the limits of good taste

[corplinx]

I'm not sure if you guys caught this other day but the president laid a wreath at the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in honor of the coming holiday.

Outside, a protest swelled with people from various activist groups (including the Sierra club which mystified me).

Usually one doesn't get protested while laying flowers on someone's tomb, but for someone reason all these groups were coordinated by someone to attack that day.

Why? Plain and simple. Race politics. They couldn't let a republican president honor Dr. King in with dignity and grace. They have to show up and make a scene so that it will be "controversy erupted" on the evening news. By the time the news filters down to Joe Twelve-Pack, all he hears is Bush, Dr. King, and large protest. They are trying to keep the fire of racial politics going.

I am really disgusted by these groups for such an obvious ploy. And for the most part it worked on the news I saw. The most disgusting thing perhaps is the underlying assumption that minority voters are so easily decieved by these dirty tricks.

Let me say one thing, yes I would be offended if this crap got pulled on Clinton. If all the right-wing activist groups sent people to protest during Clinton presiding over Nixon's funeral it would be equally disgusting and tasteless. Is there no line anymore the democrat and republican parties won't cross to try to win? Usually these sorts of things were left to small cabals of dirty tricksters and were on smaller scale.

[clk]

The protests had nothing to do with race. People were protesting because King was a pacifist, while Bush is the opposite. King was against war, while Bush likes to use war as a first option.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk
The protests had nothing to do with race. People were protesting because King was a pacifist, while Bush is the opposite. King was against war, while Bush likes to use war as a first option.

Yes, thats why the Sierra club showed up. If you believe that, then I have a homeopathic IQ raiser you might be interested in.

This was all about making Bush look bad on race.

[TruthSeeker]

What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

Now there is the question!!! MLK was about encouraging dialogue and understanding between the races.... he was against segregation. I believe he would have disagreed with Bush on the war, but I believe he would have commended GW on his selection of Powell and Rice. (Clinton did not appoint any African Americans to positions of power, far as I can recollect). If MLK's spirit were able to speak, I think he would have silenced the protestors. That's the kind of man he was. And, let's not forget, Coretta Scott King stood by as GW laid the wreath down.

Was it just a photo-op for GW? No doubt in my mind that it was. The Prez don't visit Alabama much, does he? I think Dr. King would have had several disagreements with GW. But, I don't think he would have applauded any of our Presidents of late, Democratic or Republican, for their glowing victories in tearing down the walls of racism.....

Just my 3 cents. (Hey, I had an extra penny on me...)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

(Clinton did not appoint any African Americans to positions of power, far as I can recollect).

Ron Brown was about as high up the chain as it went. Some people accused clinton of appointing tokens in Elders/Brown/Espy but it was a case of something much simpler, cronyism.

They were all southern connections of his.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

Do we remember Martin Luther King for being a big anti-war pacifist or for being a nonviolent leader of the civil rights movement?

Methinks people are falling for the spin the protestors used.

[DavidJames]

"Methinks people are falling for the spin the protestors used"

Methinks you are performing you usual Bush apologist rumba

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


Race politics. They couldn't let a republican president honor Dr. King in with dignity and grace. They have to show up and make a scene so that it will be "controversy erupted" on the evening news. By the time the news filters down to Joe Twelve-Pack, all he hears is Bush, Dr. King, and large protest. They are trying to keep the fire of racial politics going.

Why do you conservatives like to come up with wacky conspiracy theories regarding things such as this? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. I haven't read all that much about the protests, but when I saw it on TV, I noticed that the protestors had anti war signs. If I were a follower of Dr. King, I would be pissed about Bush, too, since he does not use war as a last resort. That would make any pacifist angry. corplinx, did you notice that there are protestors everywhere that Bush goes? Why do you think that is? What are the hidden motives of these other protestors? Please enlighten us.

[peptoabysmal]

I don't imagine that Reverend King would have approved of anyone disturbing a memorial gesture. King probably had a lot more in common with Bush than any of the protestors.

Dr. King would not have approved of the violence in the war in Iraq, but he would have approved of removing Saddam from power. He would also not approve of Hamas violence or any other terrorists.

