Berkely, CA Council Votes that Marines are not Welcome

The Berkeley City Council, in the most leftist city in the nation;

Quote:

---

voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

---

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_8127493

Another example of 'free speech for me, not for thee'. It's not enough to protest, call the USMC baby killers, etc. - they don't want them to even have a voice.

The 'code pink' group of anti-war feminists has protested the USMC recruiting station in Berkeley since last September;

Quote:

---

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast.

---

In one recent protest, leftists chained themselves to the USMC door and physically prevented people from entering:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.../BALTUQKOE.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...s02_251_pc.jpg

A collection of images and summary of information is found here:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_m...orps_2-1-2008/

Conservative commentary, with more info and links is here:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/libe...arines_must_go

The main issue here isn't that the leftists are protesting against the war - they are against the existence of armed forces, it would seem, or at least want them shoved out of their everyday life, so that they can go about their lives pretending anti-bush protests will bring harmony to the world.

Also, they are hypocritically, but not unusually, trying to silence their opposition and seize from them freedom of speech.

CR

How strange. :dizzy2:

From the first link, it seems they are protesting the presence of the Recruitment Center because of the Iraq war? It's certainly unpopular, but I wouldn't malign an entire branch of the military for a war they didn't decide to start. I wouldn't even think the marines would be the branch most involved in carrying out the war. I may be betraying a woeful ignorance of the military situation in Iraq unbefitting an ex-military brat, but isn't it mainly the army on the ground there?

Granting special priveleges to a certain protest group also strikes as unfair, especially since they seem to be bothering other businesses that have nothing to do with this. Maybe I'm just too young to understand the psychology behind this kind of protest. If someone tried to physically bar my entry into an establishment with which I had business, I'd be less inclined to pay heed to the reasoning behind their action (unless it included something along the lines of "the place is on fire", or "he's got a gun", but I'd hope to notice that kind of thing before trying to walk in) and somewhat inclined to go around or through them, whichever seemed most convenient. :clown:

I fully support any attempt to burn army recruiters at the stake.

Well, I suppose that might end this more quickly than weekly protests. Then again, the U.S. military seems to have an inexhaustible supply of recruiters. New ones would replace them. I have a theory, that they get them by hiring those weasely fellows who hawk crappy cell phones from booths in malls.

Teh olde.

Berkely would be funny if it wasn't a real town. Nah, it's still funny- the place is a total joke. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Another example of 'free speech for me, not for thee'.

---

While you certainly don't agree with what they're doing, do you agree they have the right to do it?

Isn't this is a case of local interests, through the democratic process, dissenting against the state? The Marine Corps is an armed force under the control of the federal government, wouldn't protesting their presence, whether right or wrong in your eyes, be fundamental proof that freedom is alive and well?

By the by, does the First Amendment apply in equal measure to a state armed force as it does to the individual? Does it apply at all?

My view on this is that the Code Pink women are attacking the wrong hydra head here. They seem to think that by protesting and locking themselves outside a Marine Corp recruiting office, they will end the war within a week. To attack the Marine Corp recruiting office for this, to me it's absurd and disrespectful to every Marine out there.

They have every right to do this, of course. They aren't preventing Marines from speaking out against this, but I doubt that any pro-war rally will get this much help or assistance from the city council. It seems that the liberals in town, since they can't get anyone else to recognize the plight of the nation, they are attacking an object of the 'man' and hoping to bring it down. I find the whole act silly to the extreme. If a young man wants to join the Marines, Navy, Army, or Coast Guard, he's going to be joining said branch. The recruiters are going to be there, and it's for every able citizen to decide whether they want to 'be all they can be' or turn down the offer.

We've had something a little bit similar happen at my university recently. Our students' union has tabled a motion to ban armed forces recruiters from careers fairs, freshers events, etc. I think it's ridiculous-we're all adults, and it's not as if the recruiters are brainwashing students, they're just providing information. If the forces are so evil, shouldn't the union be trying to inform students why they think so, rather than suppressing any discussion by kicking them out? I've got no real interest in a military career, but the condecension of it gets on my tits.

Furthermore, the motion is being voted for on wednesday afternoon, when most of the students involved with OTC and the like are off training. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but it's a bit underhand if it is.

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, it's not entirely fair to say that recruiters are "just providing information." A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie. Of course, it may be unfair to compare army recruiters to marine recruiters, but that has been my experience with secondhand stories regarding army recruiters.

