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

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
link
I assume you missed this video??

Add to that the actual text of the city council resolution:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

And so? That's what protest groups do, they protest? What are the consequences of non-violent protest? An inconvenience, at best. It certainly pales in comparison to Senators from other states actively drafting legislation to withold federal funds because he doesn't happen to agree with some statement you may have made.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

They don't?!? I fully expect that has and continues to happen.

More importantly, perhaps you can educate me as to what right the Marines have to operate where and when they wish? If they do indeed have that right (which I doubt), how does that somehow trump the city's rights to zone and approve businesses and organizations operating within its city limits?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

If the federal government passed a law that spelled out abortion rights then it would be incorrect for local and state governments to try and over rule that law.

But as it is there are no Federal laws that stop the states from taking the types of actions you list in your link. BTW have a link for what you posted?

Also, MANY MANY lawyers look at Roe v. Wade as being ?bad law? even those who support the right to abortions. On top of that the Supreme Court does not make laws, they just interrupt them. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional the state or Fed government has the right to go back and re-write the law in another way.

Finally, abortion is considered a state issue with many different states have different laws regarding it. The existence of Marine Recruiting stations on the other hand is NOT a local issue and thus the local governments have no right to interfere in their operations.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

If the federal government passed a law that spelled out abortion rights then it would be incorrect for local and state governments to try and over rule that law.

But as it is there are no Federal laws that stop the states from taking the types of actions you list in your link. BTW have a link for what you posted?

Also, MANY MANY lawyers look at Roe v. Wade as being ?bad law? even those who support the right to abortions. On top of that the Supreme Court does not make laws, they just interrupt them. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional the state or Fed government has the right to go back and re-write the law in another way.

Finally, abortion is considered a state issue with many different states have different laws regarding it. The existence of Marine Recruiting stations on the other hand is NOT a local issue and thus the local governments have no right to interfere in their operations.

First off.....where is the federal law that allows the .gov to force municipalities to agree with the federal goverment or face punitive damages?

Also, many lawyers like Alberto Gonzalez look at things like the Constitution as "bad law" but that doesn't mean that their argument is valid.

Source for above quoted text

Supporting evidence since you will probably attack the source on the first

More supporting evidence

To your last point, are you saying that the cities/states do not have a right to zone or approve land within their borders? Maybe you can link me to the law that federally mandates the allowance of recruiting stations?

 

[teclis1023]

ugh. I don't agree with the military direction this country has been heading, but disrespecting the Marine Corp is one of the most undignified moves possible. I do my best not to bite the hand that feeds me...or at least, the hand that protects me so I can feed myself.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Berkeley Backs Down

I can has federal funding?

 

[Pabster]

What's the matter, Berkeley?

Looks like the rich liberals got scared when they realized dollars might be coming out of their pockets.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's time to realize that corporations run America and they need the marines. Those stupid liberals need to know money can bend them over and poke them in the ass. Money can put a big spotlight on their butts and cause them to lose votes. No votes, no job, end of protest. You play the game or get run down. Ask Ron Paul. There will be no revolution of any kind. There are too many people in power with too much money at stake.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are too many people in power with too much money at stake.

Indeed. I'm not sure Ron Paul was the best analogy to make your point, however.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's the matter, Berkeley?

Looks like the rich liberals got scared when they realized dollars might be coming out of their pockets.

Hmm dont rich liberals pay more taxes than a poor/not so wealthy conservative like yourself?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Hmm dont rich liberals pay more taxes than a poor/not so wealthy conservative like yourself?

Of course not. The "Rich" don't pay enough!

Or so your heroes believe...

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's the matter, Berkeley?

Looks like the rich liberals got scared when they realized dollars might be coming out of their pockets.

Hmm dont rich liberals pay more taxes than a poor/not so wealthy conservative like yourself?

No... don't you remember that the rich don't pay any taxes?

 

[ProfJohn]

Now that the city is backing down and essentially admitting that it made a mistake I wonder if RightisWrong and DealMonkey will come in here and do the same thing. Or will they just ignore this latest development.

 

[Pabster]

Crickets are deafening in this thread.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Now that the city is backing down and essentially admitting that it made a mistake I wonder if RightisWrong and DealMonkey will come in here and do the same thing. Or will they just ignore this latest development.

Can you explain to me what mistake the city made?

