Where's the math?

Liquidfork stipulated that the council members should personally pay for it.

Well hold on there. I did say that however to take it at face value would be to take what I meant out of context.

I was saying INSTEAD of these council members trying to make a political point with the free lunch program on the line. Why dont they make a personal sacrifice to help make the political stand they are trying to make.

My exact next sentence gave 4 or 5 other alternatives how to raise the amount of money VS having children's free lunch program chopped over a political statement.

I just dont want to be lumped with those people who feel they should sell their houses ect..... My only point was these council members were irresponsible in making such a decision when they knew very well what would be at stake.

I guess it was easier to make an empty threat,that was bound to be recanted as soon as the wheels got moving. Better to get your name in the paper as a victim than an actual person who made a difference

Where's the math?

Edit: Waitaminit. Like every other argument, Frogger's completely fucked it up. Liquidfork stipulated that the council members should personally pay for it. Frogger is talking about a tax on all Berkeley residents. *slaps Frogger around with a giant trout*
$2M (http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_8193511)/102,743 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkley%2C_CA)= $19.47

still, i've had dinner for more as a truck driver. it's chump change.

these council members were irresponsible in making such a decision when they knew very well what would be at stake.
You're getting dangerously close to citing non-existent rules again.

When I wrote that post I took it from one of yours on page 3.

Do I have a problem with serving ones country-No.

What I do have a problem with is the mind set which has been nutured these last 50 years,by the extremeists in America, who saw just how powerful America became in a very short period of time, during WW2.

That mindset is now embedded in American culture, none of you guys seem to think its strange or unusual that your military has such a high profile in your nation, but, these days I know of no other western country this happens in.

I find the connection between 'serving' and this proof that ones love for ones country disturbing.
This continues the militaristic mindset.

I find disturbing the connection between 'serving' and 'keeping America safe,
a false and misleading notion.
As has been seen in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan, 'serving' there has had zero effect on US security.
Once again its another militaristic mindset played out in politics and media.
I just can't agree with you here. The fact that no other nation puts so much emphasis on the military doesn't necessarily make that emphasis a bad thing. We have one of the most religious populations in the Western world too, is that a bad thing? We use inches and feet as our measurements while most of Europe uses the metric system. Is that horrible too?

Also, the armed forces DO keep America safe. Going into Iraq was a mistake, and no, I don't think it has made us any safer, except for perhaps by intimidating people. Going into Afghanistan after Bin Ladin was the right thing to do, and I've seen you say this yourself. We have made progress in the weakening of Al Quaeda, which is certainly not a bad thing.

Why is it disturbing that people assume that soldiers are patriotic and love their country? No one said that's the only way to show your patriotism, but it's certainly one way. I personally am very grateful to every soldier - they will put their life on the line for the other people in their country. I think it's admirable to be a soldier, and I find it odd that anyone would say it was a bad thing for us to put more emphasis on honoring them. You may think that's not what you're saying, but it is. The armed forces are in the forefront of America's thoughts because we want to honor what they're doing - especially with a war going on.

I was saying INSTEAD of these council members trying to make a political point with the free lunch program on the line.
They're not. The Senate put it on the line. Berkeley backed down.

I just can't agree with you here. The fact that no other nation puts so much emphasis on the military doesn't necessarily make that emphasis a bad thing. We have one of the most religious populations in the Western world too, is that a bad thing? We use inches and feet as our measurements while most of Europe uses the metric system. Is that horrible too?
Burma and some other dictatorships beg to differ about the USA being #1 in that field.

Also, the armed forces DO keep America safe. Going into Iraq was a mistake, and no, I don't think it has made us any safer, except for perhaps by intimidating people. Going into Afghanistan after Bin Ladin was the right thing to do, and I've seen you say this yourself. We have made progress in the weakening of Al Quaeda, which is certainly not a bad thing.
Libya gave up their nuke program a few days after, good enough for me. the terroist prone locals being sucked out into the open is just icing on the cake.

Why is it disturbing that people assume that soldiers are patriotic and love their country? No one said that's the only way to show your patriotism, but it's certainly one way. I personally am very grateful to every soldier - they will put their life on the line for the other people in their country. I think it's admirable to be a soldier, and I find it odd that anyone would say it was a bad thing for us to put more emphasis on honoring them. You may think that's not what you're saying, but it is. The armed forces are in the forefront of America's thoughts because we want to honor what they're doing - especially with a war going on.
trust me, they ain't doing it for the money:thumbs:

sure the bennies are excellent, but like everything else Uncle Sugar runs, they could be making much more in the private sector.

Burma and some other dictatorships beg to differ about the USA being #1 in that field.
Good thing she didn't say the US was.

sure the bennies are excellent, but like everything else Uncle Sugar runs, they could be making much more in the private sector.
The stark reality is, most people are not confident in their abilities to "break into" a field, and think that a military career in that field is an easy in. For many people, the military is not their only shot at a decent job, but for various reasons, they may think it is. It is at this point the jingoistic nature of armed forces propaganda and culture rears its head and convinces them to join. Nobody is brainwashed, sure, but that doesn't mean that emotional weakness wasn't involved.

I personally joined the military for a sense of adventure. I was seduced by stories of wild and crazy tours in faraway joints like the Philippines. Had I chosen my field on those bases, instead of the foolishness of "what I qualified for," I would have had a much more enjoyable stint. I qualified for everything, because I scored in the hundredth percentile. So I picked the "best" job the recruiter recommended, Airborne Cryptologic Linguist, and decided I'd be that, merely because I passed the required additional test. (the Defense Language Aptitude Battery) I had grand ideas of becoming an officer, getting out after ten years and making bank in the private sector. Everybody was so impressed by the "man with the plan" and nobody questioned the realism of my plans. I lied to myself and nobody in my life was man enough to challenge my youthful convictions. So I charged into the military only to be fumbled first by the loss of my contracted job, then through my reclassification into a specialized career field that didn't TDY a lot of troops or offer permanent posts overseas. It wouldn't have mattered much even if I had gotten my good job, because from everything I gathered, it was ten times worse than the field I ended up in, in every way that was important to me except pay.

I now importune all young people to be very careful and honest about their motivations before making decisions that are very hard to reverse. I will not hesitate to convince someone to not do something if I feel he's misaligning his own interests. I make no claims to know what's best for a person, I try to work within their own motivations. I know very well exactly how the mind lies to itself to save itself the pain of critical self-examination. Maybe I'll write a book on it someday.

The point that it's been US foreign policy for the over the last 100 years, thru democratic and republican presidencies seems to have eluded you.;)
What hasnt eluded me is that before 1941 America was not a superpower.





Chamberlain, peace in our time. Some 60 million dead later. That worked out well didn't it.
No it didnt but at the same time-it isnt who I was quoting.

I just can't agree with you here. The fact that no other nation puts so much emphasis on the military doesn't necessarily make that emphasis a bad thing.Well actually it does. It portrays a glorification of war.
We have one of the most religious populations in the Western world too, is that a bad thingIts a frightening thing in any nation that links it to its military obsession. We use inches and feet as our measurements while most of Europe uses the metric system. Is that horrible too?No its not horrible-but when you live in Europe its very confusing.