But banning them entirely? No, that's extreme. Unless you're talking about the KKK or some other group who can be agreed upon to be too justifiably dangerous to the public at large, Freedom of Speech should stand. I would even hesitate to ban the KKK because, as much as I would personally like to trap the Grand Dragon in my basement and torture him "Saw" style, it is dangerous to out-and-out ban any group. If anyone is prevented from speaking, they gain a a degree of automatic psychological legitimacy simply by being unable to speak their mind.

Hippie idiots...they want us to be defensless and open to destruction. I hope all hippies are targets of terrorists when they go to hamas and pledge their support..I'll be laughing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, it's not entirely fair to say that recruiters are "just providing information." A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie. Of course, it may be unfair to compare army recruiters to marine recruiters, but that has been my experience with secondhand stories regarding army recruiters.

---

Stay away from Navy recruiters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

While you certainly don't agree with what they're doing, do you agree they have the right to do it?

---

They've got a right to protest the war, but not to try to silence and physically bar their opponents from speaking and congregating. Then they go beyond practicing their rights to prohibiting the rights of others. The parking spot and noise permits are, of course, an example of government favoritism of one group.

Quote:

---

A recruiter will promise a potential recruitee anything they ask for, short of making a boldfaced lie.

---

And that's why you ask for a contract.

CR

There's something in the drinking water in Berkeley... it was a focal point in the 60's Free Speech Movement, that set the stage for other uni student protests throughout the US.

Whenever war is the issue, Recruitment offices, ROTC programs, and innocuous military installations get targeted by the anti-war crowd, when they ought, IMO, to be marching at the local Federal Building.

I have vivid memories of being splattered with pig's blood at Letterman Army Hospital in San Francisco in the early 70's. I'm glad that kind of "free-speech" action is outlawed these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

They've got a right to protest the war, but not to try to silence and physically bar their opponents from speaking and congregating. Then they go beyond practicing their rights to prohibiting the rights of others. The parking spot and noise permits are, of course, an example of government favoritism of one group.
CR

---

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

Take it in a different direction; what if a locality passed an ordinance denying the IRS the right to open a "Snitch On Your Neighbour" booth at the local mall. How would you see that? Does any branch of the federal government have carte blanche to put its offices where it pleases regardless of local complaints?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

---

No.

The armed forces are the power of a state. A state is the one capable of silencing Joe Citizens, and that's the reason for free speech laws. If Joe Citizens somehow manages to silence a state, I'd say good job.

Our Constitution does not have laws defining the rights of governments on the scale of a City Government vis a vis the Federal Government, only the latter versus State Governments.

Beirut, at the moment it's hard to say whether this has escalated to a real confrontation between the local versus the federal government or not, at least from the links given. All the city council has done is agree to issue some statement that the recruiters are "unwelcome" and encourage the protest group (the only group or individual to have its own designated parking space in a public street in the city, interestingly) by making it easier on them to stage their protests. For the moment, at least, it seems the Council has stopped short of actually issuing any edict to kick the Recruiting Office out.

Since they are currently exploring whether they can use the city's laws against discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, my guess would be that the recruiters have broken no city law, and can't just be evicted for the same you couldn't just randomly evict any business that set up legally.

Since the city has issued no edict denying the military the right to open or keep open a Recruiter's Office, I'm not sure that analogy of yours works. Thus far all they've done is issue a statement to encourage the protesters without actually doing much of anything that could get them in trouble. Should this discrimination thing lead to anything, maybe that will change.

As for me, if the IRS followed city law in setting up their booth, and only much later were told to leave, I'd be a bit wary. It sets a dangerous precedent for a city to outright ban a law-abiding government office, especially when my wife happens to work for one). Then again, I don't cheat on my taxes, and don't know anyone who does, so maybe my perception is skewed. :dizzy2: . Local complaints do not equal a breach of law, or that noisy bar below my apartment where all the fights happen would be long gone (or at least forced to carry better booze). :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

Take it in a different direction; what if a locality passed an ordinance denying the IRS the right to open a "Snitch On Your Neighbour" booth at the local mall. How would you see that? Does any branch of the federal government have carte blanche to put its offices where it pleases regardless of local complaints?

---

Forget foreign oil, states and localities are addicted to federal funding:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BAHVUS06B.DTL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No.

The armed forces are the power of a state. A state is the one capable of silencing Joe Citizens, and that's the reason for free speech laws. If Joe Citizens somehow manages to silence a state, I'd say good job.

---

Must go get another cup of coffee. Just found myself in complete agreement with HoreTore....:dizzy:

Now, don't mistake me, I think Berkeley is -- at the least -- out of step with reality. If you are THAT opposed to the will of the larger polis, then it is your duty to secede and establish a different form of government, not to pass ordinances WITHIN the context of that government just to annoy people and call for attention. Government is NOT a protest forum -- it should be listening to protests not enacting them.