Was it speaking freely against the federal government?

Was it representing their constituency?

Was it standing up for their principles?

If anything, the city's mistake was cowering down to the asshats in Washington and thinking that the retarded opinions of people like yourself are more important than their own consciences.

As for me, I haven't made a mistake regarding this topic. I believe that the city council was well within their right to have made the non-binding resolution to state that they do not want the military within their district recruiting their citizens. I believe that Berkeley should have let this play out and then challenged it in the courts as an infringement on their constitutional rights.

What you fail to realize is that, although Congress has the power to allocate funds, that does not grant them the legal grounds to squash the constitutional rights of the citizenry.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

If the federal government passed a law that spelled out abortion rights then it would be incorrect for local and state governments to try and over rule that law.

But as it is there are no Federal laws that stop the states from taking the types of actions you list in your link. BTW have a link for what you posted?

Also, MANY MANY lawyers look at Roe v. Wade as being ?bad law? even those who support the right to abortions. On top of that the Supreme Court does not make laws, they just interrupt them. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional the state or Fed government has the right to go back and re-write the law in another way.

Finally, abortion is considered a state issue with many different states have different laws regarding it. The existence of Marine Recruiting stations on the other hand is NOT a local issue and thus the local governments have no right to interfere in their operations.

First off.....where is the federal law that allows the .gov to force municipalities to agree with the federal goverment or face punitive damages?

Also, many lawyers like Alberto Gonzalez look at things like the Constitution as "bad law" but that doesn't mean that their argument is valid.

Source for above quoted text

Supporting evidence since you will probably attack the source on the first

More supporting evidence

To your last point, are you saying that the cities/states do not have a right to zone or approve land within their borders? Maybe you can link me to the law that federally mandates the allowance of recruiting stations?

ummm drug laws, seatbelt laws, speed laws....

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

If the federal government passed a law that spelled out abortion rights then it would be incorrect for local and state governments to try and over rule that law.

But as it is there are no Federal laws that stop the states from taking the types of actions you list in your link. BTW have a link for what you posted?

Also, MANY MANY lawyers look at Roe v. Wade as being ?bad law? even those who support the right to abortions. On top of that the Supreme Court does not make laws, they just interrupt them. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional the state or Fed government has the right to go back and re-write the law in another way.

Finally, abortion is considered a state issue with many different states have different laws regarding it. The existence of Marine Recruiting stations on the other hand is NOT a local issue and thus the local governments have no right to interfere in their operations.

First off.....where is the federal law that allows the .gov to force municipalities to agree with the federal goverment or face punitive damages?

Also, many lawyers like Alberto Gonzalez look at things like the Constitution as "bad law" but that doesn't mean that their argument is valid.

Source for above quoted text

Supporting evidence since you will probably attack the source on the first

More supporting evidence

To your last point, are you saying that the cities/states do not have a right to zone or approve land within their borders? Maybe you can link me to the law that federally mandates the allowance of recruiting stations?

ummm drug laws, seatbelt laws, speed laws....

The problem with your suggestion that those are comparable are that they are all "for the common good". What common good does "You better not speak ill against the federal .gov or military or you will loose funding" provide?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

A week after Haley Barbour took office as governor of Mississippi in January 2004, he promised to ?end the tragedy of abortion? by ?changing hearts and minds one at a time.? Among his first actions was to declare the period from January 18 to 25 ?A Week of Prayer Regarding the Sanctity of Human Life.? He further allowed Pro-Life Mississippi to place 2,000 white crosses on the statehouse lawn ?in memory of unborn children who die each day.?

In the 14 months since then, this former RNC chair and White House staffer has wasted no time in cozying up to an array of right- wing extremists, even placing a Confederate flag on his website. Medicaid funding and services to the elderly and disabled have been slashed; Jon Stewart?s America: The Book has been banned in two counties; and a host of anti-abortion measures have sailed through the legislature, making Mississippi one of the most virulently anti-choice states in the country. Only one clinic?the Jackson Women?s Health Organization (JWHO)?exists, down from seven a decade- and-a-half ago.

you cant see the difference between a GOVERNMENT using lawful means to get a law changed compared to a GOVERNMENT encouraging and entertaining a group of protesters to disrupt a totally lawful business? please tell me you are so dumb.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

the above statement illustrates my point.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

If the federal government passed a law that spelled out abortion rights then it would be incorrect for local and state governments to try and over rule that law.

