If you have the right to express disdain for porn shops and abortion clinics, you should have the right to do so for recruiting offices.

Personally, all of the recruiters I've dealt with tend to be very abrasive and manipulative. Some even go as far to lie in order to get people to sign up. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Regardless, they aren't the type of people I'd want around either.

you have any chickies in the service yourself?
My stepfather is a Marine, just got back from Iraq, actually. I'm pretty darn sure that most Marines don't give a rat's ass about Berkeley, one way or the other. Insult the Marines? It's not stupid, abhorrent, or, anything. It's just, dumb. Why even care? They're the fucking Marines! The finest fighting force on the planet! It shouldn't even register on the radar! It's like, oh, I dunno, The Dude attacking Eminem, saying he's shit. Who the fuck cares? But say, it made a big stink. Everyone is attacking The Dude now, defending Eminem. How can that do anything but bring Eminem down, to say that a comment from The Dude is worthy of note?

So you are saying it is a case of people getting offended FOR someone else? Like with the American Indian sports names? Native Americans never seem to care, but there is a whole host of guilty white liberals ready to be offended for them and demand a name change.

Personally, all of the recruiters I've dealt with tend to be very abrasive and manipulative. Some even go as far to lie in order to get people to sign up. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Regardless, they aren't the type of people I'd want around either.

I am sure the feeling was mutual.

Why do I not believe Overdose has had any dealings with recruiting officers, abrasive or otherwise?



Fran,

You seem to have no problem with liberals protesting at the recruiting site but at the same time you have a problem with conservative counter protesters. Why is it okay for one group to protest but not the other?

So you are saying it is a case of people getting offended FOR someone else? Like with the American Indian sports names? Native Americans never seem to care, but there is a whole host of guilty white liberals ready to be offended for them and demand a name change.
Yeah, it's the same. It's all the talking heads and outrage that gives Berkeley power. You see it all the time. Britney Spears is in the news all the time. You think whenever she finally pulls her head out of her ass and makes a new album, it won't be crazy huge? She's in the public eye. Michael Richards makes some racist cracks, now he's doing movies again, real ones, not straight-to-video. He hadn't done one since 1994's Airheads.

Why do I not believe Overdose has had any dealings with recruiting officers, abrasive or otherwise?
Don't believe it all you want. But downtown Portland they were everywhere over the summer, going up to any and all males who looked 18-25. And as much as you might think I look "obviously gay, all the time", I don't. But even if I did, it doesn't matter because the military is so desperate these days to get recruits, they even settle for us homos.

Don't believe it all you want. But downtown Portland they were everywhere over the summer, going up to any and all males who looked 18-25. And as much as you might think I look "obviously gay, all the time", I don't. But even if I did, it doesn't matter because the military is so desperate these days to get recruits, they even settle for us homos.

I don't think you look obviously gay, Overdose. I think you look the same as any other young male of your age group. I don't think you have ever spoken with a recruiter becauase of your personallity not your looks.

Fran, you seem to have no problem with liberals protesting at the recruiting site but at the same time you have a problem with conservative counter protesters. Why is it okay for one group to protest but not the other?

Did those conservative counter protesters come from Berkeley? The Bay Area? Did they even come from California? NO.

The people of Berkeley are entitled to do as they wish in their own community, whether it's protesting Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq by picketing the local recruiting office, or insisting that pet owners be referred to as pet guardians. It's nobody else's damned business. Of course, it's no surprise that you find no fault when total (conservative) strangers from thousands of miles away decend on this small (extremely liberal) town that's minding its own damned business (Berkeley hasn't insisted that anyone else follow its lead, has it?) to attempt to force the conservative way of thinking/living upon the people of Berkeley.

I wonder what you'd have to say if a few hundred Berkeley-ites decended on YOUR town and picketed the local recruiting office...

My son's in his 4th year of service at the moment... you have any chickies in the service yourself?

Wait... Is this one of those "If you don't have a child in the military, you're not allowed to have an opinion on Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq" things?

Or is it not OK for me to be offended by these bunch of whackos

You can be offended by anything you like. There is no limit to the number of things you can choose to be offended by, so go for it! Just remember, there are no laws that protect you from being offended. Beyond that, can you give me any reason that the people of Berkeley should live their lives trying to avoid annoying poor, pitiful you? Are you somebody, or something?

when they disparage my son (and others like him)?

Ah, here it is. "It's true those people don't know my son and have no gripe against him personally, but they complain so loudly against Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq that I'm going to twist their motives/actions into a DIRECT PERSONAL ATTACK so my petty annoyance will be justified! Take THAT, you liberal scum!" * shakes fist *

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

Nappy has already identified the attention whores quite nicely for all the decent folk, thank you.

Personally, all of the recruiters I've dealt with tend to be very abrasive and manipulative.
Were you wearing makeup at the time? Something tells me they weren't trying very hard to "actively" recruit you.

......it doesn't matter because the military is so desperate these days to get recruits, they even settle for us homos.
Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Don't believe it all you want. But downtown Portland they were everywhere over the summer, going up to any and all males who looked 18-25. And as much as you might think I look "obviously gay, all the time", I don't. But even if I did, it doesn't matter because the military is so desperate these days to get recruits, they even settle for us homos.

