Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

OK Bob (subtitled, Bumper Sticker Politics)

Recommended Posts

OK Bob, while I do not necessarily agree with your interpretation of OGE's "rules" for that thread -- I think he just wanted to avoid outright name-calling, not substantive criticism of the policies of the opposing party -- I have started this thread because I know that you really want to respond to my response to your post. It's my thread, so I make the rules, right? My rule is that you have an engraved invitation to respond to this post and to say whatever else you would like to say. As Rocky said in response to Mr. T's character as their fight was about to start, "go for it."


So here's my post, verbatim:


BobWhite says:


My second problem is is that the democratic party does not like things that I like. They don't like Police Officers (two of my brothers are in law enforcement), they don't like scouting, they don't like the rich (by their standards that means anyone who makes over 40,000 and isn't a democrat), and they like the United Nations more than they like the United States.


Do not misunderstand I do not dislike a person if they are a democrat, I simply disagree with the ideology of the Democratic Party. They want people to depend on the government, and the want the people who don't depend on the government to take care of them.


Bob, most of what you say here is ridiculous. I think you are finally showing your true colors here, by spouting a Rush Limbaugh-like bumper-sticker version of politics that has little or no basis in reality. Let me take these things one by one.


What is your basis for saying that the Democratic Party does not like police officers? I don't think this is true at all. I do think that Democrats do tend to be a bit tougher on the few police officers who break the law themselves, and on the occasional police official who has used a police force as a tool for discrimination; but I don't see how you can argue with that. "Liking" police officers who do their jobs and enforce the law with fairness is not a partisan thing. Disliking police officers such as Mark Fuhrmann, who seem to think their job is to protect only their own racial group, should not be a partisan thing either.


I think the accusation that the Democratic Party does not "like" Scouting has been dealt with in your exchange with TwoCubDad, at least as far as the "booing" incident is concerned. He is correct. You cannot label a whole political party for what a few people do during a ceremony. On a more global basis, I think that a Democrat would have more of a tendency to oppose the BSA policy on gays, but that does not equate to "disliking" the BSA. Indeed, as I have argued a number of times, those of use within the BSA who oppose the policy are showing true support for the values of Scouting -- both because we want the BSA to abide by its own values, and because of the difficult choices that we have faced in remaining a part of the BSA despite the national leaders having taken the organization down a temporary wrong path that has caused a lot of damage to the organization and its image.


As for the "rich," I do think Democrats want the tax burden distributed more fairly than it will be as a result of G.W. Bush's plan. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people making more than $40,000 are "rich." That sounds like more bumper-sticker politics, Bob. Actually, these days when I hear people complaining about the "rich," it is mostly conservative pundits and talk-show hosts talking about "limousine liberals" or "elites." It is really laughable.


I don't know anyone in the Democratic Party who likes the U.N. more than the U.S. It's yet another bumper sticker. Wanting to have international support before invading Iraq does not mean one likes the U.N. more than the U.S. (And that wasn't a big issue for me personally; I thought the decision should be based on our own national interest vs. the possible loss of American life, not on what France or Canada said. And I think we should just go ahead there now and do what we have to do as quickly as possible, and not bother asking for aid from other countries that would obviously come with strings attached.) There may be some people in this county who still hold out a utopian vision of one world government, but I'd say most of those people are not Democrats, but rather are members of real left-wing parties. (If it sounds like I may have a more conservative view of foreign policy than most Democrats, that's because I do. I still think Bush has lied to the American people about Iraq, though.)


This business about the Democratic Party wanting people to depend on the government is another Limbaugh-ism. It isn't true. There are some problems in our society, and they need to be solved. In many cases, the official Republican response (though not that of many individual Republicans) is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Although I have to say that in the years since 1994 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (except for a few months in 2001), I did not notice the Republicans pass any bills to abolish these large social programs. To the contrary, they passed appropriations bills that continued most of these programs. If they had tried to abolish them, presumably the Democratic president would have vetoed these bills, but then what a great issue the Republicans would have had. Unless of course, the Republicans thought that most people actually don't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that the truly needy can get some assistance, which I believe is the case. And actually the one big welfare reform bill, that reduced the number of people on welfare, was actively pushed by the Democratic president. It would not have passed without him.


But we wouldn't want actual facts to get in the way of our bumper sticker slogans, would we?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ if I might.


I'm a democrat & none of Bob's post applies to me!




Thanks NJ.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's what's great about America. The right to disagree about the government. NJ we disagree about what is important to the different parties. Ed you and I just disagree...about everything.


NJ my experience through the lives of two police officers in my family have shown that Democratic politicians on a local basis cut law enforcement budgets when republican's seldom if ever do. That democratic judges care less about the wrong done the defendant and more about leniency toward the convicted. But that is my experience. Yours might be different but I cannot base my opinion on your experiences.


