Boo Bird
 

It's a dark, rainy day in the northeast. We'll be headed home to TV soon. A long anticipated round of golf as a guest at a private club was a washout today, so, I fired up TOTV. I saw a thread that looked interesting by suggesting an opportunity for a dialog on the debate last night. I watched the debate and savored the possibility of an intelligent exchange of views for cerebral exercise. I was disappointed to see the thread quickly focus with myopic, narrow minded, agenda driven, predictable partisan cheap shots on a greatly distorted and exaggerated booing incident. My recollection of the crowd estimate was at 3,000 but could have been more.

The first thing I did was view the video of the "boo" several times. I then listened several times to the audio with some very high end equipment. My conclusion was that there was one loud boo bird and possibly one accomplice. I did a lot of google work and found a blogger who alleged she was in the vicinity and that she observed but one idiot and contrary to the unsupported accusations of the usual self and agenda serving partisans, she said several people close to the "idiot", her word, hissed him, and otherwise silenced him. Of course unlike the "bashers" in this thread, I admit I wasn't there for first hand confirmation but, my experience with the audio, confirms to my satisfaction that the blogger was being truthful. One poster used the word "homophobe" three times as if the more it was used, the more it would identify the character of the conservative crowd. I've got a news flash for you....from professional experience... I can assure you with conviction, homophobia transcends party affiliations, religions and nationalities. To attempt to identify it as a trend or disposition....directly or by insidious inference.... of one entity is wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't believe I just did the three in row thing.

If you read the headlines from the elite liberal media, you would swear the entire crowd of 3,000 booed the soldier. Any fair minded person who listens to the audio, if they were honest, I know cologal is, what have to admit the boo did not come from a chorus. It was a solo or at best a duet.

What I'm disappointed in is the failure of the thread to identify what I believe are the interesting and broadly diverse views represented by the candidates. The views expressed for the world to witness clearly show the candidates are not in lock step with any agenda driven by narrow party lines.

I heard different views on the Immigration issue. I saw a conservative candidate support tuition for illegal immigrants. I saw him challenged.

Who would of the thought the right wing would have a black candidate on the stage. An articulate and extremely immpressive candidate at that.

I heard vigorous debate on foreign affairs including divided and contentious positions on withdrawal of troops from the Mideast.

I saw a candidate who instituted Obama like health care in his home state. I saw fireworks and debate as he defended his position.

I saw several different and wildly divergent approaches on the Economy issue. Personally, I like Herman Cain's approach and hope some component of it is incorporated in the platform.

The point is, it wasn't a love fest. It was a healthy exchange of ideas. For certain, there was not a one size fits all candidate. The voters will have to pick a candidate who "most" fits their ideal. That, IMO, is a good thing. The diversity and choices offered, must be frightening enough for some to draw attention away from essence of the debate with a contrived, exaggerated and agenda driven diversion via a "boo" bird.

For balance, my main criticism about the incident was that no one acknowledged the soldiers service. That should have been the opening thought in the response. I thank him and appreciate his service.

Seriously, my point did not have a larger agenda. I am very protective of my nephews. The booing of the soldier in Iraq was shocking.

We can agree on one thing here....we are in deep dodo and we do need strong and effective leadership.

Ok I get it you think it was ok for them to boo.....

You are wise.:icon_wink:

I am sorry but I cannot take you seriously. You can complain to ADMIN but you addressed me first. In the future, please try not to post directly to me. I would put you on my ignore list, but sometimes you make me giggle.:laugh:

And you know this how? Were you sitting in that audience. You are making an assumption, and you know it.

No, I said there was only a couple of people who booed. The media and you have spinned this for personal agendas, In MY Humble Opinion. I do not even think there was an issue except to try and label the candidates.

I agree with Cologal on two points:

It is wrong and shameful to disrespect the military. How can anyone argue about whether it was two people or twenty people.

We are in deep doodoo and need strong and effective leadership.

It's unfortunate that this soldier was the seeming recipient of boos from a minority of the audience in Orlando over the question of what a candidate thought about the service of openly gay men in the military.

Those booing were disrespecting the question, and that's really all there is to this. The subject of the integrating of openly homosexual men into the close quarter lives of the majority heterosexual military is a volatile social issue that the military needs to address, and not the social engineering elitists.

Personally I think that if you believe that heterosexual men should graciously accept openly homosexual men into their group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters, then you should also accept heterosexual men into the group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters of heterosexual women. We should just mix everyone up if your sexuality is no longer a barrier to the privacy lacking living arrangements of our military.

Just a thought.

Man, I'm glad I did my service time years ago. I sure would not want to have to share quarters with someone who might have sexual inclinations toward me.
Gives new meaning to some old expressions we used to have.
Seriously, how in the name of Elton John are they going to accomplish this. Are they going to have separate barracks for different sexual preferences? I can see where the military is moving real slow on this.
Please, I'm trying to keep this light and inject a little humor and dialogue into this delicate subject. I am not bashing anybody but I really would like to know how this plays out.

PS. Unless you were in the service and do not understand the humor, please do not complain to ADMIN.

I thought a lot of college dorms were now "unisex". But I'm probably wrong.
My husband is a firefighter. They now have female firefighters who share 24 hour shifts at the firehall with men. I'm sure there are some homosexual men there as well. Seems to work out for everyone.

Your can bet your last dollar that you shared your bunkhouse, your group shower and your group bathroom with a homosexual soldier, but that you didn't know it or look for it. That's just the way it was. It's the "open service" which is going to agitate the system......or not. We shall see, I guess, as our elitist liberal know better than anyone else social engineers continue to tinker with our fighting forces.

Now Richie, that is not much of a thought. A gay man in the military is not analagous to a heterosexual man in a woman's bathroom. Really now.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military and somehow they managed to control themselves around the straight guys. Being facetious there. They have fought and died besides their comrades. In this day and age to even have this as an issue is ridiculous. I guess now I get to be a social engineering elitist! You know, just cause you throw a little phrase at something does not make it true or make those of us who REALLY believe in equality bad. When Eisenhower intergrated the troops he made it happen...just did it. It was an order. And the military did not curl up and die.

Do these firemen and women share the same group bathrooms, group showers and group bunk space? In college co-ed dorms they generally don't. They do share a building, but that's about the extent of it.

When I was in basic training the bathroom was one big room with no partitions and no walls. The showers, toilets, urinals and sinks were just there. You went in to do whatever "chore" you came to do and were in full view of everyone else who was doing anything else.

The bunkhouse was an open room where you slept a couple of feet below or above someone and a couple of feet next to someone else. This is where you dressed and undressed.

This is the situation I'm speaking about.

Homosexual men had to control their actions in the military because of the rules that applied. With the law changed so that they can live "openly", don't doubt that they will. It's a new ballgame.

What's the difference in just lumping all the people together if the issue isn't the sexuality of the soldier? My query is not ridiculous. It's only your unwillingness to consider all angles that is.