You know america is in trouble when panhandlers have more freedom and more protection to approach you on the street then a military recruiter.

You know America is in trouble when the right wing attack people for demonstrating in the street.

You know america is in trouble when panhandlers have more freedom and more protection to approach you on the street then a military recruiter.
Either way, you can say NO to both, so ultimately, I fail to see the problem here. The only difference between the two is a panhandler doesn't go away when you tell him to fuck off.

You know America is in trouble when the right wing attack people for demonstrating in the street.
You're conflating the issue, yet again. The problem isn't "demonstrating", Paul. The PROBLEM is telling the government they have NO RIGHT to establish recruiting offices in a public place. That's why the city counsel apologized to our government on behalf of the citizenry there. As for the issue you had with government "funding" earlier, I've already explained why that's erroneous.

I believe the council has said that the recruiters have a right to an office,
but,
the people have also a right to protest at its presence.

I believe the council has said that the recruiters have a right to an office,
but,
the people have also a right to protest at its presence.

As Miss Laura Ingraham has successfully analogized,that same
Council is treating a Marine Recruiting Office as if were a Red Light
District Porn Parlor.The Council is making it as difficult as can be
to have ease of Zoning permits for something as Tragically
Important as a Military Recruiting office.
Plus that same council is also requiring that Parking for aforementioned
Office be as difficult as humanely possible.
S'not dat any Council member has THAT much in common
with other Human,per se.

You know America is in trouble when the right wing attack people for demonstrating in the street.

Where did that come from? How did overdose having to withstand the horror of being approached by an Army recruiter while he walks to his local Starbucks become the "rightwing attacking people in the strret ofr demonstrating"?

I believe the council has said that the recruiters have a right to an office,
but,
the people have also a right to protest at its presence.
Absolutely, that goes without saying, but that's NOT why there was a proposal to cut funding.

Where did that come from? How did overdose having to withstand the horror of being approached by an Army recruiter while he walks to his local Starbucks become the "rightwing attacking people in the strret ofr demonstrating"?
Nothing whatsoever to do with Overdose or his encounter with an Army recruiter.

Absolutely, that goes without saying, but that's NOT why there was a proposal to cut funding.
No-go on then.

Where did that come from? How did overdose having to withstand the horror of being approached by an Army recruiter while he walks to his local Starbucks become the "rightwing attacking people in the strret ofr demonstrating"?
Yeah - if anything, they're the ones quelling free speech here, not the ubiquitous boogeyman: the US government. :rolleyes:

No-go on then.
Paul, that's already been explained. If that were the case (I mean, truly the case), then they'd cut funding (err....endowments) to every major left-wing city college (uhhh, read; MOST) in America.

Paul, that's already been explained. If that were the case (I mean, truly the case), then they'd cut funding to every major left-wing city (uhhh, read; MOST) in America.
Well maybe someones angle on it has been explained.

This guy DeMint has taken it upon himself to punish Berkeley,who does he think he is.

Paul, that's already been explained. If that were the case (I mean, truly the case), then they'd cut funding to every major left-wing city (uhhh, read; MOST) in America.

I think it's safe to say that Berkeley is THE most left-wing city in the country.

Ergo, conservative-think demands that Berkeley serve as an example (read: a WARNING) for the rest of the county: "Embrace your Constitutional right to protest and PAY THE PRICE!!" :taser:

Well maybe someones angle on it has been explained.

This guy DeMint has taken it upon himself to punish Berkeley,who does he think he is.
Someone who represents a portion of the people (READ; our government) who granted that University (a PRIVATE university, at that) a healthy endowment for gourmet organic lunches when that VERY university told our government to get the fuck off their property. If not to add insult to injury here, they then REFUSED to apologize for doing so. THEY were ones inhibiting free speech here, not Uncle Sam.

That aside, I'd like to see 'em pull that shit in another country.

I dont think there is another country were the military are held in such esteem.

Russia maybe ?

that University (a PRIVATE university, at that)

Just FYI - Berkeley = the University of California. It's public.

I think it's safe to say that Berkeley is THE most left-wing city in the country.

Ergo, conservative-think demands that Berkeley serve as an example (read: a WARNING) for the rest of the county: "Embrace your Constitutional right to protest and PAY THE PRICE!!" :taser:
I love the emoticon. :) That was perfect.

Maybe, but then again, no other university would be so shortsighted and flat-out wrong. You can't say that what they did was right, Fran.

Just FYI - Berkeley = the University of California. It's public.
Okay, that was confusing; by private, I meant that it's a private institution (i.e. BUSINESS) - meaning, specifically, they don't require government funding to operate. What's the tuition there again???

Fran,

Do you really think all those Code Pink people are residents of Berkely?

Did you have a problem with Cindy Sheehan running all around the country, to places where she didn't live, in order to protest?

Did you have a problem with the Million Man March since those people were protesting where they didn't live?

Or, as is more likely, do you only have a problem with conservative protestors?

Ergo, conservative-think demands that Berkeley serve as an example (read: a WARNING) for the rest of the county: "Embrace your Constitutional right to protest and PAY THE PRICE!!" :taser:It's not the actions of the protesters that led to the proposal to withhold federal funds; it's the actions of the city council. Nobody is contesting the anybody's right to protest.

