Ping: Marines. Suck it.
 

Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city'

* Berkeley, California, tells Marine recruiters they're "not welcome in our city"
* GOP lawmakers introduce bill to take $2 million in federal funds from city
* Protester says recruiters attract youth "to go to Iraq to kill and be killed"
* Veteran blasts City Council, says Marines are "the best thing we have"

(CNN) -- Berkeley, the famously liberal college town in California, has taken aim at Marine recruiters, saying they are "not welcome in our city."

Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back this week, threatening to take back more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley, the campus that became a haven of protests during the Vietnam War.

The battle erupted after the Berkeley City Council approved a measure last week urging the Marine recruiters to leave their downtown office.

"If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders," the item says.

It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."

Outside the Shattuck Avenue recruiting station earlier this week, a handful of protesters with the anti-war group Code Pink camped out, strumming a guitar as they sang anti-war songs and held signs against the Iraq war.

"Time to end the war, time to end the war, time to end the war right now," they sang to the beat of "I've Been Working on the Railroad."

One giant sign said, "No Military Predators in Our Town." Another message on a pink placard read, "Join the Marines. Travel to Exotic Lands. Meet Exciting and Unusual People -- And Kill Them."

Zanne Joi peered out from under her straw hat. "This Marine recruiting station is trying to recruit our youth to go to Iraq to kill and be killed. And we are against that," said Joi, a member of Code Pink Women for Peace.

"This is part of a multi-pronged effort to end this war."

Protester Sharon Adams added: "This recruiting station recruits people to go fight and then once they fight and they serve their country, our country doesn't take care of them. That's a shame."

But not everyone here supports the protesters.

Forrest Smith, who described himself as a veteran of U.S. Special Forces, said his son recently returned from a tour in Iraq and his daughter served in Afghanistan.

"My position on this is the Marines are the best thing we have," said Smith, decked out in Army fatigues.

He blasted the City Council for its action. "It's clearly an abuse of power."

A group of young students who strolled down the sidewalk shared that sentiment. They derided one of the protesters who argued the United States was involved in an illegal war in Iraq.

"Where's the logic in that whatsoever?" one of the young men said. "That's our national security, and you're here protesting the Marines."

Another said, "It makes me sick. It makes me sick."

Gunnery Sgt. Pauline Franklin, a spokeswoman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, told CNN there is "no plan for that office to move."

She said recruiters are there to "provide information to qualified men and women who are looking for opportunities that they may benefit from by serving in the military."

"The Marine Corps is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which does guarantee the freedom of speech," Franklin said. "In terms of the situation in Berkeley, the City Council and the protesters are exercising their right to do so."

In Washington, a group of Republican lawmakers have introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008 -- named after the Marine motto -- to rescind more than $2 million of funds for Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.

"Like most Americans, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill.

He told CNN he believes the bill will pass. "I think it's going to have significant support."

The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said in a written statement, "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences."

Berkeley's declaration, which was introduced by the city's Peace and Justice Commission, accuses the United States of having 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."

It adds, "Military recruiters are salespeople 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."

Out on Shattuck Avenue, it appears the protesters have no plans to leave anytime soon. "We are the civilian population; we control the military," Adams said. "We the people have to take back our control of the military."

Air Force > Marines

If there's ever been a place that should be bombed off the face of the earth, it's Bezerkley.

Why would the Marines even want any of the pussies from Berkeley?

Why does it seem like every city council in every city across America is retarded?

Target practice?

Berkeley's still virulently liberal and anti-war.

In other news, cell phones are now a hot item. Who knew?

And yet people wonder why I'm not really a big fan of too much "local control".

It's Berkeley, what do you want?

Regardless of how you feel about the protest, do you think this approach could be considered as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech?:

+1

The surprising thing from that story is that the Marines actually recruit in Berkeley.

Not at all, as funds can be reallocated if a more deserving need is found. I mean, there's nothing preventing them from saying what they want, but actions have consequences (and rightfully so).

has ahnold reacted?

"Like most Americans, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate paying for sex," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Congress has spending power. They don't have to give federal funding out to everyone. They can place conditions on it.

Yup see, "raise your drinking age to 21 or we'll cut your federal highway funding" for the most famous example.

