City of Berkeley, Calif., Votes to Boot Marines *updates*

[Sinsear]

LOL; Can we pull funding from the libtard mecca of San Francisco too just for the hell of it?

 

[Pabster]

They have the right to kick out or refuse whoever they want. But the guy's right, let them fund everything themselves if they wish to do it that way.

All those rich California liberals can afford it.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: ironwing
The second poll question is poorly worded and spins the issue.

Does any city have the right to kick out Marines like this?

The city did not kick the Marines out.

Agreed. It was the RECRUITING OFFICE that was kicked out and rightfully so if they voted for it. It's democracy at work remember? ProfJohn likes to misconstrue the situation by changing words, kinda like Frank Luntz, to get the right response.

No, not even the recruiting office was kicked out. The city resolution said "We don't like you and you aught to peddle your stuff elsewhere." It had no teeth. It wasn't a cease and desist order nor an order to vacate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster
They have the right to kick out or refuse whoever they want. But the guy's right, let them fund everything themselves if they wish to do it that way.

All those rich California liberals can afford it.

Sure as long as they don't have to pay Federal Income taxes.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what, ProfJohn, you and the guy from South Carolina are absolutely right, federal money should be allocated based on whether or not you personally agree with their ideology. I for one don't like the disrespect Texans show to gay people, I propose we stop sending them federal money as well. But I'm a reasonable guy, I think we should be fair here. So to counter the political monetary allocation of ProfJohn and the South Carolina Republican, I think we need to form a panel of judges equally far to the LEFT side of the political spectrum (I propose communist guerrillas from South America) to identify localities with unacceptable conservative political views for termination of funds.

Of course this isn't quite so ridiculous a position as I'm making it sound, because ProfJohn and the ass clown from South Carolina aren't really outraged, it's the oldest Republican trick in the book. Nothing like dragging the troops out for a little cheap publicity and a quick round of feigned outrage. Don't worry, I'm sure the Marines will go back to dying in Iraq where you can forget about them as soon as you're done pretending to be mad at Berkeley.

I didn't have to read any more posts in this thread (although my masochistic nature forced me to anyway) to realize that this was going to be the best solution to the asshat from SC's knee jerk, feigned outrage proposal.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster
They have the right to kick out or refuse whoever they want. But the guy's right, let them fund everything themselves if they wish to do it that way.

All those rich California liberals can afford it.

Does that mean that California liberals have the right to refuse payment of any federal fees, taxes, etc. that are the primary reason this idiot's district isn't still in a state of 1970?

You right wing idiots like to conveniently forget that CA has the WORLD'S 6th largest GDP and if they weren't contributing to the fed.....50% of the country would loose all of their fed funds.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what, ProfJohn, you and the guy from South Carolina are absolutely right, federal money should be allocated based on whether or not you personally agree with their ideology. I for one don't like the disrespect Texans show to gay people, I propose we stop sending them federal money as well. But I'm a reasonable guy, I think we should be fair here. So to counter the political monetary allocation of ProfJohn and the South Carolina Republican, I think we need to form a panel of judges equally far to the LEFT side of the political spectrum (I propose communist guerrillas from South America) to identify localities with unacceptable conservative political views for termination of funds.

Of course this isn't quite so ridiculous a position as I'm making it sound, because ProfJohn and the ass clown from South Carolina aren't really outraged, it's the oldest Republican trick in the book. Nothing like dragging the troops out for a little cheap publicity and a quick round of feigned outrage. Don't worry, I'm sure the Marines will go back to dying in Iraq where you can forget about them as soon as you're done pretending to be mad at Berkeley.

QFT

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster
They have the right to kick out or refuse whoever they want. But the guy's right, let them fund everything themselves if they wish to do it that way.

All those rich California liberals can afford it.

Does that mean that California liberals have the right to refuse payment of any federal fees, taxes, etc. that are the primary reason this idiot's district isn't still in a state of 1970?

You right wing idiots like to conveniently forget that CA has the WORLD'S 6th largest GDP and if they weren't contributing to the fed.....50% of the country would loose all of their fed funds.

No. They'd still have to pay federal taxes. There are plenty of other federal programs that they would still be covered by (FDA, Treasury, etc).

We'll just pretend that their taxes don't go toward the military .. just the other stuff. It's like when the United Way gives you a chance to point your donation to the charity of your choice (you don't *really* think it matters, do you?).

...and who said anything about California? This is Berkeley ... one city (though I'm sure others would try to follow)

 

[Jmman]

Text

I love some of these liberal enclaves. Reminds me of the Vermont town that voted to arrest the President. Good luck with that.......

 

[Specop 007]

Wouldnt be the first time Federal funding was threatened because of decisions or differences between how the local / state politicians want to run it and how the Feds want to run it.