It's not the actions of the protesters that led to the proposal to withhold federal funds; it's the actions of the city council. Nobody is contesting the anybody's right to protest.
So saith one of the three most levelheaded liberals here. Thank you, Jester.

So-federal funding should be based not upon what the funding is for,but the attitude of the council to the Government.

While I do not like the message conveyed by Berkley's city council, I can't deny that it disturbs me that the federal government is using pursestrings to suppress the "attitudes" of city government officials it does not like.

This offends my sense of freedom of expression.

This is a new trend in our federal government to control state and local governments by withholding federal benefits. This is a problem. The founders of our government fully intended the federal government to have certain functions while relegating other functions to the state. Now, the federal government is not only infringing on some of those functions, but it wants to curb the "attitudes" of local government officials.

I would think this bothers any American on a nonpartisan level.

So-federal funding should be based not upon what the funding is for,but the attitude of the council to the Government.
That "funding" was an endowment, nothing more. When people charitably give millions of dollars to universities, the universities in question will typically name entire gymnasiums/field houses/libraries after them. Not only did they not thank our government, they basically told them (for doing nothing wrong, mind you) to fuck off and get off their property. If you were benefactor giving that money (as a charitable contribution, no less), would you pull your financing? I know I would. Without hesitation.

While I do not like the message conveyed by Berkley's city council, I can't deny that it disturbs me that the federal government is using pursestrings to suppress the "attitudes" of city government officials it does not like.

This offends my sense of freedom of expression.
HOW SO!?!?!?!?!?

The only "funding" they contemplated (operative word here) pulling was charitable funding. I'd do the same thing if they told me in no uncertain terms to FUCK OFF when I was operating in a completely legal fashion.

HOW SO!?!?!?!?!?

The only "funding" they contemplated (operative word here) pulling was charitable funding. I'd do the same thing if they told me in no uncertain terms to FUCK OFF when I was operating in a completely legal fashion.

I'm not sure what you're calling "charitable funding," but the article calls it "federal funding." If the source of the money is taxpayers, then I stand by my statement. If the source is a private entity, then the private entity can do what it wants with the money.

This is a new trend in our federal government to control state and local governments by withholding federal benefits.
Remember the word 'benefits'. That's what we're talking about here, not "operational funding".
This is a problem.
No. It was the right thing to do.
The founders of our government fully intended the federal government to have certain functions while relegating other functions to the state. Now, the federal government is not only infringing on some of those functions, but it wants to curb the "attitudes" of local government officials.
I'm sure, if pressed, the state would back them up. Let's not forget that what they did was flat-out WRONG (on a multitude of levels).
I would think this bothers any American on a nonpartisan level.
The only way it can bother you is ON a partisan level.

Remember the word 'benefits'. That's what we're talking about here, not "operational funding".


Now, Prae, tax money is public money, no matter what label you give it. That money is taken from tax payers by threat of force and cannot be used to violate constitutional principles.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, regardless of the message expressed.

I'm not sure what you're calling "charitable funding," but the article calls it "federal funding." If the source of the money is taxpayers, then I stand by my statement.
Well, of course, the source of the money is taxpayer based, but the funding in question was nothing more than a federally sanctioned endowment. Would you call providing gourmet organic lunches a requisite funding requirement of our taxpayers? Good, neither would I. Especially in light of the fact that Berkley isn't hurting in the dollar dept.
If the source is a private entity, then the private entity can do what it wants with the money.
I say pull it. Fuck 'em. They were the first to overstep constitutional LAW (freedom of speech), and rightly, they should be reminded that shitting where you eat is, generally speaking, a bad idea.

Now, Prae, tax money is public money, no matter what label you give it. That money is taken from tax payers by threat of force and cannot be used to violate constitutional principles.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, regardless of the message expressed.
Well, our representatives voted to give that money in the first place, so as far as I'm concerned, they can vote to un-give it. That's only fair, right? I mean, after all, that university broke the law (and at the same time, shit on the very people who are responsible for providing those freedoms, so....I'll say it again - fuck 'em).

So I was right then.
Federal funding,in whatever guise ya wanna call it, basically tax payers money,
was threatened to be witheld because the powers that be didnt like Berleleys attitude.
And your supporting the Federal Government in its attempts to gag their freedom of expression. How come ?

Just FYI - Berkeley = the University of California. It's public.

I see where during the McCarthy era,in 1949 the Board of Regents
adopted an Anti-Communist loyalty oath to be signed by ALL
University of California employees.
A number of faculty members objected to the oath requirement and
were dismissed.
Same thing should happen here.
No More Stalinist Campus influence.
If you don't Support the Marines,you surely don't Support America.
It can't be any simplier.

And your supporting the Federal Government in its attempts to gag their freedom of expression. How come ?
'Cause they were in breech first. It was the university who kicked them off campus, remember? They were the freedom quellers here, not Uncle Sam.

That said, it's not even really about "their freedom of expression"; it's about right and wrong, and they, my friend, were wrong. There's no two ways around that fact.

'Cause they were in breech first. It was the university who kicked them off campus, remember?
Would you advocate this behaviour across the board, or just this isolated incident ?