That said, these code pinkers have a right to protest as they are, just as the local authorities have a duty to arrest them when they move beyond polite protest and into civil disobedience. King and the others knew that "sitting in" at the restaraunt would get them jailed -- so you must be willing to pay the price if you go beyond simple protest.

@ Kukri:

Did you really get doused that way? :shocked2: How LOATHSOME! :shame: I suspect that I, had I been standing there, would have quickly been under arrest for decking and beating senseless the person who could do such a thing. I'd read about such things of course, but a lot of it has been described as "overblown" by some subsequent researchers. Now it would seem that some kind of agenda was driving the "research."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fully support any attempt to burn army recruiters at the stake.

---

As long as you fully support others wanting to burn code pink and thier ilk at the stake also. Such narrow mindness is a true fault of human beings.

Unable to see the true course because of emotional appeal.

Code Pink is entitled to speak their minds within the laws of the nation. Absolutely no problem with them protesting in front of the Recruiting Station. Also there is absolutely no problem with a city government allowing the protests to happen as long as that city government insures that the laws are being applied to ensure that other people's rights and freedoms are not being violated in that protest. (ie that the law is not being violated.)

To claim that recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment worthy of contempt because it speaks of an inablity to allow others to have the freedom of choice that a free society should allow. Such narrow thinking is the anti-thesist to the very thought of freedom.

So HoreTore why are you advocating the destruction of one type of person over another? Is it because you dont understand the principle of free speech and a free people?

"Blood Bombs" were indeed hurled at both 6th Army HQ and Letterman Hospital in San Francisco, when I was stationed there.

In honesty, the throwers were probably aiming at the buildings themselves (so they said after their arrests by SFPD), but they were lousy hurlers, and many of the bags landed amongst we troops, who were barring access to the buildings.

(They were quite organized by then - the crowd would advance to about 25 meters away; we would close ranks and go to "Port Arms"; some leader up front would hollar: "Chicks up front!"; young women with blood-bombs moved up front, the crowd advanced to about 10 meters from our line, and the 'bombs' would get flung. Then they'd retreat back to about 25-30 meters and say their piece over bullhorns)

I'll see if I can find photos in the SF Examiner archives.

What I've seen discounted as "overblown" was the 'spitting on returning Vietnam vets' thing, which disgusting practice I never personally saw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As long as you fully support others wanting to burn code pink and thier ilk at the stake also. Such narrow mindness is a true fault of human beings.

Unable to see the true course because of emotional appeal.

Code Pink is entitled to speak their minds within the laws of the nation. Absolutely no problem with them protesting in front of the Recruiting Station. Also there is absolutely no problem with a city government allowing the protests to happen as long as that city government insures that the laws are being applied to ensure that other people's rights and freedoms are not being violated in that protest. (ie that the law is not being violated.)

To claim that recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment worthy of contempt because it speaks of an inablity to allow others to have the freedom of choice that a free society should allow. Such narrow thinking is the anti-thesist to the very thought of freedom.

So HoreTore why are you advocating the destruction of one type of person over another? Is it because you dont understand the principle of free speech and a free people?

---

It's, it's not his fault. We're all trying to shake off certain undesirable genetic traits. Give him time, and gene therapy.

:viking:

Wow Kurki, protesters back then weren't too PC huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

You say government, but this is a protest against the government, at least on a local vs. federal level. Doesn't your constitution have laws within it defining states rights vs. federal rights? Would this apply in this case?

Also, I'm still curious whether the First Amendment applies to the Marine Corps. Is denying the Marine Corps the right to express itself the same as denying it to Joe Citizen?

---

As others have said, the first amendment was to protect citizens, not government. But the recruiters are individuals as well, with rights, not just arms of the state.

The real problem (besides the philosophical stupidness of NIMBY towards recruitment centers) is that the protesters physically blocked all other citizens from trying to get into the recruiting station. That is wrong and hypocritical.

CR

The Goofball solution:

The Corps should close it's Berkely recruiting office and leave town. I'm willing to bet the office was not a great producer of strapping young recruits anyway, even before the protesting.

But they should arrange to have informational posters put up in the ladies rooms of every bar, pub, nightclub, restaurant, and any other place in town where young men might be trying to capture the attention of young ladies. The posters should read:

"With regret, the USMC Recruiting Station in Berkely is now closed. The USMC found itself unable to justify the cost of this office given the unusually low number of recruits it was generating. The main reason for the low production was the physical unsuitability of just about every male candidate interviewed for any position withing the U.S. military. Unfortunately, it appears that males in Berkely tend to suffer from sloping, trout-like shoulders, bird-like chests, and hamster-like genitalia."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

As others have said, the first amendment was to protect citizens, not government.# But the recruiters are individuals as well, with rights, not just arms of the state.

