After Jimmy Carter finished speaking at the Coretta King funeral he failed to shake the hand of president Bush. He managed to shake the hands of others.

I remember President Carter requested to be one of the five official representatives at the Pope's funeral and it didn't come about. The Vatican set the number of invitations at five. Bush 43 chose his wife Laura, Bush 41, Clinton and Sec. Rice. That sounds about right. I wonder if the two events are connected?

That's only four out of five allowed. Must have been a fifth one.

Anyway, Carter is a vain, arrogant, and petty little person, who holds grudges. And he likes to have others think that he is a "good" Christian. I'll let you decide what type of person he Really is.

Carter has more going for him in his little finger then John ever will with his whole life. I sure don't see John volunteering to go off and monitor elections or build houses for the poor.

Talk about vain and petty!

Plus 43 makes five.

I woulda punched the dumb old hippy in the teeth.

A Carter Opine.

Sadly, I actually voted for him in the day, using the illogical fallacies of thinking a change would make America better, post Nixon / Puppet man Ford.

As proven I was sadly misguided in that his Domestic and International accomplishments and legacy is self evident that to change for change’s sake, does not always lead one down the path to a better present or future. Hey!

Nevertheless, having aladed my Carter voting shame open for all. I would opine that Jimmy Carter with his indisputable impotency and inadequacies as a man, a President and as a leader of men and a nation, was indisputably the nexus that watered and provided the nutrients for the seeds of today's Islamo Fascism.

When, in his day, he cowtowed to it’s initial seeds that where planted and nurtured by a lack of response visa v the US and world when the Islamic fanatics took over of the US Embassy in Tehran during the 1970’s.

Like today, if countries are not confronted when they allow other nation’s embassies and personnel to be attacked and destroyed, it results, in likewise assumed impotency exampled by that of Carter and Democratic controled Congress of that era.

As then if Today we respond as impo-Carter did, we, in fact, nurture further these seeds of emboldened anarchy, providing more fuel to today’s deadly intended fires of Islamic- Fascism.

P.S. Today, I purchase 3 (DAK) Danish Crown ham's, some Danish Cheese and suggested to a friend they should buy Danish porcelain as they were looking for some any way. Walking the walk and not just talking the talk. hey!

Gosh,; gee whiz; boy howdy; and wowzer, usatrader - maybe it's not just the tortured syntax of your posts that confuses me; it's also the spelling.

"It's" is only a contraction for 'it is.' The possessive pronoun is 'its.'

If you want to impress people with Latin phrases, it's not "visa v." I think it's "vis a vis." In fact, maybe that's French. A visa is a travel document.

"Aladed"? Maybe it's alluded to, or elated to, or laid out, or elucidated. I dunno. When you pride yourself on using fancy verbiage, you need to get it right.

'were' is not spelled 'where'

Many words inside the sentences are incorrectly capitalized.

Tortured syntax such as "...and destroyed, it results, in likewise assumed impotency exampled by that of Carter..." loses your audience.

I'm being pedantic in order to help you communicate, usatrader. As it stands, your post is nearly incomprehensible; like a rambling drunk or insane man. You can do better, I'm sure. Is English your second language? I'd be glad to tutor you.

Back on topic: Carter was ineffective as president for many reasons, including:

1) Inadequate preparation as governor of Georgia.
2) He didn't know enough people at the national level to appoint to the cabinet and sub-cabinet posts, nor did his advisors.
3) Morals. His Christian morals, and his intention to follow Christ as Lord, were too strong for being a harsh president.

The only president since world war two who was less prepared as governor, and who didn't know enough people at the national level, would be our current dummy in the White House, who has no Christian morals and doesn't follow Christ as Lord.

I doubt that Carter would have intentionally snubbed GWBush by not shaking hands. He was looking frail a long time ago, but he still keeps on trying to do justice. Does anybody have a direct link to an undoctored video of the event at the funeral?

Seriously, usatrader, if you're trying to communicate, try a little harder to lighten up on the flowery sentences that are mangled.

Carter has Olds Timers. He's an embarrassment to himself and doesn't even realize it. What else can he do to further create disgust than he did during his insipid and cowardly presidency? He's piling manure ontop of manure.

Martin Luther King wouldn't have disagreed with what Carter and Rev Lowery said I'd bet.

First, you are still young and both Carter and the Rev lowery are old hands at life. They are supposed to KNOW that there is a time and place for just about everything. And in the middle of a funeral is NOT one of those times.

Now, whether or not you believe it, the WMD issue is not settled. When, and I am certain of this, when the WMDs(VX) are located, this will not make the Rev Lowery look very high in stature. He should know when to keep his mouth shut.

As for the Right Reverend Jimmy Carter, this does not surprise me at all. As I stated, he is one petty and vindictive little old man. Actually, I would love to see him live to be over 100, so he can see all his friends, what few there are, leave him behind. And I also wish him a long life, so he can have more time to enjoy his petty and vindictive existence.

