Author Topic: Linda Rohstadt boo'd off stage for Moore comment (Read 4442 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #195 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:51:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
A quick google search of "california delegation boos boy scouts convention" turned up enough to lead me to believe this occured. You're "Biased rag" statement is accurate, however:
www.freerepublic.com
www.indegayforum.org
www.hillary.org
www.scouter.com
www.templeofdemocracy.com
www.rushonline.com
All of them seem to be consistant. It almost makes you wonder why this wasn't worthy of bigger news coverage? I mean... fans booing Linda Rondstadt is definately a bigger issue than California delegates boing Eagle Scouts at a Democratic National Convention that they scouts were INVITED to. [/B]

Link #1 is a link to a link, and the story isn't there anymore.
Link #2 is a pro-gay story regarding the SC ruling for the BSA regarding gay scout leaders.. it does contain this one sentence "President Clinton continues to serve as an honorary Scout leader, and Scouts were trotted out onto the platform at the Democratic National Convention for a patriotic moment (to the boos of a few gay delegates). "
Link #3 just contains a reprint of the Washington Times article on the subject.
Link #4 is a Scout BBS... sheesh Mini.... you said they were all in agreement?
Link #5 is the index to a paper called Southern Partisan's articles of the year 2000. No content at all. Looking bad for you here.
Link #6 Rush Limbaugh... nuff said.

So here is my take on the matter. Maybe 3 maybe even 4 gay delegates to the convention let it be known that they disliked the boy scouts. This is obviously a rotten thing to do to young men. I say young men, because they were all Eagle scouts. Very few get the award before age 17. These people should have been censured at least. I don't know if they were or not. No one can find the information.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #196 on:** July 21, 2004, 06:00:30 PM »

You are trying awfuly hard to marginalize that behavior MT..

midnight Target · « **Reply #197 on:** July 21, 2004, 06:03:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You are trying awfuly hard to marginalize that behavior MT..

There is a big space between marginalize and sensationalize. I'm somewhere in there.

Mini D · « **Reply #198 on:** July 21, 2004, 06:24:40 PM »

I don't think so MT.

You're being dismissive. It doesn't fit and you're excusing it.

Left wing and right wing "rags" have it with pretty much the same story on all of them. The washington times article with qoutes. It doesn't matter to you because somehow you feel people booing and tearing down posters at a concert is more of an issue to congressional deligates booing eagle scouts as they perform honor guard duties to make a political statement.

Sorry, but this whole scene is sad. The only thing both have in common is that either an individual or a group of people chose very inappropriate times and places to make political statements. But then... that's the norm these days.

MiniD

demaw1 · « **Reply #199 on:** July 21, 2004, 07:11:17 PM »

Rpm...re;...only conservatives.....legal action....if your not with me.

Only conservatives well lets see .You all have seen my post about boy scouts, dems convention oh ya their conservatives for got..People for American way doing all they can to stop cub scouts from doing anything on public or blm land,damn consv. for got. Spidermans girl in spiderman[u got it wont say her name] was asked on radio interview,if u could have spidermans power for 1 day what would u do...she said kill bush. B.ithc couldnt have said I would stop all cowardly drive by shootings of little girls and boys in certain areas..yikes consv. I forgot...certain web sites saying hitler and bush the same, now it is stalin and bush.I could go on and on.Wish I could somehow bring hitlers victims alive.give them some weapons,most of you people saying this would be dead in no time.
Legal action,can not be taken against moore as bush is a public figure and you can say anything you want about him or anyone else deemed a public figure.
Yep after being in here for 2 weeks Id say [if you arnt with us you are against us]

midnight Target · « **Reply #200 on:** July 21, 2004, 07:54:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I don't think so MT.

You're being dismissive. It doesn't fit and you're excusing it.

Left wing and right wing "rags" have it with pretty much the same story on all of them. The washington times article with qoutes. It doesn't matter to you because somehow you feel people booing and tearing down posters at a concert is more of an issue to congressional deligates booing eagle scouts as they perform honor guard duties to make a political statement.

Sorry, but this whole scene is sad. The only thing both have in common is that either an individual or a group of people chose very inappropriate times and places to make political statements. But then... that's the norm these days.

MiniD

Not being dismissive at all. I said they should be censured. Where did I say the poster tearing was worse? Nice try mini, but your just side stepping the fact that you tried to make it look like you found tons of info when it was just more nothingness.

It boils down to ONE "major" news source. The Washington Times. You should know that this is a conservative shill rag if there ever was one.

All that I have read points to a very small group doing a very bad thing. That is all.

Nash · « **Reply #201 on:** July 21, 2004, 07:56:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The Washington Times. You should know that this is a conservative shill rag if there ever was one.

That's being generous.

Mini D · « **Reply #202 on:** July 21, 2004, 10:31:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I said they should be censured. Where did I say the poster tearing was worse? Nice try mini, but your just side stepping the fact that you tried to make it look like you found tons of info when it was just more nothingness.

You made it look worse when you took one incident and condemnened people's reaction and casually dismissed another because there "wasn't enough supporting evidence". I find it funny that you actually need to know that more people reported on it in order to believe it when a gay activist page and a rush limbaugh page basically support the same claims. Was there something about the washington times report that was misleading big guy?

I didn't claim to have tons of info. I claimed to have done a simple search on google... 1 time. That's what I came up with. I guess you need more information to actually believe the dems capable of something so lowly.

it's pretty damn funny when you sit back and look at it. I didn't even pay the original "claim" any attention until you hopped in to dismiss it.

AKIron · « **Reply #203 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:16:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
That's being generous.

Well, they either booed the Scouts or they didn't. Does it matter who reported it if it's true?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #204 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:17:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Well, they either booed the Scouts or they didn't. Does it matter who reported it if it's true?

Apparently yes. Funny thing is they wouldnt doubt it for a second if the NY Times ran the article...

Nash · « **Reply #205 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:24:56 AM »

That's zactly right. Well not exactly but near enough.

I think we need to go over this again.

In Washington, Post=good, Times=bad.

In New York, Times=good, Post=bad.

So much confusion......

I know yer prolly gonna wanna put up a fight (blah), but if you disagree yer gonna have to defend the NY Post and Washington Times. Why?

NUKE · « **Reply #206 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:27:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
That's zactly right. Well not exactly but near enough.

I think we need to go over this again.

In Washington, Post=good, Times=bad.

In New York, Times=good, Post=bad.

So much confusion......

I know yer prolly gonna wanna put up a fight (blah), but if you disagree yer gonna have to defend the NY Post and Washington Times. Why?

Google it or shuddup, hehehe

Nash · « **Reply #207 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:35:12 AM »

Nuke, you just don't see that you had an adverse gut reaction to something, and while knowing nothing about the subject, wanted to argue against it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #208 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:41:50 AM »

I know that somehow in your mind this makes the NYT more credible, but for the rest of us - well..

Nash · « **Reply #209 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:49:53 AM »

You're just smart enough to know that this isn't saying anything.

At the NYT, not only did this guy get bounced, but so did his bosses and a bunch of other people...

It was a shocker, and everyone freaked out.

Why would that be? And would have it garnered quite the same reaction at any other paper?

You know what that means... and you concur... thus the reason for your preemptive defense.