The Democrats as a party have shown remarkable distaste for the need for a military. It seems they don't mind having one as long as no one gets hurt and we don't break anything of somebody elses:). I don't think we should be the bully but I am very comfortable with being the kid on the playground that all the bullies are afraid of. The democratic party is afraid that in order to protect the society we have developed will take money that thier constituency should get for not working. Again My opinion and I'm welcome to it.


Mr. Clinton as the head of the democratic party made his dislike for the Boy Scouts public on more than one occasion, even to the point of refusing to speak at the BSA National Jamboree. The only President ever to do so. As an extra snub he offered to send an under-secretary of agriculture in his place. That added to the appalling behavior of the Democratic representatives at the national convention and the attacks on the BSA in large Democratic controled cities, easily leads one to evaluate that the party does not support the BSA program. I am not saying that individuals who vote democratic do not support the BSA just that the party does not.


If we were to take a scientific survey of the scouters who want to open the BSA membership to anyone, do you forcast that the political affiliations would be primarily Democrats or Republicans?


The Democratic party strikes me as "values determined by the majority rule" And I find that dangerous and lacking in a moral foundation.


Interestingly enough until the early 1980s I was a Democrat. Then I realized that all the horrible things the democrats said the republicans would do never happened. But the things the republicans warned about Demorats did.

The democrats want to help the poor and helpless, so did I then and I still do. I want to help them be productive, prosperous and healthy. The Democratic party has shown me they want the poor to stay poor but "kept" by the money they extract from those who work. They want the homeless registered to vote but not living in their neighboe hoods. When did the democratic party ever build a home for a homeless person. I know numerous builders, contractors and suppliers who make habitat for humanity possible through their donations of money, material and manpower and guess what? Everyone of them is a Republican.


I see the democratic party as one that wants to take my money and give to those they see as needing it. I see tha republican party as one that wants me to take my own money and use it to help those I choose to help. I know many scouters and I know the party choice of only a few. But all the scouters I know are concerned for the environment, feel it is important to help those in need, and all the other nice things that the democrats have claimed as their own. I can't believe I am the only Republican in the group.


For the most part I am sure we all want many of the same things. I just dislike the way the Democratic party wants to achieve it.


Regardless of the cliche you want to assign my opinion they are still my opinion and I am as welcome to them as you are to yours.


Bob White

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ed you and I just disagree...about everything."


Not true Bob. We agree on more than you think. What we don't agree on is your interpretation of a lot of the BSA rules & regs. And we agree we disagree.


I wouldn't consider Mr. Clinton a shining example of the Democratic party. Actually, his dislike for the BSA is probably a good thing.


Ed Mori


Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Is the thing about Clinton snubbing the Jamboree an urban legend of some sort? I'm finding info that conflicts with your statements.




Clinton inspires Scouts


By Warren Byrd

President Bill Clinton directed Boy Scouts attending the opening show of the 1997 National Jamboree at A.P. Hill on Wednesday to lead the country into the 21st century by continuing to do what they do best dedicating themselves to building better and stronger communities across the world and doing "good turns."


Clinton addressed an audience of more than 42,000 at the Jeb Stuart Arena , including nearly 34,000 Scouts from around the globe who ventured to the 14th National Jamboree. He thanked the U.S. armed forces for supporting the jamboree, and acknowledged the presence of Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Sheila Widnall and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jay L. Johnson and other armed forces leaders.


"To Maj. Gen. Dennis Malcor, the commander of the National Scout Jamboree Task Force, to all the scout leaders and to the men and women of the armed forces who are helping with this jamboree (more than 1,600), I am grateful to you for supporting these fine young Americans," said Clinton, who briefly mentioned his first experience with Cub Scouting as a youth in Hot Springs, Ark. "Its a great privilege for me to be here to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first National Scout Jamboree, a pleasure to serve you and an honor to serve as your honorary president.


"The Boy Scouts got their start in this country as the result of a good turn, Clinton said. "That one good turn set in motion millions and millions of other good turns over the years. The Boy Scouts of America, as much or more than any other organization in this country, have answered our call. The Boy Scouts committed, after the Presidents Service Summit, to provide 200 million hours of community service through the year 2000. I thank you for that commitment."


Clinton encouraged the Scouts to help spread good will in their local communities when they returned.


"Building communities and character are what the Boy Scouts have always been about," he said. "Today I ask all of you to help spread the word about doing good turns. All of you here, each in your own way, are future leaders of this country. When you return home from the jamboree, please encourage your classmates and your friends to join you in committing to community service. If every young person in America gives back to their community the way you do, just imagine what we could do, how many fewer problems we would have.