Also, the armed forces DO keep America safe. Going into Iraq was a mistake, and no, I don't think it has made us any safer, except for perhaps by intimidating people. Going into Afghanistan after Bin Ladin was the right thing to do, and I've seen you say this yourself. We have made progress in the weakening of Al Quaeda, which is certainly not a bad thing.Hold on now.Going after OBL in Afghanistan was indeed the correct thing,and as Ive said many times,I and most Europeans supported the Bush Administration in doing so.
However,staying there and occupying the country to take on the Taliban was a mistake.
For whatever reason,Bush decided to turn his attention to Saddam Hussein when he had OBL and AQs leadership cornered in Tora Bora,and they slipped away to fight another day.
Saddam was ousted then captured and fed to the wolves. This bogged down the US Armed Forces in an unneccessary war, which has destabilised the region.
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq achieved anything in defeating AQ, and was once again a demonstration of how the Armed Forces are used to a political agenda.
Basically,they are not used to keep America safe.

Why is it disturbing that people assume that soldiers are patriotic and love their country? No one said that's the only way to show your patriotism, but it's certainly one way. I personally am very grateful to every soldier - they will put their life on the line for the other people in their country. I think it's admirable to be a soldier, and I find it odd that anyone would say it was a bad thing for us to put more emphasis on honoring them. You may think that's not what you're saying, but it is. The armed forces are in the forefront of America's thoughts because we want to honor what they're doing - especially with a war going on.No its not what Im saying.
What has been said here is that joining the Armed Forces somehow proves you love your country more than someone who dosent.
That is a disturbing and insulting sentiment to every American who never enlisted.
I have no problem with anyone honouring their troops are indeed supporting their troops,especially while serving abroad, my point is that they are serving abroad because of a political agenda which has nothing to do with protecting the United States.
The right wing in America needs to send its sons and daughters into war situations at least once in every generation to keep the military machine and mindset alive and well, this I find disturbing ang sad.

1. Our nation is very militaristic. Our kids love to play with toy machine guns and GI Joe.
2. Soldiers are granted this hero-like status in our society....
3. ....but you have to admit our military is a pervasive part of our society.
1. By that logic I could make a much better case that we are a bicycle nation or a Hannah Montana nation.
Kids play with many things when they are young and it means nothing. And actually, that is not as popular as it used to be.
Do you believe GI Joes have a big presence these days. They were much bigger in the mid to late 60's when the military was hated.

2. Are you kidding me?

3. How so? Because it's in the news?
Please tell me how "our military" is "pervasive" in your life.

As I said before, if you want to say that the last few administrations have been militarily aggressive then go ahead. But this society and culture, outside of our tax burden, is not influenced by the military in the way you are claiming.

As has been seen in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan, 'serving' there has had zero effect on US security.

Actually, even the anti-war side of congress disagrees with you on this as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

What hasnt eluded me is that before 1941 America was not a superpower.
And irrelvant to your argument.






No it didnt but at the same time-it isnt who I was quoting.
So negotiation doesn't always work out so well, but we'll just ignore those instances.

Actually, even the anti-war side of congress disagrees with you on this as far as Afghanistan is concerned.
Well that may be,tho explaining that its right to occupy Afghanistan but not Iraq just doesn't make sense to me.Unless ofcourse the US intends to do what no power has ever done, and conquer it.

In my opinion,this is just another waste of resourses, tying up thousands of troops.
Get in there,train up a security force, arm them if necessarily,then get out again, theres no win over AQ in the occupation.

And irrelvant to your argument.
I think its more irrelevant to your argument.







So negotiation doesn't always work out so well, but we'll just ignore those instances.
In the case of Nazi Germany,maybe. But that was a unique set of circumstances,where the German people had no voice,and until the very last,the Nazi leadership believed they would win.

Once again, a supporter of militarism quote back to 'Americas finest hour',
to justify things, you guys are stuck in a time warp, this is 2008.

Get in there,train up a security force, arm them if necessarily,then get out again,
Wow, that was easy.

Wow, that was easy.
Dont see why it wouldnt be, how long have your guys been there now?

But I think that wouldnt suit the political agenda in Washington.

Couldnt bullshit the population into believing their fighting AQ anymore.

Would look bad when sending more paper up the hill asking for another zillion bucks.

Who is America fighting in Afghanistan-The Taliban.

AQ are long gone, try next door in Pakistan, Americas so called Allie there Musharraf has been pulling your chain for years.

Actually, even the anti-war side of congress disagrees with you on this as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

I love how you feel qualified to speak for everyone in the anti-war side of Congress. :rolleyes:

1. By that logic I could make a much better case that we are a bicycle nation or a Hannah Montana nation.
Kids play with many things when they are young and it means nothing. And actually, that is not as popular as it used to be.
Do you believe GI Joes have a big presence these days. They were much bigger in the mid to late 60's when the military was hated.

Substitute GI Joe with any military toy and you'll find that these sort of toys are in most every home.

2. Are you kidding me?

No. Maybe our difference in perception is the North versus South?

3. How so? Because it's in the news?
Please tell me how "our military" is "pervasive" in your life.

Uninvited recruiters knocking at your door and calling you at home. Groups of young people doing military demonstrations/execises in college and high school. Ex-military being favored in government promotions/hiring. Military taxes. Toys. Television - and not just the news - commercials, movies, TV shows. Politics. Foreign relations. The harder question is what sectors of your life does the military NOT have a presence?

As I said before, if you want to say that the last few administrations have been militarily aggressive then go ahead. But this society and culture, outside of our tax burden, is not influenced by the military in the way you are claiming.

I like how you dismissively use that phrase "outside of our tax burden." I think that is the most glaring example - The U.S. military budget is approximately half of the military spending of the entire world.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

If there is any militaristic nation in the world today, you would have to say the U.S. Frankly, I think a lot of cultures would find it laughable that this is a debatable topic in our country.

The U.S. spends more on our military than every other industrialized nation in the world combined.

Anyone who thinks we are not militaristic is deep in denial.

I think its more irrelevant to your argument.

Given that the policy you object to has been part of US foreign policy for over 100 years the fact that you think it's only since '41 obviates your argument.


In the case of Nazi Germany,maybe. But that was a unique set of circumstances,where the German people had no voice,and until the very last,the Nazi leadership believed they would win.

Unique my ass. History is replete with examples. How did that negotiation work out for the Czechs, Hungarians, Ukrainians, East Germans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, the Kuwaitis, the Iranians, the Indians, the Cambodians ........

Once again, a supporter of militarism quote back to 'Americas finest hour',
to justify things, you guys are stuck in a time warp, this is 2008.

Unfortunately for your ilk reality intrudes. Plus ca change.....There are still bad guys out there. Because they haven't come for you yet doesn't mean they don't exist.
Tell us how that negotition is working out for Pakistan in the TABA? :rolleyes:

This is somewhat true, tho most societies have moved away from this stance, I think the term for it in the west is 'civilisation'. Its kinda ironic that a nation that has never experienced war on its territory or experienced an occupation is right on these matters and everyone else is wrong.

Yes Paul, those "civilized" nations have the luxury of moving away from it because thy have a powerful ally that will always be there for them. Unlike Europe, the US seems to learn from history.


Militaristic warrior culture, for use of a better term, conflicts with the term
'free society'.
In a militarstic society a pacifist is either ignored labelled anti patriotic and/or demonised, they obviously dont fit in to the said society.

Tho a good example of how extreme Republicanism displays its arrogance at viewing itself as better Americans or more Patriotic Americans than those who dont share their war war war views.

We do not have a militaristic warrior culture. We have a warrior class, which used to just be called "men" back in the old days. i would say our culture is on the way to complete feminization nad over sensitivity. Our kids cant even play dodgeball anymore for christs sake.

Given that the policy you object to has been part of US foreign policy for over 100 years the fact that you think it's only since '41 obviates your argument.
Nah I dont think it does actually,if you want to talk about the Philipinnes or Latin American entanglements, fire away, but, they werent when America was a power.




