would say that Clinton has been surprisingly restrained. I don't think anybody loves the spotlight more than him and I am quite impresed that he's been as reserved as he has been.

And yes, if you can prove that Carter has a history of using public forums recently to levy political attacks against the administration -- especially on Katrina -- my opinion is open to change. I can show a few threads where my opinions have either changed or where I have met someone halfway after vigorous debate. Can you say the same?

Yes, I can. Back in 10 minutes with some proof of Carter's comments. I agree with you that it is most likely that the bulk of them will be close to event.

[dukeuch]

I'm baaaaaacK;

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3878857&nav=0RaP

B&G: There are lots. I can't figure out how to just create a link without typing the whole damn thing, so I cut and pasted the above. If anyone can tell me how to open the "create a link" and cliick on to the link, let me know. Otherwise, just go to a search for "jimmy carter, hurricane katrina". Surprisingly, there are quite a few which have nothing to do with King's funeral.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm baaaaaacK;

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3878857&nav=0RaP

B&G: There are lots. I can't figure out how to just create a link without typing the whole damn thing, so I cut and pasted the above. If anyone can tell me how to open the "create a link" and cliick on to the link, let me know. Otherwise, just go to a search for "jimmy carter, hurricane katrina". Surprisingly, there are quite a few which have nothing to do with King's funeral.
I actually did a little searching myself, mostly on other topics. The more I look at this guy, the more it seems that he doesn't MISS an opportunity to assault the administration, lol. Not on Katrina, as I can't find anything on that aside from the 9/21/05 statement that spoke more to FEMA's response than it did to the Administration itself. Still, during his latest book tour, he apparently made no secret that he thinks the Administration lied about pre-War intelligence and said some really provocative things about them.

So, I will say this. I am no longer of the opinion that the most assuredly would not have said those things in Bush was not there. I can't say either way, but if I had to guess at this point, it seems that Carter would not have missed an opportunity to take a potshot at the Administration -- whether present or not -- and the only thing that seems to limit the guy is opportunity.

I still think that, given the forum, his comments were boorish and disrespectful. Whether I agree with his assessment is beside the point.

I would also add in a couple of things. I just saw a video on Carter with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. This guy is starting to make Noam Chomsky look like a centrist. Has he always been this far left or is this a recent development that has to do with age? Has he forgotten that his policies didn't do too terribly well the last time we tried them?

Secondly, what ever happened to the quiet dignity that went with being a former POTUS? I mean, we can go back as far as you want and you won't hear much in the way of ex-Presidents of either party commenting on the current admininstration. In my lifetime, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1.0 and Clinton have pretty much have held to that code. WTF is the deal with Carter?

[Axegrinder]

I don't know, did it? How about elaborating a bit on that, Axe? Oh, and adding how it is relevant to this disucssion would be nice too.
I'm just asking.
I'm not sure if it was said or not.
I just remember a lot of talking about this issue[stem cells] at that time.

If it was said,for the sake of arguement,wouldn't that be considered political or politicizing?
It does fly in the face of the GOP[governing]stance,doesn't it?

Wouldn't it then be considered pertinent to this discussion?
After all,it was an election year back then too.

Having said that,did any Dems speak at Reagans funeral?
Did Bush?
If so,was there any "election year" propoganda tied to his remarks?
For instance,did he[Dubya] ride Reagans coattails?

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm just asking.
I'm not sure if it was said or not.
I just remember a lot of talking about this issue[stem cells] at that time.

If it was said,for the sake of arguement,wouldn't that be considered political or politicizing?
It does fly in the face of the GOP[governing]stance,doesn't it?

Wouldn't it then be considered pertinent to this discussion?
After all,it was an election year back then too.

Having said that,did any Dems speak at Reagans funeral?
Did Bush?
If so,was there any "election year" propoganda tied to his remarks?
For instance,did he[Dubya] ride Reagans coattails?
That's a whole lot of questions without many answers to go along with them. I didn't watch much of Reagan's funeral. I suspect we didn't hear much about it because there wasn't much in the way of political jabs during the eulogy.

In any event, if there were political jabs taken or agenda items like stem cell research was brought up during Reagan's eulogy, I would consider it as equally out of place and disrespectful as the statements made at Mrs. King's funeral.

