A new standard has been set

[Buford T. Justice]

How low can you go? We've found the winners.

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[TheMadCap]

Give someone a chance to speak in front of more than two people and it will turn into thier own political grandstanding. Nothing new, but you are right sheriff, pretty vile and lowbelly.

 

The one that made me the maddest, was the induction speech for The Clash into the RRHoF by one of the pinheads from No Doubt. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like this:

 

"Whenever a band forms in garages, the spirit of The Clash lives on...

 

"Whenever music is played for the simple joy of playing it, the spirit of the Clash lives on...

 

"AND WHEN THE PEOPLE TAKE TO THE STREETS TO PROTEST AN UNJUST WAR, THE SPIRIT OF THE CLASH LIVES ON" (leftists climax in thier pants)

 

I was thinking, "You fuggin retarded !@#$, thanks for using the privilege of inducting one of the greatest bands ever into history to promote your own personal opinion and agenda".

 

EDIT: yes, I know the Clash had a very political aspect, and I don't doubt that Joe himself might have been a bit outspoken about the coming Iraq war. What I protest to is someone else speaking for them and putting words in their mouth.

[MichFan]

First of all, Bush should be thrilled that the worst president of the last Century disagrees with his policies. Jimmy Carter constantly tries to alter how history will perceive him by being the most politically active ex-president in recent memory if not all of history. This just hardens the image of him being a failure. A great, big, failure that should never have left the peanut plantation.

 

Secondly, the religious figure who spoke is from the Southern Christian Leadership Coalition. Where in the farck do they find people like this? It's like this guy tried to be a televangelist but couldn't cut it on TV. So he comes up with some sophisticated sounding organization and starts stealing ... I mean gathering ... charitable donations from those who can least afford it. All of a sudden the SCLC is legit on the streets and the guy can represent at the funeral and bash Bush. This will surely raise revenues for his organization and line his pockets further. I'm sure the King's are thrilled about such opportunism at their expense.

 

The Democrats continue to think that funerals are platforms for scoring political points. The Minnesota funeral and Ron Reagan's little diatribe at the Gipper's funeral blew up in their face. I'm sure this one will too.

[OnTheRocks]

First of all, Bush should be thrilled that the worst president of the last Century disagrees with his policies.  Jimmy Carter constantly tries to alter how history will perceive him by being the most politically active ex-president in recent memory if not all of history.  This just hardens the image of him being a failure.  A great, big, failure that should never have left the peanut plantation.

 

Secondly, the religious figure who spoke is from the Southern Christian Leadership Coalition.  Where in the farck do they find people like this?  It's like this guy tried to be a televangelist but couldn't cut it on TV.  So he comes up with some sophisticated sounding organization and starts stealing ... I mean gathering ... charitable donations from those who can least afford it.  All of a sudden the SCLC is legit on the streets and the guy can represent at the funeral and bash Bush.  This will surely raise revenues for his organization and line his pockets further.  I'm sure the King's are thrilled about such opportunism at their expense.

 

The Democrats continue to think that funerals are platforms for scoring political points.  The Minnesota funeral and Ron Reagan's little diatribe at the Gipper's funeral blew up in their face.  I'm sure this one will too.

597879[/snapback]

 

 

i think you just knocked KRC off his perch for winning my "post of the century" award.

[MichFan]

i think you just knocked KRC off his perch for winning my "post of the century" award.

597895[/snapback]

Thanks. I'll remember you fondly on PPP long after you are beheaded by muslim extremists for your avatar.

[PastaJoe]

Those were some great speeches in the spirit or MLK and Coretta Scott King. MLK "spoke to power", meaning he told the hard truth to those in power, as he did to LBJ about the Vietnam War. It was totally in keeping with MLK's spirit that they spoke up about issues that MLK and Coretta would have spoken against if they were here. The Rev Lowery has a history of "speaking to power", and Carter was the president who signed legislation to prevent the abuses that Nixon and now Bush participated in. How low can you go? We'll we still have 3 more years of Bush, so there's no telling how low this country will be dragged down by his policies. We can only hope that more people show the courage of conviction and speak up against his failed policies. Bush looked like he just swallowed a dose of cod liver oil by being forced to "take his medicine" in public.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Those were some great speeches in the spirit or MLK and Coretta Scott King.  MLK "spoke to power", meaning he told the hard truth to those in power, as he did to LBJ about the Vietnam War.  It was totally in keeping with MLK's spirit that they spoke up about issues that MLK and Coretta would have spoken against if they were here.  The Rev Lowery has a history of "speaking to power", and Carter was the president who signed legislation to prevent the abuses that Nixon and now Bush participated in.  How low can you go?  We'll we still have 3 more years of Bush, so there's no telling how low this country will be dragged down by his policies.  We can only hope that more people show the courage of conviction and speak up against his failed policies.  Bush looked like he just swallowed a dose of cod liver oil by being forced to "take his medicine" in public.