Unique my ass. History is replete with examples. How did that negotiation work out for the Czechs, Hungarians, Ukrainians, East Germans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, the Kuwaitis, the Iranians, the Indians, the Cambodians ........
zzzzzzzz waldo get real.
Czechoslovakia-Hungary-Ukrane-East Germany were held by the Soviets,
were they gonna hold them forever,dont think so.

Vietnam-North Korea, as far as Im aware they're still under the same political system as when the US was there.

Kuwait-maybe.

India-The Indians forced the British out thru force of numbers.

Cambodia.I think offically the US was never engaged in Cambodia.



Unfortunately for your ilk reality intrudes. Plus ca change.....There are still bad guys out there. Because they haven't come for you yet doesn't mean they don't exist.
Tell us how that negotition is working out for Pakistan in the TABA? :rolleyes:
Because they havnt come for me yet, I tell ya Ive seen bad guys for real, have you.
You wanna go live in the real world for awhile not the ABC at 6 variety.

Pakistan hasnt the will or interest to take on anybody.

Substitute GI Joe with any military toy and you'll find that these sort of toys are in most every home.
I don't know. Some kids used to play cowboys and indians with their guns. Were we a cowboy nation back then?

No. Maybe our difference in perception is the North versus South?You might have something there. I haven't seen a GI Joe or even a toy gun in my neighborhood for many years.
Of course the apparent pervasiveness of kids playing with guns down there could also be because the south is more of a gun culture in general.
In any case, that would make this more of a regional thing, wouldn't it?

Uninvited recruiters knocking at your door......
If this were such a militaristic society would it be necessary for recruiting tactics to be that invasive? Just a thought.

....young people doing military demonstrations/execises in college and high school....
In my entire life I have never seen this. is this at every high school and college down there. As you said, it might be a regional thing.

Ex-military being favored in government promotions/hiring.
From an employer's standpoint this is a good thing, wouldn't you think?

Military taxes.
This does not give the society a militaristic feel, does it?

Television - and not just the news - commercials, movies, TV shows.
Which shows and commercials? And as far as movies go, half of the most recent are anti-military.

Foreign relations.
This is not something that has any great effect on your society and culture.

The harder question is what sectors of your life does the military NOT have a presence?
If you're looking for a compromise statement, that's a pretty good one. I'll go along with presence. But that's a far cry from a "militaristic society".

I like how you dismissively use that phrase "outside of our tax burden." I think that is the most glaring example.
That may well be, but the destination of your tax dollars is not what you are talking about here.
How much of this society do you think is directly or closely involved with the military. And I'm not talking about the mold-presser in Akron who makes Goodyear tires that are also used on Humvees.
A militaristic industry would resemble something more like WWII when the workers knew how their product was going to directly affect somebody on the front lines.

If there is any militaristic nation in the world today, you would have to say the U.S.
To me this is reminiscent of when Dhramathinker says we live in fascism.
People in this country have no idea what that's really like.
Similarly, I think that the amount of military engagements we are involved in may cause us to think this society is militaristic.
But we here in this country with no draft or compulsory service of any kind don't know what a militaristic society is.

You know you are in a milataristic society when your leader shows up in an army uniform.

Nah I dont think it does actually,if you want to talk about the Philipinnes or Latin American entanglements, fire away, but, they werent when America was a power.

It doesn't matter whether they were a power then or not. You are suggesting that it's only been since WWII and that it's becaue of republicans. The fact of the matter is that that they've been doing what you object to for over 100 years under the leadership of both parties.





zzzzzzzz waldo get real.
Czechoslovakia-Hungary-Ukrane-East Germany were held by the Soviets,
were they gonna hold them forever,dont think so.

Vietnam-North Korea, as far as Im aware they're still under the same political system as when the US was there.

Kuwait-maybe.

India-The Indians forced the British out thru force of numbers.

Cambodia.I think offically the US was never engaged in Cambodia.

You on the bottle again? The subject was force and negotiation. Negotiation did nothing to prevent those countries from being brutalized by people who weren't interested in negotiating. Apparently you think the millions killed in those countries in meaningless. India is a reference to the situation in kashmir. Cambodia saw some 8 million people killed by Khmer Rouge. Vietnam and Korea were, like Eastern Europe taken over by the communists who then went on to kill millions. There was no negotiations that the communists were interested in. IOW negotiations are only useful with people who want to negotiate. Letting millions die until they are ready to negotiate is a rather strange approach.




Because they havnt come for me yet, I tell ya Ive seen bad guys for real, have you.
You wanna go live in the real world for awhile not the ABC at 6 variety.

So your postion is they don't exist or they don't need to be confronted?

Pakistan hasnt the will or interest to take on anybody.
Non-sequitur. Either negotiation works all the time or it doesn't work all the time and other means are required. Pakistan is attempting to negotiate and it's gotten them what, exactly, so far?

It doesn't matter whether they were a power then or not. You are suggesting that it's only been since WWII and that it's becaue of republicans. The fact of the matter is that that they've been doing what you object to for over 100 years under the leadership of both parties.[?QUOTE]
Is that right.
Who was the first Republican President after WW2-Eisenhower.
The Eisenhower doctrine has been carried forward to what you see today.
Military involvement in ME. Under the doctrine the military mindset which was waning after 1945 was put into full motion.


[QUOTE=waldo]You on the bottle again?No you?
The subject was force and negotiation. Negotiation did nothing to prevent those countries from being brutalized by people who weren't interested in negotiating. Apparently you think the millions killed in those countries in meaningless. India is a reference to the situation in kashmir. Cambodia saw some 8 million people killed by Khmer Rouge. Vietnam and Korea were, like Eastern Europe taken over by the communists who then went on to kill millions. There was no negotiations that the communists were interested in. IOW negotiations are only useful with people who want to negotiate. Letting millions die until they are ready to negotiate is a rather strange approach.

Firstly-no millions were killed in Eastern Europe.
Seondly-The US done zero to stop Pol Pot and his henchmen.
Thirdly-The US done zero as regards Kashmir.
It wasnt in the interests of the powers that be to get involved.
So your postion is they don't exist or they don't need to be confronted?My position is-they werent.


Non-sequitur. Either negotiation works all the time or it doesn't work all the time and other means are required. Pakistan is attempting to negotiate and it's gotten them what, exactly, so far?

What does that mean.Other means are required. Are you a supporter of young American men/women going to fight around the globe?

You know you are in a milataristic society when your leader shows up in an army uniform.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/X/bush_badass.jpg

I tell ya Ive seen bad guys for real, have you.


Yes, I have. Many times.

The most cold-blooded, murderous 'bad guys' on the planet are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military/Industrial complex, working hand in hand with a Corporate-owned mainstream Media that ceaselessly champions war as if it were the national sport. These people are installed at the soulless pinnacle of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.

As Bob Dylan noted in 1962, -- “They fasten the triggers for the others to fire; and sit back and watch while the death count gets higher. They hide in their mansions, while young people’s blood; flows out of their bodies and gets buried in the mud”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As the Pentagon has learned, deploying the American media is more powerful than any bomb. The explosive effect is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.

When it comes to issues of war and peace, the results of having a compliant media are as deadly to our democracy as they are to our soldiers. Why does the Corporate media cheerlead for war? One answer lies in the corporations themselves — the ones that own the major news outlets.

At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show.

We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring.

If the media would show for one week the same unsanitized images of war that the rest of the world sees, people in the U.S. would say no, that war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century.

But we don't see the real images of war. We don't need government censors, because we have corporations sanitizing the news. A study released last month by American University's School of Communications revealed that media outlets acknowledged they self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion out of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content.

Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).