At least that's what John Edwards told me :p

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Methinks you are performing you usual Bush apologist rumba

Yep you got me. Meet me halfway and agree that you are an apologist for the distasteful protest.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk


Why do you conservatives like to come up with wacky conspiracy theories regarding things such as this? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much.

Well, I can't say I've heard the "sultan of vicodin" lately. It must be nice to make a pseudo-strawman portraying someone as a dittohead instead of taking on their arguements.

I admit my post was mostly speculation but it holds up just as well as to any other reason the protestors were there.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


it holds up just as well as to any other reason the protestors were there.

Really? What do you think is more likely: the protesters, who have been protesting the war from the beginning, are actually there because they want to start a controversy over race which will somehow cause "Joe Twelve-Pack" to have a bad impression of Bush, or that the war protesters are just protesting Bush's policies towards Iraq, and they find his tribute to MLK disgusting, since Bush is a war monger?

[Zero]

I'm going to ignore your interpretation of this specific issue, since it doesn't seem well thought out. Originally posted by corplinx


Let me say one thing, yes I would be offended if this crap got pulled on Clinton. If all the right-wing activist groups sent people to protest during Clinton presiding over Nixon's funeral it would be equally disgusting and tasteless. Is there no line anymore the democrat and republican parties won't cross to try to win? Usually these sorts of things were left to small cabals of dirty tricksters and were on smaller scale.

Well, if you think about it, the guys who pulled local dirty tricks have followed their candidates to the national level. Honestly, no matter who wins a single election, I think we are all losing when politics becomes about the act of politics itself.

[DavidJames]

"Meet me halfway and agree that you are an apologist for the distasteful protest"

lol, nayh nayh, you are to :rolleyes: Show me where I've said anything suggesting such an accusation. Hell, I'll settle for showing me where I've made any comment at all about the protest.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames

lol, nayh nayh, you are to :rolleyes:

Should I respond with "neener neener" and a rolleyes also? I was just making the point that calling someone an apologist is easy.

[shuize]

I agree with corplinx: Bad taste. If one feels the need to protest, do it before he visits the memorial. Or protest after he visits the memorial. But it looks pretty crappy to be protesting while the President of the United States is honoring a slain civil rights leader.

Of course, had Bush never visited the site, I think the very same protestors would bitch that he doesn't even care enough about civil rights to honor Dr. King properly.

[Cleon]

Corplinx, you're way off on this one.

Being in Atlanta, and being a fairly active Lefty in Atlanta, I was privy to a lot of the organizing that went on (such as it was--it was kinda pulled together in a few days).

It's not a matter of "spin." The fact is, King stressed nonviolence, and that's why the protestors were out there. I can't speak for the Sierra Club--neither of the local SC activists were part of the organizing as far as I know. (The Sierra Club has almost zero active presence in Atlanta; I think they just hired an organizer here recently.)

Race didn't play into it at all. The local civil rights leaders, who were very opposed to the Iraq war, were participating for the same anti-war reasons as the rest of the protestors, but the main organizers of the protest was the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, an anti-war group. There's no spin here, there really isn't. I know these people personally, and hell, for that matter I probably still have some of the planning emails in my inbox.

Another reason people were ticked--every year they have a memorial service at Ebenezer Baptist Church (literally, right next door). It's led by the MLK March Committee--mostly people who knew and worked with King personally, like Rev. James Orange, Coretta Scott King, and Rev. Joe Lowery. The SS came in trying to tell them they had to be out of the church by 2:00. Normally the service goes until 3:30-4:00. These people did not appreciate Bush, coming in uninvited, forcing them out of the church. Eventually a compromise was reached between the MLK Committee and the SS, but some feathers were seriously ruffled and they wound up having to lock down the church. Of course, many of those whose feathers were ruffled were the same civil rights activists who were anti-war to begin with.

As to those who say, "if Bush hadn't visited the site, people would still complain"--well, Bush didn't visit it last year, or the year before that, and people didn't raise a ruckus. When he did visit town a year or so ago for something completely unrelated, he didn't go near the MLK memorial and there were still a $h!tload of protestors. The reality is, the civil rights community isn't that fond of Bush, and had he never shown up they wouldn't have cared.

(Edited typo.)

