San Fran Sicko denies Marines to shoot a commercial

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

So? People have filmed things at military bases before and I'm sure they will again, but I have a strong feeling they wouldn't let someone film an anti-war ad there. Heck, you have to upset heaven and earth just to get a few pictures of our returning dead at Dover. That's not classified info, it's just the Pentagon doesn't want to cooperate in the matter because they're afraid it might be "bad for business".

You military types are so brainwashed you can't even think straight anymore.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Gays playing dress-up: 0 dead & 0 crippled.

Bush's dreams of empire: 3,700+ dead & 10,000+ crippled.

Which one should SF support, and which one should they reject?

Glad you guys have finally given up on that whole, "we support the troops, not the war" meme.

While gays playing dress-up never killed anyone, gays playing "get undressed" has killed over 1/2 million, just in the US.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: nick1985
As palehorse said, military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

That is a huge difference.

LOL, lots of places are fedeeral property. I was all over federal property this last week-end doing some off-roading in the Black Hills and enjoying the fall colors.

The fact it's federal property has nothing to do with it. It's the military who is controling that property that would prevent access by someone wanting to film an anti-war ad on a base.

 

[Train]

I think a lot of people are missing the real point here. Yes, San Fran IS being intolerant of free speech. Practicing free speech also means you have to accept others, even if you don't like it.

All the other arguments put forth are incredibly irrelevant. No, SF does NOT have the right to oppress free speech. This isnt "democratic", we dont live in a pick and choose which laws you want to follow society. If you have a problem with the current war, then elect someone to change that, if you cant, then obviously you are not in the majority and will have to accept that fact. Its a representative democracy if you were sleeping through HS govt class. What kind of dangerous precedent would we be setting if someone were allowed to ignore certain laws because they dont agree with them? How about rich people paying the same % as the lowest tax bracket because they dont agree with progressive taxation? Or how about a company hiring only whites because they dont believe in affirmative action? I seriously doubt the libs are pushing for that kind of anarchism.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: nick1985
As palehorse said, military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

That is a huge difference.

The streets of SF are apparently private gay property.

You are so cute.

Originally posted by: Train
I think a lot of people are missing the real point here. Yes, San Fran IS being intolerant of free speech. Practicing free speech also means you have to accept others, even if you don't like it.

All the other arguments put forth are incredibly irrelevant. No, SF does NOT have the right to oppress free speech. This isnt "democratic", we dont live in a pick and choose which laws you want to follow society. If you have a problem with the current war, then elect someone to change that, if you cant, then obviously you are not in the majority and will have to accept that fact. Its a representative democracy if you were sleeping through HS govt class. What kind of dangerous precedent would we be setting if someone were allowed to ignore certain laws because they dont agree with them? How about rich people paying the same % as the lowest tax bracket because they dont agree with progressive taxation? Or how about a company hiring only whites because they dont believe in affirmative action? I seriously doubt the libs are pushing for that kind of anarchism.

I wasn't aware that filming commercials were considered protected speech.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: nick1985
As palehorse said, military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

That is a huge difference.

The streets of SF are apparently private gay property.

You are so cute.

Are you getting gay on me 😉

Enough of your homphobic BS, consider this a warning.


Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: nick1985
As palehorse said, military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

That is a huge difference.

The streets of SF are apparently private gay property.

I guess the military needs to start having military rights parades.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train
I think a lot of people are missing the real point here.

Yeah, like the fact that just because the military wants something doesn't mean they can have it. They don't rule SF or any other civilians for that matter.

Best learn to live with it.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
I think a lot of people are missing the real point here.

Yeah, like the fact that just because the military wants something doesn't mean they can have it.

Sorry idiot, but theres this paper written about 232 years ago that GUARENTEES they can have it. (ironically, defended by the military)

They don't rule SF or any other civilians for that matter.

No, they just protect them.

Best learn to live with it.

If theres anyone in this thread that needs to learn something, its definetly you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

I think a lot of people are missing the real point here.

Yeah, like the fact that just because the military wants something doesn't mean they can have it.

Sorry idiot, but theres this paper written about 232 years ago that GUARENTEES they can have it. (ironically, defended by the military)

They don't rule SF or any other civilians for that matter.

No, they just protect them.

Best learn to live with it.

If theres anyone in this thread that needs to learn something, its definetly you.

[/quote]

So take it to court and fight it like a good little whiner. 😛

 

[Train]

quit trying to play the "military is trying to rule the country" card, its irrelevant and only makes you look dumber

 

[Jaskalas]

The city has the right of dominion over itself, and people who oppose its decisions have a right to boycott the city.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
I think a lot of people are missing the real point here.

Yeah, like the fact that just because the military wants something doesn't mean they can have it.

Sorry idiot, but theres this paper written about 232 years ago that GUARENTEES they can have it. (ironically, defended by the military)

They don't rule SF or any other civilians for that matter.

No, they just protect them.

Best learn to live with it.

If theres anyone in this thread that needs to learn something, its definetly you.