Why everyone gets their pink panties in a wad over the fact the Feds want to pull funding now is beyond me. Didnt seem to bother anyone before now.....

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
LOL; Can we pull funding from the libtard mecca of San Francisco too just for the hell of it?

is cutting off peoples funding because they agree with you really a mature response?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What a mess. The city of Berkeley voted to tell the Marines to leave their Berkely recruiting station.

I agree with the congressman's move.

BTW you have to love the list of earmarks, just shows you how messed up the whole earmark thing has become. A million dollars for a center in honor of a local congressman, what the hell.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.

DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.

"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."

"If the city can?t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.

Sen. DeMint will appear Saturday on FOX News Channel ? on FOX Online With Jamie Colby ? between noon and 2 p.m. ET.

Click here to read Jamie Colby's blog, The Colby Files, and for more information about the show.

In the meantime, a senior Marine official tells FOX News that the Marine office in Berkeley isn't going anywhere.

"We understand things are different there, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme," the official said.

DeMint said he will draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated for the City of Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill ? which his office tallied to value about $2.1 million. He said that any money taken back would be transferred to the Marines.

DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:

? $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.

? $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.

? $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.

? $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.

? $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.

The Marine official, speaking with FOX News on Friday, said Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway scoffed at the news, but there are no plans for to protest the City Council's decisions. There are definitely no plans to move the recruiting station either.

"To actually put something into law that encourages the disruption of a federal office is ridiculous. They are not going to kick a federal office out of its rightful place there, and this is not going to discourage those young patriots who want to be Marines," the official said.

The Berkeley City Council this week voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests," according to The Associated Press.

The council also voted to explore whether a city anti-discrimination law applies to the Marines, with a focus on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents open homosexuality in the military.

The council also voted to give the antiwar group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months, as well as a protest permit.

The Marine recruiting office in Berkeley has been open for about one year, but has been the subject of recent protests by Code Pink members.

Oh the beam in your eye, the camels you swallow, the mole hills you mountain, and the topics you post.:moon:

 

[Moonbeam]

As the nation slowly evolves toward blue we will start strangling enclaves of red. The left is not obligated to be sane either. What is important is that difference be stamped out. People who think differently than me threaten the lock on iron box I've hidden my self hate in.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Text

I love some of these liberal enclaves. Reminds me of the Vermont town that voted to arrest the President. Good luck with that.......

:laugh:

The sad thing is, there are so many of them.

I say let the rich, snotty liberals fund their own shit.

And yeah, they still need to pay taxes. Remember the Socialist ideals you guys believe in?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Wouldnt be the first time Federal funding was threatened because of decisions or differences between how the local / state politicians want to run it and how the Feds want to run it.

Why everyone gets their pink panties in a wad over the fact the Feds want to pull funding now is beyond me. Didnt seem to bother anyone before now.....

Well you could start with the fact that what you're talking about ISN'T what's going on here. This isn't a matter of disagreements on how to the federal government wants to run something vs how the state or local government wants to run something, this is one senator who wants to go after ALL federal funding for a particular city because he doesn't agree with their political views. In other words, he's using the power of the federal government to take revenge on people he doesn't like. How are people OK with this?

Don't bother answering, we all know why you guys don't care, it's because you guys LOVE abuse of power and big federal government when it suits your political agenda. I guarantee if this was a Democratic Senator trying to pull funding for some small town in Texas because they passed a resolution against homosexuality, ever single one of you guys would go absolutely ape shit. And that, my friends, is called hypocrisy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jmman
Text

I love some of these liberal enclaves. Reminds me of the Vermont town that voted to arrest the President. Good luck with that.......

:laugh:

The sad thing is, there are so many of them.

I say let the rich, snotty liberals fund their own shit.

And yeah, they still need to pay taxes. Remember the Socialist ideals you guys believe in?

Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jmman
Text

I love some of these liberal enclaves. Reminds me of the Vermont town that voted to arrest the President. Good luck with that.......

:laugh:

The sad thing is, there are so many of them.

I say let the rich, snotty liberals fund their own shit.

And yeah, they still need to pay taxes. Remember the Socialist ideals you guys believe in?

I agree, but after they have stomped out of existence the pockets NeoKlans around the nation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Wouldnt be the first time Federal funding was threatened because of decisions or differences between how the local / state politicians want to run it and how the Feds want to run it.

Why everyone gets their pink panties in a wad over the fact the Feds want to pull funding now is beyond me. Didnt seem to bother anyone before now.....

Well you could start with the fact that what you're talking about ISN'T what's going on here. This isn't a matter of disagreements on how to the federal government wants to run something vs how the state or local government wants to run something, this is one senator who wants to go after ALL federal funding for a particular city because he doesn't agree with their political views. In other words, he's using the power of the federal government to take revenge on people he doesn't like. How are people OK with this?

