In an email to the Clemson University community, school president James Barker has condemned the actions of the fans who booed President Obama in a ceremony during Saturday’s football against Virginia Tech.
First reported in the Daily Kos by a blogger and Clemson alum who goes by the handle of “Grizzard,” thousands of fans booed the president when he was referenced during the Military Appreciation Day event. As part of their oath, students entering the university's Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) pledge to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
The last portion of the pledge drew boos from fans.
Once reported by Daily Kos, the story quickly gained traction through social media. Readers on Tigernet, a website devoted to Clemson sports, were divided about the incident.
But Barker left little doubt about his feelings, making a call for civility in the political process and noting that the president is “the president of us all.”
His email can be read HERE.
The last portion of the pledge drew boos from fans."
amazing what BO hatred does to one's thinking...
Also, this used to be a free country where people had the backbone to disobey the government. I wish we'd get back to that point and I'm glad to see the fans at that game expressing some of that sentiment.
The NDAA is a bipartisan law, and the GOP controlled house struck down an amendment (also bipartisan, Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) to remove the indefinite detention reaffirmation clause from NDAA. And for what it's worth the indefinite detention law is actual the AUMF signed Sept 14 2001. A secret kill list? Laugh out loud funny. The oath implies legal orders. Booing the oath of office/enlistment isn't disobeying the government, it's disrespecting the military.
The army paid my way through college and I participated in the Clemson ROTC program. It was and likely still is as fine a group of young men as you will ever want to meet. I had friends die in Bush's Iraq war that did nothing but foment terrorism and decrease stability in the middle east.
Who cares if indefinite detention is bipartisan? Seriously? I don't. In fact, usually the bipartisan laws are the worst ones. Kill List: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html Wake up.
indeed poor...but irrelevant and BO-hater comments confirm the original statement: 'amazing what BO hatred does to one's thinking...' and re 'knowledge' of BO seems 'knowledge' TP-GOPS have that our planet is 4-6000 yrs old...is the same knowledge they have of BO the BLACK man in the WHITE house...ie; the same knowledge displayed by GOPs akin and mourdock that women cant get pregnant if raped and if they do "it's God's (HIS/HER) will..." [SAY WHAT!!!] sad for them (good for USA) they will have to wallow in their in their BO-hatred 4 mo yrs...and then massage their misogyny for 12 more yrs under pres hillary...or pres. elizabeth warren maybe... what would really frost their whatever is: if kamala harris (CA's black female attorney-general) were the VP...
surely they were booing BO. Not the concept members of the armed forces should obey orders...booing BO most disrespectful...but; NOT as (but almost as) stupid as booing an oath (They boo'ed comments not the actual person) that members of the armed forces obey (hoped they would disobey) their superiors' commands...gawd what chaos this would create... re: this used to be a free country where people had the backbone to disobey the government... irrelevant...tho one should NOT confuse/conflate the government with the military...however conflation is consistent with GOP SOP...and flipflops
That you linked to an article that linked to two more in highly distributed new magazines shows that it's not a "secret" kill list. What does secret mean to you? You're surprised that the president has a kill list? It's safe to say that every president has had one.
family at the time Bush was in office were in the military and we did have respect for the office. Gee!
Though some of them disagree with my politics, which means that they disagree with the policies of President Obama, I have never once---not once!---heard a single one of them cast aspersions on him as a person or in any way dismiss his position and authority as the elected president of the United States. They have expressed their disagreement but done so with the respect one would expect of a veteran when he/she is speaking of the commander-in-chief. Apparently they took their oath more seriously than perhaps some with whom you have had "recent encounters." My son is in the National Guard. When he is around those who speak as disrespectfully of the president as you and others on this board, he does not engage them but he does walk away from them. He says that he does so because he took an oath to obey this country's commander-in-chief and considers that to mean he is to respect him as well. Disagree with him he might, but disrespect him he won't. I'm glad he grew up around me and not you. He makes me proud.
It must be nice to sit on the sidelines and comment on other people. Ask anyone in the military what they are fighting for and one of these things are peoples freedoms and the right to protest. I suggest you go back to sitting on the curb and clap as the real heroes march by.
I made no comment regarding the response from some Clemson fans to the mention of "the president" during the oath taken by the young men and women at Clemson on Saturday. They had every right to say what they wanted or make whatever noises they wanted during the oath-taking ceremony on Saturday. If that was what you read into my response, I suggest that, while you're sitting on the curb during the parade, you leave the clapping to others and do your remedial reading & comprehension assignment. Got it, Sport? I don't mind people disagreeing with me. On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for those who misread and misrepresent what I say. So sit back down on the curb, study your little book, and look for my son when he marches by in the parade. Then you can applaud one of the real heroes.
First, for a member of the military to not vote for the president is not an act of disrespect but an act of disagreement that does not affect the morale of a military unit. Second, to say that a member of the military takes an oath to obey the orders of the office of the president but not the person is laughable. The oath references "the president of the United States," not "the office of the president..." The person who is president personifies the office. The military is a culture unto itself. It is sustained by its discipline and its order. And that discipline and order is maintained whether one is in combat, in training, or in the commissary. It is built into the culture so that, in combat, it comes as naturally as one's next breath. An order is given, you follow it. That discipline and order will save your life on the battlefield. The lack of it will get you and those around you killed. Respecting/obeying your senior officer is fundamental to military life. I would have guessed you knew that. This is why my real issue with Hargett goes not to disrespect shown by members of the military toward their commander-in-chief. Such behavior compromises the discipline and order---and, thus, the trust and morale---upon which military units are founded. My son understands his oath very well and conscientiously took it. He may be idealistic about it but, if you don't mind, I'd prefer it that way.