---

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

I don't agree with barring a Marine Corps recruitment center from operating, but I see no problem with a local government limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good. It's a bold example of bottom to top democracy.

Put simply, anytime a local government can kick out the federal army by a democratic process and the army actually leaves, it's proof postive that things are working exactly as they're supposed to. The day the army does not have to leave is when you have a big problem and you become one of those countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The real problem (besides the philosophical stupidness of NIMBY towards recruitment centers) is that the protesters physically blocked all other citizens from trying to get into the recruiting station.# That is wrong and hypocritical.CR

---

Though they have the right to protest, no, they should not be allowed to block other people from entering the recruiting station.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

---

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

Soldiers = People

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and whatever the Navy calls its people (by the by, did you know that instead of placing the name on the back of their headgear they place it above their right rear pocket. that's just too funny.) are simply subject to two different legal statutes, not second class citizens.

PLEASE no one take this thread out of the hemisphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You're misunderstanding his statement. A soldier's rights such a search/seizure, freedom of speech, etc are abridged; not their right as human beings.

---

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Your statement is quite disappointing. Are all those Canadians serving with the UN just cogs in a great international machine? I'm surprised to hear you say this as you get so bent out of shape over teh eval Israelis knocking off a few.

---

What on earth are you talking about? :inquisitive:

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

A soldier's rights are more than abridged when he can be jailed for not following orders that will almost certainly lead to his death. It is a completely different culture with a different set of values and judgement calls.

There is a drastic difference in the scope of personal freedoms enjoyed by civilians and soldiers.



What on earth are you talking about? :inquisitive:

If you can't differentiate between the rights of local governments to use the democratic process to enforce local standards over the objections of the state, and how a person feels about his country's soldiers fighting oversees, we're going to have a mighty wide gulf to jump over before we can chat.

---

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

---

Uhm....

Soldiers are citiens, yes. But the armed forces organization aren't citizens, they're a part of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You were implying that soldiers are less than citizens and aren't entitled to the same protections as ordinary citizens from other citizens.

"status as individuals are very limited are (just) arms of the state"

How would you interpret that statement? What does that mean?

---

I didn't say less, I said different.

A soldier has many rights that a civilian does not, and a civilian has many rights a soldier does not. A soldier's status as an individual is very limited. A civilian has the right of dissent. In fact, the highest quality one can have as a civilian is the right to say no to authority. That right right does not exist for a soldier.

If the president himself tells Joe Citizen to "Drop and give me twenty-five, maggot!", that fella can tell the president to shove those twenty-five where the sun don't shine. If a soldier responds likewise, he goes to jail. That is the difference.

By the by, a US soldier has the right to fully socialized medicine paid for and administered solely by the state. A civilian doesn't. I look forward to a five-hundred word thesis on that one. ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm....

Soldiers are citiens, yes. But the armed forces organization aren't citizens, they're a part of the state.

---

This is different then your earlier comment - which I noticed you failed to address. So are soldiers less then citizens because they serve the state? You have blurred your point because of your earlier comments. Saying that armed forces recruiters should be burned at the stake is a comment directed at the individual. The above statement is even more contradictory since you failed to address the previous statement. Recruiters serve the state but they are also citizens. Advocating the destruction of a individual because of a job that they perform because it serves the state is a violation of that individuals rights as a citizen.

Notice the verbage of the statement by the City Council. They target not only the service - ie the recruiting station, which is the government but the individuals themself because their assigned duty is that of a recruiter.

This is the discintion that the City Council has blurred with their statement. If they would of just addressed the recruiting station then they might have a point, delving into defining the recruiters as unwelcome guests targets the individual. I would find the City more hypocritical in their stance if they take money from the Federal Government - (which about every major city in the United States does).

I find it amazing that an individual who believes in individual freedoms fails to notice the idiocy of the city council in their statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I didn't say less, I said different.

A soldier has many rights that a civilian does not, and a civilian has many rights a soldier does not. A soldier's status as an individual is very limited. A civilian has the right of dissent. In fact, the highest quality one can have as a civilian is the right to say no to authority. That right right does not exist for a soldier.

---

This is actually incorrect. A soldier has less rights in regards to military authority. A soldier has the exact same rights as any citizen when it regards civilian authority outside of the executive office. The city council can advocate that the military recruiting office not be present in its city. It can not however violate the individual rights of the citizen regardless if they wear a uniform or not.