"So many times I have wished that every young person in America had a chance to be part of Scouting, and tonight I see why more clearly than ever. The next time you recite the Scout oath, I hope you will remember that its not just your fellow Scouts, your parents and the people you know well, but your whole nation that is counting on you. We need you to remain focused on the strong values you learned in Scouting, remember that character counts and service counts. We need you if were going to build our communities and bring our people together across all the lines divided. We need you if were going to lead our country into the 21st century. We need you if were going to have a country where every person can live our his or her dream."


Clinton closed his speech by challenging the Scouts to "help keep America good."


" I know you will (do that) throughout your lives. So thank you for what you do, thank you for what you are and thank you for what you will become."








And this also....




Re: Jamboree Article from the Washington Post

Paul Meyermann (Paul.Meyermann@UNI.EDU)

Thu, 31 Jul 1997 16:23:30 -0600


Below is a copy of an article from the Washington Post Web site

regarding the Presidents visit to the Jamboree. IMO The article sheds

a good light on scouting.




Scouts Swap High Praise With Clinton


By Justin Blum

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 31, 1997; Page D03

The Washington Post


FORT A.P. HILL, Va., July 30_Appearing before a cheering throng of

more than 30,000 Boy Scouts tonight at the National Jamboree,

President Clinton praised Scouting for pledging millions of hours of

community service.


During his 10-minute speech, Clinton drew on the jamboree's theme --

"Character Counts! Be Prepared for the 21st Century" -- and said

Scouting teaches values, particularly the importance of helping those

in need.


"We challenged all the adults in America to engage in citizen service,

another way of doing a good turn," Clinton said in his remarks to the

14th National Jamboree. "The Boy Scouts of America, as much or more

than any other organization in this country, has answered our call."


The jamboree, a quadrennial affair, brings together Boy Scouts from

across the country. They have gathered at this Army facility 80 miles

south of Washington for nine days of camping and activities such as

scuba diving, fishing, rappelling and biking.


Arkansas Scouts cheered loudly as Clinton recounted his experience as

a Cub Scout with Pack 1 at Ramble Elementary School in Hot Springs,

Ark. He spent several years in Scouting but dropped out after joining

his school band, Boy Scout officials said.


But Clinton received the most enthusiastic response from Scouts after

the speech, when he stepped off the stage and waded into the audience,

shaking hands. He walked away with a bounty of gifts -- patches,

scarves and pins -- offered by Scouts with outstretched arms in the

front row.


"It was probably one of the greatest moments of my life," said Clay

Champagne, 14, of St. Charles, Mo., nearly breathless after receiving

a presidential handshake. "His whole speech just made me realize we're

the future."


"I've always wanted to shake the hand of a president!" exclaimed Toby

Philpot, 15, of Pensacola, Fla. "It was just great, because I want to

be president when I grow up."


Clinton thanked the Boy Scouts for a promise made at an April

conference in Philadelphia to perform 200 million hours of community

service over a four-year-period. That translates into about an hour of

volunteering per month for each boy, Scouting officials said.


"Today I ask you to spread the word about doing a good turn," Clinton

said. "If every young person in America would give back to their

community the way you do, just imagine what we could do. Imagine how

many fewer problems we would have."


Scouting already requires volunteer work, but the Philadelphia pledge

was for service in addition to that already performed.


Presidents have attended jamborees over the years; Clinton missed the

last one because of a scheduling conflict. Like presidents before him,

Clinton was given the Scouts' Silver Buffalo Award for distinguished

service to youth and for serving as honorary president of Boy



The president arrived by helicopter at a massive outdoor arena as the

"Star Wars" theme echoed over an ocean of waving Scouts, Scout leaders

and family members. Scouts chanted, "We love you, Bill," while others

begged him to shake their hands.


Clinton singled out several Scouts for service projects and good

deeds, including one who organized efforts to bring meals to the



Scouts said that volunteerism was one of their most important

activities and that they were pleased the president highlighted their



"Helping people, you get a natural high," said Riley Wilhite, 15, of

San Marino, Calif., whose volunteer work has included feeding the

homeless and organizing government records. "You get a feeling that

you've accomplished something. I'm glad to see we're getting

recognized for that."


@CAPTION: President Clinton shakes hands with some of the more than

30,000 Boy Scouts at the National Jamboree. He came away with a hat

and other souvenir gifts.


c Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my state, unless you actually JOIN a party, you never have a real party affiliation. I like it that way. Keeps the possibilities open. I leaned your way, Bob White, until the Nixon era (for whom, I'm ashamed to say, I voted). I liked Ford and forgave his golf game, it was still better than mine. For all his faults, I also liked Jimmie Carter and I maintain that few presidents will attain his level of personal integrity. He, at least, hammers a nail once in a while for Habitat.