[/quote]

So take it to court and fight it like a good little whiner. 😛[/quote]


Glad that your a freedom hater though....

at least be honest and next time you argue for anyone, dont play the free speech card, you are obviously against it.
[/quote]

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Gays playing dress-up: 0 dead & 0 crippled.

Bush's dreams of empire: 3,700+ dead & 10,000+ crippled.

Which one should SF support, and which one should they reject?

Glad you guys have finally given up on that whole, "we support the troops, not the war" meme.

While gays playing dress-up never killed anyone, gays playing "get undressed" has killed over 1/2 million, just in the US.

The vast majority of HIV is spread through unprotected heterosexual sex in underdeveloped nations.


As to the OP I think SF made a badly reasoned call then even lied about the reason later. Hard to congratulate them for taking the moral high ground IMO.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train
quit trying to play the "military is trying to rule the country" card, its irrelevant and only makes you look dumber

OH poor little military didn't get to film where they wanted and your all upset about having your "freedon of speech" denied. Boo hooo.

Your the one acting like an idiot over the matter. Who cares? They filmed their ad, nobody stopped them, they were just denied their location because of traffic concerns.

In other words nobody stopped them from saying what they wanted. Quit being such a retard.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: nick1985
As palehorse said, military bases are private federal property while the streets of San Francisco are not.

That is a huge difference.

The streets of SF are apparently private gay property.

I guess the military needs to start having military rights parades.

They do, basically - look up "Fleet Week", which I'm not in favor of as it's basically militaristic propaganda.

If a group of private citizens wants to organize 'military parades', fine, but the government spending large sums of our tax dollars to propagandize its citizens, not so much.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The city has the right of dominion over itself, and people who oppose its decisions have a right to boycott the city.

So what if the city said only homosexuals can make films?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The city has the right of dominion over itself, and people who oppose its decisions have a right to boycott the city.

So what if the city said only homosexuals can make films?

And the chances they are going to disallow Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola from continuing making movies in Frisco are what?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The city has the right of dominion over itself, and people who oppose its decisions have a right to boycott the city.

So what if the city said only homosexuals can make films?

And the chances they are going to disallow Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola from continuing making movies in Frisco are what?

SF has banned the military, you never know what might be banned next.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
quit trying to play the "military is trying to rule the country" card, its irrelevant and only makes you look dumber

OH poor little military didn't get to film where they wanted and your all upset about having your "freedon of speech" denied. Boo hooo.

So constitutional rights are no big deal??? ok, another quote saved for later....

Your the one acting like an idiot over the matter. Who cares? They filmed their ad, nobody stopped them, they were just denied their location because of traffic concerns.

Traffic concerns? LOL nice flip flop to save face S.F.

In other words nobody stopped them from saying what they wanted. Quit being such a retard.

Again, saving for later...

 

[piasabird]

As far as my church is concerned Homosexuality is Immoral.

Everyone has a right to their point of view.

However, the law has made it in some respects legal, or at least prohibited discrimination. It is the law as written in the UCMJ which says that homosexual acts including Sodomy, and even fraternization between single and married people illegal. So it is the Law, the UCMJ, that says that it is illegal.

Fight about legalities all you want, the UCMJ is the law in the military.

Uniform Code of Military Justice. . . .

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
quit trying to play the "military is trying to rule the country" card, its irrelevant and only makes you look dumber

OH poor little military didn't get to film where they wanted and your all upset about having your "freedon of speech" denied. Boo hooo.

So constitutional rights are no big deal??? ok, another quote saved for later....

Your the one acting like an idiot over the matter. Who cares? They filmed their ad, nobody stopped them, they were just denied their location because of traffic concerns.

Traffic concerns? LOL nice flip flop to save face S.F.

In other words nobody stopped them from saying what they wanted. Quit being such a retard.

Again, saving for later...

Save it for later? LMAO!! Your a dickhead and a half, but I have to admit, your giving me a real hoot. :laugh:

Maybe later (another 10 years?) you will learn enough to understand what I'm talking about.... maybe. 😉

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The city has the right of dominion over itself, and people who oppose its decisions have a right to boycott the city.

So what if the city said only homosexuals can make films?

And the chances they are going to disallow Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola from continuing making movies in Frisco are what?

SF has banned the military, you never know what might be banned next.

They didn't ban them, one person in charge of traffic control refused to give them a permit to use on particular street for a commercial based on what she considered traffic concerns.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Train
quit trying to play the "military is trying to rule the country" card, its irrelevant and only makes you look dumber

OH poor little military didn't get to film where they wanted and your all upset about having your "freedon of speech" denied. Boo hooo.

Your the one acting like an idiot over the matter. Who cares? They filmed their ad, nobody stopped them, they were just denied their location because of traffic concerns.

In other words nobody stopped them from saying what they wanted. Quit being such a retard.

they were denied by an anti-American anti-Military zealot who had dominion over the ruling, whose own husband is a self described anarchist and hater of the military.

Sorry, the traffic excuse was only offered well AFTER it was obvious she has no real basis for her decision. This wasn't SF versus the military,it was a petty mean spirited lib who decided to take her hate out on the very people that fight to give her a right to be a hate filled bitch.

 

[piasabird]

So just close all the military installations in California.