As Phil Donahue, the former host of MSNBC's highest-rated show who was fired by the network in February 2003 for bringing on anti-war voices, told "Democracy Now!" --------

"We have more [TV] outlets now, but most of them sell the Bowflex machine. The rest of them are Jesus and jewelry. There really isn't diversity in the media anymore. Dissent? Forget about it."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002228040_sundaygoodman03.html

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/X/bush_badass.jpg



We know he goes to all hes meetings and functions dressed like that :rolleyes:

If this were such a militaristic society would it be necessary for recruiting tactics to be that invasive? Just a thought.
Exactly. Also, if the U.S. was so militaristic it wouldn't be necessary to lower enlistment standards and pay big bonuses to get people to join the military.

And the U.S. by no means has the most militaristic society -- the country I'm in right now beats the U.S. hands down in that respect.

[QUOTE=waldo]It doesn't matter whether they were a power then or not. You are suggesting that it's only been since WWII and that it's becaue of republicans. The fact of the matter is that that they've been doing what you object to for over 100 years under the leadership of both parties.[?QUOTE]
Is that right.
Who was the first Republican President after WW2-Eisenhower.
The Eisenhower doctrine has been carried forward to what you see today.
Military involvement in ME. Under the doctrine the military mindset which was waning after 1945 was put into full motion.

So Eisenhower continues a policy pursued by republican and democrats alike since the turn of the century and you've come to the conclusion that Eisenhower has invented a new policy. Exactly how have you come to the conclusion that a continuation of policy is actually a new policy?


No you?


Firstly-no millions were killed in Eastern Europe. Like to bet.
Seondly-The US done zero to stop Pol Pot and his henchmen.
Thirdly-The US done zero as regards Kashmir. We're talking about negotiation paul. Not the US. Explain how negotiation was so beneficial to the Cambodians and the kashmiris. How it prevented millions from being killed.

It wasnt in the interests of the powers that be to get involved. Another history lesson. The Indians did negotiate. That's how Pakistan was created. Unfortunately not everyone in Pakistan liked the negotiation so they've been conducting a guerilla campaign for the better part of 60 years. Another instance that worked out real well for everybody, except the dead Indians.
My position is-they werent.
They weren't existing or they weren't confronted.

What does that mean.Other means are required. Is that an acknowledgement that negotiations don't always work?

Are you a supporter of young American men/women going to fight around the globe?

When it's in the US's interest yes.

We know he goes to all hes meetings and functions dressed like that :rolleyes:

I cannot imagine the reason (except for your willful blindness) for the <;rolleyes;> emoticon.

The person pictured did go to one extremely visible function dressed that way.....but then, a die-hard apologist like you probably thinks the picture was photoshopped and that he didn't actually appear in his little fucking *I'm a big bad soldier maayuuuun!* get-up.

ROTFL.

I am sure all those stickers were on there too right?

And the U.S. by no means has the most militaristic society -- the country I'm in right now beats the U.S. hands down in that respect.

Then you must be on the Klingon's homeworld.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

Bush's new budget calls for $515 billion in military spending - but the real full outlay would be above $700 billion. And the $515 billion doesn't even include the $200 billion annual cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, or $40 billion for Homeland Security, or $17 billion for the Department of Energy's weapons program, etc.

I am sure all those stickers were on there too right?

No.

I believe those were added for the purpose of showing who pulls the strings of that little Corporate toady.

in other words it was photo shopped.

Then you must be on the Klingon's homeworld.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
I was talking about culture and societal attitudes. Iraq is a lot more militaristic in that respect.

But if you're talking about military spending then yes, the U.S. does spend much more than any other country -- in absolute numbers. We have the largest defense budget because we have the largest economy. As a percentage of GDP, however, U.S. military spending ranks at #28. Here's the table (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html).

We know he goes to all hes meetings and functions dressed like that :rolleyes:
forgive Dhrama, he doesn't know the difference between protective clothing and a uniform.

LOL, that is true. I am sure if Dharama ever somehow managed to get in a military jet he would want a fightsuit too.

As Phil Donahue, the former host of MSNBC's highest-rated show who was fired by the network in February 2003 for bringing on anti-war voices, told "Democracy Now!"

As Phil Donahue, the former host of MSNBC's highest-rated show who was fired by the network in February 2003 for bringing on anti-war voices, told "Democracy Now!"


thats kinda funny... I remember his reasoning for getting fired a little differant. I looked it up and here is a link. He was running his show against the The O'Reilly Factor.. On an average Donahue had 450k viewers compared to Bill O'Reilly's 2.7 million. Phills show was the highests in a line up that was struggling very much and still is.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/index.html

Now it wasnt Phills fault. Liberal talk shows have always stuggled in that formatt and MSNBC doesnt have alot of patience when it comes to piss poor ratings. They thought if they brought out thier brightest star they could outshine Bill. It clearly was not the case


another theory is that NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel. The harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html


Then ofcourse there is a mysterious internal member that was allegedly passed around. Seems MSNBC didnt want its network to become "the new left" and axed him because of those fears and his anti war stance. Now this memo was never seen or confirmed it exsisted.

Or it could be that Donahue just blows. Kind of like Rosie.

Yo-what the fuck is this with the personal attacks .
Argue someones position or let it go-ya wanna be ashamed of yourselves.

Czechoslovakia-Hungary-Ukrane-East Germany were held by the Soviets,
were they gonna hold them forever,dont think so.


Paul, I hope I am wrong but you see to be saying that if an aggressor takes over your country and enslaves your people you should simply wait them out because they will eventually leave.

Is that what the Republican Irish did? Did they simply do what you seem to advocate for other nations, simply wait out their aggressors? You have praised the actions of the Irish freedom fighters and that seems to make you a bit of a hypocrite.

We know he goes to all hes meetings and functions dressed like that

like a press conference on an aircraft carrier?

:lolhit:

like a press conference on an aircraft carrier?

:lolhit:

Hey genius, he flew in on a military jet. You can not fly in a military jet in a suit, even if you are the president. The military has strict rules about what you have to wear and when.

If you recall, which you clearly choose not to, he did the speech in a suit. WTF is your problem? Do you choose to be such a dense son of a bitch or can you not help it?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

Hey genius, he flew in on a military jet.

ROTFL.

Evidently, the sarcasm inherent in the comment --""Like a press conference on an aircraft carrier?"" -- is lost on you.

Not that I'm surprised or anything.

ROTFL.

Evidently, the sarcasm inherent in the comment --""Like a press conference on an aircraft carrier?"" -- is lost on you.

Not that I'm surprised or anything.

I guess all you can do is repeat that since both you and dharma have been shown to be full of shit in this post. You on the photshop thing you ignored and dhrama on his incorrect statements abot bush giving his press conference in a flight suit.

Paul, I hope I am wrong but you see to be saying that if an aggressor takes over your country and enslaves your people you should simply wait them out because they will eventually leave.

Is that what the Republican Irish did? Did they simply do what you seem to advocate for other nations, simply wait out their aggressors? You have praised the actions of the Irish freedom fighters and that seems to make you a bit of a hypocrite.Maybe I am a bit of a hypocrite then,because Republican ideals were never achieved in Ireland,and I have come to the conclusion that what I saw,what I endured,what I participated in,and especially what I lost growing up,was for absolutely nothing.

The Republicans
The Unionists
The Irish Government
The British Government
all cut themselves a peace deal of sorts, which to be honest the North needed,as firstly,the IRA and British had fought each other to a stand off,
neither side was able to make a decisive victory over the other.
Secondly,the people in the North were simply war weary,they had enough,
thirdly,the economy was on the brink of collapse.
So,a lot of people had to bite their lip,swallow their pride and cut a deal.
For the sake of the children of the children of the troubles.
Its far from perfect,and bitterness and hatred still rears its head from time to time,but the killing has stopped.
So Frogger,I will oppose militarism and conflict to my end,as Im one of the war weary.

