lol i wasn't trying to be witty. wtf?

Well then you were just being a plain asshole.. good job.

Frogger posted this elsewhere:I responded to Overdose in a different thread. Any time I respond to a post by him it is simply dumb.

Frogger posted this elsewhere:
Didn't you get the memo, Sedan? Nothing Frogger says can be applied to him, only to others!

Well then you were just being a plain asshole.. good job.
Being an asshole to Frogger is just good policy.

Nappy, I didn't think you thought it good policy to direct your being an asshole to anyone specific. I thought you thought it was good policy simply to be an asshole. While else would you be one so often.:lolhit:

Your use of the lolhit here is quite revealing. Who are you trying to convince, Frogger?

Haha... Decka actually said something funny. :D

Your use of the lolhit here is quite revealing. Who are you trying to convince, Frogger?

It was meant to be revealing, Nappy. It was meant to reveal that I was joking and don't consider you to always be an asshole. Keep posting stuff like the above and I will have to change my opinion of you.

My mean mug knows no other emotion.

Nappy, I didn't think you thought it good policy to direct your being an asshole to anyone specific.
I would really, really hope that Nappy directs his asshole away from people in general, though I suppose he could direct it to specific people. Just not me.

Excuse me, I would like to... ASS... you, a few questions.

Excuse me, I would like to... ASS... you, a few questions.
This is not the time, Ace!

But Borg, you have to remember that Nappy's mouth is so full of crap it's just like an asshole so no matter which way he is facing he is directing his asshole toward you.

Mr. Bush's Happy Little War ....
That line was adorable the first fifteen times, but.....

Frannie, the subtext of your last several posts is that the people who join the military can't see the truth as clearly as you. It's not necessarily true, and it's rather haughty.

It's one thing to state you have a different opinion, but it's another thing entirely to act as though these people who made an important decision with their lives just couldn't possibly be right.

Frannie, the subtext of your last several posts is that the people who join the military can't see the truth as clearly as you.

If someone joins the military and does not acknowledge that they have a good chance of losing life or limb, then they are being incredibly naive. Especially when we have two hostile military occupations happening at the same time.

If someone joins the military are does not acknowledge that they have a good ....

Say what? Try re-reading your posts before hitting that reply button. Just what thought are you trying to get across here?

Hit them where it will really be felt (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/16/BAK4V3QAI.DTL)


Berkeley spent $93,000 on police overtime to control the Marines protest outside City Hall Tuesday, a city official said.


:bombout:

:drinktoth

Say what? Try re-reading your posts before hitting that reply button. Just what thought are you trying to get across here?

Try looking at the WHOLE quote.

Say what? Try re-reading your posts before hitting that reply button. Just what thought are you trying to get across here?
Replace the "are" with "and".

Try looking at the WHOLE quote.

I read the entire quote and what you typed initially made no sense. Now that you've edited it to repair the flaw it expresses a thought.

I read the entire quote and what you typed initially made no sense. Now that you've edited it to repair the flaw it expresses a thought.

You are being unnecessarily rude about a simple typo.

Awww, poor baby, feeling put upon?

Be more careful about the accusations you make, Freethinker. I posted an article. If you disagree with the article disagree with it but do not accuse me of making the statement of being a liar or to accuse me of making up facts.. You might find fault with the article but that does not give you the right to call me a liar.

Okay. I apologize.

You may not have been making up the erroneous facts in question yourself, but you ARE forwarding false statements that other people have made.

My quotes of what you posted are clearly labeled --- **Originally Posted by Frogger**.

My quotes of what you posted are NOT labeled --- **Statements made by Frogger.**

If you want a clarification, I will do say by saying that the person actually formulating the statement about a code Pink parking space "across the street from the recruiting center", (who later slyly tried to morph it into ""the parking space next to the recruiting center""") was the person guilty of trying to foist off a falsehood on the reader. Not you.

You --I will freely admit-- simply posted it for people here to read.

Awww, poor baby, feeling put upon?

Nope, just pointing it out since you are the one who wrote me a PM asking for "peace" and now you are going back on your own word.

Not hardly. I asked for an explanation of a sentence you wrote & you've gotten your panties all up in a wad over it. All you had to do was edit your mistake, provide a few words .... something along the lines of "...ooops ...." and dropped it right there.

I asked for an explanation of a sentence you wrote

And as I said, you did it with excessive rudeness for someone who wanted "peace".