I wonder if these were the same kids that were camped out in the trees outside Cal's football stadium in protesting the University's decision to cut the trees down to build a bigger facility?

JonInMiddleQatar


How does this even work? I'm trying to figure it out...but I just wind up holding notes for way too long.

this pic is the funniest:

+1

Which part?

The guy quoting Full Metal Jacket or the shaved Yeti?

then it's not exactly free speech then. free speech is just what it is - a right that you have with no strings attached.


that's like your neighbor telling you you're free to bang his hot wife all you want, but if you do it he's gonna shit in your mailbox and shove your own penis up your anus.

that's not exactly a great deal.

i'm going to assume that is a female.


i shudder to think if that thing is married. that would mean someone is actually legally obligated to fornicate with her - and only her - for the rest of his life. ooof.

Except that isn't what "free speech" is, and never has been.

my take: they can protest and pass resolutions saying "we don't like you."

that's all protected under freedom of speech and they should be able to keep their $$.

it's when they actively ban them and remove them from town that they cross the line.

I thought we already went over what is allowed in mailboxes in another thread.

They're extremely lucky they aren't prosecuted for treason, really no sense getting greedy.

Maybe the US should allow Berkley to make itself its own country and when it does send the Marines in to flatten it.

I don't see how withholding federal funds could be construed as censorship. It's not as though municipalities have a constitutional right to federal money. Retaliation, sure, but censorship?

and this is the part when i remind myself not to bother engaging in debate with a kook. :mad:

Okay, that made me laugh. Damn you, bsak!

My take is simple: it's a good rule of thumb that one should always avoid pissing off people with ready access to firearms and the training to use them.

If engaging in public relations attacks on the United States military does not provide (psychological) aid and/or comfort to our enemies, I'll eat my fucking hat and yours too.

If you're too fucking stupid to understand that, there's not really anything I can do help you.

and voting Democrat to remove the Republican (ie, Pro War) Administration validates the actions of our enemies. so what's your point?

free speech means you take the good with the bad. men have died so the public can prevent the government from going unchecked. you don't have to respect the message, but you have to respect the right for the person to express the message. what you want to advocate is the beginning of the govenment getting their foot in the door of censorship.

Read your first quoted sentence and see if you didn't just answer your own question.


Not when the speech is treasonous it doesn't, or rather, it shouldn't.

I thought so too, then I tried this:

'Been working on the railroad': Dinah won't you blow? Dinah won't you blow? Dinah won't you blow your hor-or-orn?

'Time to end the war': Time to end the war. Time to end the war. Time to end the war right now-ow-ow.

Bamp bamp bamp bamp ba nah nah nah bamp bamp bamp bamp ba nah nah nah

"Time to end the war right now
Time to end the war
end the war
end the war
Time to end the war right now"

to the tune of "99 bottles of beer" works better.

At scrabble and having the shiniest shoes.

I didn't really read this thread, but I don't like recruiters.

Yeah, stupid reasoning on Berkley's part and can't agree with that, but if they were trying to get rid of recruiters because they're douchebags, I'd be 100% behind them.

To the Berkeley City Council and Code Pink protesters:

You're Welcome.

Signed,

A U.S. Military Veteran (1997-2004)

To double up on JimGA, no, that's not what free speech is according to our Constitution.

Ehhh.... they aren't all douchebags. One of my friends just signed up for OCS after graduating college. It was hilarious seeing him walk in the door, saying he wanted to sign up for OCS, had a college degree and could easily pass the physical requirements, and the guy kept trying to talk him into signing up for enlisted instead (probably because that's where he needed his quota met.) After getting nowhere with this guy for a decent amount of time, we decided to leave but the other guy there called us over, closed his door, said don't listen to him and walked my friend through the process straight and honest. I've also talked to a number here at UMass, and while the majority have been chiefs, a couple seemed like decent guys.

Oh yeah, there are always a few that are decent guys, but the vast majority I ran across(and that was quite a few), were tools, and I hate the way they go about manipulating kids who are usually in pretty dire straits to begin with. I'm not sure my recruiter told me one single thing that was actually true, and the recruiters of the other services were even worse.

I'd feel sorry for them because they get a lot of pressure and crap thrown on them, but the majority that I saw enjoyed what they were doing, so no pity here. :)

I couldn't agree more. It's currently a wasteland of useless flesh.