And berkely council folds like a cheap umbrella.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/13/berkeley.marines/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I guess all you can do is repeat that since both you and dharma have been shown to be full of shit in this post. You on the photshop thing you ignored and dhrama on his incorrect statements abot bush giving his press conference in a flight suit.

Trav, sometimes you act like a complete idiot. I know you are smarter than that, but I swear one could not tell by reading your tripe.

What I responded to was:
You know you are in a milataristic society when your leader shows up in an army uniform.

The Berkeley City Council attempted to make nice with U.S. Marines recruiters today by taking back a letter it planned to send calling the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city. But a motion to formally apologize failed.

Instead the City Council with a 7-2 vote at 1 a.m. sought to clarify one of its Jan. 29 motions with new language that recognizes "the recruiters' right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence." It went on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley." The new statement also said the council opposes "the recruitment of our young people into this war."

The council heard testimony from about 100 people who came from as far away as Colorado to weigh in on the issue.

At the same time, the council let stand four other items it passed at its previous meeting, including one encouraging "all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station," another asking the city attorney to investigate whether the recruiting station is breaking the city's law against discrimination based on sexual orientation and two items giving the peace group Code Pink a free weekly parking space and sound permit to protest at the Shattuck Avenue recruiting station once a week.

Berkeley High School student Lily Wynkoop, 14, told the council she would like to see the recruiters leave town. The recruiting office is a few blocks from the high school. "We should feel safe on our own school grounds," Wynkoop said. "But when (the Marines) come around, that's not the environment we get. To those who say Berkeley is un-American, we say we love America, but we hate war." --San Jose Merc (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8249064)

While I know for a fact that people in Berkeley are, as a group, a bit whacky, I fully support and applaud their actions in protesting Mr. Bush's happy little war in Iraq. The city council didn't "fold" as some desperate people would like to think. Their position against Mr. Bush's determination to take over the Middle East stands. Their position against the Iraq war stands. Their position against sending more of our kids to die in Saddam's desert stands. Their position against military recruitment offices in town stands.

If anything, the city council and Berkeley residents hardened their stand against Bush's apparent determination to turn America into a WAR nation, going so far as to applaud and encourage residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."

And it says volumes about the citizenry of Berkeley that the pro-military protesters had to be been bussed in from three states away.

:rolleyes:

Pics from yesterday at Beserkley

http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/

Sounds good to me-tho, how we know it was taken at Berkeley.

Trav, sometimes you act like a complete idiot. I know you are smarter than that, but I swear one could not tell by reading your tripe.

What I responded to was:

will you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between a flight suit and a miltary uniform

will you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between a flight suit and a miltary uniform
Why are you quibbling over this point? You should at least acknowledge the main thrust of Dharma's point, that being, the entire "Mission accomplished" stunt was a militaristic, well, stunt. Calculated to inflame jingoistic passions. Whether Bush was wearing a military uniform, a flight suit, or a plain ol' suit really isn't relevant.

Borg, the uniform was the whole point of this argument. The militaristic thing was something else paul started. Go back and folow the thread, dont let dharama fool you into thinking this is somehting other then what it is since he has been proven wrong.

trav is right. drama's post was in support of paul's assertion that the US is a militaristic society. He even quotes paul.
What drama was attempting to do is take a specific instance and create a broad generalization. in support of the paul's point. if that's what passes muster these days then we can equally infer that because drama has been wrong once, he's always wrong.

That doesn't pass the smell test.

Borg, the uniform was the whole point of this argument. The militaristic thing was something else paul started. Go back and folow the thread, dont let dharama fool you into thinking this is somehting other then what it is since he has been proven wrong.
I do admit I haven't been following this thread closely. If Dharma's sole point was what Bush was wearing then I'll grant you that he's the one quibbling over something irrelevant.

We use inches and feet as our measurements while most of Europe uses the metric system. Is that horrible too?
I think your post was good (2+ pages ago), but in answer to this question, YES, it is. We CAN'T convert as a matter of simple economics; it would cost billions. :(

I think your post was good (2+ pages ago), but in answer to this question, YES, it is. We CAN'T convert as a matter of simple economics; it would cost billions. :(
Which is why we should convert as soon as possible so it doesn't cost even more in the future. Conversion to the metric system is bound to happen eventually; it's just a matter of getting the units on the right instruments and getting people to think in terms of centimeters and kilograms rather than inches and pounds. Personally, I'm guilty of English thinking: I have to convert kilograms to pounds in my head before I can come to something meaningful.

zzzzzzzz waldo get real.
Czechoslovakia-Hungary-Ukrane-East Germany were held by the Soviets,
were they gonna hold them forever,dont think so.
Yeah - you're right - they were freed because we won the cold war; a war in which you objected to as well - a war WE bankrolled.

Personally, I'm guilty of English thinking: I have to convert kilograms to pounds in my head before I can come to something meaningful.
Of course you do, because pounds aren't in base 10. It's ridiculous, I agree.

Which is why we should convert as soon as possible so it doesn't cost even more in the future. Conversion to the metric system is bound to happen eventually; it's just a matter of getting the units on the right instruments and getting people to think in terms of centimeters and kilograms rather than inches and pounds. Personally, I'm guilty of English thinking: I have to convert kilograms to pounds in my head before I can come to something meaningful.

Yer thinkin like a Canadian.This hears Site is American,I take it.
It mite have it's base of operation in Puerto Rico for all I knowed.
But why should Americans change a doggong American thingy for the
ease and porpoise of utters.
The United States is THE Lone Superpower.
I suppose you wanna ADJUST that as well.

Metric...Schmetric.
I don't give a Gilhooley if boat Me Motorcycles are Metric.
Whats Good for the Goose is Good for the Canadian.
We ain't Geese in these here parts... Mister.

Why are you quibbling over this point? You should at least acknowledge the main thrust of Dharma's point, that being, the entire "Mission accomplished" stunt was a militaristic, well, stunt.
I think Trav accurately honed in on Dharma's original complaint, however I think FT attempted to take the argument another direction; he pointed out by virtue of the fact the press conference was held on an aircraft carrier, that the action, in itself, was 'overly' militaristic.
Calculated to inflame jingoistic passions. Whether Bush was wearing a military uniform, a flight suit, or a plain ol' suit really isn't relevant.
It was directly relevant to Dharma's original 'issue' with Bush donning a flight suit, and that's who he was talking to.

Yer thinkin like a Canadian.This hears Site is American,I take it.
It mite have it's base of operation in Puerto Rico for all I knowed.
But why should Americans change a doggong American thingy for the
ease and porpoise of utters.
The United States is THE Lone Superpower.
I suppose you wanna ADJUST that as well.
You can't be serious.

Strange. 96% of all casualties in Iraq have occurred since the day after that speech on the Lincoln.

The United States is THE Lone Superpower.
I suppose you wanna ADJUST that as well.
Enjoy it for the next twenty years, 'cause I'm bettin' that's all we got left.

Strange. 96% of all casualties in Iraq have occurred since the day after that speech on the Lincoln.
Yeah, and the vast majority of that number have been killed by their "fellow" compatriots, retardates included.

Sounds good to me-tho, how we know it was taken at Berkeley.

Oh, my mistake... those pics were taken outside Dublin.

:rolleyes:

Oh, my mistake... those pics were taken outside Dublin.