'Cause they were in breech first. It was the university who kicked them off campus, remember? They were the freedom quellers here, not Uncle Sam.

That said, it's not even really about "their freedom of expression"; it's about right and wrong, and they, my friend, were wrong. There's no two ways around that fact.

They didn't kick them off campus, they wrote a letter saying that the Marines weren't welcome, according to the article.

You're endorsing the government telling citizens what they can and cannot support. That sounds like a very basic infringement on freedom of speech to me and its sad that so many support it, IMO.

You said the university broke the law - how so?

This smells of 'big brother' to me, and with wider implications.

Would you advocate this behaviour across the board, or just this isolated incident ?
For now, only with regards to Berkley because the university was responsible for quelling the freedoms of others first. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. As long as it's put to a vote, I could care less if they cut the funding earmarked for gourmet lunches. The university was WRONG, period.

Federal funding,in whatever guise ya wanna call it, basically tax payers money,
was threatened to be witheld because the powers that be didnt like Berleleys attitude.

Correct.

And the fact that there is a mindset among the populace in this country that would actually indicate support for such despicable, totalitarianist-minded measures on the part of the powers-that-be speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country and why it is destined to --as did the Roman empire before it-- falter and collapse.

They didn't kick them off campus, they wrote a letter saying that the Marines weren't welcome, according to the article.

You're endorsing the government telling citizens what they can and cannot support. That sounds like a very basic infringement on freedom of speech to me and its sad that so many support it, IMO.

I think the distinction bein made is not just the Freedom of
Speech to be against something { Or institution,like the Marines}
but the fact that this Freedom of Speech leads to Campus unrest
and actions taken by city councils {Zoning} to Limit in actuality a role
of said institution {namely the Marines right to an Office w/o
controlling infringements} to have fair and complimentary access.

You said the university broke the law - how so?
By telling them they're not welcome. For a university with a renowned law dept., that speaks volumes, IMHO. Who's quashing freedoms here: our government, or the university? Do you think what they did was right???

Do you think what they did was right???

I do.

Very much so. But let's leave that aside for a minute and return to your claim.

You keep saying they broke the law.

How? Can you explain which law it was that they broke?

Correct.

And the fact that there is a mindset among the populace in this country that would actually indicate support for such despicable, totalitarianist-minded measures on the part of the powers-that-be speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country and why it is destined to --as did the Roman empire before it-- falter and collapse.
Every empire collapses, genius. :rolleyes: Nothing about cutting funding (when put to a vote by OUR REPRESENTATIVES) is totalitarianist. Was it "totalitarianist" when they voted to supply gourmet lunch funding in the first place? Get real. :rolleyes:

By telling them they're not welcome. For a university with a renowned law dept., that speaks volumes, IMHO. Who's quashing freedoms here: our government, or the university? Do you think what they did was right???

Since when can someone not say "You're unwelcome here!?" That's freedom of speech, Prae.

With that said, I'm going to withdraw my stance on different grounds - namely, the fact that the city council passed a resolution to give a protest group a free parking spot in front of the recruiting facility from which protesters could protest, thereby sanctioning one form of speech over other competing forms of speech. Thus, the city council acted illegally and could rightfully have it's funding revoked IMO.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/15245031/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

How? Can you explain which law it was that they broke?
They suppressed (or at least, attempted to suppress) the government's freedom of speech. That's despicable, and you, of all people, should realize that. They were in breech of their constitutional obligations, and consequently, they should have their "bonus" funding cut because of it. I mean, after all, they're a PRIVATE FUCKING BUSINESS. How many times do we hear you people bitch about "corporate bailouts"!?!?! Is this really anything different? Think about it, and get back to me.

Nothing about cutting funding (when put to a vote by OUR REPRESENTATIVES) is totalitarianist.

We disagree.

When the motivation and the effect of those doing the cutting of the funding is to punish a city council who dared to stand up and express its opinion to the powers-that-be, it is decideldy totalitarianist.

Since when can someone not say "You're unwelcome here!?" That's freedom of speech, Prae.
If it were to anyone else, I'd have a tendency to agree with you, but it wasn't; it was to our government - a government that allows ponces like the ones who comprise Berkley's effete, board of "intellectuals" to host cheery little powwows with scumbags like Ahmadinejad. Think about the message being sent here....Ahmadinejad's fine, but the very people who protect your ass aren't. I feel like vomiting. :mad:

They suppressed (or at least, attempted to suppress) the government's freedom of speech.

Question; who is the *they* in that sentence?

They were in breech of their constitutional obligations, and consequently, they should have their "bonus" funding cut because of it.

What *constitutional obligations* would those be?

I mean, after all, they're a PRIVATE FUCKING BUSINESS.

Again; who does the *they* in that sentence refer to?

How many times do we hear you people bitch about "corporate bailouts"!?!?! Is this really anything different?

?!?!?!?

I cannot see any similarity at all.

[QUOTE=Leper]Since when can someone not say "You're unwelcome here!?" That's freedom of speech, Prae.

That is one of THE most Ignurnt things I've heard for awhile
round hears.
It reeks of Discrimination.
You ARE familiar with Discrimination Laws on the books.
The days of :

Reserve the Right to Refuse Service
Are LONG over,thar Bubs

I thought the US Constitution was written to protect the American people.