Say what? Try re-reading your posts before hitting that reply button. Just what thought are you trying to get across here?

Oh for god's sake, both of you drop it. Jeez.

Oh for god's sake, both of you drop it. Jeez.

Isn't this the point where YOU end a thread.
Like ya done to many a more relevant one.

Even tho the funding had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Well Frogger, if thats the way the America is being run, Im glad Im
in Europe, because funding based soley on political viewpoints and
revenge would not be tolerated here.
Paul, that's bullshit; we're talking about PEOPLE here, and predominately speaking, that's how they act. It's human nature. If I'm nice enough to provide you with financial AID, and you spit in my face and tell me to get off your property (when I'm not doing anything wrong), then it's probably a safe bet to assume you're on my shit list (READ; if I were you, I wouldn't expect to receive that generosity in the near future). If your contention here is that the Europeans would act differently in the same situation, then I'm curious - who ya got running things over there nowadays - Mother Theresa incarnate???

That said, once again, this isn't even about pulling operational funding for not "toeing the line"; it's about Berkeley's city council acting like a collective group of fascist morons. It's not about having a different "political perspective" at all, actually. On that note, I'm sure the conservatives know they're not gonna win over Berkeley, but when you ask the federal government to vacate their legally rented space; then you've overstepped the 'I have a different perspective' argument, and you’ve crossed the line. You've now entered the territory of 'denying someone their constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to operate in a legal fashion'. I mean, why not just take it a step further and ask your black residents out for "lowering the collective property value"???? There's not a civilized, democratic, or JUST government ON EARTH that would allow that to happen. If our government were anything less, they'd parade these prima donnas into the street and summarily put a bullet into their heads. The insolence and arrogance is simply baffling to me. The fact that they even attempted to make that request is PROOF, IMHO, that we're living in a society where, no matter HOW stupid and wrong you are, you're still free to ignore the constitution and make an ass of yourself (even if you represent a faction of the American government yourselves). Whether or not Berkeley wants to recognize the fact that they're on federal soil is immaterial, but as such, not only did they act inappropriately, their request was an attempt to abridge the very freedoms they're trying to exercise themselves. Do you not understand that???? On that note, do you think they had any right to make that request? By it's very nature, can you not see how fucked up (read; TOTALLY WRONG) it was? Talk about Un-American.......

Leave your hate of the war outta this, and be honest with me. Did they have any legal (or moral) right to make that request?

(In response to Leper):
I don't see how removing an employer's discretion to promote is a good thing for the employer.
I don't know if it is either. But I think the point you were stretching here was that bestowing extra benefits or honors upon a veteran is proof that we are militaristic.
Of course the fact that many military families are on food stamps somewhat negates that. As does the condition of the average VA Hospital.

As for shows, JAG, MASH, and Band of Brothers all spring to mind.
Okay, you went back 35 years to cite three examples.
The first is a show about two models who spend their time in a courtroom;
The second is an anti-war comedy that almost never showed combat or bravery, made the military bureaucracy look foolish and made the anti-military iconoclasts look heroic.
The third was positive but is about ten years old now.

What movies are you calling anti-military?
Going back a ways (but not as far back as your examples) gives us Platoon, Casualties of War, Full Metal Jacket, Thin Red Line, Jarhead, Born on the Fourth of July, etc....
MUCH more recently gives us In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, Redacted, Lions for Lambs, Stop Loss, etc.....

A militaristic society's movies would be on the order of a Leni Reifenstahl production, not Band of Brothers.
Our entertainment would actually discourage someone from joining the military.

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

From this part of your post, it sounds like you're mixing up militarism with fascism.
No. I was comparing your military-nation thought process with another posters' fascist-nation thought process. I wasn't comparing fascism with militarism.

Militaristic societies don't necessarily involve a dictator or compulsory service - the Republic of Rome and Greek city-states spring to mind.
Whoa, I thought your "MASH" example was dusty.

Nationalism and popular support drives our militarism....
If what you're saying were true that would mean that the culture of a militaristic society would wax or wane based on the nation's polling at that point in time. The zeitgeist of a country wouldn't be so easy to change.
You truly have a gift in your ability to logically distill an argument. Your responses here were simply beyond excellent.

If you want a clarification, I will do say by saying that the person actually formulating the statement about a code Pink parking space "across the street from the recruiting center", (who later slyly tried to morph it into ""the parking space next to the recruiting center""") was the person guilty of trying to foist off a falsehood on the reader. Not you.