Having had some of my soldiers become recruiters I feel a certain pity for them. You understand that the recruiters are not ultimately to blame for (most) of their methods? They are threatened by their commanders to "make mission" every month or they will be kicked out. Most of them are lifers and have hit the 10 year mark, so this is a pretty serious threat to them and their families.

If we had a draft that would solve the recruiter problems, the class problem of who's fighting this war, and the manning problems for the Army and Marines. It would also maybe make some of them men. ;)

Treason? Are you the Mayor of Berzerkely? That's even nuttier than those DFHs.

LOL! I'm sure the terrorists are watching CNN right now and hearing of the protests in Berkeley and are now determined "just that much more" to destroy our culture. After a hard day in the desert practicing suicide bombings, there's nothing like hearing an American speak out against the war to really take the edge off.

You, sir, are fucking insane.

And finally, what brain-dead moron thought it would be a good idea, much less a productive one, to go to Bezerkley to try and find kids willing to ship off to war? Now *thats* crazy.

You honestly have no idea what kind of damage an 18 year old can do with a bong. Plus terrorists hate emo music.

Oh yeah, definitely not only their fault..it's the system as a whole. That's a rough job to be a non-volunteer for also, I can't imagine. It's just a bad situation, when my commander was on my ass, I had to work shitty hours and bust my ass..when the recruiter does they do both those things plus(some of them) lie out their asses and manipulate kids. It's an ugly job, and I'm glad I never had to do it. :)

Anyway, probably a bit harsh. Sorry, just personal issues I had dealing with recruiters, soured me on them for life.

No biggie. I just wonder how what civilians would do in order to keep their job and retirement. Would they lie? Would they manipulate people?

I'd like to say that I would have the courage and convictions to do what was right, but if it concerned the well-being of my family I'm not sure what I'd do.

BAM, thats right eat it bitches.


HOOO--AHHH!!!!!

Berkeley has every right to enact such rules, all the power to them. They should also be prepared to accept the postive and negative consequences. You see how the federal govt works by extortion and proposing unconstitutional legislation. But some of you are falling over yourself to encourage more of that.

Really? I would have thought you'd have picked Tehran or something.


I've heard a lot of defenses of the First Amendment, but I think this is the best ever.


On the recruiters front, I think the "problem" is that a lot of them are forced into a salesman role without necessarily being suited for it and, as RA pointed out, get a lot of pressure placed on top of what is already a pretty pressure-filled role.

I mean, most salespeople are under serious pressure to perform. If they don't, they can get canned. However, most salespeople can shift companies or even industries pretty easily. That's not a luxury these guys have, and plus, as RA pointed out, they've got a lot more invested. On top of that, unlike most salespeople, recruiters are potentially signing up men and women to fight and die for their country.

So I'm not surprised that there are problems. One of the many, many reasons I'm for a draft.

I've known recruiters everywhere I've lived, and I've never thought any of them were tools. They always seem like decent, patriotic, well-respected folks.

Tehran has a lot of hot chicks.

Personally, I say we draft those little Berkley bitches. :)

Free speech is not absolute (famous "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" example), and Congress has the power to allocate funds where it desires--a right accorded to it by the Constitution. It may not be a celebrated "freedom", but it is currently Constitutionall-protected as well.

All that said, I generally agree it is against the spirit of the Bill of Rights to vote money away from Berkeley for them taking this stance, and think the lawmakers are being too careless in setting (or furthering) any precedent like this which limits freedom of speech.

He could always choose chastity.

And besides, she is in an anti-war group protesting in Berkeley! She's likely a "free love" type, so her husband is free to dabble and say he's doing ti for the principle of the thing--"but I still only love you, honey!" :)

Until I read this, I thought only the Patriots had a manning problem.

Oh, so now you don't consider the Army and Marines patriots? You one of them lefties, too? ;)

This is flabbergasting. After reading this thread for a moment I thought maybe I'd misread the First Amendment. Whaddya know, I go back and read it and it says exactly what I thought it did.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... "

Hrm. Seems pretty simple to me. Withholding funding is not the same as criminalizing certain speech. It is not censorship. And there is really no such thing as an absolute right. As the saying goes, your liberty stops at the end of my nose.