[clk]

Hey corplinx, you never told us the hidden agendas of all the other protestors around the world. Do all of them have hidden agendas, or just the black ones?

shuize, you may very well be right. But this debate isn't about whether the protest was tasteful or not. This debate is about the reason for the protests.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleon
As to those who say, "if Bush hadn't visited the site, people would still complain"--well, Bush didn't visit it last year, or the year before that, and people didn't raise a ruckus.

Of course not. It wasn't an election year. Duh.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk
Hey corplinx, you never told us the hidden agendas of all the other protestors around the world. Do all of them have hidden agendas, or just the black ones?


I would suggest you apologize for that.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleon
Corplinx, you're way off on this one.

Being in Atlanta, and being a fairly active Lefty in Atlanta, I was privy to a lot of the organizing that went on (such as it was--it was kinda pulled together in a few days).


Alright I was wrong about it being a political dirty trick. It smelled so rotten it was the only thing I could think of. I guess nobody just thought it might be in poor taste.......

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx


Alright I was wrong about it being a political dirty trick. It smelled so rotten it was the only thing I could think of. I guess nobody just thought it might be in poor taste.......

Well, you know, maybe you should stop LOOKING for devious eeeevil Leftist conspiracies. Otherwise, you'll wind up finding them in places where they really don't exist. Case in point.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


I would suggest you apologize for that.

Apologize for what?

[DavidJames]

"Should I respond with "neener neener" and a rolleyes also? I was just making the point that calling someone an apologist is easy."

Give it up. You make it easy to call you an apologist, when you consistently crawl into Bush's lap to defend him. You called me one without one shred of a reason. Hence, my "you are to" sarcastic comment to your childish response, zoom right over your head...

Your pathetic attempt to ridicule the demonstrators lays bare your blind bias to Bush. MLK was a pacifist who cherished nonviolence which makes the protesters point valid and germane, a fact which you either didn't know or chose to ignore.

I look forward to reading your next Bush campaign post

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Give it up. You make it easy to call you an apologist, when you consistently crawl into Bush's lap to defend him. You called me one without one shred of a reason. Hence, my "you are to" sarcastic comment to your childish response, zoom right over your head...

Your pathetic attempt to ridicule the demonstrators lays bare your blind bias to Bush. MLK was a pacifist who cherished nonviolence which makes the protesters point valid and germane, a fact which you either didn't know or chose to ignore.

I look forward to reading your next Bush campaign post

I'll ignore the Bush apologist ad hominem attack.

These people wouldn't be protesting Clinton putting a wreath on the tomb even though he struck Iraq, Afhghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, almost Rwanda, and he only pulled out of Somalia after a politically devastating incident.

I think Martin Luther King Jr. being a xian preacher probably would have no reservation about being honored by the imperfect. Its the protestors who have lost sight of who he was.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


These people wouldn't be protesting Clinton putting a wreath on the tomb even though he struck Iraq, Afhghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, almost Rwanda, and he only pulled out of Somalia after a politically devastating incident.



How do you know? You have not provided any evidence that suggests that their protests were completely politically motivated.

On a side note, one day after Bush visited King's grave, he nominated Charles Pickering, a man with a highly questionable record on Civil Rights, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk

On a side note, one day after Bush visited King's grave, he nominated Charles Pickering, a man with a highly questionable record on Civil Rights, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Highly Questionable" is how creationists describe evolution. So if partisans say his civil rights record is questionale does that mean it is? Most arguements I have seen are based on his article from the 50s and him helping get a lesser sentence for a cross burner. They tend however to disclude the rest of his record and focus on those two things which have perfectly reasonable explanations.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx

These people wouldn't be protesting Clinton putting a wreath on the tomb even though he struck Iraq, Afhghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, almost Rwanda, and he only pulled out of Somalia after a politically devastating incident.


Oh, for crying out loud, corplinx, would you PLEASE stop blabbering about things you're completely ignorant of? Stop yakking about what you think these people would do in other situations--because, frankly, you have no idea and you base your opinion of what they would do SOLELY on what you WANT them to do--because it would justify your preconceived notions of their "ulterior motives."

Again, speaking as someone who DOES know, yes, these people would protest Clinton--in fact, many of them did protest Clinton's military actions.


I think Martin Luther King Jr. being a xian preacher probably would have no reservation about being honored by the imperfect. Its the protestors who have lost sight of who he was.