Quote:

---

If the president himself tells Joe Citizen to "Drop and give me twenty-five, maggot!", that fella can tell the president to shove those twenty-five where the sun don't shine. If a soldier responds likewise, he goes to jail. That is the difference.

---

Correct - again this ability only applies to the executive office as commander in chief. If Senator Clinton told the soldier to drop and give me twenty five the soldier can politely refuse since the Senator is not in the command authority chain of command.

Quote:

---

By the by, a US soldier has the right to fully socialized medicine paid for and administered solely by the state. A civilian doesn't. I look forward to a five-hundred word thesis on that one. ~:smoking:

---

Simply put the socialized medicine is based upon a military chain of command and responsiblity. Any citizen can join and enjoy the same system if they are willing to serve their nation.

When you take the pay and the danger involved in being a soldier - socialized medicine is not really a great big benefit with being a soldier. Such a stance demonstrates a fundmental flaw in your understanding of the hazards, responsiblities and duties of the soldier and the organization that must support that soldier.

Soldiers that are enlisted also get three meals a day and free rooms while they are in garrison. Are you attempting to equate those systems to the issue of Free speech?

Not a very good attempt Beriut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This is actually incorrect. A soldier has less rights in regards to military authority. A soldier has the exact same rights as any citizen when it regards civilian authority outside of the executive office. The city council can advocate that the military recruiting office not be present in its city. It can not however violate the individual rights of the citizen regardless if they wear a uniform or not.

---

I think we're saying the same thing in a different way. A soldier does have rights that a civilian does not and vice versa. I never said a civilian authority could deny a soldier his individual rights, only that a civilian government can deny a military body the right to be where it wants to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Correct - again this ability only applies to the executive office as commander in chief. If Senator Clinton told the soldier to drop and give me twenty five the soldier can politely refuse since the Senator is not in the command authority chain of command.

---

That's what I said.

The point was that a soldier can be jailed for dissent whereas (technically) a civilian cannot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Simply put the socialized medicine is based upon a military chain of command and responsiblity. Any citizen can join and enjoy the same system if they are willing to serve their nation.

---

We prefer to think that all citizens should enjoy this right. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

When you take the pay and the danger involved in being a soldier - socialized medicine is not really a great big benefit with being a soldier. Such a stance demonstrates a fundmental flaw in your understanding of the hazards, responsiblities and duties of the soldier and the organization that must support that soldier.

---

I have as good an understanding of the debt society owes to its soldiers as any civilian puke. I simply view health care as a human right due every citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Soldiers that are enlisted also get three meals a day and free rooms while they are in garrison. Are you attempting to equate those systems to the issue of Free speech?

---

No. Never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not a very good attempt Beriut.

---

On the contrary, t'was a wonderful attempt. :sunny:

Don't misunderstand my intention here, I'm not dissing the military in the slightest, my point is only that in a democracy, local government has the right to refuse federal government actions it deems not in keeping with local standards (unless those standards violate the constitution). Also, that in a democracy, the military must be subservient to civilian authority.

Now I'm all sad you apparently didn't read my last post. ~;)

Local government has not attempted to kick out the recruiters. They've issued a statement saying they are "unwelcome". There could be many reasons for this, maybe because the recruiters are breaking no laws (I find this likely since the city is looking into whether its laws against discrimination can be used against the Marines, so obviously they ), maybe they fear a loss of federal funding, or any of a number of other reasons. Whichever one it is, as it stands all they've done is try to boost the morale of the protesters and attempt to make the recruiters feel unwelcome in the hope that they will leave.

Where in those links did the local government try "limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good". It seems other than making the Marines feel unwanted, everything they've done has been to weaken limits on the protest group (i.e. giving them a parking space in a public street, something no other organization or individual in Berkely has, if link #1 is right). I don't have as much time as I'd like to look into things like this, so it's entirely possible I missed something. I'd be quite interested in seeing what action by the Marines the City Council sees as against the public good, and what they are trying to do about it. :yes:

Personally I suspect this will either eventually die down and everyone will forget about it (until the next war) or the Federal Government will just pull the recruiting station out if it's really so unwelcome, and then everyone will forget about it. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If the recruiters are armed forces personel in uniform, aren't their rights limited by armed forces law and not the constitution? I would think their status as individuals are very limited as they are (just) arms of the state.

I don't agree with barring a Marine Corps recruitment center from operating, but I see no problem with a local government limiting the actions of the federal government within that local jurisdiction when they think those actions are contrary to the public good. It's a bold example of bottom to top democracy.

Put simply, anytime a local government can kick out the federal army by a democratic process and the army actually leaves, it's proof postive that things are working exactly as they're supposed to. The day the army does not have to leave is when you have a big problem and you become one of those countries.


