blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:woiyo
I see you've decided to roll your eyes.
Now, first, let's get our history right here. As I understand the matter, the wiretapping of King was ordered and initiated by Hoover. Does someone have data that the orders for this came from Bobbie or JFK?
In any case, the FISA laws were put in place to correct previous egregious assaults on Americans' civil liberties particularly, as I understand it, during the Nixon White House period but also in light of what had gone on previously with the civil rights movement.
All of which, rather obviously, puts Bush in a rather tenuous legal and moral position, particularly at the funeral for King's widow.
woiyo
You are playing a winner/loser game. Can you tell which side you are on right now?
You try to side step a question which has no basis in legality.
Why did Kennedy not apologize to the family for the actions of his brothers administration? The fact that warrentless searches was not illegal back then still does not make is right.
woiyo, that is a completely silly statement. (no offense) The whole deal with the current warrantless wiretapping issue is that there was a law in place and the President chose to go around that law rather than either working with it or try to work with congress to change it.
If a speed limit is suddenly lowered from 55 to 45 should people turn themselves in for going 55 before the law was changed?
I made a point early in this thread on the precedents set of espousing political positions at funerals and CSK's likely toleration, if not approval of the same.
However, having said that, I'm still bothered by the lack of respect shown the President at her funeral. In particular, Lowery's comments "we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here", seem snippy and wholly inappropriate.
Making an anology, suppose my mother and I had a very poor relationship with my father, to the point where we both refused to speak with him. I don't think it would be appropriate to take the stage at my mother's funeral and use the opportunity to put down my father...no matter what my mother actually thought of him. While she might appreciate that I acknowledge her strength thru a difficult marriage, I think she'd prefer the family come together in the sad time, not engage in petty insults at that time.
Recognizing CSK's prediliction for peace, I daresay that CSK would also have preferred that folks of all political persuasions, at least make an attempt to come together on the occasion.
Now this note will probably cause me to lose face in Cyclop's eyes...again...dang-nab-it
Quote:You try to side step a question which has no basis in legality.
Why did Kennedy not apologize to the family for the actions of his brothers administration? The fact that warrentless searches was not illegal back then still does not make is right.
First, what PRECISELY were the "actions of his brother's administration" in this matter? Do you know or are you just assuming Drudge does and that he has it right historically?
Second, what moral guilt do you, woiyo, hold for the acts of your siblings?
Answer those two questions carefully and accurately and we might be able to proceed with a valuable conversation.
Quote:However, having said that, I'm still bothered by the lack of respect shown the President at her funeral. In particular, Lowery's comments "we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here", seem snippy and wholly inappropriate.
Making an anology, suppose my mother and I had a very poor relationship with my father, to the point where we both refused to speak with him. I don't think it would be appropriate to take the stage at my mother's funeral and use the opportunity to put down my father...
Your dad isn't an elected official.
"Respect" for any public office which entails the suppression of criticism isn't "respect", but something quite other and something quite dangerous. What Bush got that afternoon was mild and clearly justified as a matter of political principle and fact.
If Bush took it with grace (and he did) and if it was delivered with grace (and it was), then why don't you guys settle back and take it with that same grace.
Blatham,
I already acknowledged that I saw no foul in expressing a political position at a funeral, but that's not my issue, it's the insult that I have a problem with. You can express a political position contrary to someone else without insulting that person...a point that many on Able2Know clearly have difficulties with.
Accusing the president of being a liar ("weapon of misdirection") in a public forum does not constitute being "delivered with grace", although I would agree that Bush took it with grace.
slkshock7 wrote:IHowever, having said that, I'm still bothered by the lack of respect shown the President at her funeral. In particular, Lowery's comments "we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here", seem snippy and wholly inappropriate.
I heard this retold on the radio, so I don't know how reliable it is. But I got the impression that he was gesturing at the place where all four presidents were sitting. Not that it makes it more respectful, but possibly it spreads the disrespect across all four presidents.
Personally, I don't actually care if the president, any president, is disrespected in public or in private.
FreeDuck wrote:Personally, I don't actually care if the president, any president, is disrespected in public or in private.
That would appear to be a key difference then. I, and many others, DO care when the President is disrespected. Regardless of party affiliation.