598029[/snapback]

 

Carter also challenged the legislation he signed within a month of signing it, establishing the "exclusive executive authority" argument for warrantless wiretaps that has been quoted by every single administration since.

 

But it's so much easier to be a mindless partisan who bitches and moans that a president you don't like did something you don't like because he's a bad, bad man, without even attempting to research how the situation developed over the past 30 years.

[RkFast]

Those were some great speeches in the spirit or MLK and Coretta Scott King.  MLK "spoke to power", meaning he told the hard truth to those in power, as he did to LBJ about the Vietnam War.  It was totally in keeping with MLK's spirit that they spoke up about issues that MLK and Coretta would have spoken against if they were here.  The Rev Lowery has a history of "speaking to power", and Carter was the president who signed legislation to prevent the abuses that Nixon and now Bush participated in.  How low can you go?  We'll we still have 3 more years of Bush, so there's no telling how low this country will be dragged down by his policies.  We can only hope that more people show the courage of conviction and speak up against his failed policies.  Bush looked like he just swallowed a dose of cod liver oil by being forced to "take his medicine" in public.

598029[/snapback]

 

 

"You can voice your opposition to someone or something without being offensive."

 

--PastaJoe

 

I guess bashing the President and forwarding your political agenda at a funeral isnt considered offensive in your book.

 

Also find it funny that you and yours get bent when GWB mentions 9/11 during speeches dealing with terrorism, but have no issue with what took place today.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

"You can voice your opposition to someone or something without being offensive."

 

--PastaJoe

 

I guess bashing the President and forwarding your political agenda at a funeral isnt considered offensive in your book.

598047[/snapback]

 

Hey...he said you can. He never said anything about himself or his ilk.

[Buford T. Justice]

It was totally in keeping with MLK's spirit that they spoke up about issues that MLK and Coretta would have spoken against if they were here.

598029[/snapback]

 

Talk to them beyond the grave do you?

[IowaBill]

First of all, Bush should be thrilled that the worst president of the last Century disagrees with his policies.  Jimmy Carter constantly tries to alter how history will perceive him by being the most politically active ex-president in recent memory if not all of history.  This just hardens the image of him being a failure.  A great, big, failure that should never have left the peanut plantation.

 

Secondly, the religious figure who spoke is from the Southern Christian Leadership Coalition.  Where in the farck do they find people like this?  It's like this guy tried to be a televangelist but couldn't cut it on TV.  So he comes up with some sophisticated sounding organization and starts stealing ... I mean gathering ... charitable donations from those who can least afford it.  All of a sudden the SCLC is legit on the streets and the guy can represent at the funeral and bash Bush.  This will surely raise revenues for his organization and line his pockets further.  I'm sure the King's are thrilled about such opportunism at their expense.

 

The Democrats continue to think that funerals are platforms for scoring political points.  The Minnesota funeral and Ron Reagan's little diatribe at the Gipper's funeral blew up in their face.  I'm sure this one will too.

597879[/snapback]

 

I believe the Southern Christian Leadership Conference may have been formed MLK, at the very least, he was key figure in its early days back in the '60s. As a result, it was very appropriate to have the current leader of the organization speak at Coretta Scott Kings funeral. I agree, the guy had no presence whatsoever on the air. Your condemnation of the organization as some sort of "johnny-come-lately" group is off the mark.

 

I couldn't agree more with your assesment of the distasteful practice of politicians using funerals to advance whatever agenda they have. Wellstones funeral is a great example. I don't think Reupublicans are immune from the practice, however.

[/dev/null]

How accurate is the picture in that link? When the speakers criticized him did they bother turning around and doing it to his face?

 

I have no problem with them criticizing Bush. But if the man is there, at least have the balls to turn to him and say it to his face

[OnTheRocks]

Carter also challenged the legislation he signed within a month of signing it, establishing the "exclusive executive authority" argument for warrantless wiretaps that has been quoted by every single administration since. 

 

But it's so much easier to be a mindless partisan who bitches and moans that a president you don't like did something you don't like because he's a bad, bad man, without even attempting to research how the situation developed over the past 30 years.