Though they have the right to protest, no, they should not be allowed to block other people from entering the recruiting station.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This is different then your earlier comment - which I noticed you failed to address.

---

I didn't address it because you imply things I don't mean. As kukri said, the army recruiter isn't citizens, they're a military body, and as such they must obey the whip of its masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Now I'm all sad you apparently didn't read my last post. ~;)

---

I'm sorry if I made you all sad. :embarassed: I did read your post. I simply got caught up in the fray with my good friends CR and Redleg. (They like to whoop on me because I'm a godless communist hippie. I can't blame them really.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I didn't address it because you imply things I don't mean. As kukri said, the army recruiter isn't citizens, they're a military body, and as such they must obey the whip of its masters.

---

You might want to re-read your own statements - since I used the exact words that you used. Again you claimed that recruiters should be burned - that is a comment directed at an individual who happens to work for the state. And you might want to re-read Kukri's statement - I dont believe he stated that recruiter's sare not citizens.

Have fun HoreTore you are rather confused about what it means to be a citizen and a soldier at the same time. You do not give up your rights as a citizen just because you enlist in the Military. I have always found that those who believe you do are sorely mis-informed about the reality of military service.

Beside I dont know of any soldier, sailor, marine or airman that was ever whipped by their master. I know soldiers who obeyed orders because of an obligation to serve by the oath of enlistment. And I know a few soldiers who refused to obey orders that were not lawful. So to claim that a soldier must obey the whip of its masters is another ill informed statement.

Unless of course your speaking of the soldiers in the "Communist" countries such as the USSR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I think we're saying the same thing in a different way. A soldier does have rights that a civilian does not and vice versa. I never said a civilian authority could deny a soldier his individual rights, only that a civilian government can deny a military body the right to be where it wants to be.

---

Glald to see that you made that point clear, because I really did not see it in your previous statement.

Quote:

---

The point was that a soldier can be jailed for dissent whereas (technically) a civilian cannot.

---

Actually a civilian can be arrested for dissent - even technically - the verbage will be different then how a soldier is arrested but the concept is still the same. In fact a soldier is not arrested for dissent either - normally its failure to obey orders or some other like charge.

Quote:

---

We prefer to think that all citizens should enjoy this right. :bow:

---

Then you should realize that Military Health Care is not socialized Medicine in the way that you attempted. Since a clear exchange of service by that member is required for the ability to get health care. Again a weak comparision and a poor point.

Quote:

---

I have as good an understanding of the debt society owes to its soldiers as any civilian puke. I simply view health care as a human right due every citizen.

---

See the above - claiming that one in the United States does not have the right for health care is a false arguement. Try reading what is posted in every hospital in the United States.

Quote:

---

On the contrary, t'was a wonderful attempt. :sunny:

---

Wrong again - comparing health care that is provided as part of the military contract in exchange for service to nation to Socialized Medicine schemes is not even close to the same. Try again.

Quote:

---

Don't misunderstand my intention here, I'm not dissing the military in the slightest, my point is only that in a democracy, local government has the right to refuse federal government actions it deems not in keeping with local standards (unless those standards violate the constitution). Also, that in a democracy, the military must be subservient to civilian authority.

---

Then you should of just stuck to that point - its a lot better then previous arguements. And almost mirrors what I have stated. Like I stated earlier I dont have a problem with the city council ruling in regards to the Retruiting station only the verbage they directed at the recruiters as individuals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Glald to see that you made that point clear, because I really did not see it in your previous statement.

---

I will clarify my points with more care next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually a civilian can be arrested for dissent - even technically - the verbage will be different then how a soldier is arrested but the concept is still the same. In fact a soldier is not arrested for dissent either - normally its failure to obey orders or some other like charge.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then you should realize that Military Health Care is not socialized Medicine in the way that you attempted. Since a clear exchange of service by that member is required for the ability to get health care. Again a weak comparision and a poor point.

---

We require an exchange of service here as well. In exchange for being Canadian, you get health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

See the above - claiming that one in the United States does not have the right for health care is a false arguement. Try reading what is posted in every hospital in the United States.

---

And just what is posted in every hospital in the United States?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Wrong again... Try again.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then you should of just stuck to that point - its a lot better then previous arguements. And almost mirrors what I have stated. Like I stated earlier I dont have a problem with the city council ruling in regards to the Retruiting station only the verbage they directed at the recruiters as individuals

---

I know, but I realize the great sense of fulfillment you get when you tell me I'm wrong, and I could never be so cruel as to take that away from you. :sunny:

(If you ever find the time, you and I should debate socialized medicine in the Debate Thread. I can think of no more worthy a foe. :bow:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I will clarify my points with more care next time.