For one obvious example of many, Ezra Pound's treasonous radio broadcasts during WWII. If you take the absolutist view of freedom of speech being argued for here, you cannot believe that such treasonous speech can ever be punished regardless of the circumstances, because 'everybody has a right to say whatever they want.'

No, the First Amendment protects speech that is merely critical or unpopular. Nobody has said Berkeley CANNOT make statements such as they have, that they will be imprisoned if they do, etc. There's a huge difference between that and how much of other people's money Congress deigns to grant them.

So did the people that wrote our constitution intend for our federal leaders to have this power of withholding funds? My gut tells me no or they would have formalized that power in some other way. To me this smells like an abuse of power which should be checked. (The federal funding for the national drinking age was another great example of this.)

That being said these people protesting obviously ARE retreaded. Even if you are against the war the armed forces aren't your enemy you asshats.

And I understand the stances people have on recruiters. No different from salespeople really. I appreciate what they do for me but I don't think I could ever do their job. I couldn't ever take enough showers to wash all the filth off of my body.

Beautifully played, you two :)

SI

Most of you know I am a Navy Veteran of the first Gulf War. There are a lot of points in this thread worth noting:

1: Jon is still an ignorant tool. I've been impressed with him recently though, he hasn't spouted anything quite this stupid in a real long time.

2: berkely has every right to decide what businesses are and are not allowed within their city limits, Recruiting offices are businesses, plain and simple.

3: The protesters ARE stupid, they're fucking things up just as badly as a lot of the hippie protests of vietnam did. You'd THINK they'd have learned from that heritage, being from berkely and all.

4: Thank you bucc for bringing some rational thought to this thread.

5: Recruiting is indeed a broken system, but a draft is NOT the answer to this. While I might honestly believe every 18 yr old shoul serve 2 years in the military, I am not idiot enough to ever think it should actually be enacted. MY beliefs work great for ME and me alone, Everyone is entitled to their own lives.

6. Lastly, the government has every right to with-hold the funds, its what they do.

7. Ok REALLYthe last thing, Free speech is NOT without strings attached, everyone has the right to say and DO anything they choose, but everyone must ALWAYS be prepared to face whatever consequences those words or actions bring down upon them. Wether or not the actions are legal or not is for a court to decide AFTER the fact.

How is having the elected local leaders decide on a policy a form of treason? They simply voted to not allow the Marines to recruit on that campus. If the people of that area don't like their decision, they can vote them out at the next election. Isn't this a part of that whole "democracy" thing you want to bring to the Middle East?

I'd also read up on what treason is. You clearly have no fucking clue. Your comment on wanting to bomb tens of thousands of innocent college students over a city council vote they had nothing to do with reaks of treason moreso than what the city council did.

And I actually think the city council decision is dumb. I think that students should be able to make up their own mind as to whether they want to join the military or not. But I don't live there, I don't vote on them, so my opinion should mean shit to them. They should do what the people of that region want (the whole point of democracy, remember?). David Vitter should worry more about his problem with fucking prostitutes while wearing diapers. And you should seek mental health, you sound like a sociopath.

But wouldn't a draft make our government a little more careful with what wars they choose to fight? If your Congressman had kids or grandkids that would be eligible to fight, would they not be sure on their vote?

I think right now the system is horribly flawed. Recruiting has turned into taking advantage of the poor and desperate. Sure there are a lot of people who sign up to fight because they believe in it, but there are a lot of others who do it because they have no choice. Our government treats these soldiers like cannon fodder and don't give a shit what happens to them. Just look at how we treat them when they come back injured. They are thrown in a rat infested hospital and forgotten.

I guess my biggest problem is with the chickenhawks out there. I hate these pro-war guys who were either too pussy to fight in Vietnam (pretty much the entire Bush administration and conservative talking head) or are sending other people's kids off to war. If the war was more personal, if everyones body was treated equally, I think our decisions would be made much more carefully and we wouldn't be walking into wars unprepared.

You've obviously got me confused with someone else.

I have no illusions about whether most of the Middle East will ever be capable of governing themselves, and certainly not via a democracy.

I didn't know there was a limit of one per customer.

Then why are we in Iraq?

On the free speech bit of this thread. HA is wrong that just because speech is free doesn't mean that there aren't consequences. See anyone who has been sued for stating their opinion, or simply stating the facts as they believe them to be.