You --I will freely admit-- simply posted it for people here to read.
See.....you focus on shit like that, and you miss the entire point. That's your debating tactic in a nutshell. By all means, feel free to concentrate on semantics, but don't be surprised when other people call you a hack for doing it. Do you honestly think that citing the "wrong" spot makes what the city did in regards to issuing a free parking permit to Code Pink less egregious?

Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think that citing the "wrong" spot in debate makes what the city did in regards to issuing a free parking permit to Code Pink less egregious?


No, and I see your point here.

All it really does is show that the people ---i.e., those who are whining so loud about a bit of anti-war sentiment being voiced in Berkeley--- ARE willing to bend and distort the truth to try to make what the city did seem even more evil and unAmerican.

(side note; people like you seem incensed that the city of Berkeley would issue a free parking space to an anti-war/ social justice movement. You seem to feel that it just isn't proper for the city to display favoritism like that. Okay, fine. But let a city in the next state over give a free parking space to a pro-war group of some kind, I would predict that you and those of your ilk will suddenly, like the hypocrites that you are, change course 180 degrees and opine that it's wonderful for that city to be so generous.)

All it really does is show that the people ---i.e., those who are whining so loud about a bit of anti-war sentiment being voiced in Berkeley--- ARE willing to bend and distort the truth to try to make what the city did seem even more evil and unAmerican.
What Berkeley did was appalling either way, FT.
(side note; people like you seem incensed that the city of Berkeley would issue a free parking space to an anti-war/ social justice movement. You seem to feel that it just isn't proper for the city to display favoritism like that. Okay, fine. But let a city in the next state over give a free parking space to a pro-war group of some kind, I would predict that you and those of your ilk will suddenly, like the hypocrites that you are, change course 180 degrees and opine that it's wonderful for that city to be so generous.)
You're wrong. I'd have a problem with that, too. That said, it's not the city's job to engage in political "debate"; it's their "job" is to generate revenue and uphold the laws, fairly and without bias.

If someone joins the military and does not acknowledge that they have a good chance of losing life or limb, then they are being incredibly naive. Especially when we have two hostile military occupations happening at the same time.

It is you who is being terribly naive, dharmabum.
the do not have a good chance of losing life or limb. In fact there are probably fewer deaths in that age group among those in the military than among those in civilian life.


Any death is one too many but enlisting in the military is not like playing Russian Roulette.

Paul, that's bullshit; we're talking about PEOPLE here, and predominately speaking, that's how they act. It's human nature. If I'm nice enough to provide you with financial AID, and you spit in my face and tell me to get off your property (when I'm not doing anything wrong), then it's probably a safe bet to assume you're on my shit list (READ; if I were you, I wouldn't expect to receive that generosity in the near future). If your contention here is that the Europeans would act differently in the same situation, then I'm curious - who ya got running things over there nowadays - Mother Theresa incarnate???

That said, once again, this isn't even about pulling operational funding for not "toeing the line"; it's about Berkeley's city council acting like a collective group of fascist morons. It's not about having a different "political perspective" at all, actually. On that note, I'm sure the conservatives know they're not gonna win over Berkeley, but when you ask the federal government to vacate their legally rented space; then you've overstepped the 'I have a different perspective' argument, and you’ve crossed the line. You've now entered the territory of 'denying someone their constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to operate in a legal fashion'. I mean, why not just take it a step further and ask your black residents out for "lowering the collective property value"???? There's not a civilized, democratic, or JUST government ON EARTH that would allow that to happen. If our government were anything less, they'd parade these prima donnas into the street and summarily put a bullet into their heads. The insolence and arrogance is simply baffling to me. The fact that they even attempted to make that request is PROOF, IMHO, that we're living in a society where, no matter HOW stupid and wrong you are, you're still free to ignore the constitution and make an ass of yourself (even if you represent a faction of the American government yourselves). Whether or not Berkeley wants to recognize the fact that they're on federal soil is immaterial, but as such, not only did they act inappropriately, their request was an attempt to abridge the very freedoms they're trying to exercise themselves. Do you not understand that???? On that note, do you think they had any right to make that request? By it's very nature, can you not see how fucked up (read; TOTALLY WRONG) it was? Talk about Un-American.......

Leave your hate of the war outta this, and be honest with me. Did they have any legal (or moral) right to make that request?

This sounds a reasonable post, so I'll ask you a few question ok.

[1] Is the shop rented from a landlord-like any other shop, on a say lease?