---

Not a major problem - that is why we engage in discussion and polite arguement. Its the nature of the way opposing viewpoints reach a concenus (SP?)

Quote:

---

We require an exchange of service here as well. In exchange for being Canadian, you get health care.

---

Nationality is not an exchange of service - but I expect you know that.

Quote:

---

And just what is posted in every hospital in the United States?

---

The right to emerency treatment is aviable regardless of your ability to pay. Its one of the major compliants of the Hospitals. And it should never be repelled or allowed to be done away with.

Then if you want to talk about Socialized Medicine - do you realize that many counties have a Health Clinic that is free to citizens within that county. Not all have this system, but the counties that are worth living in - have them. Dallas County for instance has a mobile free health clinic that rotates around the county.

Quote:

---

I know, but I realize the great sense of fulfillment you get when you tell me I'm wrong, and I could never be so cruel as to take that away from you. :sunny:

---

No true fulfillment - its the point that needs to be clarified about how the United States Military works - we dont have conscription like many countries, its an volunteer force - which requires recruiters to be available for volunteers to seek out to enlist - just as it requires recruiters to visit people to inform them of what the service is about. If one wishes to discuss the ethics of such a role - by all means lets discuss it. But I find HoreTore's wanting to burn recruiters because they seek to fulfill the needs of a volunteer force - in a discuss about Free Speech to be an anti-thesis of free speech. It demonstrates a fundmental misunderstanding of Free Speech. It reminds me of another instance of his misunderstanding about public protest of an individual on the public property around an individuals home. I find his stance very hypocritical in that regards. If its good for the state to have people protest against it - its also acceptable for an individual to have free speech exercised against their individual behavior. As long as it does not advocate the harming of said individual - which is exactly what HoreTore stated in his initial comment - or is a known lie.

Quote:

---

(If you ever find the time, you and I should debate socialized medicine in the Debate Thread. I can think of no more worthy a foe. :bow:)

---

You would be shocked - Socialized Medicine at the National Level is a big waste of money. Socialized Medicine at the State and community level - I am all for it. It would cost less then a National System and more individuals would be able to get immediate access to it. That is why you will find that I mention the County Health Clinics in my arguements about socialized medicine. The Federal government should be cut back - not added onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Nationality is not an exchange of service - but I expect you know that.

---

Yes, I do. But I`m not above shamelessly using such a example to serve my purposes even if the logic is fleeting at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You would be shocked - Socialized Medicine at the National Level is a big waste of money.# Socialized Medicine at the State and community level - I am all for it.# It would cost less then a National System and more individuals would be able to get immediate access to it.# That is why you will find that I mention the County Health Clinics in my arguements about socialized medicine.# The Federal government should be cut back - not added onto.

---

Where the rights of the individual are involved, I much prefer the Federal government to be in charge of a one-size-fits-all charter, not the states or provinces, which can, and have, limited peoples rights and had to be spanked for it by the feds, both in your country and mine.

I say this with the understanding that health care is a human rights issue, which I think it is. But now we are truly off topic.

Again, at some future and convenient time, I would be delighted to engage on this issue in a more formal way. That`s not a challenge, it`s a request that you may respond to at your leisure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again you claimed that recruiters should be burned

---

Ridiculous.

Actually it was something of a relief. :clown:

I've always tended to avoid political debates in forums because the level of discourse tends to be on the low side (only found the backroom after being invited to play the Victonia game). Because people here are so much more knowledgable than I'm used to, I come to check the backroom each evening with a little bit of trepidation, wondering if my arguments have been smashed. :sweatdrop:

Anyway, I've decided from now on whenever a post of mine is unanswered, it means I've so wowed my fellor ORGers with my brilliance they can come up with no criticism. Yeah, that's the ticket. No self-delusion at all there. :clown:

It's interesting to see how this has turned into a debate on Socialized Medicine. Unfortunately that's not an issue I can debate intelligently on, so I'm bowing out of this thread. See ya guys around the Backroom. ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sorry if I made you all sad. :embarassed: I did read your post. I simply got caught up in the fray with my good friends CR and Redleg. (They like to whoop on me because I'm a godless communist hippie. I can't blame them really.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fully support any attempt to burn army recruiters at the stake.

---

Oh how soon one forgets their own statements from a previous post there young HoreTore. Denying you stated it when it is clearly posted in post #5 of this topic is surely a sign of being ridiculous on your part.

Now again why do you support burning another human being at the stake just because they serve the nation? Its a rethorical question completely based upon the statement that you alreadly made. An easy counter to your use of an emotional appeal arguement.

