blatham wrote:Perhaps you folks are a bit too comfortable with seeing Bush in environments fully and completely controlled by his PR people such that dissent to Bush policies is made to seem absent or marginal.
The King funeral presented to America (as did Katrina) a huge segment of the population who do not fall into your neat and tidy little worldviews. They do not agree with you that Bush represents the nadir of honesty, integrity, justice, nor christian charity. And clearly (and oh so refreshingly) they are also not frightened to speak loudly their hearts and minds on the matter of the decrepit and rotted morality of this administration.
Your notions of what constitutes appropriate dialogue at, of all people, Coretta King's funeral seems just another example of your partisan (and cultural) rigidity. I'd also predict that none of you can dance worth a damn.
Thank you Mr Blatham - damn that was funny.
Hi snood. Nice to see you kicking about.
blatham wrote:Perhaps you folks are a bit too comfortable with seeing Bush in environments fully and completely controlled by his PR people such that dissent to Bush policies is made to seem absent or marginal.
The King funeral presented to America (as did Katrina) a huge segment of the population who do not fall into your neat and tidy little worldviews. They do not agree with you that Bush represents the nadir of honesty, integrity, justice, nor christian charity. And clearly (and oh so refreshingly) they are also not frightened to speak loudly their hearts and minds on the matter of the decrepit and rotted morality of this administration.
Your notions of what constitutes appropriate dialogue at, of all people, Coretta King's funeral seems just another example of your partisan (and cultural) rigidity. I'd also predict that none of you can dance worth a damn.
You display here a quite remarkable credulity and lack of your usual skeptical and critical appraisals of complex political situations and events. The Civil Rights movement (and the King Family itself) have seen their own share of "decrepit and rotted morality" -- although I would not use such overinflated terms to criticise any of the parties in this discussion.
I believe Bush behaved with remarkable composure and restraint in front of an audience that would unhesitatingly applaud any attack on him - however unseemly and out of place at a funeral.
Jon Stewart referred to it as a "funeral and roast"... Quite insightful as usual.
And the hypocrisy is stunning as usual. Though I can't imagine any Republican leader using a funeral as an opportunity for such boorish behavior, had such been leveled at a Democrat the howls of protest and foul would still be reverberating across the land. And yes, the President was magnificent in his composure and did not return tit for tat.
You white folks have a pretty clear set of notions regarding what is or is not appropriate at a black funeral of a civil rights activist.
They were probably dressed way too colorfully, too. Yes?
And all politics are verboten at a high-profile memorial especially when's it's one of a black person and Bush's approval rating among blacks has slipped to the low single digits.
So the Canadian and The German are now accusing us of racism too. See how it works? How rational? How well thought out? How utterly predictable? I am beginning to think more and more that Michael Savage is correct in his title: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Or I can go with Michael Reagan who said liberalism is one of the cruelest and most mean spirited ideologies on Earth. (paraphrased).
Frankly, I think boorish, rude, insensitive, and hateful behavior is just that regardless of whatever race is represented. But then I'm a conservative who foolishly believes in equal opportunity in all things and that one's race, creed, nationality, or ethnicity is no excuse for stupid, boorish behavior.
Foxfyre wrote:So the Canadian and The German are now accusing us of racism too.
If you mean me by "The German", where did I do so, New Mexican?
Are you suggesting, too, that I suffer from a mental disorder? Which one. please?
If that was not your intention, I apologize Walter. But when you agree with Blatham you are essentially suggesting that black people cannot be expected to be courteous or exhibit appropriate behavior if they don't like somebody. That has not been my experience and I was not going to let it slide. I thought it was a decidedly racist remark.
Blatham's remarks border on Magginkatically racist.
"Condi doesn't clean her house, she gets blacks to do it...?"
"You people don't know how blacks act at funerals?"
They are categorized as human, at least by conservatives. I don't know what kind of weird otherness the liberals are carving out for them. Have whatever opinion about the politics injected in her funeral--but no matter what those opinions are, these comments are disgusting.
And, it's sort of funny that Blatham thinks he is the spokesman for the homies. He says he imagines Conservatives can't dance.
I wonder how he'd do in a dance off.... LOL
I dance good. Some conservatives dance good too, but not the ones with sphincters so tight they whistle high C.
Why don't we check with snood as to whether he finds my remarks racist. Betcha he don't.
snood isn't the Supreme Poobah Negro Representative.
He is incredibly biased. As are you.
And you, or fox, represent what exactly? Objective and inclusive bigitude?
Rather obviously, if you are going to try and saddle me with the "racist re African Americans" label, an actual real-life African American might have something relevant to say on the matter. It just ain't likely to support your slightly slimey suggestion.
I believe Lash is "an actual real-life African American".. at least that has been my impression.
This is pretty much the same crowd that saw nothing wrong with Kerry's crossing the line by dragging Dick Cheney's daughter into political debate.
The backlash was enormous, of course, and well deserved. I don't know how big the cluebat has to be for some to finally get a little common sense knocked into them, but maybe taking cheap shots whenever they can is more important to them than winning elections.
And what was cheap about mentioning that his daughter was a lesbian? The only way that makes coherent sense is if you hold that there is something wrong with homosexuality.
Yaknow, Blatham, when they get mad, it means you are doing something right. Getting under their skin. The same way they do to Liberals.
The Righties on this thread don't seem to realize that the more they complain about their leader being called out, in public, with the truth, no less; the more it exposes how worried they are about the election this year and in '08.
The Right-wing of this country has been playing up the deaths of 9/11 victims for political gain for years, and now they act like it's a sin when the same thing is done to them. Well, toughen up, wusses! Bush needs to hear what real people think from time to time.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yaknow, Blatham, when they get mad, it means you are doing something right. Getting under their skin. The same way they do to Liberals.
The Righties on this thread don't seem to realize that the more they complain about their leader being called out, in public, with the truth, no less; the more it exposes how worried they are about the election this year and in '08.
The Right-wing of this country has been playing up the deaths of 9/11 victims for political gain for years, and now they act like it's a sin when the same thing is done to them. Well, toughen up, wusses! Bush needs to hear what real people think from time to time.
Cycloptichorn
I think you are missing the point.
I dont think its WHAT was said,as WHERE it was said.
There is a difference.