But as it is there are no Federal laws that stop the states from taking the types of actions you list in your link. BTW have a link for what you posted?

Also, MANY MANY lawyers look at Roe v. Wade as being ?bad law? even those who support the right to abortions. On top of that the Supreme Court does not make laws, they just interrupt them. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional the state or Fed government has the right to go back and re-write the law in another way.

Finally, abortion is considered a state issue with many different states have different laws regarding it. The existence of Marine Recruiting stations on the other hand is NOT a local issue and thus the local governments have no right to interfere in their operations.

First off.....where is the federal law that allows the .gov to force municipalities to agree with the federal goverment or face punitive damages?

Also, many lawyers like Alberto Gonzalez look at things like the Constitution as "bad law" but that doesn't mean that their argument is valid.

Source for above quoted text

Supporting evidence since you will probably attack the source on the first

More supporting evidence

To your last point, are you saying that the cities/states do not have a right to zone or approve land within their borders? Maybe you can link me to the law that federally mandates the allowance of recruiting stations?

ummm drug laws, seatbelt laws, speed laws....

The problem with your suggestion that those are comparable are that they are all "for the common good". What common good does "You better not speak ill against the federal .gov or military or you will loose funding" provide?

recruiting man and women to serve our country in the armed forces is for the common good of our country.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The city council is encouraging groups like Code Pink to protest out side of the Marine station.

Can you imagine the outrage is some city council in the south ?applauded? groups who protested outside of abortion clinics?

What the hell is the fake outrage over? You need to get over your "Holier than thou" "Everything Berzerkley is evil" self.

Almost the entire south's STATE .govs are actively trying to get abortion outlawed and have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade at every turn. Where is your outrage against that?

A week after Haley Barbour took office as governor of Mississippi in January 2004, he promised to ?end the tragedy of abortion? by ?changing hearts and minds one at a time.? Among his first actions was to declare the period from January 18 to 25 ?A Week of Prayer Regarding the Sanctity of Human Life.? He further allowed Pro-Life Mississippi to place 2,000 white crosses on the statehouse lawn ?in memory of unborn children who die each day.?

In the 14 months since then, this former RNC chair and White House staffer has wasted no time in cozying up to an array of right- wing extremists, even placing a Confederate flag on his website. Medicaid funding and services to the elderly and disabled have been slashed; Jon Stewart?s America: The Book has been banned in two counties; and a host of anti-abortion measures have sailed through the legislature, making Mississippi one of the most virulently anti-choice states in the country. Only one clinic?the Jackson Women?s Health Organization (JWHO)?exists, down from seven a decade- and-a-half ago.

you cant see the difference between a GOVERNMENT using lawful means to get a law changed compared to a GOVERNMENT encouraging and entertaining a group of protesters to disrupt a totally lawful business? please tell me you are so dumb.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

the above statement illustrates my point.

You can't see the difference between a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience and extortion/suppression by the federal government?

Please show me where they encouraged anyone to do a single thing that is illegal? If you notice, they do not say that any group should PROHIBIT entrance to the "business". They are not calling for or suggesting violence in any way. They have also not revoked any licenses, permits or charters of the recruiters. What they have done is made a public statement as to their feelings on having the recruiting station located within their boundaries. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your problem is that you view patriotism as supporting your .gov or "supporting the troops" (whatever that nebulous phrase means) no matter what. Well, I have news for you....patriotism also consists of standing up to your .gov and not just the "enemies" that they tell you are bad on any given day. It consists of protecting the members of your society by keeping the OUT of war zones and not just putting a magnet on your car and then burying your head in the sand.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Now that the city is backing down and essentially admitting that it made a mistake I wonder if RightisWrong and DealMonkey will come in here and do the same thing. Or will they just ignore this latest development.

Frankly, I don't think what the city did was wrong. And I think it was awfully lame of them to back down considering the bill stripping funds from Berkeley had a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Right, you are clueless?

Berkeley was exercising its right to free speech, but then they turn around and try to deny the rights of Marines and those who want to be Marines. You can?t run around claiming you have the right to something while at the same time denying others their rights.

