Liberals stoop to new lows...

[nvxplorer]

The remarks from a few at the funeral actually miminick Fred Phelps. He likes to protest at funerals too. This was perhaps Fred Phelps light.

God hates Bush?

 

[MachZer0]

God hates Bush?

That does seem to be what Lowery was suggesting!!

 

[nvxplorer]

That does seem to be what Lowery was suggesting!!

How so?

 

[Brimshack]

cowardly using the funeral of a great woman as political fodder.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_re_us/coretta_scott_king




http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060208/pl_nm/king_dc

Ah, but of course, it isn't a new low for conservatives to appear at the funeral of a liberal whose husband was viciously attacked by thir own throughout his political career as if pretending to care about her or her husband. It isn't a new low for conservatives to pretend that liberal politics is out of place at the funeral of a woman who dedicated her life to liberal politics. It isn't a new low for conservatives to pretend admiration for this woman while working consistently to undermine and roll-back anything and everything she and her husband worked to accomplish. It wouldn't be a new low to object to non-violent protest at the funeral of a woman whose husband devoted her life to non-violent protest. ...or to demand silence about minority issues at the funeral of a woman who was herself eminantly devoted to seeing that minority problems ARE spoken about loudly and publically. No, none of that would really strike me as novel, just run of the mill as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Ah, but of course, it isn't a new low for conservatives to appear at the funeral of a liberal whose husband was viciously attacked by thir own throughout his political career as if pretending to care about her or her husband. It isn't a new low for conservatives to pretend that liberal politics is out of place at the funeral of a woman who dedicated her life to liberal politics. It isn't a new low for conservatives to pretend admiration for this woman while working consistently to undermine and roll-back anything and everything she and her husband worked to accomplish. It wouldn't be a new low to object to non-violent protest at the funeral of a woman whose husband devoted her life to non-violent protest. ...or to demand silence about minority issues at the funeral of a woman who was herself eminantly devoted to seeing that minority problems ARE spoken about loudly and publically. No, none of that would really strike me as novel, just run of the mill as far as I'm concerned.

So because one party likes to utilize childish and tasteless tactics, this makes it alright for yours to do the same. Gotcha

 

[Brimshack]

I suppose if one were to ignore most of the points made in the post that might seem a fair construction of my position. But of course that's the problem. We praise her in order to bury her, don't we? in order to put away the memory of anything her and her husband actually said. Just to be clear, my point is this:

Those who actually think a protest against government policies are out of place at this woman's funeral have no business pretending to honor her memory.

Imagine that! People celebrating the life of a dedicated pacifist made comments in opposition to war just as she had done when she was alive, just as she urged others to do when alive! The nerve of some people, carrying on the woman's own political agenda at her funeral of all things.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I suppose if one were to ignore most of the points made in the post that might seem a fair construction of my position. But of course that's the problem. We praise her in order to bury her, don't we? in order to put away the memory of anything her and her husband actually said. Just to be clear, my point is this:

Those who actually think a protest against government policies are out of place at this woman's funeral have no business pretending to honor her memory.

Imagine that! People celebrating the life of a dedicated pacifist made comments in opposition to war just as she had done when she was alive, just as she urged others to do when alive! The nerve of some people, carrying on the woman's own political agenda at her funeral of all things.

So, with this line of reasoning, it's okay for Fred Phelps and company to be protesting at funerals of servicemembers who have died in an "unjust" war? For some of them may have not wanted to be a part of this war.

 

[notto]

So, with this line of reasoning, it's okay for Fred Phelps and company to be protesting at funerals of servicemembers who have died in an "unjust" war? For some of them may have not wanted to be a part of this war.

No, not at all. Comparing the comments of invited guests to univited protesters who disrupt a funeral and condemn the deceased with their words would not be following the line of reasoning presented by Brimshack. A valid comparision would be invited eulogies at the funeral of a soldier who was a know pascifist and who protested against the war when they were alive.

But I'm guessing you know this.

 

[nvxplorer]

So, with this line of reasoning, it's okay for Fred Phelps and company to be protesting at funerals of servicemembers who have died in an "unjust" war? For some of them may have not wanted to be a part of this war.

Fred Phelps? Phelps would only attend if the fallen serviceman was gay. And he wouldn’t be there to honor the soldier.

 

[MachZer0]

Fred Phelps? Phelps would only attend if the fallen serviceman was gay. And he wouldn’t be there to honor the soldier.