[2] Does a city council have the right to ask any legal business to leave town without it having broken any laws?

[3] Is 'right to assembly' guarenteed by the Constitution?

[4] Is the US Gov. able to legally change its mind about releasing funds that were approved, because it doesnt agree with the recipient on a different issue?

[1] Is the shop rented from a landlord-like any other shop, on a say lease?

The shop is legally leased and the city council tried to find ways to break the lease and then pressure the landlord into doing so.

[2] Does a city council have the right to ask any legal business to leave town without it having broken any laws?

The city has the right under eminent domain to 'take' private property. This buiding did NOT fall under eminent domain so the city had no right to ask that it be vacated.

[3] Is 'right to assembly' guarenteed by the Constitution?

The right of assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution but not the right to physically block access.

[4] Is the US Gov. able to legally change its mind about releasing funds that were approved, because it doesnt agree with the recipient on a different issue?


The government can set conditions for the use of funds it gives and even if the funds have been approved that approval can be rescinded. It happens all the time when certain conditions are not met. Cities and even states have lost funding in the past when they acted counter to the wishes of the government. It is part of the cost of dissension.

But the funding and the Marine dispute are two completely different issues.

Thats basically Washington saying,'do as I say or else'.

This sounds a reasonable post, so I'll ask you a few question ok.

[1] Is the shop rented from a landlord-like any other shop, on a say lease?
My guess would be yes, for that's typically the way it works.
[2] Does a city council have the right to ask any legal business to leave town without it having broken any laws?
I suppose you could say that making such a REQUEST is "legal", per se, but the very act of doing so would fly in the face of everything that we, as a country, stand for. It would be morally reprehensible on a multitude of levels, and the kicker is, it was a portion of our government that actually attempted to MAKE THAT REQUEST, which is mind-boggling, to say the least. Enforcing such a request, OTOH, is HIGHLY illegal (i.e. completely unconstitutional).
[3] Is 'right to assembly' guarenteed by the Constitution?
Yes, but not when the group in question happens to break the law. Oh, and many times, you have to get a permit to assemble.
[4] Is the US Gov. able to legally change its mind about releasing funds that were approved, because it doesnt agree with the recipient on a different issue?
Absolutely. It has to be put to a vote (meaning they'd have to pass the proposed bill for it to happen), but with that said, pulling their (bonus) funding is completely legal. Doing so in a democratic fashion observes constitutional guidelines, which is certainly more than I can say for Berkeley's little "get the fuck out" letter.

But the funding and the Marine dispute are two completely different issues.

Thats basically Washington saying,'do as I say or else'.
No, that's ONE PORTION of Washington saying follow the rules, or else (and by that, I mean follow the "rules" set forth in our constitution) - and IMHO, asking a municipality to abide by the law (which is something Berkeley seems singularly intent on NOT doing) isn't an unreasonable request. By shoeing Uncle Sam in the nuts, the only thing our big, bad government can think to do is cut supplementary funding. Considering the circumstances, that's pretty benign, IMHO.

What Berkeley did was appalling either way, FT.

?!?! I don't get it.

What action did Berkeley take that you find 'appalling'..........?!?

?!?! I don't get it.

What action did Berkeley take that you find 'appalling'..........?!?
What....you mean aside from the council applauding citizens who volunteer to impede, passively or actively, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley? Oh, I don't know.....maybe it was the fact they decided to give Code Pink a parking space across from the recruiting center to hold demonstrations without paying a permit fee. Color me confused, but perhaps it could be the fact that Code Pink was also granted a sound license to blast loud messages aimed at the recruiters and those entering the facility.

I guess another sore subject arose when a group of assholes, who donned orange jumpsuits (a la the GITMO detainees), chained themselves to the door of the recruiting office thereby preventing anyone from entering. If not to add insult to injury, for five hours, several police officers watched as people were blocked from going into the recruiting office, and they refused to intervene.

I don't know - perhaps my real anger stems from the fact that the city was implicit in this illegal behavior, and if not to make matters worse, they actually attempted writing a nasty letter to our federal government that made unconstitutional demands of them.

Yeah, those assholes are "real Americans", for sure. What fucking patriots. :rolleyes:

Its seems that if you don't follow the Bush line or the militaristic line, your branded anti American.

I have always liked the fact the government can go by Constitutional guidelines when it suits, but simply ignore them when it doesn't.

Isnt the right of the individual, held in high esteem in America.

