<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: If It Were a Fundraiser, He&#8217;d Be There&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/</link>
	<description>When I wake up I read the Bible and the newspaper... because I want to know what both sides are up to.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36188</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36188</guid>
					<description>I stand corrected, Forrest.  My apologies, and thanks for the correction.

I get my leftists mixed up from time to time!  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stand corrected, Forrest.  My apologies, and thanks for the correction.</p>
<p>I get my leftists mixed up from time to time!  <img src='http://www.texasrainmaker.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: forrest</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36182</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36182</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Perhaps Judith could muster a “substantive topical comment” like your repeated “chicken hawks like you” drivel? If that constitutes a “substantive topical comment”, then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.&lt;/i&gt;

You've got the wrong person, Jonathan.  That would be Nate, from a different post.  Try reading things more closely in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Perhaps Judith could muster a “substantive topical comment” like your repeated “chicken hawks like you” drivel? If that constitutes a “substantive topical comment”, then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.</i></p>
<p>You&#8217;ve got the wrong person, Jonathan.  That would be Nate, from a different post.  Try reading things more closely in the future.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36179</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36179</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;And Judith, how about you contribute a substantive topical comment for once?&lt;/i&gt;

Perhaps Judith could muster a "substantive topical comment" like your repeated "chicken hawks like you" drivel?  If that constitutes a "substantive topical comment", then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>And Judith, how about you contribute a substantive topical comment for once?</i></p>
<p>Perhaps Judith could muster a &#8220;substantive topical comment&#8221; like your repeated &#8220;chicken hawks like you&#8221; drivel?  If that constitutes a &#8220;substantive topical comment&#8221;, then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SgtTaylor</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36158</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:36:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36158</guid>
					<description>Forest,

You are a typical intellectually dishonest Liberal idiot.


Where's Harry Reid at the nationally televised funeral?

President Bush has just given a beautiful eulogy for President Ford.

This is THE Funeral for President Ford.  Period.


Where's Harry Reid?  Where's Nancy Pelosi?  

CLASSLESS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forest,</p>
<p>You are a typical intellectually dishonest Liberal idiot.</p>
<p>Where&#8217;s Harry Reid at the nationally televised funeral?</p>
<p>President Bush has just given a beautiful eulogy for President Ford.</p>
<p>This is THE Funeral for President Ford.  Period.</p>
<p>Where&#8217;s Harry Reid?  Where&#8217;s Nancy Pelosi?  </p>
<p>CLASSLESS.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Old Soldier</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36115</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36115</guid>
					<description>Forrest, a state funeral especially for former presidents encompasses much more than a single ceremony.  It starts, &lt;a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/national/main621511.shtml" rel="nofollow"&gt;”Once the president officially announces the demise of a former commander-in-chief…”&lt;/a&gt; and it basically ends with interment.  Within the entire period there are many ceremonies, one which generally is acknowledged as the “official” state funeral.  &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funeral" rel="nofollow"&gt;“Upon the coffin's arrival at the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol a short service (the official "state funeral") is given with members of Congress present.”&lt;/a&gt;  

Yes, Bush missed the Rotunda ceremony for Reagan and Ford, yet delivered a eulogy for Reagan at the more public ceremony later.  Bush also plans to attend the ceremony tomorrow for Ford.  I would not expect a president or a congressman to spend the entire five or six days associated with a presidential state funeral attending all ceremonies.  Attending one or more ceremonies should be sufficient.  So what part of Ford’s five day state funeral will be graced by the incoming Senate Majority Leader?  If he doesn’t show, Jason’s post stands confirmed – with no hyprocisy.  Yet, I have no doubt that you will continue to fault Bush for “missing” the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt; for both Reagan and Ford.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forrest, a state funeral especially for former presidents encompasses much more than a single ceremony.  It starts, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/national/main621511.shtml" rel="nofollow">”Once the president officially announces the demise of a former commander-in-chief…”</a> and it basically ends with interment.  Within the entire period there are many ceremonies, one which generally is acknowledged as the “official” state funeral.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funeral" rel="nofollow">“Upon the coffin&#8217;s arrival at the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol a short service (the official &#8220;state funeral&#8221;) is given with members of Congress present.”</a>  </p>
<p>Yes, Bush missed the Rotunda ceremony for Reagan and Ford, yet delivered a eulogy for Reagan at the more public ceremony later.  Bush also plans to attend the ceremony tomorrow for Ford.  I would not expect a president or a congressman to spend the entire five or six days associated with a presidential state funeral attending all ceremonies.  Attending one or more ceremonies should be sufficient.  So what part of Ford’s five day state funeral will be graced by the incoming Senate Majority Leader?  If he doesn’t show, Jason’s post stands confirmed – with no hyprocisy.  Yet, I have no doubt that you will continue to fault Bush for “missing” the <b>state funeral</b> for both Reagan and Ford.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: forrest</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36110</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 08:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36110</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that… &lt;/i&gt;

I am sorry, John, but that is flat out incorrect.  Let me break it out for you since you seem to be having trouble doing so yourself.