I didnt realise it was for the benefit of the Government-ah well ya learn summit everyday.

it was to our government - a government that allows ponces like the ones who comprise Berkley's effete, board of "intellectuals" to host cheery little powwows with scumbags like Ahmadinejad.

Oh!

Excuse me.

I thought you had previously indicated that you were IN FAVOR OF free speech.

My mistake.

Think about the message being sent here....Ahmadinejad's fine, but the very people who protect your ass aren't. I feel like vomiting. :mad:

Firstly, just because you agree to speak with someone and open up a dialogue does not automatically indicate you "think he's fine".

""but the very people who protect your ass aren't"" --------yes, the Berkeley council did express that they did not think these people were "fine".

And I applaud them for voicing their opinion.

And they should be, even though you disagree, perfectly free to voice that opinion without threats being aimed at them.

The fact that some high and mighty Rightwing politicos stated --"If you don't back down, well see to it that your disadvantaged children go hungry"-- is what ought to make you feel like vomiting.

[QUOTE=Leper]Since when can someone not say "You're unwelcome here!?" That's freedom of speech, Prae.

That is one of THE most Ignurnt things I've heard for awhile
round hears.
It reeks of Discrimination.
You ARE familiar with Discrimination Laws on the books.
The days of :

Reserve the Right to Refuse Service
Are LONG over,thar Bubs

No, that's if you say "[Insert race or gender] people are not welcome here" and you are an entity subject to Constitutional restrictions.

Question; who is the *they* in that sentence?
Are you playing a game now? The board of Directors at Berkley, the City Counsel, et al.
What *constitutional obligations* would those be?
The obligation they have to ALLOW, without question, the RIGHT our government has to speak to individuals (provided they're not breaking any laws, and they weren't). They had NO right to send that letter, period. Far be it for me to question the mentality of said intellectuals, but that's disgusting.
Again; who does the *they* in that sentence refer to?
UOC, Berkley. Yep - you heard it here...it's a PRIVATE business that RELIES on tuition money for operating expenses (such as their 150,000 dollar + salaries, maintenance, and new equipment). Endowments are gravy - usually provided by our government or private institutions/individuals, and when an endowment is provided by an individual (to the tune of a million plus dollars), it's typically standard protocol to name a building after them - not to tell 'em to get the fuck off their property.
?!?!?!?

I cannot see any similarity at all.
We're talking about government money going to fund/subsidize a private business, and you can't see any similarity between the two!?!? C'mon, FT.

'Cause they were in breech first. It was the university who kicked them off campus, remember? They were the freedom quellers here, not Uncle Sam.

You keep talking about the university, Prae. UC Berkeley has nothing to do with any of this. There never was a recruiting office on campus. The current recruiting office is not on campus. The complaint letter was issued by the city council, not the University, and the letter made no mention of "kicking" anyone anywhere; the city council merely notified the Marines that they were "unwelcome intruders" and expressed its feeling that Berkeley would be a better place if they weren't there.

That said, it's not even really about "their freedom of expression"; it's about right and wrong, and they, my friend, were wrong. There's no two ways around that fact.

What are you calling "wrong?" Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq? Protesting in front of a recruiting office? The US Government blackmailing a small town to force it to STFU and do as it says? What exactly is "wrong" here, and what is "right," according to Prae?

You keep talking about the university, Prae. UC Berkeley has nothing to do with any of this. There never was a recruiting office on campus. The current recruiting office is not on campus. The complaint letter was issued by the city council, not the University, and the letter made no mention of "kicking" anyone anywhere; the city council merely notified the Marines that they were "unwelcome intruders" and expressed its feeling that Berkeley would be a better place if they weren't there.



What are you calling "wrong?" Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq? Protesting in front of a recruiting office? The US Government blackmailing a small town to force it to STFU and do as it says? What exactly is "wrong" here, and what is "right," according to Prae?

3 things you can always count on at Allforums when there's any America-bashing going on... Frannie, Paul and Freethinker.

Here, Frannie. How about blocking people from entering the recruiting station? Or is that OK in your mind because they have a 'good cause?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVncFW6htws

The fact that some high and mighty Rightwing politicos stated --"If you don't back down, well see to it that your disadvantaged children go hungry"-- is what ought to make you feel like vomiting.
I didn't realize there were so many "disadvantaged" children attending Berkley who desperately needed access to organic, gourmet lunches a la Chez Luis. Fuck, when I went to ISU, I had to suffer through Chick Fillet (my French food), and my father paid for everything. I guess you learn something new every day....

That said, this does nothing to change the fact that Berkley's a private institution (i.e., business), and as such, the government has NO OBLIGATION (at all) to provide ANY funding, whatsoever. This fact seems to be lost on you. Our representatives voted to supply the University of California, Berkley, with SUPPLEMENTARY funding, and as far as I'm concerned, they can vote to pull it. Doing so is completely democratic and fair.

Are you playing a game now? The board of Directors at Berkley, the City Counsel, et al.

No. No games.

You (as you explain) used the *they* in one sentence to refer to the Berkeley City Council, and a couple of sentences later used the word *they* to refer to some entirely different entity; the UOC Berkeley.

