Coretta King funeral--shut up Jimmeh!

[dilloduck]

IF you want to puke, listen or read a copy of what this idiot said.

My buddy Kennedy was his usual self too

 

[archangel]

IF you want to puke, listen or read a copy of what this idiot said.

My buddy Kennedy was his usual self too

Watching CNN now with the coverage...Both Bushes,Kennedy,Clinton's(both) et all make me wanna puke,such pandering and just plain outright BS....'Mr.Rogers' and changing the sweater and sneakers they are not...just plain kissing up to the liberal base.................

 

[dilloduck]

Watching CNN now with the coverage...Both Bushes,Kennedy,Clinton's(both) et all make me wanna puke,such pandering and just plain outright BS....'Mr.Rogers' and changing the sweater and sneakers they are not...just plain kissing up to the liberal base.................

Bush #1 might have to kill Clinton for making fun of his religion. :cof:

 

[archangel]

Bush #1 might have to kill Clinton for making fun of his religion. :cof:

however Billy Claims to be a Christian as well as Hillary..but only when it suits their political agenda...when will people learn the art of bluntness once again...it is our only salvation!...IMO

 

[dilloduck]

however Billy Claims to be a Christian as well as Hillary..but only when it suits their political agenda...when will people learn the art of bluntness once again...it is our only salvation!...IMO

I'll actually give him some credit tho----he didn't have to bring up WIRETAPPING like the peanut farmer

 

[archangel]

I'll actually give him some credit tho----he didn't have to bring up WIRETAPPING like the peanut farmer

none other than Jimmy not so Greek...or something like that...Hey Jimmy is great at building low cost housing but not so good at politics or war...but that does not excuse the Bushes for their catering to the ilk of the Clintons...No?

 

[dilloduck]

none other than Jimmy not so Greek...or something like that...Hey Jimmy is great at building low cost housing but not so good at politics or war...but that does not excuse the Bushes for their catering to the ilk of the Clintons...No?

It was such a lovely time for Jimmeh to claim that Katrina was evidence of continued racism in America (to the cheers of the crowd)---er- mourners.

I have no idea why the Bushs' feel the need to suck up to old Bill. Someone's gonna have to explain that one to me.

 

[theHawk]

God just reading their comments is so fucking sickening. WTF does WMD and wiretapping have to do with honoring someone at their funeral?

 

[Bonnie]

Wasn't it Bobby Kennedy Attorney General who authorised wiretapping King's phone conversations in an effort to find out of he was having affairs on his wife hoping to discredit his cause???

Conservatives Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record
By John Fonte
National Review | January 9, 2003

After Lott, the GOP's conservative base does not need a "heart transplant" as Senator Frist suggests, it needs a "memory transplant." Shortly after the downfall of Trent Lott as Senate Majority Leader, NRO's Jonah Goldberg noted that "Conservatives — though not Republicans — were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s." That's not exactly right. Bread-and-butter conservatives in Congress (as opposed to conservative writers), that is, men such as Everett Dirksen and Bill McCulloch in the 1960s and Bill Knowland in the 1950s, were strong supporters of equal rights for all Americans. Let us reexamine the history of conservative and Republican involvement in the creation of racial equality under law in this country over the past half-century.

In the 1950s, while Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court's school-desegregation ruling, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama (Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's former vice-presidential running mate) protested this desegregation decision by signing the congressional "Southern Manifesto" attacking the court's ruling. In 1957 the Eisenhower administration, led by Republican Attorney General Herbert Brownell, steered through Congress the first civil-rights bill since Reconstruction. In that fight over protecting voting rights, veteran civil-rights lobbyist Harry L. Kingman described Republican Senate Leader William Knowland of California (a strong conservative) as a "key man in the victory." Clearly, Republican leader Knowland took a stronger pro-civil-rights stand than Democrat Senate Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who at the time was accused by some civil-rights groups of introducing amendments that weakened the bill.

In examining the crucial civil-rights issues of the 1960s we should: (1) revisit the role Republicans (and particularly conservative Republicans) played in the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (2) reexamine the original intent of the bill itself. Contrary to popular amnesia, it was the congressional Republicans, not the Democrats, who were most responsible for this great victory for equal civil rights for all Americans.