The office deserves respect as the President is the representative of every citizen of the US. Especially in public forums.
We just hold different opinions.
McGentrix wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Personally, I don't actually care if the president, any president, is disrespected in public or in private.
That would appear to be a key difference then. I, and many others, DO care when the President is disrespected. Regardless of party affiliation.
The office deserves respect as the President is the representative of every citizen of the US. Especially in public forums.
We just hold different opinions.
and apparently some pathological need to have a hero to worship. Even an unclothed will do seemingly. :wink:
Quote:Accusing the president of being a liar ("weapon of misdirection") in a public forum does not constitute being "delivered with grace", although I would agree that Bush took it with grace.
"Liar" wasn't the word. "Misdirection" was the word.
And if Bush is guilty of "misdirection", what then? What does free speech actually mean and entail?
maybe bushie can go on tour with David Copperfield after his term is up.... always of course assuming he doesn't do something to get a third, fourth and beyond term.....now that would be some misdirection for ya...
blueveinedthrobber wrote:McGentrix wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Personally, I don't actually care if the president, any president, is disrespected in public or in private.
That would appear to be a key difference then. I, and many others, DO care when the President is disrespected. Regardless of party affiliation.
The office deserves respect as the President is the representative of every citizen of the US. Especially in public forums.
We just hold different opinions.
and apparently some pathological need to have a hero to worship. Even an unclothed will do seemingly. :wink:
Yes. Such a notion of appropriate speech turns your elected official into something rather more like a monarch.
woiyo wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:You try to side step a question which has no basis in legality.
Why did Kennedy not apologize to the family for the actions of his brothers administration? The fact that warrentless searches was not illegal back then still does not make is right.
First, what PRECISELY were the "actions of his brother's administration" in this matter? Do you know or are you just assuming Drudge does and that he has it right historically?
Second, what moral guilt do you, woiyo, hold for the acts of your siblings?
Answer those two questions carefully and accurately and we might be able to proceed with a valuable conversation.
You don't get it do you.
Continued instances of the eye roll don't make your argument for you.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:I think
A: this is the type of thing Coretta would have liked and approved of.
B: The people who made the statements actually knew her personally...something bush damn sure can't say....
C: bush and bushco have dug their own graves(metaphorically, I don't need any black helicopters at my house) as far as being left wide open for whatever nasty remarks they find themselves on the receiving end of. No difference between this and the fact that the right never misses any opportunity to slam a Clinton.
Of all the U.S. presidents, Bush has put more black people in high positions in his administration than any other.
blatham wrote:[Yes. Such a notion of appropriate speech turns your elected official into something rather more like a monarch.
God knows I love ya Bernie, but you lost me at "elected"... :wink:
Brandon9000 wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:I think
A: this is the type of thing Coretta would have liked and approved of.
B: The people who made the statements actually knew her personally...something bush damn sure can't say....
C: bush and bushco have dug their own graves(metaphorically, I don't need any black helicopters at my house) as far as being left wide open for whatever nasty remarks they find themselves on the receiving end of. No difference between this and the fact that the right never misses any opportunity to slam a Clinton.
Of all the U.S. presidents, Bush has put more black people in high positions in his administration than any other.
and that has what to do with his relationship with Coretta King or my post?
blueveinedthrobber wrote:blatham wrote:[Yes. Such a notion of appropriate speech turns your elected official into something rather more like a monarch.
God knows I love ya Bernie, but you lost me at "elected"... :wink:
Well, I think we have to give it to him. He tried twice and one of them ought to count (even if those voters in florida and ohio weren't). I figure it's a 50/50 deal and we can be fair.
blatham wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:blatham wrote:[Yes. Such a notion of appropriate speech turns your elected official into something rather more like a monarch.
God knows I love ya Bernie, but you lost me at "elected"... :wink:
Well, I think we have to give it to him. He tried twice and one of them ought to count (even if those voters in florida and ohio weren't). I figure it's a 50/50 deal and we can be fair.
once again, I bend my knee to you, the better man. Salud!!
I'll take the 'salud', but the bended knee ought to be loaned to the folks above who feel comfortable in the position. Unless, of course, the "we're not worthy" chant attends.
