BuffettNews.com

The entire city, not just the school.

Morons

Skibo wrote:The entire city, not just the school.

Morons

Were you alive during Nam??

"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."

Vitter... the man who believed it was ok to hang out with hookers and claim to be a staunch defender of family values. Brilliant.

and I gotta wonder why a Senator from South Carolina feels that it is his place to teach a municipality in a different state a lesson.

Not sure what you point is, but yes. Now and then are two completely different eras.

Skibo wrote:Not sure what you point is, but yes. Now and then are two completely different eras.

I'm pretty sure free speech was a protected right in both "eras"

Join the Marines. Travel to Exotic Lands. Meet Exciting and Unusual People -- And Kill Them

Now that's just funny. I had a T-shirt that said that, but for the Army not the Marines.

Freedom unchecked is anarchy. We do not have any unchecked freedoms in this country. I think it is a great idea that the US government is going to withhold US federal dollars from a city that is actively trying to remove federal marines, officers and Non-commissioned officers. There are always repurcusions to our actions, it is time that Berkely learned this.

I'm not sure what to think about this. The Marines have just as much a right to be there as the protesters, but I dislike the idea of the Federal government basically bribing (threatening?) the city to comply.

I think the city council stepped on the wrong toes here....

RinglingRingling wrote:and I gotta wonder why a Senator from South Carolina feels that it is his place to teach a municipality in a different state a lesson.

Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.


Where's Elrod? Road trip to CA? To exercise OUR first amendment rights with respect to the Unites States Marine Corps??

z-man wrote:

Skibo wrote:Not sure what you point is, but yes. Now and then are two completely different eras.

I'm pretty sure free speech was a protected right in both "eras"

not only that but since Nam Berkley has historically had people that thought outside the box. Some of those that were the Nam protesters in the 60's stayed.

So the city makes a stance against the war - what's wrong with that? It seems to me as if the city leaders, council members etc are actually LISTENING to their constituents.

We're not talking about a recruiting office that's been in the city for years and suddenly the city wants it out - we're talking about a recruiting office that moved in a year ago.

. . . 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."

The local politicians in Berkeley (who presumably represent the majority of Berkeley citizens) are only doing what municipal and town councils around this country have been doing for the last five years - expressing their opposition to the Iraq invasion and occupation by passing resolutions to that effect.

I think it's easier for things like this to happen at the local level because local municipal politicians don't attract the attention of the vested corporate interests and so as a result don't end up getting 'bought off' with campaign contributions, etc. the way the politicians in Washington do.

I don't think the Berkeley city council is being all that 'radical' on this issue, in comparison with other towns and cities around the country.

By saying the Marine recruiting office isn't welcome in Berkeley isn't the city council in effect saying the Marines don't enjoy the right to free speech while within the city limits? The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, as long as it applies to everyone.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:and I gotta wonder why a Senator from South Carolina feels that it is his place to teach a municipality in a different state a lesson.

Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.


Where's Elrod? Road trip to CA? To exercise OUR first amendment rights with respect to the Unites States Marine Corps??

so when the idea of smaller government and less governmental intrusion is confronted by someone rejecting a government program; the response by the right is a complete and utter revocation of programmatic funding, resulting in the appropriation of tax revenues from people with no viable means to appeal, and gaining absolutely no benefit from that withholding because the money (which in Berkeley is probably not insubstantial) has now become the Federal Gov't's.

The irony of this is rather appealing, if it were not so sad.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.

Doesn't that set a precedent then that any community that objects to any federal mandate risks losing all their funds? Let's say MiddleofNowheresville, KS doesn't want an Interstate highway running through part of their town. And the feds present an ultimatum that either they accept it or lose federal funding (since they've shown they don't need federal anything). Unless, of course, you want to make the residents of that community exempt from federal taxes.

alphabits wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.

Doesn't that set a precedent then that any community that objects to any federal mandate risks losing all their funds?

Didn't they already do this by forcing every state to raise the drinking age to 21, the alternative being the loss of federal funding for highways?

RinglingRingling wrote:so when the idea of smaller government and less governmental intrusion is confronted by someone rejecting a government program; the response by the right is a complete and utter revocation of programmatic funding, resulting in the appropriation of tax revenues from people with no viable means to appeal, and gaining absolutely no benefit from that withholding because the money (which in Berkeley is probably not insubstantial) has now become the Federal Gov't's.

The irony of this is rather appealing, if it were not so sad.

The idea of smaller government is served by not giving money to communities. Now we just need to adjust taxes down so that the individuals in that community can do with their money as they please.

LIPH wrote:

alphabits wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.

Doesn't that set a precedent then that any community that objects to any federal mandate risks losing all their funds?

Didn't they already do this by forcing every state to raise the drinking age to 21, the alternative being the loss of federal funding for highways?

Not to mention forcing the recognition of MLK days as a federal holiday. The repercussions for failure to do so was also a loss of funding for highways.

LIPH wrote:By saying the Marine recruiting office isn't welcome in Berkeley isn't the city council in effect saying the Marines don't enjoy the right to free speech while within the city limits? The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, as long as it applies to everyone.

I was just looking at the codepink website to see what they are all about and here's their reply to that exact question.

Q: Don't the Marines have a right to free speech and to do business?
Answer: The Marines don't even allow their own members full rights of free speech. So maybe you need to ask them that question. As far as doing business, cities have the right to regulate the businesses they allow into their community. Our initiative will give the citizens of Berkeley that right.

If you actually read the initiative it doesn't necessarily outlaw recruiting offices - it established boundaries for these offices, that they may not be within a 600ft radius of a Residential District, public park, public health clinic, public library, school or religious assembly use and that it may not be any closer than 1000 feet of another recruiting office.

Basically the same laws that many cities have against strip clubs.

Q: Don't the Marines have a right to free speech and to do business?
Answer: The Marines don't even allow their own members full rights of free speech. So maybe you need to ask them that question. As far as doing business, cities have the right to regulate the businesses they allow into their community. Our initiative will give the citizens of Berkeley that right.

That's pretty much a non-answer as to the free speech part. A lot of companies will restrict their employees right to free speech in a lot of respects....

I respect their right to limit the types of businesses or whatever, but doesn't the recruiting office get grandfathered in if it was there prior to the legislation?

Q: Don't the Marines have a right to free speech and to do business?
Answer: The Marines don't even allow their own members full rights of free speech. So maybe you need to ask them that question. As far as doing business, cities have the right to regulate the businesses they allow into their community. Our initiative will give the citizens of Berkeley that right.

So they don't even answer the question. I didn't realize that teh citizens of Berkely had no way to voice their opinions. And here I thought Berkely was the center of people who thought outside the box, the center of the Anti-war movement in the Vietnam era. Why would people like this need the help of Code Pink?

And since when are the Marines a business?

LIPH wrote:

alphabits wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Because it's federal money. If Berkley doesn't want the Marines, fine. But that shows me they don't need any federal anything so yank their federal funding.

Doesn't that set a precedent then that any community that objects to any federal mandate risks losing all their funds?

Didn't they already do this by forcing every state to raise the drinking age to 21, the alternative being the loss of federal funding for highways?

Point taken. So we've already set the precedent and begun the slide down the slippery slope.

Honestly, as long as the local council hasn't passed any legislation that expressly forbids the recruiting office from being there I don't see a real problem. Let the protesters chant their slogans, and sing their songs and spout their rhetoric. I'm pretty sure the Marines can handle that. And the Marines will still be there long after the protesters have gone their merry way.