I think Ski is saying, John, that MLK would have joined in with the rest of the Dems about WMDs and would have condemned this war along with the rest of the crowd. And, that he would have said it at a funeral if he thought it would make his points. He, of course, wouldn't have said it at his wife's funeral, though.

MLK wasn't a saint. He used peaceful means to protest, but wasn't a saint which I'm sure you will agree. Of the two, I think Coretta was the better person.

King would also be considered a traitor or enemy by this administration I would bet.

Perhaps you can point us to anyone of this administration who has labeled other dissenting voices "traitors". I can't remember any.

Is "dishonest and reprehensible" OK to use then, John?

I think that that is better. Trator is strong language, if true. Or even is NOT true, that is grounds for talking through "seconds", in my opinion.

But keep in mind, that what the Stupid Republicans have done is small fish compared to the Jackasses and their stooges. And I am not touting any one party, as I really have no fish to fry here.

I am not party driven.

So are you implying I don't know what I'm talking about at 46 years old?

Sorry 'bout that. I somehow thought you were in your twenties.

Anyway, my point still stands. Those two should know better than contaminate a funeral and act the way they did.

Do you not agree that their words were tasteless?

I am getting a true sense you are a sighted man, who claims he can not see. A hearing man who claims he can not hear. A comprehending man who claims he can not comprehend. A failed man who is thinks he has succeeded.

I am also realizing that you, as most teachers, are unaware of the psychological relationship between a person with pedantic tendencies of assumed intellectual exhibitionism and those tendency’s underlying psychological nexus with ones anal retentive personality.

A relationship clearly exampled by you of late in the nature of these narrowly defined oafishly trite pedestrian views of persons and positions contrary to your self assumed righteousness.

Examples that encompasse a pretentiously stodgy, obsessive and indeed pompously Victorian obtuse like posturing most reflective of the era rooted in Freud’s discovery of the existence of the anal retentive personality.

Is it better to communicate imperfectly as you exhibit I do? Or as you, with this pompous condescending aspirants tritely baited in obsessive claims to neither hearing, seeing or comprehending anything. Yet clearly retorting comprehensively to all presented topics, meanings and intent, as a person who does see, can hear and indeed comprehends.

(As I assume would a Graduate of the Ted Kennedy School of obliterate obtuseness)



What is odd about the above commentary is that, in essence, you comprehend all of what I said, grasp my subject and intent, then agreed with it and even added to its veracity. Is that not compehension fully exampled regardless of your personal pedantry problems?

Therefore, it is clear to me I communicated all that I needed for a comprehended response. The rest of it is but triteness centered around your personal issues with this pedantry affliction as we see is so common among the narrow confines of academia and educators in particular. Both of which have provided in their efforts of output and product, self evidently, sub par pupils for many years now.

Now we have and or are headed towards academic accountability. Next we rid this world of this tenured disease that lets the infected virus of the tenured do nothings continue to seek more hosts of captured, imprisoned and controlled pupils to intellectually infect and idelogically delute.

One does not need perfect grammar to communicate and if it happens to be a necessity, the going rate for a trained English educated secretary is cheap and very affordable I assure you. As I am sure you well aware if you are teaching English in Thailand.


P.S talking the talk but walking the walk as well.

I recieved, from then President Jimmy Carter, in the 1970's, one of I believe but 700 national awards given to Vietnam Veterans for outstanding community achievment. I am ashamed to have it on my wall now and will return it personally to Jimmy Carter and or his representives at my earilest convienence.

Don't know what in his water he's drinking, but Fit is really on a tear with you and has gone full tilt. And, all over...........syntax, grammar, spelling, etc. Who wudda guessed? I guess this is a safer topic than previous ones, and one he can really let go on.

I used to rant at usatrader's posts because they just rambled on and on, making so little sense that it surely isn't worth the trouble to untangle. Then I thought it was just foolish to use all those fancy words in sentences that were grammatically incorrect, bad spelling, punctuation, etc. Whom was usatrader trying to impress?

Yeah, usatrader, I understand the original post, and I gleaned a few things out of your post, once I'd spent an hour analyzing it. Yeah, maybe it was petty of me, but this forum surely has no restrictions on pettiness. And I was acting 'anal retentive' as part of the act. Your reply only proved my points, I'm afraid, although maybe you learned your lesson partially, since the first half of your last post was fairly decipherable. The last part of the post just crumbled into abstuse and obtuse fracturization of homogenized apparitions of apparent appearances of apes aching for ambrosia.

Believe it or not, usatrader, most of your posts are so close to 'gibberish' that most readers would just pass right over them. And believe it or not (can we have a new acronym, BIOT?), I thought I'd help you improve your writing. Hey, two years as a teacher of beginning English can make a person very pedantic. Also, before retiring from the U.S. government with special awards, I spent three years replying to U.S. Congressmen. Talk about writing everything perfectly, and having it reviewed by six reviewers!!

But comprehension of a message is cumulative: the more you misspell, use sentence fragments, long sentences, poor grammar, and obfuscate by using inappropriately rare terms, you don't communicate.