[dukeuch]

I actually did a little searching myself, mostly on other topics. The more I look at this guy, the more it seems that he doesn't MISS an opportunity to assault the administration, lol. Not on Katrina, as I can't find anything on that aside from the 9/21/05 statement that spoke more to FEMA's response than it did to the Administration itself. Still, during his latest book tour, he apparently made no secret that he thinks the Administration lied about pre-War intelligence and said some really provocative things about them.

So, I will say this. I am no longer of the opinion that the most assuredly would not have said those things in Bush was not there. I can't say either way, but if I had to guess at this point, it seems that Carter would not have missed an opportunity to take a potshot at the Administration -- whether present or not -- and the only thing that seems to limit the guy is opportunity.

I still think that, given the forum, his comments were boorish and disrespectful. Whether I agree with his assessment is beside the point.

I would also add in a couple of things. I just saw a video on Carter with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. This guy is starting to make Noam Chomsky look like a centrist. Has he always been this far left or is this a recent development that has to do with age? Has he forgotten that his policies didn't do too terribly well the last time we tried them?

Secondly, what ever happened to the quiet dignity that went with being a former POTUS? I mean, we can go back as far as you want and you won't hear much in the way of ex-Presidents of either party commenting on the current admininstration. In my lifetime, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1.0 and Clinton have pretty much have held to that code. WTF is the deal with Carter?

Got it: you hate Carter, wish he'd just quietly fade away like other presidents, doddering into the sunset. I, on the other hand, respect his intelligence and drive to continually try to point out injustices, try to shape opinion, and make the world a better place.

[RedskinsDave]

Got it: you hate Carter, wish he'd just quietly fade away like other presidents, doddering into the sunset. I, on the other hand, respect his intelligence and drive to continually try to point out injustices, try to shape opinion, and make the world a better place.

No, just that he wishes Carter would act like other presidents and restrain from pissing on the guy now in that seat. The other guys have done that. Of course, the other guys actually DID something while they were president too so maybe that's his problem.

[BurgundyNGold]

Got it: you hate Carter, wish he'd just quietly fade away like other presidents, doddering into the sunset. I, on the other hand, respect his intelligence and drive to continually try to point out injustices, try to shape opinion, and make the world a better place.
What? Where did you get all of that? Just when I think I might be able to treat you like an adult and step back in the conversation a bit, you go off and act like a child with an asinine statement like this.

[BurgundyNGold]

No, just that he wishes Carter would act like other presidents and restrain from pissing on the guy now in that seat. The other guys have done that. Of course, the other guys actually DID something while they were president too so maybe that's his problem.
Carter has always been a good man, only a poor President. Nobody doubts that his intentions were good. Or at least I never have. Then again, I never thought he'd pull politics at a funeral, so maybe I have to reevaluate.

[RedskinsDave]

What? Where did you get all of that? Just when I think I might be able to treat you like an adult and step back in the conversation a bit, you go off and act like a child with an asinine statement like this.

I think he was at the funeral though......now :D

[dukeuch]

What? Where did you get all of that? Just when I think I might be able to treat you like an adult and step back in the conversation a bit, you go off and act like a child with an asinine statement like this.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your characterizations of Carter as "a social brute", "a tactless old fool", and "a dismal ex-president" who "shows a total lack of class" as evidence that you don't care for the guy. Can you at least see how I may misinterpret your feelings about the guy?

I know there is no point debating you. You can bring up hypotheticals ("so if they roasted her and the family didn't object that would be OK?") but I can't. You loudly proclaim that when I say Carter would have said those things without Bush being there, that I am pulling it out of my posterior, and that there is "no baseline evidence" to support my opinion, citing that Carter had not criticized the admins repsonse to Katrina until the funeral as proof. When I point out that he had, you just conveninetly ignore it, and keep on going on about how I just make stuff up. Again, what stement of FACT have I made here, or anywhere, which I have not backed up or admitted a mistake?

Your intolerance of different opinions here is stunning. Early on in this thread, you make multiple accusations that anyone who disagrees with you "didn't read or hear the eulogy". Well, that's just not the case. There are informed people who reach different conclusions than you.