1. Jason criticizes Reid for missing the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;.
&lt;blockquote&gt;You’d think something as rare and significant as a &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt; for a United States President would be important enough to attend… but incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided a vacation (isn’t that what you liberals call it when Bush is working in someplace other than Washington, D.C.?) to see some old ruins is more important.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
2. The &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8M9HHO80.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;occurred on Friday evening&lt;/a&gt; in the Capitol Rotunda.
&lt;blockquote&gt;The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
3. Bush missed the Friday service, which was the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;, in the Capitol.

Therein is the inconsistency.  Criticizing Reid for missing the state funeral while Bush missed the exact same state funeral is inconsistent.  

&lt;i&gt;What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.&lt;/i&gt;

I'm the one who can't understand the facts?  You aren't even reading the original post, in which Jason attacked Reid for missing the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;.  The state funeral is NOT the service that is occurring on Tuesday in the National Cathedral.  Maybe you ought to learn the difference between a state funeral and a private funeral before claiming I don't understand the facts, because in doing so, you have made yourself appear an idiot.

I really don't understand what is making this so difficult for you to grasp.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that… </i></p>
<p>I am sorry, John, but that is flat out incorrect.  Let me break it out for you since you seem to be having trouble doing so yourself.</p>
<p>1. Jason criticizes Reid for missing the <b>state funeral</b>.</p>
<blockquote><p>You’d think something as rare and significant as a <b>state funeral</b> for a United States President would be important enough to attend… but incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided a vacation (isn’t that what you liberals call it when Bush is working in someplace other than Washington, D.C.?) to see some old ruins is more important.</p></blockquote>
<p>2. The <b>state funeral</b> <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8M9HHO80.html" rel="nofollow">occurred on Friday evening</a> in the Capitol Rotunda.</p>
<blockquote><p>The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.</p></blockquote>
<p>3. Bush missed the Friday service, which was the <b>state funeral</b>, in the Capitol.</p>
<p>Therein is the inconsistency.  Criticizing Reid for missing the state funeral while Bush missed the exact same state funeral is inconsistent.  </p>
<p><i>What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;m the one who can&#8217;t understand the facts?  You aren&#8217;t even reading the original post, in which Jason attacked Reid for missing the <b>state funeral</b>.  The state funeral is NOT the service that is occurring on Tuesday in the National Cathedral.  Maybe you ought to learn the difference between a state funeral and a private funeral before claiming I don&#8217;t understand the facts, because in doing so, you have made yourself appear an idiot.</p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t understand what is making this so difficult for you to grasp.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Beldar</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36107</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36107</guid>
					<description>There are many, many, many things about Sen. Reid that deserve criticism, even condemnation.

This isn't very high on the list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are many, many, many things about Sen. Reid that deserve criticism, even condemnation.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t very high on the list.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Old Soldier</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36103</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36103</guid>
					<description>Wrong, again, Forrest.  You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that... From your ‘MyWay’ source &lt;a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061231/D8MBTLH00.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;comes this article which states:&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;i&gt;"Ford will lie in state for two more days before his &lt;b&gt;funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral on Tuesday&lt;/b&gt;...&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;”President Bush and his wife, Laura, on vacation in Texas, planned to view the casket upon their return to Washington on Monday. &lt;b&gt;Bush will deliver a eulogy at the cathedral service&lt;/b&gt;."&lt;/i&gt;

So when is Harry attending?

What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.

&lt;i&gt;”…I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency…”&lt;/i&gt;  The only thing you have “demonstrated” (in your own mind) is to bear out your arrogant insolence.  What I refused to discuss further was what I rendered in the form of an opinion.

Democratic congressmen, for whatever reason, bask in the limelight of “visiting with, entertaining” (or whatever you wish to call it today) foreign heads of state.  I do not recall the GOP congressmen doing the same in the same numbers and with such publicity.  That point is debatable – my opinion is not.

Now, shall we return to the topic of the post, or are we through in that subject as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wrong, again, Forrest.  You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that&#8230; From your ‘MyWay’ source <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061231/D8MBTLH00.html" rel="nofollow">comes this article which states:</a></p>
<p><i>&#8220;Ford will lie in state for two more days before his <b>funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral on Tuesday</b>&#8230;</i></p>
<p><i>”President Bush and his wife, Laura, on vacation in Texas, planned to view the casket upon their return to Washington on Monday. <b>Bush will deliver a eulogy at the cathedral service</b>.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>So when is Harry attending?</p>
<p>What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.</p>
<p><i>”…I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency…”</i>  The only thing you have “demonstrated” (in your own mind) is to bear out your arrogant insolence.  What I refused to discuss further was what I rendered in the form of an opinion.</p>
<p>Democratic congressmen, for whatever reason, bask in the limelight of “visiting with, entertaining” (or whatever you wish to call it today) foreign heads of state.  I do not recall the GOP congressmen doing the same in the same numbers and with such publicity.  That point is debatable – my opinion is not.</p>
<p>Now, shall we return to the topic of the post, or are we through in that subject as well?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: forrest</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36088</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 06:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36088</guid>
					<description>John, &lt;a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8M9HHO80.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;the state funeral for Ford WAS the Capitol service tonight&lt;/a&gt;.  

