Jump to content
fgoodwin

Boy Scouts at the 2000 Democratic Convention

Recommended Posts

If the band-aids were not mocking the purple heart, why was it that the RNC frantically retrieved all the band-aids after someone told them it was a slap in the face of veterans? Seems to me there is plenty of bad behaviour on both sides of the aisle to go around. I know my dad who was a veteran of Korea was insulted. Shameless slur on the greatest sacrifice an American can give to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with either action conducted.

 

But would I "possibly" insult a veteran or DEFINITELY insult Old Glory; the symbol of freedom and the symbol of the Greatest Nation on the face of the Earth??

 

I DON't want to insult any person who has put their life on the line for this great nation, but I ABSOLUTELY cannot stand people who insult Old Glory. People that do that drive me NUTS! And if I remember, I'm going to confront two teammates soon about respect and what it means and maybe at the age of 17 they could learn to respect the American Flag and shut up during the National Athem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GB,

 

I can tell that youre a liberal. Not because you found a story that might make the RNC look bad, but because of the masterfully way in which you twist reality to fit your needs. Does anyone else outside of GB, seriously believe those band aides were intended to be used as a symbol to mock Purple Heart recipients? Who was mocked John Kerry or American veterans who deservingly received a Purple Heart? Conversely, can there be any mistake as to who was being booed as they stood on stage to present the flag a stage which Democratic representatives offered up to the BSA. Clearly the BSA, and some of their young Scouts, were exploited and abused by the DNC for political purposes. These two events cannot be compared with a straight face...not unless you swallow the Kool-Aid of liberal politics - no such thing as a lie too big - which has become the staple of the DNC.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about Politics, Partisanship and Perception. And in the age of instant media and short attention spans stories like this get an instant boost, people make up their minds right away, then never let further reporting get in the way of their already determined opinions.

 

Were a group of Boy Scouts booed at the DNC National Convention in 2000? Yeah, they were. Did all of the delgates to the convention boo the Boy Scouts? No - clearly not. Was it planned? Maybe - but with such a small group of people who did so (and most reports done later, after the initial hullabaloo, indicate that it was only a part of the California contingent - speculation that folks from other delegations also booed isn't borne out by the reporting) is just as likely that it was a spontaneous protest. Did the Boy Scouts hear the booing? Reports at the time done after speaking with the Scouts indicate that they didn't know about this whole booing thing until after the ceremony. Did the DNC use the Boy Scouts? If by use you mean to have them do a flag ceremony at their convention for political gain, then you have to spread that accusation out against both major political parties - Boy Scouts are often approached to perform flag ceremonies for a variety of events, and both the Democrats and the Republicans have used them for this function. Were the Scouts abused? That's an opinion and in my opinion, way overstated.

 

Should the DNC have apologized? My opinion is a firm no. In fact, I applaud the DNC for not apologizing in this instance. What would they apologize for? An apology here would be apologizing for people using their 1st Amendment rights to free speech - "Gee, I'm sorry some people felt that they should be able to actually use the rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution". Sure, that stance has offended some people but frankly I'd rather people be offended than to weaken our 1st Amendment rights by making sure we never offend. If you're apologizing for free speech freely expressed, then you either don't really believe in what you expressed, political expediency and garnering votes is more important to you than free speech, or you just don't like that pesky first amendment. I don't support the BSA's stance on gays in Scouting but I give them a lot of credit for not apologizing for that stance.

 

The same situation is evident with the purple heart protest. This protest was clearly orchestrated by some delegates (no one spontaneously drew a purple heart on an elastic bandage and put it on their arm). It was clearly meant as a jab at one person and no thought was given that it could possibly offend other purple heart veterans (many of whom earned the award with the same kinds of wounds as Kerry - the military admits that during the Vietnam War, these awards were given out by the bucketload). The press never did a very good job of explaining the criteria used to bestow the award so many people didn't (and still don't) have a clue as to what it really means. I've yet to see any recipient of the Purple Heart whose wounds were similar to Kerry's give back the award. The RNC apologized for offending veterans. My take is that it was either a move on their part to prevent the loss of votes to their party or they didn't really believe in the protest in the first place (the cynical part of me believes it was the second reason but the logical part of me thinks its the first). Should the RNC have apologized? My opinion is a firm no. Part of the right to free speech is the responsibility to stand up and accept the consequences of unpopular free expression. I would have a lot more respect for the RNC had they stood up and said they supported the protestors right to make their statement even though some people might be offended.

 

Veterans would have understood that position - most veterans I've met who fought in wars state that they fought to preserve our freedoms, including our freedoms to dissent and to disrespect the flag - they may not like it personally, but they still support the right of others to do so - they know what the stakes truly are. In my opinion, taking the position that you can't disrespect the flag disrespects both the flag (as the symbol of our freedoms) and the veterans that fought to preserve that freedom.

 

CalicoPenn

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>What would they apologize for?>It was clearly meant as a jab at one person and no thought was given that it could possibly offend other purple heart veterans (many of whom earned the award with the same kinds of wounds as Kerry - the military admits that during the Vietnam War, these awards were given out by the bucketload).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Dems should have apologized too. Yes, you have a broadly defined right to freedom of speech and so you may say things that others find offensive. That doesn't necessarily protect you from adverse consequences though. Among others: you will likely lose friends if you insult them too often; you may lose respect in the eyes of others; if you run a business, you may lose customers; you may even lose your job, if your speech occurs on company time and/or appears to be representing the company you work for (depending on what sort of thing you say, of course). The first amendment guarantees you the right to say pretty much anything, especially regarding political views, but in many cases, it does not guarantee that your speech will be consequence-free.

 

Now if the Dem Party wanted people to think that they were embarrassed by the fact that *some* of their delegates, at their convention, spontaneously (probably) booed a bunch of young men, then they shouldn't have apologized. But I don't think that's the image the Dems really want people to have of their party (picking on children). So even though it was probably not an organized or pre-conceived action by the party organizers, and even if some Dems at the convention were offended in some way by the presence of the BSA, booing children is never appropriate adult behavior and yes, the party should've apologized for the poor manners of a few of its members.

 

On the other hand...to generalize from this very unfortunate incident and say that all Dems are anti-BSA and this is proof, would be incorrect too.

 

Lisa'bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops...typo.. I said:

 

"Now if the Dem Party wanted people to think that they were embarrassed by the fact that *some* of their delegates, at their convention, spontaneously (probably) booed a bunch of young men, then they shouldn't have apologized."

 

 

I meant to say:

"If the Dem party wanted people to think they WEREN'T embarrassed...."

 

 

Don't know why I can't get the edit funtion to work! It keeps telling me I'm not authorized.

 

Lisa'bob

 

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

×