[Spence]

Democrats are gleeful that Bill Clinton stole the show at funeral services for the late Coretta Scott King—and even Republicans were impressed with his performance.

"Clinton's remarks were moving and strong," says a GOP insider who watched on television with other Republican activists. "Our people were saying, 'My gosh, he's so good.'"

The 42nd president received a thunderous ovation when he entered the church, and his remarks were greeted with cheers — a far more favorable reaction from the largely African-American crowd than was given to President George W. Bush or his father, former President George H.W. Bush.
...
White House advisers are steamed at the biting comments of former President Jimmy Carter, who zinged Bush on several issues and got a favorable reaction from the audience. "It was not an appropriate place for political potshots," says a GOP strategist. By the way, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting generally tepid reviews from all sides. Her comments didn't match her husband's in eloquence or power—a dynamic that could be a growing problem if she runs for president in 2008.Source (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060209/9clinton.htm)

[BurgundyNGold]

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your characterizations of Carter as "a social brute", "a tactless old fool", and "a dismal ex-president" who "shows a total lack of class" as evidence that you don't care for the guy. Can you at least see how I may misinterpret your feelings about the guy?
How about putting things in their context? I pondered him a "social brute" and said he "shows a total lack of class" IF he knew what he was doing was out of place for a eulogy and then did so anyway. I left plenty of room for him to not know it was wrong and escape the charactertization.

The dismal ex-Presdent was a comment on his tenure -- not the man. Anyone with a brain can make that assessment.

How about going with this quote about the man himself, since I made it in the actual context of evaluating him on the whole, not in the context of his poor choice of action during the funeral:

Carter has always been a good man, only a poor President. Nobody doubts that his intentions were good. Or at least I never have.

You loudly proclaim that when I say Carter would have said those things without Bush being there, that I am pulling it out of my posterior, and that there is "no baseline evidence" to support my opinion, citing that Carter had not criticized the admins repsonse to Katrina until the funeral as proof.
The problem is that IN GENERAL you say something, don't back it up with a credible source when challenged and then expect your holier than thou perspective to automartically rule the roost. Well, in the real world, things don'twork that way.

BTW, I also stated that Carter probably DID make comments about Katrina back when it happened before your little foray onto Google, so don't come up here like you've proven anything to anybody.

When I point out that he had, you just conveninetly ignore it, and keep on going on about how I just make stuff up. Again, what stement of FACT have I made here, or anywhere, which I have not backed up or admitted a mistake?
Conveniently ignored it? I had a whole post where I revised my opinion right here (Forgive me if I misinterpreted your characterizations of Carter as "a social brute", "a tactless old fool", and "a dismal ex-president" who "shows a total lack of class" as evidence that you don't care for the guy. Can you at least see how I may misinterpret your feelings about the guy?). Where I come from, debate is about learning, not merely proving your point. If that were the case, closed minded buffoons would take up all of my day.

BTW, the only comment he made on Katrina was right afterwards, not in his book like you were leading people to believe. Perhaps I should make a point of calling out whenever you ingnore a contradiction or being proven wrong?

Instead of trying to stick to the point of this thread, you would rather talk about how I "hate" Carter. You take my words out of context and try to apply them to your preconceived notion. You should really try out for the religious right with that attitude.

Your intolerance of different opinions here is stunning. Early on in this thread, you make multiple accusations that anyone who disagrees with you "didn't read or hear the eulogy". Well, that's just not the case. There are informed people who reach different conclusions than you.
You seem to really enjoy taking things out of context and posting non-sequiturs. I could really have some fun with your posts if I did the same. Then again, I would be just as deluded as you are being here if I did that.

I said that to the other poster because I doubted that he had seen more than sound bites of the service on TV. When he was obviously wriong in his recounting of the events as transpired, I told him so. It turns out that I was right because he admitted as much. No harm, no foul and I didn't beat him up over it.

So, yet another non-sequitur. Your last three posts have been largely drivel hardly worth the effort of typing. Do you have any actual debate to contribute to this topic or are you merely content to look petty by slicing and dicing my words and then throwing them back at me out of context?

[BurgundyNGold]

Source (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060209/9clinton.htm)
Like I said before, it was a rousing address. I was moved by it. Clinton showed class, Carter did not.