Freethinker,

What would your feelings be if instead of leftists acting against a recruiting station it was rightists acting against an abortion clinic?

How would you feel about a city government that told an abortion clinic it and its doctors and nurses were not welcome in their city and that they, as government representatives would support any people who took either passive or active action against the clinic?

How would you feel if right wing demonstrators physically kept young girls who wanted to speak to the staff about getting an abortion were subjected to loud speakers insulting them?

How would you feel if the police were instructed to not interfere with the right wing protestors who were breakng the law?

How would you feel if the government told the landlord to try to break the abortion clinic's lease and offered to help do it?

Freethinker,

What would your feelings be if instead of leftists acting against a recruiting station it was rightists acting against an abortion clinic?

Provided that they do not physically harm anyone, I'm okay with with it.

I have not heard where any of the anti-war people in Berkeley physically harmed or injured anyone. Have you?

How would you feel about a city government that told an abortion clinic it and its doctors and nurses were not welcome in their city and that they, as government representatives would support any people who took either passive or active action against the clinic?

The news link concerning the city council in Berkeley said -- ""the city's resolution also applauds residents and organizations "that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by non-violent means, the work or any military recruiting office located in the City".

If some other city wants to pass a similar resolution concerning an abortion clinic, that's okay by me. No problem, since it is being stipulated that only non-violent means are sanctioned.

How would you feel if right wing demonstrators physically kept young girls who wanted to speak to the staff about getting an abortion were subjected to loud speakers insulting them?

I think you may have left a few words out of that one. It does not parse.

How would you feel if the police were instructed to not interfere with the right wing protestors who were breaking the law?

I feel that would be very wrong. But I don't understand why you ask such a question, unless you have some sort of proof that the city council in Berkeley instructed the police to **not interfere with any protesters who were breaking the law**. Do you have some sort of evidence of that occurring?

Gosh, I'd love to have you present it here.

How would you feel if the government told the landlord to try to break the abortion clinic's lease and offered to help do it?

Same answer as above. It would be very wrong, but I have seen ZERO evidence presented that that was the case.

I would be extremely curious to examine whatever evidence you can provide --besides OldPhart having stated it here-- that the council did that.

Its seems that if you don't follow the Bush line or the militaristic line, your branded anti American.
No. When you piss on the law, you're branded anti-American. There's a big difference.
I have always liked the fact the government can go by Constitutional guidelines when it suits, but simply ignore them when it doesn't.
What...you mean like someone who advocates selectively enforcing the law? What makes your camp so different? That said, you might not like what our administration's done in regards to phone tapping the bad guys (or subsequently, the way we've imprisoned them at GITMO), but rest assured, NOTHING'S been done in breech of our constitution. The Supreme Court's examined both. If you believe that's not the case, then show me the indictments.
Isnt the right of the individual, held in high esteem in America.
Absolutely, but just like anything else, you have to follow the rules (or make legal provisions), and the city of Berkeley apparently refuses to do either.

I feel that would be very wrong. But I don't understand why you ask such a question, unless you have some sort of proof that the city council in Berkeley instructed the police to **not interfere with any protesters who were breaking the law**. Do you have some sort of evidence of that occurring?

Gosh, I'd love to have you present it here.
So....you're telling us if we can provide you with "proof" the city instructed their officers to be derelict in their duty (which you know we can't), then (and apparently, only then) you'd be able to find fault in what they did. Is that really what it would take to make this situation palatable in your mind? How 'bout the fact that no charges have been leveled against the officers for their derelection of duty? Isn't that "proof" enough the city was complicit in their actions? I'd say that's a fairly logical conclusion, no?

OTOH, it's always a vast rightwing conspiracy when protesters are physically removed from political events when they're the ones breaking the law, but whatever - you win, I guess. :rolleyes:

And I don't mean maybe.
You dratfly are so enamored over silly stuff like Taser guns
and infringement issues.
I juts bet if i started a thread about Little red wagons or
kiddie sandbox,you'd all have to cut short yer time at the
therapist office,just to post haste,herein.

If you have nothing to contribute, then don't participate.

Without changing the whole topic, let me say that, your right to a degree.
The Bush Administration has placed suspects in Guantamino so they are out of reach of the Constitution, Bush didnt ignore the Constitution, he simply worked outside of it.

Without changing the whole topic, let me say that, your right to a degree.
The Bush Administration has placed suspects in Guantamino so they are out of reach of the Constitution, Bush didnt ignore the Constitution, he simply worked outside of it.
I agree with that sentiment. That said, I wish we'd try (and hopefully hang) the detainees in Guantanamo to avoid having to pay for their food, housing, and medical treatment.