As for what mistakes they made I suggest you read their own words:
Mayor Tom Bates, a former Army captain, said it probably wouldn't hurt if the council clarified its position.
"It's a symbol, but there are consequences to symbols," he said. "A lot of people think we're anti-Marine, but there's a difference between the warriors and the war. This is an attempt to clarify that."

Also, I suggest you read the letter written by the Berkeley ?Peace and Justice Commission? an actual part of their government:
(this is just a part of it)

The United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush Administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran. These wars have produced catastrophic loss of human life, both civilian and military, as well as physically maiming and deforming and psychologically destroying countless numbers of civilians and military personnel.

The United States Marine Corps is being used as one of the means of perpetrating and prolonging illegal, unconstitutional and unnecessary wars of the United States.

more

WHEREAS, the Peace & Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice [Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 369.070]; and WHEREAS, the United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush Administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran; and

[edited out part about Marines and sexual discrimination]

WHEREAS, these wars have produced catastrophic loss of human life, both civilian and military, as well as physically maiming and deforming and psychologically destroying countless numbers of civilians and military personnel; and

WHEREAS, the people of the City of Berkeley have long voiced their stand for peace and against unnecessary wars; and support people following their consciences to do what is morally and ethically right to resist illegitimate authority; and

WHEREAS, the United States Marine Corps is being used as one of the means of perpetrating and prolonging illegal, unconstitutional and unnecessary wars of the United States; and

WHEREAS, military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits; and

WHEREAS, many enlisted persons never see the benefits they are promised and find out they are not eligible for the educational benefits due to loopholes and they did not receive the training promised or it did not qualify them for jobs outside the military; and

WHEREAS, the people of Berkeley should want the Marine Corps present near Berkeley High School, Berkeley City College, and University of California no more than they would want other violent influences downtown.

BTW isn't congress voting to take away money from Berkeley just them representing their constituency?

 

[OutHouse]

You can't see the difference between a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience and extortion/suppression by the federal government?

Please show me where they encouraged anyone to do a single thing that is illegal? If you notice, they do not say that any group should PROHIBIT entrance to the "business". They are not calling for or suggesting violence in any way. They have also not revoked any licenses, permits or charters of the recruiters. What they have done is made a public statement as to their feelings on having the recruiting station located within their boundaries. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your problem is that you view patriotism as supporting your .gov or "supporting the troops" (whatever that nebulous phrase means) no matter what. Well, I have news for you....patriotism also consists of standing up to your .gov and not just the "enemies" that they tell you are bad on any given day. It consists of protecting the members of your society by keeping the OUT of war zones and not just putting a magnet on your car and then burying your head in the sand.

a city government or any government for the matter should not ever side with any protest group nor encourage any protest group to break the law or to protest with the approval of the government. oh and they did get arrested didn't they? so yea the protesters broke the law.

just admit it the city was wrong in doing this, is it so hard to wrap your head around that?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Right, you are clueless?

Berkeley was exercising its right to free speech, but then they turn around and try to deny the rights of Marines and those who want to be Marines. You can?t run around claiming you have the right to something while at the same time denying others their rights.

As for what mistakes they made I suggest you read their own words:
Mayor Tom Bates, a former Army captain, said it probably wouldn't hurt if the council clarified its position.
"It's a symbol, but there are consequences to symbols," he said. "A lot of people think we're anti-Marine, but there's a difference between the warriors and the war. This is an attempt to clarify that."

Also, I suggest you read the letter written by the Berkeley ?Peace and Justice Commission? an actual part of their government:
(this is just a part of it)

The United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush Administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran. These wars have produced catastrophic loss of human life, both civilian and military, as well as physically maiming and deforming and psychologically destroying countless numbers of civilians and military personnel.

The United States Marine Corps is being used as one of the means of perpetrating and prolonging illegal, unconstitutional and unnecessary wars of the United States.

more

WHEREAS, the Peace & Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice [Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 369.070]; and WHEREAS, the United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush Administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran; and

[edited out part about Marines and sexual discrimination]

WHEREAS, these wars have produced catastrophic loss of human life, both civilian and military, as well as physically maiming and deforming and psychologically destroying countless numbers of civilians and military personnel; and

WHEREAS, the people of the City of Berkeley have long voiced their stand for peace and against unnecessary wars; and support people following their consciences to do what is morally and ethically right to resist illegitimate authority; and

WHEREAS, the United States Marine Corps is being used as one of the means of perpetrating and prolonging illegal, unconstitutional and unnecessary wars of the United States; and

WHEREAS, military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits; and

WHEREAS, many enlisted persons never see the benefits they are promised and find out they are not eligible for the educational benefits due to loopholes and they did not receive the training promised or it did not qualify them for jobs outside the military; and

WHEREAS, the people of Berkeley should want the Marine Corps present near Berkeley High School, Berkeley City College, and University of California no more than they would want other violent influences downtown.