The civil-rights bill of 1964 was enacted with strong bipartisan and bi-ideological (conservative and liberal) support. But, the credit for the civil-rights victory has gone almost exclusively to liberals and Democrats, particularly to Senator Hubert Humphrey (D, Minn.) in Congress, and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, much of the hard work of advancing the legislation was done by congressional Republicans — conservative stalwarts including Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, and moderates such as Thomas Kuchel of California, Kenneth Keating of New York, and Clark MacGregor of Minnesota. All of these Republicans served as major leaders of the pro-civil-rights coalition either as floor managers or captains for different sections of the bill.

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats' margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.

However, the single-most-important vote for the legislation was the attempt to cut off the anti-civil-rights filibuster in the Senate. In order for the bill to pass, civil-rights supporters needed two thirds of the Senate to break a filibuster by the opposition. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), but only 65.7 percent of the Democrats voted to end the filibuster (44-23). Thus, if only Republicans in the Congress had voted, any potential filibuster would easily have been overridden. But, if only Democrats had voted, the pro-civil-rights forces would not have been able to obtain the necessary two/thirds vote to break the filibuster and the civil-rights bill would have died. No Republicans in Congress, no civil-rights bill — it is as simple as that.

Only a handful of Republicans opposed the civil-rights bill. The most prominent among them was Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who became the party's presidential candidate in 1964. Interestingly, Goldwater had always been a strong supporter of racial equality and supported the Eisenhower civil-rights bills of 1957 and 1960 that strengthened voting rights for African Americans. As Lee Edwards noted in The Conservative Revolution: "As chief of staff of the Arizona National Guard he [Goldwater] had pushed for desegregation of the guard two years before President Truman desegregated the U.S. armed forces." Goldwater stated that workforce discrimination was "morally wrong," but worried that in the future the federal government might "require people to discriminate on the basis of color or race or religion" and, thus, in the end, opposed the bill.

The civil-rights bill of 1964 banned discrimination in voting, public accommodations, education, federal programs, and employment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. In supporting the legislation, the bipartisan coalition invoked Judeo-Christian tradition, the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and particularly the concept of "equality of opportunity." Southern Democrat opponents charged that the legislation would lead to racial preferences, but the bipartisan congressional leaders clearly stated that this was not the intent of the bill.

On April 9, 1964, Hubert Humphrey replied to the allegation that Title VII on employment discrimination would lead to racial preferences by stating, "It the Senator can find in Title VII…any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there."

To ensure that the bill would not be misinterpreted to promote racial and gender preferences, the pro-civil forces added an amendment to Title VII, Section 703 (j) that stated, "Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer…to grant preferential treatment to any individual or any group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…on account of an imbalance which may exist…with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, or sex, or national origin…in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons…in any community…or in any available work force…."

By the end of the debate more than 40 members of Congress denounced racial and gender preferences, and no one spoke in favor of them. Opposition to preferences was voiced by liberals including: George McGovern (D, S.D.), Edmund Muskie (D, Md.), Adam Clayton Powell (D, N.Y.), and John Lindsay (R, N.Y.), as well as conservatives including: Everett Dirksen (R. Il.), Gordon Allot (R, Co.), Frank Carlson (R, Kan.), and James Bromwell (R, Iowa).

Alas, in the decades since the passage of the civil-rights bill, judicial activism, and bureaucratic rulemaking have violated the clear intent of the Congress in prohibiting racial and gender preferences.

Since 1964, two serious efforts have been launched to recapture the American principles of individual rights and equal opportunity embodied in the original legislation. First, in the 1980s, the Reagan Justice Department under Edwin Meese and Bradford Reynolds challenged group preferences in the name of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Second, in the 1990s, the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) and Washington State's initiative I-200, promoted by Ward Connerly, used the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in successful referenda that outlawed racial and gender preferences in those states.