On to the issue of our constitution being abridged - certain provisions have been made to help our government find and weed out the bad guys, and despite having several successes, many people (here and abroad) have a "theoretical" problem with what we're doing. I don't like giving our government the right to "spy" on American citizens (which, considering the circumstances, is a fairly meritless complaint, because in reality, they're not worried about your narrow ass, either way), but with that said, we can't fight this war with our hands tied behind our back. We can still vote - our liberties haven't been negated in any way, whatsoever. Barring the typical slippery slope argument, the detractors (of a plan that's working, no less) have nothing, and moreover - they know it.

If someone joins the military and does not acknowledge that they have a good chance of losing life or limb, then they are being incredibly naive. Especially when we have two hostile military occupations happening at the same time.Was there anything prior to your post suggesting that recruits were unaware of this?

I agree with that sentiment. That said, I wish we'd try (and hopefully hang) the detainees in Guantanamo to avoid having to pay for their food, housing, and medical treatment. I think youll find they would need to be convicted in a US Court of law, before sentence is passed down.

On to the issue of our constitution being abridged - certain provisions have been made to help our government find and weed out the bad guys, and despite having several successes, many people (here and abroad) have a "theoretical" problem with what we're doing.
'certain provisions have been made' sounds very like the Constitution has been outmanouvered.
I don't like giving our government the right to "spy" on American citizens (which, considering the circumstances, is a fairly meritless complaint, because in reality, they're not worried about your narrow ass, either way), but with that said, we can't fight this war with our hands tied behind our back. We can still vote - our liberties haven't been negated in any way, whatsoever. Barring the typical slippery slope argument, the detractors (of a plan that's working, no less) have nothing, and moreover - they know it.
I got news for ya man, they aint worried about your ass either, something Republican supporters should keep in mind.

As for not being able to fight with your hands tied, absolutely.
Torture chambers in Cuba-Eastern Europe and Afghanistan will achieve zero,
in the fight.

Pulling suspects off European streets and flying them off into the sunset will only make Europeans frustrated that their laws are being abused, their soverignty is being over ran, and in general does little to encourage support for American Foreign Policy, which I suspect, those morons in Washington never once stopped and thought about.

Bush has made it very clear, his so-called 'war on terror' will be conducted his way and neither the American people, the American Constitution or the people of Europe will get in his way while doing so.

I think youll find they would need to be convicted in a US Court of law, before sentence is passed down.
I said "try".
'certain provisions have been made' sounds very like the Constitution has been outmanouvered.
Yes, and much to the chagrin of its many detractors (here and abroad), there's nothing illegal about how it was done.
Torture chambers in Cuba-Eastern Europe and Afghanistan will achieve zero,
in the fight.
I find that particular criticism highly debatable. Firstly, we'd have to endeavor to agree on the definition of "torture", and that's not gonna happen either way, so why bother? That said, if "torture" (however you wanna define it) is so "ineffective", then why has it been employed by EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH? Has it always been a universal flop, or is this a recent discovery?
Pulling suspects off European streets and flying them off into the sunset will only make Europeans frustrated that their laws are being abused, their soverignty is being over ran, and in general does little to encourage support for American Foreign Policy, which I suspect, those morons in Washington never once stopped and thought about.
Cite for me 5 examples of non-swarthy Europeans, who didn't make suspicious phone calls, or wire money in suspicious ways, OR travel to fucked up locations all over the Middle East, that we just "randomly pulled off the streets" to send on an all-expense-paid trip to Cuba. If you can do that, we'll talk.

Jesus, and you guys complain about our fear mongering. Sheesh. It's not like we're standing outside your home wearing black trench coats. Actually, your argument here is a perfect example of the slippery slope I was talking about earlier.
Bush has made it very clear, his so-called 'war on terror' will be conducted his way and neither the American people, the American Constitution or the people of Europe will get in his way while doing so.
That's a gross over exaggeration/simplification of what's being done.

Yes, and much to the chagrin of its many detractors (here and abroad), there's nothing illegal about how it was done. Maybe nothing illegal, but it flies in the face of the spirit of the document.
I find that particular criticism highly debatable. Firstly, we'd have to endeavor to agree on the definition of "torture", and that's not gonna happen either way, so why bother? That said, if "torture" (however you wanna define it) is so "ineffective", then why has it been employed by EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH? Has it always been a universal flop, or is this a recent discovery? Thats just it,every Gov has used it, but its more a weapon on fear and intimidation than an information gathering process.
Just because everyone has done it, dont make it right.