I just wanted to make sure I knew who you were talking about in each sentence.

We're talking about government money going to fund/subsidize a private business, and you can't see any similarity between the two!?!? C'mon, FT.

I'm sorry Prae, but I truly did not know that a public college was, to use your words, a **PRIVATE business**.

I'm not sure your correct in characterizing it that way.

3 things you can always count on at Allforums when there's any America-bashing going on... Frannie, Paul and Freethinker.

Here, Frannie. How about blocking people from entering the recruiting station? Or is that OK in your mind because they have a 'good cause?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVncFW6htws
I wont speak for the other two posters, no doubt they will want to respond themselves.

My query being, has the Government the right to withold funding for a food project, because it doesnt like the attitude of the council in an unrelated matter.

I would have thought the Government were the ones being unAmerican here,
not me.

You know america is in trouble when panhandlers have more freedom and more protection to approach you on the street then a military recruiter.
I hate both panhandlers and military recruiters equally.

I wont speak for the other two posters, no doubt they will want to respond themselves.

My query being, has the Government the right to withold funding for a food project, because it doesnt like the attitude of the council in an unrelated matter.

I would have thought the Government were the ones being unAmerican here,
not me.

Not talking about this topic in particular, Paul. This issue has been a circle-jerk from the get-go. Anything that happens in Berkeley, CA isn't even worth a paragraph, much less pages and pages of discussion. Nothing there but a bunch of radical left-wingers who couldn't produce a single brain cell among all of 'em. Been that way since the 60's and if anything, they're more worthless now than they were then.

No... I like you, dear... but you always seem to take great delight in taking part in discussions where the United States government is being bashed and I find that curious. I would NEVER jump into a Irish-bashing discussion and wonder why you don't seem to have the same respect for my country?

(LOL @ the American govt being unAmerican... not even sure that's possible!)

What are you calling "wrong?" Mr. Bush's Happy Little War in Iraq? Protesting in front of a recruiting office? The US Government blackmailing a small town to force it to STFU and do as it says? What exactly is "wrong" here, and what is "right," according to Prae?

................................................

The complaint letter was issued by the city council, not the University, and the letter made no mention of "kicking" anyone anywhere; the city council merely notified the Marines that they were "unwelcome intruders" and expressed its feeling that Berkeley would be a better place if they weren't there.
But you think that's okay?

That question aside, you're right, they didn't "kick" anyone off public property, they're simply asked our government to form an "exit strategy" because they're "unwelcome intruders", whose mere presence there sullies the entire city. Big difference, I guess. You know, coming from a bunch of people who laud diplomacy that was real fucking "diplomatic".

Who was technically wrong here, Fran? Who didn't observe whose constitutional rights first, 'cause I gotta say - I'm mighty curious? If your argument is pinned on the fact that the letter in question was simply a "request" on behalf of the city, then fine - pulling the endowments was just a "request", too.

Not talking about this topic in particular, Paul. This issue has been a circle-jerk from the get-go. Anything that happens in Berkeley, CA isn't even worth a paragraph, much less pages and pages of discussion. Nothing there but a bunch of radical left-wingers who couldn't produce a single brain cell among all of 'em. Been that way since the 60's and if anything, they're more worthless now than they were then.

No... I like you, dear... but you always seem to take great delight in taking part in discussions where the United States government is being bashed and I find that curious. I would NEVER jump into a Irish-bashing discussion and wonder why you don't seem to have the same respect for my country?

(LOL @ the American govt being unAmerican... not even sure that's possible!)

Maybe its because I see this Administration in general,and the right wing of the Republican Party in particular as being the single biggest threat to civil liberty in the United States.

If you think thats me disrespecting the United States,your wrong.
Its the fact I love your country that it cncerns me to see how its going.

As for Ireland SMW, its an insignificant little place, tho maybe the most corrupt country in Europe, theres tons of issues to choose from.
If you feel like picking one, I will gladly help you bash the things about it that are wrong.

I'm sorry Prae, but I truly did not know that a public college was, to use your words, a **PRIVATE business**.

I'm not sure your correct in characterizing it that way.
Do they rely on government funding to place their students in classrooms? No, they rely on 30 large a year from the students or (even more likely than that) from their parents (or sometimes, from PRIVATE grants that are (for the most part) tax exempt). Well, then given the obvious, I guess that makes most universities private businesses, doesn't it? Are they not in competition with other universities for mom and dad's hard earned? Yeah, I thought so. What conclusion have you reached?

Maybe its because I see this Administration in general,and the right wing of the Republican Party in particular as being the single biggest threat to civil liberty in the United States.

If you think thats me disrespecting the United States,your wrong.
Its the fact I love your country that it cncerns me to see how its going.

As for Ireland SMW, its an insignificant little place, tho maybe the most corrupt country in Europe, theres tons of issues to choose from.
If you feel like picking one, I will gladly help you bash the things about it that are wrong.
This is why, when the chips are down, I like you, Paul. Your honesty (which can be easily mistaken for hatred sometimes) is refreshing. It's good to hear other perspectives, especially when they're foreign. :)

Me foreign.

Half of Chicago have the same DNA strains as I man :)

Maybe its because I see this Administration in general,and the right wing of the Republican Party in particular as being the single biggest threat to civil liberty in the United States.

