You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Berkeley Backs Off On Banning Marines
- Thread starter Mach II Sailor
- Start date
scottz0369
New member
I think the focus is too tight on this.
Berkeley is happy to take federal money when it suits their needs. But it seems they felt they didn't have to support the very things that bring them freedom in the first place.
This may be surprising, but there may well be a young man or woman in Berkeley that wants to and would benefit greatly from military service. Under the Berkeley rules of free speech, they would be denied easy access to that service. Rather, the city council made a decision based on personal preference on where they can go and who they can talk to.
If they truly don't agree with the policies of the federal government that strongly, perhaps they should politely decline any federal aid-then they can live in whatever utopia they desire without the burdens of citizenship in the larger state/nation. But their actions state otherwise.
Sounds to me like they got the game played on them by their own rules.
They can feel free to continue to make fools of themselves.
The idea of calling this decision bullying or somehow silencing dissent by the federal government is exactly what Berkeley did when they made thier decision against the Marines-and by extension the government. It seems that some believe it was OK in that case. That's fine. No amount of internet discussion will change their minds.
I don't harbor any illusion that Berkeley will suddenly become a supporter of the military, but they don't have to like us. The Marines, the other services, and the federal government will continue taking care of them regardless of their disdain for the very thing that gives them the ability to do what they do.
Semper Fi
Scott
MSgt USMC
Anbar Iraq
Berkeley is happy to take federal money when it suits their needs. But it seems they felt they didn't have to support the very things that bring them freedom in the first place.
This may be surprising, but there may well be a young man or woman in Berkeley that wants to and would benefit greatly from military service. Under the Berkeley rules of free speech, they would be denied easy access to that service. Rather, the city council made a decision based on personal preference on where they can go and who they can talk to.
If they truly don't agree with the policies of the federal government that strongly, perhaps they should politely decline any federal aid-then they can live in whatever utopia they desire without the burdens of citizenship in the larger state/nation. But their actions state otherwise.
Sounds to me like they got the game played on them by their own rules.
They can feel free to continue to make fools of themselves.
The idea of calling this decision bullying or somehow silencing dissent by the federal government is exactly what Berkeley did when they made thier decision against the Marines-and by extension the government. It seems that some believe it was OK in that case. That's fine. No amount of internet discussion will change their minds.
I don't harbor any illusion that Berkeley will suddenly become a supporter of the military, but they don't have to like us. The Marines, the other services, and the federal government will continue taking care of them regardless of their disdain for the very thing that gives them the ability to do what they do.
Semper Fi
Scott
MSgt USMC
Anbar Iraq
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm all for it. In fact, they can start cutting funding across the board. There's too many funding addicts out there.
"Funding addicts?"
Where, exactly, do you think that funding comes from? I'll remind you yet again that the median income of the city of Berkeley is significantly above the national average.
EDIT: And that's aside from the fact that UC is a state institution not a city one. So either stop taxing the state's citizens for whatever funding was going to be cut and let California tax its own, or stop holding their money ransom to force their state and local governments to adopt federal policies.
EDIT: And this goes to scottz too...it's not "federal aid." It's money the state of California could easily raise and disperse on their own if the feds didn't take it first.
EDIT: Some of you people need to go look at federal spending per federal dollar collected broken down by state sometime before you run your mouth about "federal aid." California only receives $0.78 of "federal aid" per dollar that Californian taxpayers send to Washington (as of 2005). South Carolina, where DeMint is from, receives $1.35 (again, as of 2005). "Federal aid" my [edited].
You mean take it back. It's their money to begin with.Berkeley is happy to take federal money when it suits their needs.
Really? There's a Marine recruiting station in the next town over in Emeryville. You're telling me that the Corps would even want the potential young recruit that's too stupid or lazy to find said recruiting station and travel the 3.4 miles to get there?This may be surprising, but there may well be a young man or woman in Berkeley that wants to and would benefit greatly from military service. Under the Berkeley rules of free speech, they would be denied easy access to that service.
I think the focus is too tight on this.
Precisely. Most posters view Berkeley's statements as despicable and want to see them slapped down.
Cutting Berkeley's federal funding over their opinion of military recruiters would be no more right than cutting Idaho's federal funding because Idaho rejected the Real ID Act.
JuanCarlos
New member
Really? There's a Marine recruiting station in the next town over in Emeryville. You're telling me that the Corps would even want the potential young recruit that's too stupid or lazy to find said recruiting station and travel the 3.4 miles to get there?
That, and there has only been a Marine recruiting station in Berkeley for just over a year...were the citizens of Berkeley being denied this "easy access" when the station was instead located in nearby Alameda?
You mean take it back. It's their money to begin with.
Exactly. See my edit above. To have people from net recipient states talking about cutting funding from a net donor state is kind of amusing to me.
Forwardassist
New member
And I thought of all places Berkeley would stick to their guns on this issue. I am starting to sense that they are become part of the machine. Too bad but it was enviable.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination."
Jesus H. Christ, what an idiot, but VERY indicative of the ultra liberal mentality...
Essentially, "I should be able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, about anything I want, and never have to fear being held accountable for my statements in any manner at all."
$)(*^_)(*$_)*($^)_(&$#% retard...
Jesus H. Christ, what an idiot, but VERY indicative of the ultra liberal mentality...
Essentially, "I should be able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, about anything I want, and never have to fear being held accountable for my statements in any manner at all."
$)(*^_)(*$_)*($^)_(&$#% retard...
JuanCarlos
New member
Essentially, "I should be able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, about anything I want, and never have to fear being held accountable for my statements in any manner at all."
Well, obviously she should expect that what she says might have repercussions if she ever wanted to apply for a job at the Army Times...but I don't think it's too much to expect that there wouldn't be actions taken by the federal government against them [edit: or the city that hosts them, or the state that city is in].
She should expect to be held accountable for her statements in a variety of ways (ask Don Imus or Bill Maher), but this simply isn't one of them.
Mike Irwin
Staff
No one is saying that the Goverment is going to take actions against this individual for what she SAYS.
The legislative actions of the city council are not an issue of free speech.
The legislative actions of the city council are not an issue of free speech.
I mentioned before why your point of eliminating their taxes is intellectually dishonest. Those citizens are free to move about the country and do enjoy all the other freedoms and programs everyone else does. Your argument only makes sense if the suceeded from the union and it's walled off from outgoing traffic. I also said that I'm all for it."Funding addicts?"
Where, exactly, do you think that funding comes from? I'll remind you yet again that the median income of the city of Berkeley is significantly above the national average.
EDIT: And that's aside from the fact that UC is a state institution not a city one. So either stop taxing the state's citizens for whatever funding was going to be cut and let California tax its own, or stop holding their money ransom to force their state and local governments to adopt federal policies.
JuanCarlos
New member
I mentioned before why your point of eliminating their taxes is intellectually dishonest. Those citizens are free to move about the country and do enjoy all the other freedoms and programs everyone else does. Your argument only makes sense if the suceeded from the union and it's walled off from outgoing traffic. I also said that I'm all for it.
Yes, because suggesting people move from their homes rather than suggesting that the federal government shouldn't hold their tax money ransom is entirely reasonable.
While we have no real way to test this as the moment, for some reason I suspect that if this was rednecks in Alabama rather than hippies in California the attitudes of many (though perhaps not all) would be significantly different.