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;i&gt;The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Bush missed it, plain and simple.  So criticizing Reid for missing while not criticizing Bush, who I will point out once again was actually in the country, is terribly inconsistent.

I will grant that Reagan's state funeral actually occurred in the cathedral.  I was confused by the fact that the official state funeral for Ford was in the Capitol, while Reagan's was not.  However, my original point still stands: criticizing Reid for missing this while Bush missed it as well is pathetic.

&lt;i&gt;I guess since the Democrats have won a majority in the House foreign policy now is in the bailiwick of the legislature. My, how the responsibilities change depending upon which party holds the majority.&lt;/i&gt;

I understand that you don't want to discuss this now that I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency yet again with this particular issue, but its related directly to the topic of this post.  Jason criticized Reid for leading a Senate delegation of the sorts that Senate Republicans were a part of dozens of times.  If Bush can miss Ford's state funeral due to his official business in Crawford, why is it a problem for Reid to do the same?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8M9HHO80.html" rel="nofollow">the state funeral for Ford WAS the Capitol service tonight</a>.  </p>
<blockquote><p><i>The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Bush missed it, plain and simple.  So criticizing Reid for missing while not criticizing Bush, who I will point out once again was actually in the country, is terribly inconsistent.</p>
<p>I will grant that Reagan&#8217;s state funeral actually occurred in the cathedral.  I was confused by the fact that the official state funeral for Ford was in the Capitol, while Reagan&#8217;s was not.  However, my original point still stands: criticizing Reid for missing this while Bush missed it as well is pathetic.</p>
<p><i>I guess since the Democrats have won a majority in the House foreign policy now is in the bailiwick of the legislature. My, how the responsibilities change depending upon which party holds the majority.</i></p>
<p>I understand that you don&#8217;t want to discuss this now that I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency yet again with this particular issue, but its related directly to the topic of this post.  Jason criticized Reid for leading a Senate delegation of the sorts that Senate Republicans were a part of dozens of times.  If Bush can miss Ford&#8217;s state funeral due to his official business in Crawford, why is it a problem for Reid to do the same?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Old Soldier</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36085</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/12/28/if-it-were-a-fundraiser-hed-have-been-there/#comment-36085</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;”…Bush missed the service for Reagan in the Capitol.“&lt;/i&gt;

That’s just a wee bit different than, &lt;i&gt;”…W did NOT attend the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;.”&lt;/i&gt;  Those details are tricky things, aren’t they Forrest?  The point in fact is that President Bush &lt;b&gt;did&lt;/b&gt; attend Reagan’s state funeral and I expect he will Ford’s state funeral.  Will Reid?  Oh, yeah, I forgot; unchangeable schedules and all…  I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Ford was a Republican President who pardoned Nixon.  I’m sure old Harry has put all that behind him years ago…

TR’s post states, &lt;i&gt;”You’d think something as rare and significant as a &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt; for a United States President would be important enough to attend…”&lt;/i&gt; and I believe the quoted article states, &lt;i&gt;”Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;…”&lt;/i&gt;

So, you see, we are NOT criticizing Reid for the same thing that you accuse Bush of, because Bush did not miss Reagan’s &lt;b&gt;state funeral&lt;/b&gt;.  You’re not looking real good on this one, Forrest.  You might want to quit while you’re behind.

Regarding the Senate committee, I gave you an opinion that is not open for further discussion.  So, let's stick to the posted topic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>”…Bush missed the service for Reagan in the Capitol.“</i></p>
<p>That’s just a wee bit different than, <i>”…W did NOT attend the <b>state funeral</b>.”</i>  Those details are tricky things, aren’t they Forrest?  The point in fact is that President Bush <b>did</b> attend Reagan’s state funeral and I expect he will Ford’s state funeral.  Will Reid?  Oh, yeah, I forgot; unchangeable schedules and all…  I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Ford was a Republican President who pardoned Nixon.  I’m sure old Harry has put all that behind him years ago…</p>
<p>TR’s post states, <i>”You’d think something as rare and significant as a <b>state funeral</b> for a United States President would be important enough to attend…”</i> and I believe the quoted article states, <i>”Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the <b>state funeral</b>…”</i></p>
<p>So, you see, we are NOT criticizing Reid for the same thing that you accuse Bush of, because Bush did not miss Reagan’s <b>state funeral</b>.  You’re not looking real good on this one, Forrest.  You might want to quit while you’re behind.</p>
<p>Regarding the Senate committee, I gave you an opinion that is not open for further discussion.  So, let&#8217;s stick to the posted topic.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