:rolleyes:
Ath Cliath :)

Yeah, and the vast majority of that number have been killed by their "fellow" compatriots, retardates included.
I guess that makes it ok then.

As a sidebar, did you know that accidentally pressing the "escape" key on your key board deletes everything you've written for an allforums post? Annoying...anyways, I'll have you know I've had to rewrite this whole post!


I don't know. Some kids used to play cowboys and indians with their guns. Were we a cowboy nation back then?

No, toys are only one of the indications. You have to look at all of the circumstances. Our nation wasn't also airing cowboy recruitment commericials, spending our way into deficit to maintain cowboy bases, or having cowboy recruiters combing high schools and colleges. If that were the case, my answer would probably be yes.

No. Maybe our difference in perception is the North versus South?You might have something there. I haven't seen a GI Joe or even a toy gun in my neighborhood for many years.
Of course the apparent pervasiveness of kids playing with guns down there could also be because the south is more of a gun culture in general.
In any case, that would make this more of a regional thing, wouldn't it?

Perhaps. There's no doubt that since I've spent the vast majority of my South, I'm prone to biased Southern perspectives. However, I note that my glaring example - military taxation and spending - is not regional in nature.

[Uninvited recruiters knocking at your door......
If this were such a militaristic society would it be necessary for recruiting tactics to be that invasive? Just a thought.

So the more invasive the recruiting tactics, the less militaristic a society is? Interesting theory...

[....young people doing military demonstrations/execises in college and high school....
In my entire life I have never seen this. is this at every high school and college down there. As you said, it might be a regional thing.

Weird. The ROTC had a very visible presence on both my college (not sure if that was ROTC - people in military uniforms for sure) and high school campuses.

Ex-military being favored in government promotions/hiring.
From an employer's standpoint this is a good thing, wouldn't you think?

I don't see how removing an employer's discretion to promote is a good thing for the employer.

Military taxes.
This does not give the society a militaristic feel, does it?

I don't know about "feel," but the amount of resources a society designates for military purposes is a pretty dammn good indicator of militarism IMO.

Television - and not just the news - commercials, movies, TV shows.
Which shows and commercials? And as far as movies go, half of the most recent are anti-military.

Um, "Be all you can be"? I must see that commericial a couple hundred times a year, and that's just the marines.

As for shows, JAG, MASH, and Band of Brothers all spring to mind.

What movies are you calling anti-military?

Foreign relations.
This is not something that has any great effect on your society and culture.

I disagree. Our relations with the Middle East for example has had substantial effects on our society and culture.

The harder question is what sectors of your life does the military NOT have a presence?
If you're looking for a compromise statement, that's a pretty good one. I'll go along with presence. But that's a far cry from a "militaristic society".

Sounds like an invitation to a semantic debate - thanks, but I'll pass.


If there is any militaristic nation in the world today, you would have to say the U.S.
To me this is reminiscent of when Dhramathinker says we live in fascism.
People in this country have no idea what that's really like.
Similarly, I think that the amount of military engagements we are involved in may cause us to think this society is militaristic.
But we here in this country with no draft or compulsory service of any kind don't know what a militaristic society is.

From this part of your post, it sounds like you're mixing up militarism with fascism. Militaristic societies don't necessarily involve a dictator or compulsory service - the Republic of Rome and Greek city-states spring to mind. Noationalism and popular support drives our militarism. 80% of this country supported war with Iraq. We are the most likely country in the world to go and invade someone else's country with our military - and the people support it in a very nationalistic manner.

Um, "Be all you can be"? I must see that commericial a couple hundred times a year, and that's just the marines.

"Be all you can be" has been replaced by "An Army of One" and was an Army slogan to begin with.

As for shows, JAG, MASH, and Band of Brothers all spring to mind.


There has been no shortage of cowboy & Indian movies and television shows until quite recently. Native Americans were always the bad guys.

young people doing military demonstrations/exercises in college and high school....


In my entire life I have never seen this.

I find that impossible to believe, if you are a police officer.

But then, maybe in your entire life you have never seen a single parade. Maybe you've never been on a college campus.

Going back over 40 years in the town where i live, I cannot recall a single parade that I have ever witnessed where there has not been a group of high school (ROTC) students in military uniforms marching and carrying the flag and weapons (rifles).

From Jim DeMint's website...


Support for Semper Fi Act Builds, Yet Democrats Place Secret Hold
Berkeley Refuses to Apologize, Continues to Urge Code Pink to “Impede” Military Recruiters February 13th, 2008 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement in response to the decision by the City Council of Berkeley, California not to apologize to the Marine Corps and their families and reaffirming their support for radical anti-war protestors to “impede” military recruiters from conducting their work.

Senator DeMint introduced the Semper Fi Act to rescind over $2 million in hidden earmarks for Berkeley, California in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and transfer the funds to the Marine Corps. Until yesterday, Senate Democrat leaders used parliamentary maneuvers (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reids-move-delayed-rap-on-berkeley-2008-02-11.html) to block consideration of the bill. Last night, Republicans asked to pass the Semper Fi Act by unanimous consent after no Republican member opposed its passage, but Democrats have placed an anonymous hold on the bill.

“It’s a national embarrassment that these officials refuse to apologize to our troops and their families and continue to support actions against military recruitment. It’s time for Berkeley to realize that actions have consequences,” said Senator DeMint. “Americans across the nation are outraged at Berkeley’s insult to our troops who have fought and died for their ability to live in freedom. It’s truly heartening to hear the outpouring of support for the Marine Corps in South Carolina and throughout the nation.”

Berkeley City Council members voted to rescind a letter to the Marine Corps recruitment office asking them to leave town, but left in place a provision that encourages “all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink” that “impede, passively or actively” the work of military recruiters. Berkeley also voted against a formal apology to the Marine Corps and will still allow Code Pink a special parking space in front of the recruitment office to conduct weekly protests.

“Let’s be clear, it’s not a question of the sincerity of anyone on either side of this issue. However, some of the hateful rhetoric and official actions against the Marine Corps that have come out of Berkeley has had real consequences on our troops, their families, and our recruiting,” said Senator DeMint.

The bill is cosponsored by 10 senators including Republican leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and John Cornyn (R-Texas). U.S. Congressman John Campbell (R-California) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives and now has 71 cosponsors, including Republican leaders John Boehner (R-Ohio), Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), and nine other members of the California delegation.

“In Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban’s Afghanistan, such opposition would not be allowed a voice at all. But thankfully we live in a free democracy under the protection of our brave Marines. Protestors have the right to vocally insult our troops but patriotic Americans also have the right to seek a democratic response to discourage activities that actively impede the legitimate functions of our military.”

“I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to stop the special taxpayer favors Berkeley has received through unnecessary earmarks,” said Senator DeMint.

One Berkeley earmark provides $243,000 in taxpayer dollars for the organization Chez Panisse to create gourmet organic school lunches in the Berkeley School District. Another earmark would spend $975,000 in taxpayer dollars for the University of California, to create a new endowment and cataloging the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui. U.C. Berkeley already has a $3.5 billion endowment.

I find that impossible to believe, if you are a police officer.

But then, maybe in your entire life you have never seen a single parade. Maybe you've never been on a college campus.

Going back over 40 years in the town where i live, I cannot recall a single parade that I have ever witnessed where there has not been a group of high school (ROTC) students in military uniforms marching and carrying the flag and weapons (rifles).

I think it's a north/south thing. I've never seen any demonstrations, hell I don't even know what the ROTC is.

We seem to have a new definiton of a militaristic society. According to some posters the mere fact that the military is free to recruit people makes society militaristic. Others think that because a society has a large, modern military that society is militaristic.