NJ likes to play off of Limbaugh so I will repeat one thing Rush is fond of saying that seems to recur, in spirit, in these threads: "It's all about money". You know, it really seems to be. In 1953 Eisenhour (LTHW) decided NOT to lower the top federal income tax rate of (as I remember) 90%. It was JFK (LTHW) who started the tax-lowering, economy-stimulating idea. It was a huge success. Vietnam didn't exactly cover either party with glory. But Tricky Dicky (LTTP) imploded and a couple of nice honest guys followed (Ford and Carter). We didn't. Then RR (LTTP) promised that he would turn the economy around, balance the budget, and begin to pay down the horrendous deficit that Carter had incurred (about $70 billion). I remember RR's spoken promise - to do this in a mere 5 years using the 'magic of the free market'. RR then cut taxes again and started spending like it was going out of style. The national debt doubled. The next time that any budget was balanced (actually in the black a little) was Bill Clinton (LTHW). We actually paid down a small amount of the debt. Now Dubya (LTTP) stands to add a $trillion or more to the existing debt (maybe a lot more).

This debt thing is interesting because Limbaugh explained that as well. If the gov't is not borrowing heavily, according to Rush, money is in great supply and interest rates tend to decline. This is bad for people who have invested heavily in bonds, good for homebuyers. If the gov't borrows heavily the money supply could become tighter and interest rates could increase (although not yet, the effect could be delayed if the economy stays weak). Homebuyers may suffer but bond holders will gain. Guess who gets the benefits of the big tax cuts that add to the debt? Mostly big bond owners, the people who loan the money to the gov't. They get lower taxes AND higher return on their wealth. NJ, I know this is really simplistic, it is after all, Limbaugh. But you have to give Rush a little credit, it's all about money.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know who snubbed who first, BSA or Clinton. One thing I do know is that Clintons signature is not on my sons Eagle certificate and I am glad.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly after Clinton took office in 1993, he failed to show up at the National Jamboree, located only 70 miles from the White House. The press at the time blamed the snub on Clinton's effort to please the homosexual lobby -- a major source of campaign donations.


The next jamboree was held in 1997, and this time Clinton attended.


"We are grateful. Please recognize that he did come. That's significant," said Shields.


Shields did not know if press reports in 1993 stating that Clinton was the first U.S. president to turn down an invitation to speak at the National Jamboree were accurate.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following are presidents that have attended National Jamborees


1937 - Franklin D. Roosevelt

1950 - Harry Truman

1960 - Dwight D. Eisenhower

1964 - Lyndon B. Johnson

1989 - George Bush

1997 - Bill Clinton


What is not known is how many were asked and did not or could not attend - such as 2001, when George Bush was unable to attend due to inclement weather on the night originally scheduled, and a schedule conflict on the resheduled night.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon didn't make it to the '73 Jambo that I attended. Seem to recall that he was busy that summer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's be fair with President Clinton instead of holding him to a different standard than every other President. Yeah, he was a scum bag in his personal life. I'm not defending him. President's are busy people and making a speech at a Jamoree isn't always the top thing on their agenda depending on what is going on in the world. You can assign all sorts of bad reasons to it when you don't like the person (like liberals claiming Bush lied us into a war), but give a President the benefit of the doubt. No one accused the other Presidents of "snubbing" the Boy Scouts. The "snub" is a matter of opinion based on politics. Let's apply the Scout oath all the way around.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also for what it's worth...


Ronald Reagan didn't make the Jamboree in 1985, but Nancy Reagan came in his place to speak to us... I think it was a health issue that kept him away, but I don't remember exactly.


And speaking as both a Democrat and as a former law enforcement officer, I'll have to agree with NJ that support for law enforcement is broadly non-partisan. The high-profile differences mainly seem to come up in arguments over constitutional issues such as racial profiling and due process for the accused, which might give ammunition for some bumper-sticker designers and talk show hosts, but doesn't really reflect a big split over "support" for law enforcement.


Personally, I like to think that we hold our law enforcement officers to a higher, stricter standard, but I know that's probably inviting yet another flame war... ;-)





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was recovering from an assasination attempt in 1981 and was undergoing intestinal sugery during the 1985 Jamboree. In 81 I believe he sent Bush,his VP, and in 85 Nancy appeared in his place. Pres.Clinton simply refused and offered only a low ranking member of the dept of Ag as a replacement. Instead the BSA invited Distinguished Eagle Scout William Gates, Director of the CIA. Throughout his administrative term both Clintons made negative remarks in regards to the scouting program.


Following the Monica Lewinsky embarrassment the BSA recieved thousands of requests from Eagle Scouts to have re-issued Eagle Certificates without President Clinton's signature on them.


The question was asked "who snubbed who first". When did the BSA snub the President? When did they snub the Democratic Party? This has been a very one way street.


Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...