Oh, please, this is pointless hyperbole. As I've pointed out, many of these protestors knew King personally--and I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb by assuming you and Dubya didn't.

What you're trying to do is incredibly transparent; you want to have a negative view of the protestors out of your sympathy for Bush. And you are reaching incredibly far to find something--anything--about the situation that says something negative about the protestors and positive about Bush.

The reality is--King preached nonviolence, and George "Bring 'em On" Bush preaches violence. None of your hyperbole about "the protestors have lost sight of who he was" changes that. Not even an iota.

From the protestors'--and my own--point of view, having a President who lied* in order to push the country to an unnecessary war swoop in uninvited for a quick photo-op with a wreath before immediately heading off to a fund-raising dinner is nothing short of appalling, and deserves to be protested.

Your own dishonesty in this matter--trying everything possible to find some "ulterior motives" of the protestors--is similarly shameful, but at least you've admitted that you were in error (and admitted to trying to fabricate said ulterior motives).

This sort of crap is above you, Corplinx, frankly I'm shocked. Normally even when I disagree with you I at least have some respect for your honesty. But this crap is just sickening.

(* And don't give me that crap about "he didn't lie! You can't prove he lied!" He lied. Saying otherwise is like claiming that Clinton didn't lie about "having sexual relations" just because he didn't technically put his hoo-hoo in Monica's cha-cha.)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleon


This sort of crap is above you, Corplinx, frankly I'm shocked. Normally even when I disagree with you I at least have some respect for your honesty. But this crap is just sickening.


Who should be ashamed are the protestors. I was wrong in my speculation that they were organized to make Bush look worse on race. But I still think the protest was disgusting. I am not apologizing for Bush or his war. I am saying the protest was tasteless and thats just my opinion.

I think apologizing for the protestors by saying Bush has launched two wars is just excusing bad taste.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleon

many of these protestors knew King personally

Funny, the crowd I saw on the news didn't look very old. Coretta Scott King was at the wreath laying. Did she know King?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Cleon
...
Another reason people were ticked--every year they have a memorial service at Ebenezer Baptist Church (literally, right next door). It's led by the MLK March Committee--mostly people who knew and worked with King personally, like Rev. James Orange, Coretta Scott King, and Rev. Joe Lowery. The SS came in trying to tell them they had to be out of the church by 2:00. Normally the service goes until 3:30-4:00. These people did not appreciate Bush, coming in uninvited, forcing them out of the church. Eventually a compromise was reached between the MLK Committee and the SS, but some feathers were seriously ruffled and they wound up having to lock down the church. Of course, many of those whose feathers were ruffled were the same civil rights activists who were anti-war to begin with.



Could you PLEASE refrain from using "SS" for "Secret Service" or I'm starting to get all paranoid over here :D

Zee

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx

Who should be ashamed are the protestors.

And you've yet to give even a single remotely legitimate reason as to why.


I think apologizing for the protestors by saying Bush has launched two wars is just excusing bad taste.

The only reason you think the protestors showed "bad taste" is because you happen to disagree with them and agree with Bush. Otherwise, you'd be pointing out that laying a wreath as a photo-op then scurrying off to a fund-raiser is in "bad taste." There is no reason whatsoever Bush shouldn't have been "greeted" when he pulled off this BS.

[shuize]

I disagreed with the protestors and also think their actions were in bad taste.

As I stated above, they could have paused long enough to let the President of the United States honor Dr. King. PR stunt or not.

I would say the same thing if the parties were reversed. PR stunt or not.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cleon


And you've yet to give even a single remotely legitimate reason as to why.





dude, the man went to honor a man of love and peace and people were quite rude and interruptive. They could have protested at the airport or along the streets involved during the drive. But at the place of honoring the man?

Hey, go piss on MLK's grave. That'll show Bush for honoring a guy while you despise him.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
dude, the man went to honor a man of love and peace and people were quite rude and interruptive. They could have protested at the airport or along the streets involved during the drive. But at the place of honoring the man?
Many of those people have been honoring King year after year, but in 2004, for the first time, Bush has the Secret Service (better, Zee?) push them out of the church so he can have a cheap photo op of him laying a wreath on the grave of a man whose works he has done nothing to honor. It is a cheap, election year stunt and is beneath contempt.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Troll


dude, the man went to honor a man of love and peace and people were quite rude and interruptive.