Cite for me 5 examples of non-swarthy Europeans, who didn't make suspicious phone calls, or wire money in suspicious ways, OR travel to fucked up locations all over the Middle East, that we just "randomly pulled off the streets" to send on an all-expense-paid trip to Cuba. If you can do that, we'll talk.Cite you 5 examples of 'white' Europeans, now that may be a tough one, as its a limited field to choose from.

Maybe the Egyptian snatched off the street in Milan, but he wasnt white,and he wasnt European,so count him out.

Maybe Mr Masri, the German, pulled off a bus on the Serbian border, but he wasnt white either.

What Im seeing here is a selective question demanding a selective answer, plus as we all know, europeans arent happy with their territory being used to house suspects for internment and torture, but alas, most governments find it difficult to say no to a very aggressive Washington.

So this is how the picture builds up, European Governments provide locations CIA operations, either voluntarily or otherwise.

Provide air traffic clearance for rendition flights, which break every code and law in the book, voluntarily or otherwise.

Allow and/or partake in kidnapping of suspects in Europe, voluntarily or otherwise.

Participate in racial profiling, an illegal process within the EU.

All these things the people of the EU can see, and they dont like it, and they dont like their Governments playing along.

So,there is no problem for Washington getting Offical support, but on the ground,people can see the US Authorities walking all over them.

Jesus, and you guys complain about our fear mongering. Sheesh. It's not like we're standing outside your home wearing black trench coats. Actually, your argument here is a perfect example of the slippery slope I was talking about earlier.
Its nothing to do with fear, its to do with respect of other nations sovereignty and judicial system. The CIA could,if they wished,stand outside my home tonite,tomorrow or whenever,and Id be gone with the help of local law enforcement, thats the scary scenario.

That's a gross over exaggeration/simplification of what's being done.Its not a gross exaggeration, but it is a simple answer to whats going on.

Paul,


Stop trying to highjack the thread so you can spout more of your anti-Bush crap. We are talking about a specific situation in Berkely, California. tick to that topic and stop trying to derail it.

Thats just it,every Gov has used it, but its more a weapon on fear and intimidation than an information gathering process.
Just because everyone has done it, dont make it right.
Is your contention here that it doesn't work? Do you not think vital information is procured by way of "torture" (as you'd call it)?
Cite you 5 examples of 'white' Europeans, now that may be a tough one, as its a limited field to choose from.

Maybe the Egyptian snatched off the street in Milan, but he wasnt white,and he wasnt European,so count him out.
Exactly.
Maybe Mr Masri, the German, pulled off a bus on the Serbian border, but he wasnt white either.
You're running out of examples already, aren't you?
What Im seeing here is a selective question demanding a selective answer, plus as we all know, europeans arent happy with their territory being used to house suspects for internment and torture, but alas, most governments find it difficult to say no to a very aggressive Washington.
Now, that, OTOH, is probably a valid complaint. *More on that to follow.
So this is how the picture builds up, European Governments provide locations CIA operations, either voluntarily or otherwise.

Provide air traffic clearance for rendition flights, which break every code and law in the book, voluntarily or otherwise.

Allow and/or partake in kidnapping of suspects in Europe, voluntarily or otherwise.
It's still of their own doing, either way.
European Governments participate in racial profiling, an illegal process within the EU.
It may be technically illegal, but it's certainly effective, nonetheless. As a matter of fact, can you provide a more effective way to weed through millions of people? Grannies aren't the problem here, Paul; Muslims, OTOH, are. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face, okay?
All these things the people of the EU can see, and they dont like it, and they dont like their Governments playing along.
*Then that's an issue they should take up with their respective governments.
So,there is no problem for Washington getting Offical support, but on the ground,people can see the US Authorities walking all over them.
Walking all over them? How are their rights being affected? I'm not seeing it, and the aforementioned examples you gave aren't boding well for your complaint.
The CIA could,if they wished,stand outside my home tonite,tomorrow or whenever,and Id be gone with the help of local law enforcement, thats the scary scenario.
Scary, sure. Unrealistic, absolutely. Contrary to what you may be thinking, Paul, we don't just pick up people at random, or to fill some sort of imaginary terrorist "quota". Are mistakes gonna be made? Sure, but at what expense to your citizenry OR ours, for that matter? Are the fuck-ups we make not getting enough publicity in your opinion?
Its not a gross exaggeration, but it is a simple answer to whats going on.
It's simple, alright.

