*sigh* Which statement do you have a problem with then? Spell it out. 1. Arlington was the home of Robert E Lee and was confiscated by the US government even though it was legitimate civilian property. True. 2. Confederate veterans are not eligible for burial at Arlington. True. That's what the rules for interrment say. There is a Confederate section at Arlington that was created in 1900 by reinterring Confederate war dead from various cemeteries around Washington. But Confederate veterans were not eligible for regular burial at Arlington as Union veterans were. There were certain Confederate veterans who were "rehabilitated" and served in the Indian and Spanish American Wars in the US Army and were buried at Arlington, but as US soldiers, not Confederate soldiers. Anything else?
It's OK, though to slander all southernors: Fear of a Black President: How Health Care and Fear Don’t Mix… Jay Scott Confidential And one nut puts out a swastika and suddenly there's hatred in the air: The Trauma of Change: Healthcare Reform and the Angry American | Psychology Today And, of course, we conservatives could not possibly object to Government uncontrolled spending and intrusion into our lives. Surely there must be a more sinister reason: Health Care Debate Becomes Racial | News You Should Know | BET.com
YOU THINK THE DANG OL CENFEDEARATES DONT DESERVE A SPACE NEXT TO THE FILTHY YANKS? (i wasnt serious) although i guess i am slightly serious. confederate soldiers are ok in my book. i wasnt arguing with you i was arguing with the prejudiced policy.
Red, you get way,way,way too excited about semantics, and as SF pointed out, you do use it as a way to divert attention from the real argument. The comment in question was this: from wikipedia: Who cares if he didn't have his buttons cut off by the sargeant-at-arms and get escorted out of the chambers in shame? The effect was the same, and that's the point. The furor over the incident was such that he would have been rendered powerless and completely ineffective had he tried to remain in Congress, even if he wasn't actually "kicked out." And for a far less severe transgression than the one Ted Kennedy skated on.
Not semantics, but misrepresentation of the facts. Missing the point and misrepresenting my post. The objection was not to your quaint phrase "drummed out", we know what it means. The objection was your suggesting that he was dismissed for "tapping his foot" instead of resigning after pleading guilty to soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.
No Red. You are splitting hairs, semantically speaking. To anyone who knows the story, "tapping his feet" would suffice and (I did, certainly) infer that he was referring to the guy shopping for pickles. He did not need to spell it out and there was no intent to deceive. You just got your panties in a wad because the guy was a Republican.
Give me a break. Mac had said that Kennedy got off lightly over Chappaquidick because he was a democrat, using an example of a republican who lost his seat over "tapping his foot", suggesting that criminal republicans get worse treatment than criminal democrats. I called Bullchit on it.
You can call bullchit all you like; I really don't care. The facts say otherwise, if you're willing to admit that public opinion plays a factor in the argument. Republicans who transgress resign under intense public (read: media) pressure. Democrats fight tooth and nail to stay in office, and the public (read: media) pays mere lip service to holding them accountable.