Most conservatives and Republicans stood with Meese and Reynolds, and with Connerly. Those who did not should be ashamed of themselves, for they betrayed the spirit of Dirksen, Halleck, McCulloch, and those other rock-ribbed conservative Republicans who played such a large part in enacting the most important civil-rights legislation of the century. Conservatives and Republicans who understand both the history of their party and the bedrock constitutional and moral principles on which it rests will not permit themselves to be browbeaten by the Lott affair. Instead, they will press on by supporting a return to the original intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as well as the foundational principles of the American republic) and the elimination of racial-, ethnic-, and gender-group preferences — once and for all.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5436

 

[dilloduck]

Wasn't it Bobby Kennedy Attorney General who authorised wiretapping King's phone conversations in an effort to find out of he was having affairs on his wife hoping to discredit his cause???

Conservatives Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record
By John Fonte
National Review | January 9, 2003



http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5436

You bet but they dont talk about the truth when votes are at stake.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll actually give him some credit tho----he didn't have to bring up WIRETAPPING like the peanut farmer

http://exposetheleft.com/2006/02/07/carterkingfuneral/

Jimmehs performance if your interested. (puke warning)

 

[William Joyce]

It was such a lovely time for Jimmeh to claim that Katrina was evidence of continued racism in America (to the cheers of the crowd)---er- mourners.

The NWO loves NOTHING more than a Southern white male "Christian" who pushes the PC line.

 

[dilloduck]

The NWO loves NOTHING more than a Southern white male "Christian" who pushes the PC line.

Oh ya---Clinton brought the house down and had to remind em there was a funeral going on.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'll actually give him some credit tho----he didn't have to bring up WIRETAPPING like the peanut farmer

What? You can't make politcal statements at the memorial service for someone who helped shape American politics and the civil rights movement? Gosh, how insensitive of President Carter to mention a politically charged issue of great embarassment to Dubbyah.

ANd let's not forget Reverend Lowrey who took Dubbyuh to task for his disasterous foreign and domestic policies.

It was an appropriate venue, and I enjoyed watching Dubbyuh squirm.

 

[Avatar4321]

What? You can't make politcal statements at the memorial service for someone who helped shape American politics and the civil rights movement? Gosh, how insensitive of President Carter to mention a politically charged issue of great embarassment to Dubbyah.

ANd let's not forget Reverend Lowrey who took Dubbyuh to task for his disasterous foreign and domestic policies.

It was an appropriate venue, and I enjoyed watching Dubbyuh squirm.

This is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party. I mean do you hear what you are saying. You are saying its okay to use someone's death for your political purposes. You want to critisize the President, go ahead. But atleast have the common decency not to do it while walking over someones grave who actually did something decent for society.

 

[007]

There was MORE reporting on this funeral again THIS MORNING on the news.

WHAT THE HELL IS IT ALL ABOUT???!!!

Before she died, I don't recall ever hearing this woman's name. And now, politicians and dignitaries are FALLING OVER THEMSELVES to HONOR this woman. FOR WHAT?

 

[Bonnie]

What? You can't make politcal statements at the memorial service for someone who helped shape American politics and the civil rights movement? Gosh, how insensitive of President Carter to mention a politically charged issue of great embarassment to Dubbyah.

ANd let's not forget Reverend Lowrey who took Dubbyuh to task for his disasterous foreign and domestic policies.

It was an appropriate venue, and I enjoyed watching Dubbyuh squirm.

So enlighten us as to how George Bush has stood in the way of civil rights? Boy he is a busy fella!!!

It was low class and hypocritical all the way

 

[no1tovote4]

They were falling all over themselves in a grab for the very limited power that she had. It was really sad to watch, as they pretended to honor but really attempted to steal honor from her by promoting their own bid to replace her.

Her body was barely cold and already there was a rush and grab that was embarrassing to watch.

 

[theHawk]

It was an appropriate venue, and I enjoyed watching Dubbyuh squirm.

Appropriate for a liberal, a venue at which Bush has no chance to counter such baseless accusations. An appropriate venue would be one which poeple on both sides can actualy debate the issue. But of course, we all know liberals never stand a chance in such venues, so they have to do it in a situation like this where their skewed opinions go unchanllenged and they can win brownie points with the blacks. Thankfully, most people can see through their bullshit. The black poeple I know are pissed off at the Dems for doing this.

 

[dilloduck]

Coretta and I did this--well Coretta and I did this--well when Coretta visited me I gave her this