Paul,


Stop trying to highjack the thread so you can spout more of your anti-Bush crap. We are talking about a specific situation in Berkely, California. tick to that topic and stop trying to derail it.
With all due respect to Paul, Frogger - he didn't try to hijack the thread.

Thanks Prae.

We'll do a suspension to this line of discussion, and continue it at a future date.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
I feel that would be very wrong. But I don't understand why you ask such a question, unless you have some sort of proof that the city council in Berkeley instructed the police to **not interfere with any protesters who were breaking the law**. Do you have some sort of evidence of that occurring?

Gosh, I'd love to have you present it here.

So....you're telling us if we can provide you with "proof" the city instructed their officers to be derelict in their duty (which you know we can't), then (and apparently, only then) you'd be able to find fault in what they did. Is that really what it would take to make this situation palatable in your mind?

Yes, that would be one thing you could do that would finally demonstrate that the council in Berkeley actually did something 'appalling'.

I find it extremely interesting that you willingly admit that --""we can't provide any proof""-- that the city instructed their officers to be derelict in their duty.

The claim was made here. Why can't the people making that claim provide some proof of it?? What's preventing them from providing said proof?!?!?

(note: I believe we both know perfectly well why they cannot provide that 'proof', but I'm sure you don't want to go there)

How 'bout the fact that no charges have been leveled against the officers for their derelection of duty? Isn't that "proof" enough the city was complicit in their actions?

Okay. WHERE was the dereliction of duty? Just a minute ago, you were saying that you had no proof, and now you're saying that the fact that no charges have been leveled against the officers for their dereliction of duty somehow equates to their having actually committed some dereliction in their duty?? WTF?!?!?! I see little to no logic in such a conjecture.

In fact, saying what you've said here would seem to undermine your own case instead of bolstering it. ROTFL.

OTOH, it's always a vast rightwing conspiracy when protesters are physically removed from political events .........

Nope.

I have not made any claim that there's a *rightwing conspiracy* afoot in America on the biggest issues that confront us. That's because there is absolutely no need for a *conspiracy*.

The Conservatives do it right out in the open. The sheeplike American Public, collectively, is evidently FAR too fucking stupid and/or too willfully blind to see what they RightWing is perpetrating or to comprehend it.

I find it extremely interesting that you willingly admit that --""we can't provide any proof""-- that the city instructed their officers to be derelict in their duty.
Okay, so far you're on target.
The claim was made here. Why can't the people making that claim provide some proof of it?? What's preventing them from providing said proof?!?!?
Oops...Huston, we have a problem. You completely misunderstood my point. More on that to follow.
Just a minute ago, you were saying that you had no proof...
Yes, no "proof" that the orders came from the mayor, but I have definitive proof that the officers present were derelict in their duty. The fact that they did nothing (initially) to arrest people who were BLOCKING the entrance to a legal establishment (by chaining themselves to the front door, no less) leads me to BELIEVE they were following a directive. Have you ever seen a group of police officers let something like that slide!?!? Is my belief here far fetched in your opinion? It's not like I'm asking you to understand the melting point of steel and the chemical properties of jet fuel.
...and now you're saying that the fact that no charges have been leveled against the officers for their dereliction of duty somehow equates to their having actually committed some dereliction in their duty?? WTF?!?!?!
WTF is right. This wasn't about "proving" the officers were derelict in their duty (anyone with a set of eyes and a rudimentary understanding of the law could do that); this was about proving the mayor was complicit in their inaction, and the fact that preferential treatment was given to Code Pinko (along with words of SUPPORT) bolsters that contention. This isn't a "conspiracy theory" of mine; it's logic 101.
I see little to no logic in such a conjecture.
Well, clearly, you're taking it a direction I didn't intend for you to, so I guess I understand your confusion.
Nope.

I have not made any claim that there's a *rightwing conspiracy* afoot in America on the biggest issues that confront us.
What - you mean in the last 30 minutes?
That's because there is absolutely no need for a *conspiracy*.
Ahhh, there it is.
The Conservatives do it right out in the open. The sheeplike American Public, collectively, is evidently FAR too fucking stupid and/or too willfully blind to see what they RightWing is perpetrating or to comprehend it.
And again, like clockwork, you embellish. :)