[Keino]

Does anyone have a link to a transcript of both talks (Clinton's and Carter's)?

[BurgundyNGold]

Does anyone have a link to a transcript of both talks (Clinton's and Carter's)?
I read the one in the Washington Post a few days back. If it hasn't been archived yet, I'll see if I can find it.

[dukeuch]

You know, I looked at the qutes in R&D's original link again. It is interesting that it appears that Carter's criticism regarding Katrina does not in any way mention Bush or the administration, unless of course, you already believe that it is obvious that they were responsible. I think you could make a much better case that his words regarding wiretapping were directly pointed at Bush.

[dukeuch]

You know, I looked at the qutes in R&D's original link again. It is interesting that it appears that Carter's criticism regarding Katrina does not in any way mention Bush or the administration, unless of course, you already believe that it is obvious that they were responsible. I think you could make a much better case that his words regarding wiretapping were directly pointed at Bush.

Ooops, make that B&G, not R&D.

[BurgundyNGold]

Ooops, make that B&G, not R&D.
That's so clever of you. Take a swipe and rather than edit the post to fix it, you just reply to you own post to draw even more attention to it. :inkston:

Predicted dukeuch cop out response: "But I don't know how to edit a post"

[dukeuch]

That's so clever of you. Take a swipe and rather than edit the post to fix it, you just reply to you own post to draw even more attention to it. :inkston:

Predicted dukeuch cop out response: "But I don't know how to edit a post"

Will you lighten up? Are you saying that i purposely mis-wrote R&D? What would the joke be?

[CNYSkinFan]

I actually think the wiretapping comments were more appropriate then the Katrina comments because it had a direct correllation to Ms. King's life and the borderline illegal taps that were on their phone. Many people wonder if the international wire taps imposed without oversight could turn into what happened in the 60s.

[BurgundyNGold]

Will you lighten up? Are you saying that i purposely mis-wrote R&D? What would the joke be?
You expect people to believe that you are both intelligent AND stupid? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Why not edit the post if you miswrote it by mistake? Because it wasn't.

What's next? Are you up for calling me "Dick Cheney" or "Lee Atwater" today? How about "ignoramus" or "dick"... twice?

How about just getting back on topic? Or better yet, don't. I think this thread has run its course. All opinions on the matter have been clearly stated.

[dukeuch]

You expect people to believe that you are both intelligent AND stupid? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Why not edit the post if you miswrote it by mistake? Because it wasn't.

What's next? Are you up for calling me "Dick Cheney" or "Lee Atwater" today? How about "ignoramus" or "dick"... twice?

How about just getting back on topic? Or better yet, don't. I think this thread has run its course. All opinions on the matter have been clearly stated.

Ok, you are right; I intentionally called you R&D for some reason that will occur to me at a later date.

I don't think I ever called you Lee Atwater or Dick Cheney, however I may have said that a response of yours was like something they would say. I would never insult anyone except my enemies so vitrolically as to call them either of those names, and you are not my enemy, even if I disagree with you a lot more now than I used to.

[BurgundyNGold]

Ok, you are right; I intentionally called you R&D for some reason that will occur to me at a later date.

I don't think I ever called you Lee Atwater or Dick Cheney, however I may have said that a response of yours was like something they would say. I would never insult anyone except my enemies so vitrolically as to call them either of those names, and you are not my enemy, even if I disagree with you a lot more now than I used to.
Sorry, but your history belies your laughable attempt at ignorance. Here's one in which you likened me to "Newt Gingrich/Lee Atwater". Dick Cheney was in another one.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=670886&postcount=47

In that same thread you'll find where you called me an ignoramus and a dick, each multiple times.

Sorry if my R&D inconveniences your warped view of reality.

There are a few other gems in there as well, like where you claimed to be among the 0.00016% of Americans who were actually in the WTC under attack. We're all still waiting on some evidence -- any evidence that you were in the building when it was under attack.

Now, scurry along and take care of your long overdue task for us. And don't come back with a visitor's pass or something that anyone could've gotten.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Oh yeah? Well I'm going to get the last word in here. Here it is: word.

[Spence]

No, I'm going to get the last word. CLOSED. FOR GOOD.