With regard to Berkely. I don't think this is as much about free speech, as it is about the local government there toying with interfering with the Federal government. If you engage in that sort of behavior and don't believe that there might be consequences, then you probably haven't thought your position all of the way through.

Killing terrorists, future terrorists, and other assorted vermin.

You don't really think anybody with even the slightest clue buys the whole "bringing them democracy" bullshit do you? That's p.r. for the simple minded (and for the few who do actually think that has anything do with it and are being genuine when they say it, p.r. by the simple minded).

Well the terrorists seem to be born in Saudi Arabia and hang out in parts of Pakistan and Syria. Again, what does that have to do with Iraq?

Are you this stupid in person, or are you just roleplaying here?

As far as I'm concerned because it was the right thing to do to shut down Saddam and prevent him from thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and doing whatever he damn well pleased. The fact that Rumsfeld, Bush, and a slew of other folks screwed up the assessment and then the execution of the affair being set aside of course.

I'm going off the data provided by every major intelligence community in the world (including our own). The terrorists weren't in Iraq. The 9/11 hijackers were all born in Saudi Arabia. Trained in Afghanistan by people who are now hiding out in Pakistan.

Again, explain to me what Iraq has to do with this?

Real slow, so you can follow it ... what is the predominant religion in Iraq?

So it's about killing brown people who pray to Allah? There are a lot of them in this country too.

And that will have to eventually be dealt with as well.

Have you met Jon?

Apparently not ;)

And it would doubtless been better for everyone involved if that had remained the case.

Gas chambers or just concentration camps? Do you think there are any leftover in Europe from WW2 that we can use?

Not really. Is he the board's uneducated, sociopath racist?

No need for all the hoopla. A rifle and a couple of (thousand) rounds oughta do. :rolleyes:

I have no knowledge of his education.;)

:D

Sorry, I read your original post as "if there was one place" as opposed to "if there was ever a place".

Just for fun, could you list, by preference, the places you'd like to see bombed off the face of the earth? ;)

Isn't there like some sort of maximum post length here though?

Besides, I guess "off the face of the earth" is really misleading.
I'm really more of a neutron bomb fan to be accurate about it.

If Jon was being honest, I'd think he's admit to effectively being a xenophobic totalitarian. I'm pretty sure he's posted at least once about being very much in favor of top-down government control structures (i.e. totalitarianism). Others have called Jon a fascist, but unless I'm mistaken in my assessment of him, he doesn't really think exactly along the lines of a fascist.

Though you probably are a bit of a sociopath, Jon. At the very least a pretty curmudgeonly misanthrope.

Top 10, then. I'm genuinely interested. :)


Details, details. You're stalling. :p

A bit? I'm crushed ;)

Oddly enough though, I didn't realize that the term "sociopath" was no longer used medically, having been replaced by "antisocial personality disorder".

And apparently I don't really fit enough of the characteristics of that diagnosis for it to apply either. So I tried "megalomania", but that doesn't work either since I don't have illusions about my ability to implement my plans at the moment.

Great, thanks to you I've realized that I'm currently a man without a label.

For this, all of your base must belong to me now.

OK, I take it back. The "classic" definition of fascism is simply an authortarian system of government which considers the individual subordinate to the state. Based on previous posts, maybe Jon believes in that. However, fascism is also usually characterized by a) the state being defined by an individual race, religion or creed and b) nationalization of industries, which I'm not inclined to believe are high on Jon's list or priorities.

I suppose now I should go ahead and let Jon categorize me. I'm anticipating "left-wing wacko hippie". :D

Hey, I gave you "Curmudgeonly Misanthrope". That's a pretty sweet descriptor, I think. ;)


As an anti-materialist socialist wacko hippie I have to tell you that having "my base" isn't going to be much of a net gain for you. :D

Yeah, but you do draw some mean stick figures ;)

SI

Based on this thread and the ugly, racist turn you took it, I wish I could say the same for myself as well.

You forgot racist - definitely racist.

Screw you lefty.

It's about behaviors & attitudes, I give less than a damn whether you're white, black, blue, green, or have little pink & purples polky dots.

OK, then how about those normal, everyday folks in those countries you want to erase from the face of the earth?

Wait a sec, why am I even bothering?