If you think thats me disrespecting the United States,your wrong.
Its the fact I love your country that it cncerns me to see how its going.

As for Ireland SMW, its an insignificant little place, tho maybe the most corrupt country in Europe, theres tons of issues to choose from.
If you feel like picking one, I will gladly help you bash the things about it that are wrong.

I can understand your interest, Paul. I just hate to see anyone try to blame one political party for all the ills of the nation. It's the sign of a simple mind to believe any one group in America has that much power... and while I expect that kinda thinking from Frannie and FT, I really think you're too smart to believe everything you read.

I'd still never bash Ireland... far be it from me to piss off a leprechaun this close to St. Patty's day.

;)
SMW

Me foreign.

Half of Chicago have the same DNA strains as I man :)
No shit! The Southside is divided between the *Italians and Irish (who HATE each other equally, no less). On that note, guess which group I side with??? ;)

You'd be in lil' Dublin if you went to Boston, Mass. That place is, like, and I'm not kidding here, 95% Irish.

*Of course, now Chicago's Southside is heavily Mexican, too. Hell, I'd challenge you to find signs written in English in some neighborhoods. :(

I'd still never bash Ireland... far be it from me to piss off a leprechaun this close to St. Patty's day.

;)
SMW
Actually, if I didn't think I'd get my ass kicked in a pub for being loud and voicing my opinions (you know, 'cause I'm an Irish drunk myself), then I'd love to go. It's a beautiful country. I've been all over England, but I've never been to Ireland (or Scotland, for that matter).

Right thats it-no drinking that green shit for you this year.

Dont worry SMW, if as it looks, a Demo walks into the White House in January, and starts leecheing on their promises,or starts abusing the rights of Americans, I'll be there, same as I am now.

You know us Irish, once a rebel always a rebel.

You'd be in lil' Dublin if you went to Boston, Mass. That place is, like, and I'm not kidding here, 95% Irish.(
95% Irish eh-I dont think theres anywhere in Ireland 95% Irish anymore.
All those fucken Immigrants hehe.

Oddly enough, I know a guy called Kennedy, he's a real dick,I wonder if they're related :D

Actually, if I didn't think I'd get my ass kicked in a pub for being loud and voicing my opinions (you know, 'cause I'm an Irish drunk myself), then I'd love to go. It's a beautiful country. I've been all over England, but I've never been to Ireland (or Scotland, for that matter).
Next time your in Ireland make sure the plane is filling up at Shannon, then on to Ibiza,youd hate this place, full of Yanks all summer.

Dont worry SMW, if as it looks, a Demo walks into the White House in January, and starts leecheing on their promises,or starts abusing the rights of Americans, I'll be there, same as I am now.
Don't worry, Paul - Obama wouldn't, but by the same token, that's just the problem; he wouldn't DO anything. Of course, that usually makes the Europeans VERY happy, but whatever - I digress.

Oddly enough, I know a guy called Kennedy, he's a real dick,I wonder if they're related :D
That's been my experience with 'em. ;)

...full of Yanks all summer.
Really!?!?! Shit, I could go to Boston if I wanted that. The airfare is A LOT cheaper.

PS - Ibiza looks AND sounds awesome.

Unfortunatly Ibiza is full of Irish to.

Thats were the catholic in us comes to the fore.

Actually, awhile ago I had a little thread entitled 'Europe Today',
well I got bored writing in it,and posters got bored reading it,
might start an 'Ireland Today' see how it goes.

Give it a shot. Where is it again?

Certain posters keep repeating that the city council merely said the Marine Corp recruiters weren't welcome in Berkely. They did more than that. They instructed the police not to enforce people's right of free entry into the recruiting office as can be seen on the video posted earlier. The played agent provacateur by giving Code Pink free parking space directly in front of the recruiting office so they could protest and keep people out.

The city council played chicken and it was they who chickened out.

Would those whining about poor Berkely whine as loudly if a city had a portion of its funding held back if the city council took an official stand that abortion clinics were not welcome within the city limits and then gave free parking access to anti-abortion groups and instructed its police to not interfere with protestors keeping people from entering the clinic?

As for the claim that witholding funds is repressing free speech, this is simply a red herring. The federal government often threatens to withold funds if certain things are either not done or done. Groups can lose their funding if they protest at abortion clinics. Groups can lose funding if they fail to meet certain criteria.

By creating a hostile atmosphere not only at the site of the recruiting office but within the entire City of Berkely the city council was setting itself up in opposition to the federal government. When you do that you have to be either prepared to accept the consequences of your actions or back down. Berkley chose to back down.

Certain posters keep repeating that the city council merely said the Marine Corp recruiters weren't welcome in Berkely. They did more than that. They instructed the police not to enforce people's right of free entry into the recruiting office as can be seen on the video posted earlier. The played agent provacateur by giving Code Pink free parking space directly in front of the recruiting office so they could protest and keep people out.

The city council played chicken and it was they who chickened out.

Would those whining about poor Berkely whine as loudly if a city had a portion of its funding held back if the city council took an official stand that abortion clinics were not welcome within the city limits and then gave free parking access to anti-abortion groups and instructed its police to not interfere with protestors keeping people from entering the clinic?