598046[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks for the PM:

 

Here are the details:

 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

 

From the sections: "Executive Orders"

 

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and

  104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

  1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this

  chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for

  foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

 

    1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence

  Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General

  is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign

  intelligence information without a court order, but only if the

  Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

 

    1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act

  of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to

  approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section

  103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic

  surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence

  information.

 

    1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence

  Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following

  officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national

  security or defense, is designated to make the certifications

  required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications

  to conduct electronic surveillance:

 

      (a) Secretary of State.

 

      (b) Secretary of Defense.

 

      © Director of Central Intelligence.

 

      (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

      (e) Deputy Secretary of State.

 

      (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

 

      (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

 

  None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that

  capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above

  certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the

  President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

    1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under

  section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at

  the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined

  in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be

  conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

 

    1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under

  section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at

  the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes

  electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence

  Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that

  Act as well as this Order.''.                         

 

                                                              Jimmy Carter.

 

[PastaJoe]

"You can voice your opposition to someone or something without being offensive."

 

--PastaJoe

 

I guess bashing the President and forwarding your political agenda at a funeral isnt considered offensive in your book.

 

Also find it funny that you and yours get bent when GWB mentions 9/11 during speeches dealing with terrorism, but have no issue with what took place today.

598047[/snapback]

 

The family and the people attending the funeral weren't offended, they applauded the statements. What was offensive? That there were no WMD? That the people in New Orleans were neglected? That MLK was illegally wiretapped by the gov't? I never heard any of them mention Bush by name. I guess some must have guilty feelings if they're offended since no names were mentioned, and the shoe fits.

 

The problem many of us have with the references to 9/11 are when he tries to associate it with the invasion of Iraq to deceive people into assuming that Saddam and Iraq were involved. And unfortunately there are enough people out there that are all too willing to let the administration do their thinking for them and believe it. It's fine to talk about it when justifying the reason for invading Afganistan, but not Iraq.

[KRC]

i think you just knocked KRC off his perch for winning my "post of the century" award.

597895[/snapback]

 

Damn, that was short-lived.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That there were no WMD? 

598226[/snapback]

 

See Erynthered's post above:

 

"Mr. Hoekstra has already met with a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada, who claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to ferry chemical weapons to Syria in 2002. Mr. Hoekstra is now talking to Iraqis who Mr. Sada claims took part in the mission, and the congressman said the former air force general "should not just be discounted.""

 

Hrm...

 

So they DID exist, but have been moved to Syria? I've been saying that for a LONG time, and it makes sense as both Syria and Iraq were Baathist countries.

[SilverNRed]

How low can you go? We've found the winners.

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

597828[/snapback]

Thank God I was born after the Jimma Carter disaster and never had to live one day of my life with him as President. The guy comes off as a bitter, old failure every time you put him in front of a microphone.

 

Reverand Whatshisname was a joke too. Nice timing, waiting for a funeral to make yourself famous.

[Wacka]

They way the dems act act funerals, I think there will be an orgy at Bubba's.

[RkFast]

The family and the people attending the funeral weren't offended, they applauded the statements.  What was offensive?  That there were no WMD?  That the people in New Orleans were neglected?  That MLK was illegally wiretapped by the gov't?  I never heard any of them mention Bush by name.  I guess some must have guilty feelings if they're offended since no names were mentioned, and the shoe fits.

 

The problem many of us have with the references to 9/11 are when he tries to associate it with the invasion of Iraq to deceive people into assuming that Saddam and Iraq were involved.  And unfortunately there are enough people out there that are all too willing to let the administration do their thinking for them and believe it.  It's fine to talk about it when justifying the reason for invading Afganistan, but  not Iraq.

598226[/snapback]

 

Basically, what youre saying is that truth and validity of statements being made trump respect and decorum at all costs and all the time.

 

So tell me....would have it been appropriate for Bush 43 to start speaking about Condi Rice, Powell and other minority leaders in the GOP and to start touting it as the, say "new party of inclusion"?

 

How would you feel is Bush 41 started a historical lesson of the Democratic Party 1850-1965 in regards to race relations, especially with blacks or mentioned how Carter played the race card in his campaign for governor of GA in 1970?

 

Im sure such talk from the Bushes would have been ok for you, given your assertions above, right?

 

Right.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Seems to me, Condi Rice and even Colin Powell have managed to live, and prove themselves shining examples, of the Martin Luther King dream, judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. But they were not there. Curious. Were they not invited? Oh right! It was not a funeral; it was a political rally. My bad.