Oh, Jimmy Carter. Where's the URL of him snubbing the President?

Hmmm! Who is the more antediluvian and idiotic, my alleged tangled incomprehensible posts that you say do NOT COMMUNICATE but to which you communicate back point by point. Or you, my good Sir, for taking an Hour, a minute or even a second in reading them, if that is your opine and view and not just a trolling baiting ploy disguised in disagreement?

I thing you are somewhat lifelessly disingenuous about all this especially if you take the time to read my post and respond point to point. Most especially evident, if they are, as you say, tangled gibberish that ALL, in fact, past over as they DO NOT COMMUNICATE as such!

Likewise, I have obviously IMPRESSED YOU! Apparently obsessively so. hey!



Proving my point, it is cheap and easy to find someone else be communicatively correct in syntax and grammar if there is a necessity for such minutia of perfection that is required.

I am well versed in the pedantic capabilities and responsive inability of policy driven Congressional Response Units that are omnipresent all throughout Federal agencies.

They exist clearly FOR SOMEONE ELSE communicative purpose, as a secretary would, in responding to Congressional Inquiries or complaints often relayed via a legislative representative for an unsatisfied constituent. Which are, more often than not, obsessively correctly written, yet, more than often, topically unresponsively, leaving the original constituent as unsatisfied as they were before going through their Legislative representative and the Congressional Response Unit.

I would not be so proud of that thankless task but it well examples your obsessions over my paltry sayings and thoughts that it would seem would better serve you if you ignored them all together.



Hmmm! You admit you understood all I said while I say you obsessed over how I said it. Which lead me to examine the absolution within your view of what is and what is not communications.

Communicate”

To impart to another or others, to give to another, to make known. ( You Know of and respond to all of which I write about, therefore, I impart, communicate, my thoughts despite your pedant obsessions to the contrary.)

Communicate" means the act of expressing, imparting or conveying information or impressions from one person to another, by either oral or written means. ( Again, You Know that which I convey and respond to it point to point, therefore, I convey ,in communication, my thoughts, despite your pedant obsessions to the contrary)


transmit information ; transmit thoughts or feelings; ( Again, I transmit, communicate, information and thoughts you respond to point to point, therefore, I transmit ,in communication, my thoughts, despite your pedant obsessions to the contrary.)

Freedom to speak. Freedom to listen, Freedom to not speak and or not listen. Hey, my Pedantic friend!!





P.S I do not need a URL to opine that Jimmy Carter was a p i s s ant, impotent, do nothing failure as a President, who does not have the credibity nor ability of accomplihment to tell any other President what to do or not to do at any time or at any place!

It was reported on the radio KFBK Tom Sullivan. Sullivan reported Bush 43 shook Carter's hand after the president had finished speaking but Carter failed to reciprocate when he had finsihed. Carter and his wife were seated just behind the president and his wife. Carter walked right past him and sat down after having shakened the hands of others. It's unfortuante the major news networks did not pick up on it.

CNN is doing an edited rerun of the funeral Sunday night Feb. 12 I believe. You can look for it then.

As I stated earlier, he is a very petty, and arrogant little man. He reminds me of what many in the intelligencia label a Southern Baptist. What a shame, as most Southern Baptists are nothing like this little, little man. He is truely a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

Perhaps they should parade him out in public more often.

I ordered a Mustafa Shag doll as a gift for Thaiquilla to show my support for free speech. MARK


From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims
have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a
blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."

Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not
yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa
Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there
was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's
leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find
Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they
were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim
Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults
the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn12.html

Did he give you his address? He won't give it to me, and I am his best friend on the net. Somehow, I am hurt over this.

While I don't know what MLK would have said, it is possible to extrapolate his position from some of his well-known speeches. For example, is affirmative action a case where a man is judged by the content of his character or the color of his skin?
Clearly, it is only based on skin tone. Therefore, I feel safe saying that MLK would disagree with a major tenet of the liberals of today.

Also, he was a human being. From that, I think it's safe to say he wouldn't want his wife's funeral to be turned into what it was: another podium for modern-day politics, and less about who Mrs. King was. I know that I wouldn't want that for my wife or myself. I know that isn’t a logical argument; it is only based on my opinion/experience, but there it is.

Basically, Carter had no common decency. Bush, on the other hand, was the bigger man, and didn't become spiteful. I think it is clear who has the better character. I'm talking about political ideology, but personal decency and respect for others.

I'm going to agree with SoloNav (!!) that Carter's simply gettting very senile. I haven't heard that he mis-used Mrs. King's funeral to bash the war on Iraq (did he?). I agree that the reverends' speeches, as reported by the mass media, were an abuse of the occasion.

Other than getting senile, Carter has always had far more 'common decency' than Bush the younger, and even more than Bush the elder.

Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican...

So is McCain.

The Bush administration doesn't consider John McCain to be a traitor to the United States, I don't believe.

Ben, where is this thing about McCain being considered a traitor? Perhaps I did not go back far enough, but I don't see this.