Don't bother answering, we all know why you guys don't care, it's because you guys LOVE abuse of power and big federal government when it suits your political agenda. I guarantee if this was a Democratic Senator trying to pull funding for some small town in Texas because they passed a resolution against homosexuality, ever single one of you guys would go absolutely ape shit. And that, my friends, is called hypocrisy.

Wrong.

He is only going after their earmarks.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. It seems to me that allowing the Armed Forces to recruit, for example, is a legitimate thing. It isn't like some seedy debate over intelligent design and some words in a textbook...or the latest doomsday prophecy from a global warming nut.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. It seems to me that allowing the Armed Forces to recruit, for example, is a legitimate thing. It isn't like some seedy debate over intelligent design and some words in a textbook...or the latest doomsday prophecy from a global warming nut.

If allowing them to recruit is a legitimate position to have, then so is NOT allowing them to recruit.

The council and/or city .gov was elected to ensure that they would look after the inhabitants of their districts. If the constituents believe that not having their family members be tempted by false promises and/or bribery to enlist and put their lives on the line when the politicians that made that a real possibility shield their own family members from that possibility...they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Unlike the democrats at the national level, these politicians are doing something to actively end the war.....stopping the supply of bodies to it.

 

[Nebor]

They need to burn that city down, that is ridiculous. Banning military recruitment.... Don't they have any regard for those who keep them safe at night?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. It seems to me that allowing the Armed Forces to recruit, for example, is a legitimate thing. It isn't like some seedy debate over intelligent design and some words in a textbook...or the latest doomsday prophecy from a global warming nut.

If allowing them to recruit is a legitimate position to have, then so is NOT allowing them to recruit.

The council and/or city .gov was elected to ensure that they would look after the inhabitants of their districts. If the constituents believe that not having their family members be tempted by false promises and/or bribery to enlist and put their lives on the line when the politicians that made that a real possibility shield their own family members from that possibility...they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Unlike the democrats at the national level, these politicians are doing something to actively end the war.....stopping the supply of bodies to it.

So your position is adults are not smart enough to make their own decisions in life, thus should have the .gov make the decisions for them?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The same damn basic thing happened during Vietnam. We blamed our troops and our military for the sins of our politicians. While the larger country kept re-electing those same politicians. Thereafter it took our military about 20 years of responsible behavior and the Powell doctrine to regain its public image.

But now the city of Berkeley has simply said to military recruiters, you are no longer allowed to entice our young people to engage in suicidal behavior within city limits.

Now its understandable that the Federal government should be allowed to maintain its right to entice young people to engage in suicidal behavior. But its still a damning shot across the bow at the wrong targets on both sides.

I never did understand that whole thing... I bet those marines don't wanna go to iraq anymore than we don't wanna be there as a nation. Berkley is full of idiots.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. It seems to me that allowing the Armed Forces to recruit, for example, is a legitimate thing. It isn't like some seedy debate over intelligent design and some words in a textbook...or the latest doomsday prophecy from a global warming nut.

If allowing them to recruit is a legitimate position to have, then so is NOT allowing them to recruit.

The council and/or city .gov was elected to ensure that they would look after the inhabitants of their districts. If the constituents believe that not having their family members be tempted by false promises and/or bribery to enlist and put their lives on the line when the politicians that made that a real possibility shield their own family members from that possibility...they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Unlike the democrats at the national level, these politicians are doing something to actively end the war.....stopping the supply of bodies to it.

So your position is adults are not smart enough to make their own decisions in life, thus should have the .gov make the decisions for them?

Come on. You know perfectly well the government allows millions of illegal workers in to the US to drive America's young folk into the military. The military sells itself as a means of personal advancement while closing all other avenues except for the elites, right?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, but I repeat, shouldn't conservatives have to "fund their own shit" when they do something Democrats don't like? I mean, if we're going to act like high school kids, shouldn't we ALL be able to act like high school kids? :roll:

Seriously, you want to know why people on my side think people on your side are a bunch of fucking morons? It's nonsense like this.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. It seems to me that allowing the Armed Forces to recruit, for example, is a legitimate thing. It isn't like some seedy debate over intelligent design and some words in a textbook...or the latest doomsday prophecy from a global warming nut.

If allowing them to recruit is a legitimate position to have, then so is NOT allowing them to recruit.

The council and/or city .gov was elected to ensure that they would look after the inhabitants of their districts. If the constituents believe that not having their family members be tempted by false promises and/or bribery to enlist and put their lives on the line when the politicians that made that a real possibility shield their own family members from that possibility...they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Unlike the democrats at the national level, these politicians are doing something to actively end the war.....stopping the supply of bodies to it.

So your position is adults are not smart enough to make their own decisions in life, thus should have the .gov make the decisions for them?

So you position is that a decision made by adults is not a smart one thus requiring the .gov to "correct" their mistake by withholding funding until they come around and see the err of their ways?