One should be more clever when attempting an emotional appeal arguement, because it often backfires against you. Free Speech is a great topic for using emotional appeal, however you went about it in the wrong way by advocating the destruction of another human being because of the job that they perform for the state. Yes you did it in an indirect way, but the statement does indeed advocate the destruction of another human. Its really a rather simple retort of your statement, that takes the verbage for what it states discounting what you might have wanted to actually state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Yes, I do. But I`m not above shamelessly using such a example to serve my purposes even if the logic is fleeting at best.

---

Then be prepared to be shamed.....LOL

Quote:

---

Where the rights of the individual are involved, I much prefer the Federal government to be in charge of a one-size-fits-all charter, not the states or provinces, which can, and have, limited peoples rights and had to be spanked for it by the feds, both in your country and mine.

---

Well I am a firm believer in individual and state rights above the Federal. Feds provide overall oversite to prevent abuse of the people's rights. Social programs are better served when its fully supported at the state and local level. National politics corrupt the overall process.

Quote:

---

I say this with the understanding that health care is a human rights issue, which I think it is. But now we are truly off topic.

---

I dont disagree with that statement at all - just in the way that it should be handled.

Quote:

---

Again, at some future and convenient time, I would be delighted to engage on this issue in a more formal way. That`s not a challenge, it`s a request that you may respond to at your leisure.

---

[/quote]

Post and we can try as long as we allow long periods between responses - since I have a job that sometimes I have time and sometimes I dont. Been lucky the last few days because of snow fall.

Darn its cold here in North Dakota......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh how soon one forgets their own statements from a previous post there young HoreTore. Denying you stated it when it is clearly posted in post #5 of this topic is surely a sign of being ridiculous on your part.

Now again why do you support burning another human being at the stake just because they serve the nation? Its a rethorical question completely based upon the statement that you alreadly made. An easy counter to your use of an emotional appeal arguement.

One should be more clever when attempting an emotional appeal arguement, because it often backfires against you. Free Speech is a great topic for using emotional appeal, however you went about it in the wrong way by advocating the destruction of another human being because of the job that they perform for the state. Yes you did it in an indirect way, but the statement does indeed advocate the destruction of another human. Its really a rather simple retort of your statement, that takes the verbage for what it states discounting what you might have wanted to actually state.

---

Though I was disgusted by Horetore's statement there I assumed that he didn't mean it literally. If anything I thought it was a 'witchhunt' reference of really poor taste that he was making, because that is what this is in Berkley, a witchhunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh how soon one forgets their own statements from a previous post there young HoreTore. Denying you stated it when it is clearly posted in post #5 of this topic is surely a sign of being ridiculous on your part.

---

spmetla got it right, read his post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

spmetla got it right, read his post.

---

You should read mine that was before his - where I said I discounted what you wanted to imply for what the words actually stated.

If you dont understand that then you should learn that words have power regardless of what your intent is. In a civil tort case for harrassment - its not your intent that is judged but what was actually stated. This also happens in criminal court cases when threats of violence are made against another.

Berkeley backs down:
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15245031/d...=headlineclick

Quote:

---

As six Republican senators devised a plan to yank $2.3 million in federal funding for Berkeley programs, the mayor of the famously liberal city apologized Wednesday for his hard stance against a Marine recruiting center.

---

As push came to shove, Berkeley fell over in the attempt to shove.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You should read mine that was before his - where I said I discounted what you wanted to imply for what the words actually stated.

If you dont understand that then you should learn that words have power regardless of what your intent is. In a civil tort case for harrassment - its not your intent that is judged but what was actually stated. This also happens in criminal court cases when threats of violence are made against another.

---

Can't really see why that should bother me in the slightest though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Can't really see why that should bother me in the slightest though.

---

You should of read the previous post by Crazed Rabbit. It demonstrates at the community level why one should be concerned about what they say and how they say it to insure that the intent and the message are one and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You should of read the previous post by Crazed Rabbit. It demonstrates at the community level why one should be concerned about what they say and how they say it to insure that the intent and the message are one and the same.

---

You're dreaming of a world without analogies or sarcasm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're dreaming of a world without analogies or sarcasm?

---

Incorrect.

What I do dream of is a world where people accept responsibility for their actions. Regardless of what their intent was.

Daily Show did a fairly brilliant bit on this. Enjoy.

I saw this on the daily the show and was waiting for it to make it to the website. Bloody code pink! :furious3:

"If only there was an organization, sworn to defend that free speech"-Rob Riggle
"Wouldn't that be great" -Code Pink member

I´m a complete liberal on most issues....but man....I hate hippies...