I have always bee taught that a militaristic society is a society in which the military controls the civilian government as is/was the case in many South American and African nations in which the military nullifies elections it does not agree with, installs its own puppet leaders and decides policy.

As far as I know this has never been the case in the United States. When anti-military candidates have been elected to office the military has not attempted to nullify the election. President Truman in effect fired General Douglas MacArthur, the most powerful military man in the country. The military is subject to civilian oversight and not the other way around.

This DeMint guy are all the rest of his buddies with the 'R' after their names is really pushing this aren't they.

Looks like no decent will be tolerated against the military in America.

Freedom eh.

This DeMint guy are all the rest of his buddies with the 'R' after their names is really pushing this aren't they.

Looks like no decent will be tolerated against the military in America.

Freedom eh.

Not allowing dissent means not allowing people to hold anti-military views. No one is doing that. What is being proposed is having people realize that actions have consequences. You are free to insult the military or any other government organization but if you do you should ot also expect government largesse.

"Be all you can be" has been replaced by "An Army of One" and was an Army slogan to begin with.


That's right. I'm mixing up "The Few, the Proud" the Marines with the Army.

This DeMint guy are all the rest of his buddies with the 'R' after their names is really pushing this aren't they.

Looks like no decent will be tolerated against the military in America.

Freedom eh.
That's EXACTLY what this is... freedom.

It works both ways. Freedom from the government... freedom from government earmarks.

Of course, I'm sure these kids need that gourmet lunch program... I know that there is one of those here in the rural county where I live.:rolleyes:

Its called financial blackmail. Show any decent and your funding will be cut.

Why should people expect Government 'largesse', the Government spends the peoples money, not the other way around.

It is nothing short of an attack on civil liberty.

I guess that makes it ok then.
No, that just makes it NOT OUR FAULT. You can say our mere presence there exacerbates the problem, but that, in and of itself, doesn't change the fact that the problem was already THERE to begin with.

Its called financial blackmail. Show any decent and your funding will be cut.

Why should people expect Government 'largesse', the Government spends the peoples money, not the other way around.

It is nothing short of an attack on civil liberty.
Fucking nonsense.

We seem to have a new definiton of a militaristic society. According to some posters the mere fact that the military is free to recruit people makes society militaristic. Others think that because a society has a large, modern military that society is militaristic.

I have always bee taught that a militaristic society is a society in which the military controls the civilian government as is/was the case in many South American and African nations in which the military nullifies elections it does not agree with, installs its own puppet leaders and decides policy.

Militarism is the "belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests" [Source: Apple Dictionary, Version 1.0.2]. It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force" Online die.net dictionary, as well as "Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and "Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state" American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism

No, that just makes it NOT OUR FAULT. You can say our mere presence there exacerbates the problem, but that, in and of itself, doesn't change the fact that the problem was already THERE to begin with.
Dont see how the problem was there before Bush sent the troops in.

Fucking nonsense.
It amazes me that people here,yourself included,would support action against a civilian educational facility, which is protesting against military recruits on campus.

The military is there to serve the people, you guys are heading down the road of reversing that role.

Maybe you should ask the Kurds and Swamp Arabs if there was a problem before he U.S. went there, Paul. They were gassed and attacked mercilessly. You seem to have an extremely selective memory.

Maybe you should ask the Kurds and Swamp Arabs if there was a problem before he U.S. went there, Paul. They were gassed and attacked mercilessly. You seem to have an extremely selective memory.
No my memory is fine.
How many years was it after the gassing of Kurds before the US got interested ?

From this part of your post, it sounds like you're mixing up militarism with fascism. Militaristic societies don't necessarily involve a dictator or compulsory service - the Republic of Rome and Greek city-states spring to mind. Nationalism and popular support drives our militarism. 80% of this country supported war with Iraq. We are the most likely country in the world to go and invade someone else's country with our military - and the people support it in a very nationalistic manner. Agreed. Switzerland has compulsory service but I wouldn't call them militaristic in the same sense we in the US are. Heck, here in the US we build weapons just for the sake of building weapons. Star Wars, for example: pure pork. And yes Prae, thanks to wasteful overspending we have about 20 years left as top dog.

It amazes me that people here,yourself included,would support action against a civilian educational facility, which is protesting against military recruits on campus.

"Civilian educational facility" is nothing more than a euphemism for PRIVATE INSTITUTION (and it's one that just so happens to be on the federal dole to fund the organization "Chez Panisse" :rolleyes: to create gourmet 'organic' school lunches for the "unfortunate" Californian fruitcakes that are stuck with a 30-thousand-dollar tuition tab, no less). In short, I think you're confused, Paul - Berkley isn't funded by our government - they're a PRIVATE school that's LUCKY to receive any federal funding in the first place. A good axiom to live by is don't shit where you eat.

For example, would you tell your benefactor to get the fuck off your property and STILL expect him to pay your bills? Get your own money, Berkley - you're plenty capable. Assholes are born every minute; your board of directors is living proof of that fact alone.
The military is there to serve the people, you guys are heading down the road of reversing that role.
And I think your confusing the reality of this situation with something you THINK is happening, but it's not.

It amazes me that people here,yourself included,would support action against a civilian educational facility, which is protesting against military recruits on campus.
It's a city, paul.

The military is there to serve the people, you guys are heading down the road of reversing that role.
Oh give it a break. We are less militaristic than almost anytime in our history. This would be the same type of bullshit if I said that Ireland is full of ugly, fat, stupid, drunkards... because that is what I saw on TV last night. I hate that your opinion of the US is so myopic to what you may see online or in the papers. I would have thought you to be smarter than to believe just part of the whole story... but I suppose one believes what one WANTS to believe.

Ireland is full of ugly fat stupid drunkards, but thats besides the point.

Berkeley City Council has said it acknowledges the USMC has a right to operate a recruiting office within the city, but also states that people have
a right to pretest its presence.

What right wingers are ticked off at here is that some people have the front to stand up and be counted, they dont want to see people recruited into a military which engages in war in foreign lands.

Now,do these people have a right to protest, the answer is yes.

Does the Government have the right to threaten the witholding of funds
because these people exercise their rights, no.

Its bullshit.

Whats happening here is the right wing are sending out a message to all America, get in line-or else.

The right to protest is not the issue. The issue is whether the city can refuse the Marine recruiting office a space in the town. The code pinkers have the right to protest, and the military has the right to have a recruiting station there.

I can protest the property taxes that I am charged. I can sit in front of the tax office every day bearing signs showing how unfair I feel the tax is to me. What I cannot do is declare myself as seceeding from the county and refusing to pay these taxes. (and if I could "leave" the county's jurisdiction... could I expect to get free education, fire and police protection, etc? I think not.) It's that simple.

Yeah it is that simple.
Berleley City Council said the same thing, tho they also added that people had a right to protest the presence of the office.

So DeMint and his buddies decided to punish Berkeley for allowing the protest.

The issue is whether the city can refuse the Marine recruiting office a space in the town.

Pay attention OldPhart; Berkeley has not and never did refuse the recruiting office a space in town; they merely wanted to send the message to the Marines that their presence is neither welcome nor appreciated.

And what happened? The reichwingers and warmongers jumped onto buses and wrote to their congressmen and made a big fat stink about something that didn't even involve them.

It's exactly as paul says, DeMint and his buddies decided to punish Berkeley for having the NERVE to protest something they are adamantly against. How strange that someone from a different country has such a firm grasp of what's going on here, and native fools like you can't see the forest for the trees.

:rolleyes:

How strange that someone from a different country has such a firm grasp of what's going on here, and native fools like you can't see the forest for the trees.