That is actually a misrepresentation of Phelps position. Ask yourself this question. How would Phelps know that a dead soldier was gay? Phelps claims that soldiers are dying because of America's acceptance of gays, so the sexual choices of the dead soldier are irrelevant to him.

 

[Brimshack]

So, with this line of reasoning, it's okay for Fred Phelps and company to be protesting at funerals of servicemembers who have died in an "unjust" war? For some of them may have not wanted to be a part of this war.

As this does not address the actual reasoning of my post, I will simply say that the answer to your question is 'no.' That's 2 in a row, and I'm not into banging my head up against a wall these days. Bye CM.

 

[arnegrim]

Plus, while many accuse the speakers of exploiting the stage, they do not level the same charge at all those politicians there who exploited the funeral just to show up and gain some points. Seriously, when was the last time any of them even talked to Corretta?

Funny... what do you think would have been the Democrat response if Bush did NOT attend the funeral? You honestly think they would have let it go as 'appropriate'?

 

[k]

Funny... what do you think would have been the Democrat response if Bush did NOT attend the funeral? You honestly think they would have let it go as 'appropriate'?

True, with Bush in the Office he has a duty to attend, regardless of an obvious historical contradiction to the Kings' lively purposes.

 

[k]

Some of the people who are rushing to pretend to defend Mrs. King's Honor by the charge of unethical practice at a funeral are the the same people who opposed her ideas when she was alive, also fully support unethical wars, business practices, and Constitutional abuses. In all honesty, this is not about defending Funeral Etiquette or Mrs. King, but rather the exploitation of her death to attack some of those who call for accountability of the Executive Branch.

The Kings' entire life was about speaking out against abuses. Dr. King had said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere."

It is good the speakers did not succumb to the self-righteous pressure of those who are silently glad Mrs. King is gone. Had they been quiet she may have risen right out of her coffin and asked, "Have you people learned NOTHING?!"

 

[jasperbound]

Some of the people who are rushing to pretend to defend Mrs. King's Honor by the charge of unethical practice at a funeral are the the same people who opposed her ideas when she was alive, also fully support unethical wars, business practices, and Constitutional abuses. In all honesty, this is not about defending Funeral Etiquette or Mrs. King, but rather the exploitation of her death to attack some of those who call for accountability of the Executive Branch.

The Kings' entire life was about speaking out against abuses. Dr. King had said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere."

It is good the speakers did not succumb to the self-righteous pressure of those who are silently glad Mrs. King is gone. Had they been quiet she may have risen right out of her coffin and asked, "Have you people learned NOTHING?!"

That's a good point. I'm glad she was dead. At least according to you. I think I'll use the same logic and say that people who criticize Bush are terrorists 'cause some of the people who do are, in fact, terrorists.

 

[k]

That's a good point. I'm glad she was dead. At least according to you. I think I'll use the same logic and say that people who criticize Bush are terrorists 'cause some of the people who do are, in fact, terrorists.

Let's try to avoid putting words into other peoples' mouths...I never said "Jasper..." but simply some people, and this is based on empirical evidence so obviously it would not apply to everyone who jumped on the bandwagon of trying to condemn INVITED speakers.

 

[arnegrim]

Why do you have to agree with someones views in order to respect the person?

 

[arnegrim]

True, with Bush in the Office he has a duty to attend, regardless of an obvious historical contradiction to the Kings' lively purposes.

DOH!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Neverstop again.

Kudos for acknowledging the point.

 

[k]

Why do you have to agree with someones views in order to respect the person?

I don't think one has to, and if that is what seems to be conveyed, then I apologize.

 

[jasperbound]

Let's try to avoid putting words into other peoples' mouths...I never said "Jasper..." but simply some people, and this is based on empirical evidence so obviously it would not apply to everyone who jumped on the bandwagon of trying to condemn INVITED speakers.

And some people who dislike Bush are terrorists, so I'll be sure to mention that every time somebody criticizes Bush.
You're right. There are such people as you described, just as there are such people as I describe. However, are any of these people participating in this thread? If not, then what was the point of your post? It seemed rather irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant for me to mention that terrorists also dislike Bush whenever people are criticizing Bush.

I also never realized that people who are invited can never in any way be disrespectful. Wait? They can? So being invited is completely irrelevant, because even though who receive an invitation have the potential to do wrong?