Dude, he stopped by for a photo op. Then he zipped off to a fundraiser. There was no "honor" here. And yeah, pardon the protestors for being "rude an interruptive" to a guy who spits on King's principles for most of his term, then has the brass cojones to come by to give him lip service.

Let's take a more extreme example--if David Duke came by to lay a wreath, do you not think there would be a protest of people being "rude and interruptive?"

Whether you agree with them or not, to the protestors involved Bush is to nonviolence as Duke is to anti-racism.



They could have protested at the airport or along the streets involved during the drive. But at the place of honoring the man?


It was actually fortunate they were able to get as close as they were. The SS would not permit them to protest along the drive route, and protesting at the airport is a strict no-no (especially since 9-11).

Why shouldn't they protest the President at the location involved? It is a public thoroughfare, and the fact of the matter his presence there was hypocracy at its finest.



Hey, go piss on MLK's grave. That'll show Bush for honoring a guy while you despise him.

Are you really saying that the protestors--who were there in support of King's principles of non-violence--were doing the equivalent of pissing on MLK's grave? Even King's friends?

You're proving my point here. You're accusing me of "despising" MLK--for no reason whatsoever, really. It's a complete non-sequitir, out of anger I assume. You disagree with the protestors, you're actively looking for reasons to be angry with them, and because they dared to protest your glorious leader you're saying they're anti-MLK. It's absolutely and totally ridiculous, but it makes you feel better about being pro-Bush.

[gnome]

Corplinx: What was your opinion of the controversy surrounding President Clinton's speech at the Vietnam Memorial, on Memorial Day in 1993?

[Skeptic]

Of course, if the president DOES lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of being a "hypocrite". If he DOESN'T lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of "not caring".

Ah well, you can't win with some people...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, if the president DOES lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of being a "hypocrite". If he DOESN'T lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of "not caring".

Ah well, you can't win with some people...

One could win by actually supporting MLK's ideals, instead of just making a symbolic gesture?

[metropolis_part_one]

Originally posted by Cleon


Dude, he stopped by for a photo op. Then he zipped off to a fundraiser. There was no "honor" here. And yeah, pardon the protestors for being "rude an interruptive" to a guy who spits on King's principles for most of his term, then has the brass cojones to come by to give him lip service.

Let's take a more extreme example--if David Duke came by to lay a wreath, do you not think there would be a protest of people being "rude and interruptive?"

Whether you agree with them or not, to the protestors involved Bush is to nonviolence as Duke is to anti-racism.



It was actually fortunate they were able to get as close as they were. The SS would not permit them to protest along the drive route, and protesting at the airport is a strict no-no (especially since 9-11).

Why shouldn't they protest the President at the location involved? It is a public thoroughfare, and the fact of the matter his presence there was hypocracy at its finest.



Are you really saying that the protestors--who were there in support of King's principles of non-violence--were doing the equivalent of pissing on MLK's grave? Even King's friends?

You're proving my point here. You're accusing me of "despising" MLK--for no reason whatsoever, really. It's a complete non-sequitir, out of anger I assume. You disagree with the protestors, you're actively looking for reasons to be angry with them, and because they dared to protest your glorious leader you're saying they're anti-MLK. It's absolutely and totally ridiculous, but it makes you feel better about being pro-Bush.

You misunderstand.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, if the president DOES lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of being a "hypocrite". If he DOESN'T lay a wreath on MLK's grave, he is accused of "not caring".

Ah well, you can't win with some people...

Yet another gem from the "if the situation was different..." department.

Question: Do you have any evidence at all that the protestors involved condemned Bush--or any other President for that matter--when he didn't lay a wreath? See, Bush didn't do it last year. Or the year before. Or the year before that. To my knowledge, Clinton never did, either. (Could be wrong on that one.)

Since the situation you postulate--that of the President not laying a wreath on MLK's birthday--has indeed occurred before, your theory--that the protestors would complain he "didn't care"--should surely have come to pass at least once.

Unless, of course, your post was just pointless hyperbole that had no other purpose than to bash Bush protestors simply because you don't agree with them.