Hear hear!

You nailed it.

SanFrancisco Chronicle 02/13/2008


02-13) 11:53 PST Berkeley - --
After a day of enraged confrontation outside Berkeley City Hall between anti-war and pro-military demonstrators, the City Council backed down early Wednesday from its controversial decision to tell the U.S. Marines they are "unwelcome intruders" for operating a downtown recruiting center.
Council members conceded that they had erred in passing a resolution Jan. 29 that condemned the Marines - rather than the war in Iraq - and some council members added that they felt they owed U.S. troops an apology as well the many Berkeley residents who were ashamed and offended by their position.
"To err is human but to really screw up it takes the Berkeley City Council," said council member Gordon Wozniak. "We failed our city. We embarrassed our city."
At 1:30 a.m., after nearly four hours of public comment and debate, the council voted 7-2 to rescind its action two weeks ago directing the city clerk to send a letter to the Marines that they weren't welcome in the city.
In a separate vote, the council decided not to issue a public apology for its action last month.
But some council members said they strongly believe the Bush administration has used lies and deceit to lead the nation into a war in which nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed. They also criticized the government for what they said was hiding the horrors of the war behind a "support our troops" mantra.
"We do not want to ostracize our troops," said council member Linda Maio. "They are our sons and our daughters. We care about them. We love them and we want to bring them home."
But Maio added, the war in Iraq is "badly thought out" and she does not support the government's recruiting efforts for this war.
The backdown became apparent late Tuesday night when Mayor Tom Bates and three council members aligned themselves with the two who called on the council last week to rethink its position. The January decision created a firestorm of criticism across the nation from people who called the council's position on the Marines harsh and inappropriate. Others cheered the council as courageous.
Berkeley's critics included six Republican U.S. senators who have vowed to cut federal funding for several Berkeley programs, such as the Chez Panisse Foundation, which provides school lunches at Berkeley's public schools, and the Robert Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at UC Berkeley.
Council members maintained that they were not caving in to pressure from right-wing bloggers or radio-show hosts in backing away from their January vote.
Protesters began gathering as early as Monday night outside City Hall in anticipation of the Tuesday night meeting. By Tuesday morning, some confrontations had become physical, and police in riot gear moved in to separate the groups. At its peak, 2,000 protesters had gathered outside City Hall, police said.
Three protesters were arrested for minor scuffles with other demonstrators - and a fourth for allegedly slapping a police officer - in what was one of the largest demonstrations in the city in years.
Tuesday evening, many demonstrators squeezed into the council chambers - some telling the council to stand firm, others urging the council to apologize for insulting the military and the men and women who are serving their country. The council allowed public testimony to continue into the early morning Wednesday before making a decision.
"Berkeley doesn't speak for America," said Eve Tidwell of Columbus, Ga., who flew into the Bay Area on Tuesday after watching news accounts of the uproar over the Marines in Berkeley. "If terror came to Berkeley, the Marines would come to protect the people here."
Tidwell, whose son-in-law is in the Navy, wanted the council to rescind its objection to the Marines and the recruiting office they opened on Shattuck Square a year ago. She encouraged others to boycott Berkeley businesses until the council backed down.
But Susan Killebrew, a Berkeley mother who brought her twin 7-year-old daughters, Aria and Sophia, to the demonstration, said she wanted the city to stand firm against the war and the recruiting center.
"We might have to suffer (negative publicity) as a result of it," she said before the meeting Tuesday, "but not as much as the children in Iraq who are traumatized by the constant military presence there. My heart is broken by this war. I marched against it before the invasion. It makes me sad that so many have died."
Council members Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli called last week for the council to retreat from its position on the Marines and instead make clear that while the city opposes the war, it supports the troops.
Olds and Capitelli opposed the council's resolution, passed by a 6-3 vote, to send the objection letter to the Marines. The city manager had not yet prepared the letter and was awaiting the results of Tuesday's council meeting.
As the meeting got under way, three other council members, Max Anderson, Linda Maio and Darrell Moore, and the mayor offered yet another resolution that was similar to the Olds-Capitelli one, rescinding the letter and supporting the troops.
During the meeting, protesters could still be heard shouting outside Maudelle Shirek City Hall. They had spent the day yelling, singing, chanting and flag-waving along Martin Luther King Jr. Way. At times, the arguments grew intense, as protesters stood face-to-face screaming obscenities at one another.
A 49-year-old man from Rocklin (Placer County) and two Berkeley teenagers were arrested in separate scuffles, police said. About 1 p.m., a man supporting the Marines ventured into an encampment by the anti-war group Code Pink and drew a knife. Police arrested Keith Donald Salvatore for brandishing the weapon. He told police he had taken out the knife in self-defense after war protesters wrapped him in a pink banner, said Sgt. Mary Kusmiss, a police spokeswoman.
Police arrested the teenagers, boys ages 13 and 15, for scuffling with Marines supporters.
At around 4 p.m., police arrested Luisa Romero De Los Angeles, an 18-year-old Berkeley resident who they say slapped a police officer who told her to back away as she demanded they release the two boys who had been arrested earlier.
Code Pink activists said that even with the council backing off, they intend to place a resolution on the local ballot to oust the recruiters.
"We want voters to be able to decide ... just like they have a say whether a liquor store or porn shop opens near a school," said Jodie Evans, a Berkeley yoga studio owner who co-founded Code Pink.
Evans, wearing a pink crown that said "I Miss America," sat on a lawn chair outside of City Hall in the chilly night air listening to testimony from the meeting inside, which was being broadcast to the hundreds who couldn't fit inside the building.
Iraq war veteran Javier Tenorio of Berkeley was also listening outside of City Hall. The former Army infantryman who served two tours of duty called the ballot proposal "ridiculous."
"Even if they achieve it, it's going to be voted down," Tenorio said. "There are enough people in Berkeley who support the military, including university Republicans. We're going to beat this."





I guess after some rational thought... they decided to change their minds.


I'll say this where even a imbecilic chicken chaser can understand.



IT WAS NOT THE PROTESTING OF THE WAR OR EVEN THE CODE PINK DEMONSTRATIONS THAT REALLY PISSED PEOPLE OFF.... IT WAS THE DISRESPECT AND DISDAIN THAT THE CITY OF BERKELEY SHOWED THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT SIGN ON TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY.




My son's in his 4th year of service at the moment... you have any chickies in the service yourself? Or is it not OK for me to be offended by these bunch of whackos when they disparage my son (and others like him)? These people are attention whores and deserved to get admonished by DECENT folk (of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that).

I'd say the attention whore is the woman who flew to California from Columbus, GA, to get on a soapbox and complain about Berkeley, CA's business.

Or is it not OK for me to be offended by these bunch of whackos when they disparage my son (and others like him)?

Bullshit.

I'd wager that your son has not the slightest idea in the world what stance the Berkeley city council has taken, and even if he did, it is no "offense" to him personally. Get over your fucking self.

People like you are simply spoiled brats used to having it your way in ALL aspects of American life and who do not like having your pro-war, pro-militarist political view criticized or questioned in any way, and when you do see an isolated example of a very small group of people who do not want to bow down to you and go along with your imperious **America=Might Makes Right!** stance, you play the --"You're dissing my son who is in the miiiiiiiiilitary!!"-- card. Truly pathetic.

These people are attention whores and deserved to get admonished by DECENT folk (of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that).

I'd say that Frannie and I both understand your stance perfectly; you and all who agree with your unrelentingly pro-militarist ideology = "the decent folk".

Everyone who doesn't agree with such a viewpoint or who opposes the war in Iraq is --in your view- an "indecent" person.

Got it.