As for the claim that witholding funds is repressing free speech, this is simply a red herring. The federal government often threatens to withold funds if certain things are either not done or done. Groups can lose their funding if they protest at abortion clinics. Groups can lose funding if they fail to meet certain criteria.

By creating a hostile atmosphere not only at the site of the recruiting office but within the entire City of Berkely the city council was setting itself up in opposition to the federal government. When you do that you have to be either prepared to accept the consequences of your actions or back down. Berkley chose to back down.
EXCELLENT POST, Frogger!

In addition to that, the money earmarked for "gourmet lunches" or a new endowment cataloging the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui isn't even required on their part. It's not like they're talking about withholding operational funding. Will the school miss it? Absolutely, but who gives a shit - screw 'em.

Berkeley was always gonna loose, the Government couldnt afford to have a precident set.

I understand they have to meet certain criteria, tho a threat to suspend an unrelated financial package is simply wrong.

I cant seem to find a military record for Mr DeMint anywhere, so I guess he's guarenteed himself re-elected next time around.

Paul,

I guess you couldn't stand Bill Clinton either. He not only had no military record, he used his influence to keep from being drafted and had someone else drafted in his place. while that person was serving his country, Clinton was in the Soviet Union protesting against it.

Berkeley was always gonna loose, the Government couldnt afford to have a precident set.
Yeah, like having Berkeley set a double standard at the expense of other people operating in a LEGAL fashion there. Don't forget they've already set a precedent. Giving away free parking spots and green-lighting groups like Code Pink to "obstruct" marine recruiting is proof enough, IMHO.
I understand they have to meet certain criteria, tho a threat to suspend an unrelated financial package is simply wrong.
Asking the recruiters (i.e. our government) to leave for no other reason than considering them to be "uninvited intruders" is far more reprehensible, IMHO.

Paul,

I guess you couldn't stand Bill Clinton either. He not only had no military record, he used his influence to keep from being drafted and had someone else drafted in his place. while that person was serving his country, Clinton was in the Soviet Union protesting against it.
Is this one of those [yeah but the democrats did it to] posts.

What Bill Clinton did or didnt do is irrelevant.

That said, I seen Clinton give a speech here, and was a real sweetener, knew how to play the crowd, tho towards the end Id say he brought Presidency into disrepute.

Yeah, like having Berkeley set a double standard at the expense of other people operating in a LEGAL fashion there. Don't forget they've already set a precedent. Giving away free parking spots and green-lighting groups like Code Pink to "obstruct" marine recruiting is proof enough, IMHO.

Asking the recruiters (i.e. our government) to leave for no other reason than considering them to be "uninvited intruders" is far more reprehensible, IMHO.

I dont see why Berkeley didnt leave space for both pro and anti protesters,if their as liberal as they would like to portrey.

Tho for the life of me,I cant see how this funding could be stopped, I dont see how they can take it back, the Government work to certain codes of conduct.

Hardcore libs are pretty much the most intolerant people in the US. If you do not agree with them they shut you out and shut you up. See Freethinker as a good example. Anyone who happens to disagree with his political views is a redneck, rechwing conservazombie. there is no in between. There is no such thing as agreeing to disagree with that clown.

Is this one of those [yeah but the democrats did it to] posts.



In fact that's exactly what it is. You seem to have no problems with Democrats who did not serve in the military. Why the problem with Republicans who did not serve in the military?

I dont see why Berkeley didnt leave space for both pro and anti protesters,if their as liberal as they would like to portrey.
My stance on this would be different if they did, but alas, this is Berkeley we're talkin' 'bout here - "liberal" only goes one way with those people...
Tho for the life of me,I cant see how this funding could be stopped, I dont see how they can take it back, the Government work to certain codes of conduct.
Vote on it. Done deal. In doing so, they're operating in a completely legal fashion. Remember, Paul, it's supplementary funding we're talking about here - nothing more, nothing less. Wanna see Berkeley cry? Put it to a national referendum and let's see how the American populace REALLY feels about their actions....

In fact that's exactly what it is. You seem to have no problems with Democrats who did not serve in the military. Why the problem with Republicans who did not serve in the military?
Not sure where your going with this.

Firstly, the Republican we're talking about, Mr DeMint, was from my first impression one of the veterans who,as Im sure you are well aware, support the military no matter what.

When checking,I found no record of him having served, which left me with two opinions,
[1] He's a right wing hardliner,
[2] He's thinking of looking good for next time he's up.

It worked out that both [1] and [2] were the correct opinions.


Democrats and the military: The first Democrat I see banging on about more funding for the military,who has no serving record,I will comment.

Wouldnt want too many hypocrites in the one place now.

My stance on this would be different if they did, but alas, this is Berkeley we're talkin' 'bout here - "liberal" only goes one way with those people...

Vote on it. Done deal. In doing so, they're operating in a completely legal fashion. Remember, Paul, it's supplementary funding we're talking about here - nothing more, nothing less. Wanna see Berkeley cry? Put it to a national referendum and let's see how the American populace REALLY feels about their actions....
Well if they can get away with that-its wrong.

PS: Hear anything about that campus shooting up your way?