Soccer Fans Erupt In Boos When 'President' Is Mentioned At Military Swearing-In

[Delahanty]

The oath is to the presidency, not a particular president's ideology.

Some people wouldn't know how to act if they weren't politicizing everything.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

When the Westboro Baptist idiots picket, protest, and/or boo at a funeral of a fallen service member or other person because they don’t approve of gays are they being disrespectful to gays, nothing more, nothing less? Or are they also being disrespectful to the memory of the dead person and his family? And who does it emotionally impact more? A gay person who is not there or the family members having the funeral of a loved one tarnished?

The WBC protest against the military specifically, so there is no comparison.

The soccer players booed at the mention of the president ONLY, so there is no reason for anyone else feel offended (unless they insist on being offended).

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

The WBC protest against the military specifically, so there is no comparison.

The soccer players booed at the mention of the president ONLY, so there is no reason for anyone else feel offended (unless they insist on being offended).

Incorrect.

• Boston Marathon bombing victim (2013): They picketed the funeral of Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant worker.
  
• Elizabeth Edwards (2010): they picketed the funeral of the wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards.
  
• They threatened to attend the funerals Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims (2012): the church members claimed on social media the day after it happened that they would picket the vigil for victims of the mass killing. Hacker group Anonymous released the addresses of church members and they did not attend.
  
• Tuscon, Ariz., young shooting victim (2011) from the same event where Gabrielle Giffords was shot: they published that they would picket the funeral of Christina Green, a 9-year-old victim. In response Arizona passed an emergency bill that banned protests within 300 feet of funerals.

Same thing. A group disrupts a ceremony of high importance to individuals, who are not responsible for what the group is upset about or only peripherally related to the person/event they are angry about, to make a political point. It’s immoral. While not the same level of devastation, it is like retaliatory citizen shootings in war or an angry abuser who kills their partner’s dog, only a sociopath or psychopath thinks it’s acceptable to inflict harm on an innocent party to get at the perceived real culprit.

You aren’t offended and think it should be no big deal because it wasn’t you, or something that mattered to you, that it was done to. My husband, who also took that same oath decades ago, sees it very differently.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

Incorrect.

• Boston Marathon bombing victim (2013): They picketed the funeral of Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant worker.
  
• Elizabeth Edwards (2010): they picketed the funeral of the wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards.
  
• They threatened to attend the funerals Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims (2012): the church members claimed on social media the day after it happened that they would picket the vigil for victims of the mass killing. Hacker group Anonymous released the addresses of church members and they did not attend.
  
• Tuscon, Ariz., young shooting victim (2011) from the same event where Gabrielle Giffords was shot: they published that they would picket the funeral of Christina Green, a 9-year-old victim. In response Arizona passed an emergency bill that banned protests within 300 feet of funerals.

Same thing. A group disrupts a ceremony of high importance to individuals, who are not responsible for what the group is upset about or only peripherally related to the person/event they are angry about, to make a political point. It’s immoral. While not the same level of devastation, it is like retaliatory citizen shootings in war or an angry abuser who kills their partner’s dog, only a sociopath or psychopath thinks it’s acceptable to inflict harm on an innocent party to get at the perceived real culprit.

You aren’t offended and think it should be no big deal because it wasn’t you, or something that mattered to you, that it was done to. My husband, who also took that same oath decades ago, sees it very differently.

I didn't say they never protest anything else, but when they protest the military, it is directed directly / specifically at the military, while the booing at the soccer event was directed at the president, not the military. Its not complicated, you are just having a hard time admitting the obvious, because you WANT it to seem like it was directed at the military. It wasn't.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I didn't say they never protest anything else, but when they protest the military, it is directed directly / specifically at the military, while the booing at the soccer event was directed at the president, not the military. Its not complicated, you are just having a hard time admitting the obvious, because you WANT it to seem like it was directed at the military. It wasn't.

The booing wasn’t directed at the military. Not only have I never said it was, I have pointed out repeatedly that they were collateral damage. Don’t you get it? It impacted the people taking that oath, even though it was aimed at someone else. It was rude and highly disrespectful.

What bothers me so much about this is that you are condoning the behavior of people who are so wrapped up in their hatred for someone or something that they don’t care who else they hurt since it gives them a chance to express their feelings. This attitude is very, very dangerous. Mass shooters are an example of individuals who have this same attitude. They are angry at someone or something so they kill innocent people, sometimes on their way to the actual target, but sometimes it’s just because they think it will make whoever it was they are angry at take notice. They don’t care that they hurt people who had nothing to do with whatever what eating at them, they only care that they are mad and they, by God, are going to send a message. Just like those callous people who booed during the Oath of Enlistment.

[BruSan]

You would of course expect that were it something like a commemoration ceremony or other venue where people have come together for the express purpose of memorializing something tragic that has happened that those in attendance would be mindful of maintaining respect for the occasion.

BUT; having said that, these are certainly different times now. Americans have become so diametrically polarized behind the political hedgerows that they are spending an inordinate amount of time castigating at least 50 percent of their fellows for simply declaring membership in the "other" party.

Everything being said and done from the leadership today only serves to exacerbate this. This is uncharacteristic in your history, at least to the extent being done today. Having respect for your fellow citizens and their right to certain beliefs, regardless of yours, was something to be endorsed as a higher ethic, taught, aspired to ….. not today. That's gone now. Now you are almost challenged to declare your fealty and you also expect to be excoriated for not being of the same.

It's certainly understandable that those in attendance would feel sadness at hearing the boos but at the same time the majority would also understand where those boos were directed. That is the sad part that now you have to add another layer of understanding to what should not have become common or even "possible" in the first place.

Your leadership has to carry the major portion of the responsibility for this conundrum existing. They have not only engaged heavily in the behaviour but by thought, word and deed have done everything they could encouraging it's now being widespread.

The word "leadership" is imperative.