BTW isn't congress voting to take away money from Berkeley just them representing their constituency?

I'll respond sequentially:

1. Where did Berkeley deny anyone's right to free speech or those that want to be marines? Did they tell the recruiters that they are not allowed to operate within the city negating their free speech? No. Did they tell anyone wanting to join that they were prohibited from entering the premises? No. Where is this denial of speech being levied on the marines that you speak of?

2. The mayor's remarks are not saying don't pass the letter. It is saying to reword it so idiots and fluffers can't distort it as easily as they did this one.

3. The letter itself (thanks...I was actually having a little difficulty in finding it...can you provide a link to the FULL letter and not one that has been chopped?):

3a. Illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars: Are you denying that this has been part of our history? If so, please list the justifications for every war and/or conflict that we have been in and how they were not one of the three above. Oh, please don't try to distort that to mean that I think that every conflict/war falls into one of those categories. But there certainly are a few that do.

3b. Why did you edit out the part about sexual discrimination? Is it not true? Or does seeing the negative tarnish some of the shine you place on the military?

3c. Are you denying that the wars we have been in have costs less than they have listed? If so, please explain.

3d. Does Berkeley not have the history that they are citing?

3e. Is the marine corp not being used to fight wars? Is the Iraq war legal, ethical and necessary?

3f. Are recruiters always honest and do you get everything that they promise you? I can speak from personal experience that they are full of shit and will tell you anything and everything to get you to sign the papers. Have you ever seen the look on their faces when you ask to have the document looked over by legal representation prior to signing? They will not let you leave with a single piece of paper to have it reviewed.

3g. Are you saying that military benefits have not been cut and benefits that were promised are never delivered on?

3h. Statement of their view of the military and nothing else.

4.

BTW isn't congress voting to take away money from Berkeley just them representing their constituency?

The folks of Berkeley are the ones that provided the money in the first place. How are they being represented? By saying that you are forced to give money to the federal .gov on the condition that you go along with everything that we say you might get some back....these idiots that you wholeheartedly support are being hypocritical of what they are sworn to defend upon taking their positions....The Constitution of the United States.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Citrix

You can't see the difference between a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience and extortion/suppression by the federal government?

Please show me where they encouraged anyone to do a single thing that is illegal? If you notice, they do not say that any group should PROHIBIT entrance to the "business". They are not calling for or suggesting violence in any way. They have also not revoked any licenses, permits or charters of the recruiters. What they have done is made a public statement as to their feelings on having the recruiting station located within their boundaries. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your problem is that you view patriotism as supporting your .gov or "supporting the troops" (whatever that nebulous phrase means) no matter what. Well, I have news for you....patriotism also consists of standing up to your .gov and not just the "enemies" that they tell you are bad on any given day. It consists of protecting the members of your society by keeping the OUT of war zones and not just putting a magnet on your car and then burying your head in the sand.

a city government or any government for the matter should not ever side with any protest group nor encourage any protest group to break the law or to protest with the approval of the government. oh and they did get arrested didn't they? so yea the protesters broke the law.

just admit it the city was wrong in doing this, is it so hard to wrap your head around that?

The fact that the protesters broke or might break the law is not indicative of the city council asking them to break the law (which they didn't if you had any reading comprehension you would see this) any more than the asinine prohibition or drug laws are asking people to break the law.

Do you know that in MS it is illegal to even transport alcohol through a dry county and you can be arrested for it? Say you want to have a nice bottle of wine or champagne for your anniversary dinner with your wife or get a couple of bottle of whiskey for drinks for a super bowl party and you live in one of these counties. Is the county's position that it is illegal to possess any alcoholic beverages within the county's boundaries to blame for your failure to abide by the laws or are your own actions to blame?

 

[OutHouse]

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

to me that says that the city government is endorsing a protest group to BREAK THE LAW!

my reading comp is just fine its yours that needs tutoring.