Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: CmonMiracle on 12 Feb 2008, 14:13

Title: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: CmonMiracle on 12 Feb 2008, 14:13
Quote
Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
...
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
...
 Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

Quote
The pro-military demonstrators were met by anti-war protesters who had camped out overnight, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown late in the day when the City Council is to discuss whether to revoke its previous vote.
....
Kriss Worthington, a progressive Berkeley activist and council member for 11 years, believes the council overreached.

"The inflammatory language in the City Council item is really outrageous -- not just to right-wing people, but to mainstream liberal people and even to some peace activists who have said they're insulted that the city would have such language," Worthington said.

He said Berkeley owes an apology to the military and to the peace movement "for having such embarrassing language allegedly trying to promote peace."
...
The City Council is to meet at 7 p.m. PT on whether to take back its previous measure urging the Marine recruiters to leave town.

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

It went 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."

Ever since the council measure, protesters with the anti-war group Code Pink have camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war.

What do you guys think of this? While I am not pro-war, I believe Berkeley is making a huge mistake doing this - if you don't want to join the Marines, don't walk in there! People have a choice! You can't just BAN people and institutions you don't like! While it is highly unlikely that this could lead to bans of other places - if some town decided to ban all gay bars, for example- that shouldn't be justification for this. You can't bend the rules one time and expect no one else to do the same - but worse. I'm especially shocked at the wording encouraging and giving protestors a free pass to basically harass Marines. Does this include preventing Marines from entering their workplace? What about people who DO want to join? What defines nonviolent means? What happens when someone -a protester or a Marine- snaps and retaliates?

Let's hear your thoughts, we need a good discussion.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 12 Feb 2008, 14:18
Berkeley is making a big mistake.  And these Code Pink people are real asshats. 
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 12 Feb 2008, 14:41
This is bizarre. The Marines serve a purpose surely? I'm about as anti-war as they come but even I understand that armed forces are necessary. If nothing else, they employ a lot of people. Blame the government that sends them off to these ridiculous wars, not the Marines. For most of these folks it's just a job.

What do these protesters do for a living that allows them the time to picket a recruitment office? Can't they find a better use of their time? What a bizarro hobby.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Lines on 12 Feb 2008, 14:51
Quote
not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders

That really is harsh. If people want to defend their country, then let them do it. The Marines aren't forcing anyone to join by having a recruitment office there, they are waiting for those who want to do it. And Berkley is showing favoritism to Code Pink, who sound to be pretty rude for people promoting peace.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Cartilage Head on 12 Feb 2008, 14:53
FIGHT WAR
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Storm Rider on 12 Feb 2008, 15:14
I agree that this measure seems pretty extreme. I believe (although I'm not certain of this) that California has laws preventing recruiters from coming on high school or university campuses, so as long as they're not harassing people I don't see the harm in letting them within the city.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 12 Feb 2008, 15:43
I applaud this move.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: CmonMiracle on 12 Feb 2008, 15:46
I'd love to hear further explanation for your decision, Khar.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 12 Feb 2008, 15:58
I applaud this move.

Please, pray tell, why you would applaud this.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 12 Feb 2008, 16:08
I wouldn't applaud these actions, necessarily, but that's because I really just don't fucking care. Oh my god, somebody's protesting a military organisation, alert the 60s
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Slick on 12 Feb 2008, 16:15
Oh my god, somebody's protesting a military organisation, alert the 60s

You live in a world today in which people are fighting and dying in the armed services. What the hell kind of attitude is this? Am a interpreting your humour incorrectly or something?
I mean, here we have a council banning certain people from town and certain people harassing other people who are trying to get certain other people to sign up to maybe die. In your country.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 12 Feb 2008, 16:37
It was really more me being cynical than trying to be humorous. I amount this thread much the same to the Anon vs. CoS thread. really too political just in case there are still some people out there who happen to be forum members who are for the war (why they'd be there I don't know, but I don't want to offend them either if I can avoid it)
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 12 Feb 2008, 17:11
Please, pray tell, why you would applaud this.

Because I hate your freedom.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 12 Feb 2008, 17:18
Talk about a decision that will backfire. I can already hear Bill O'Reilly's rant.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 12 Feb 2008, 19:06
I'm fairly pacifist, but this is dumb. You can't just ban people from your city. Especially not because of politics. Poor form, Berkeley. Stop being idiots.

At any rate, it won't stand. They'll be sued, it'll run up the chain of appeals, maybe up the the Supreme Court, and then the precedent will be set that no city can pull this shit ever.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: David_Dovey on 12 Feb 2008, 19:12
Agreed with Ozy. I'm about as pacifistic as they come, and I'd love to see a world where there is no need for armed forces and where they were all abolished, but I'm nowhere stupid enough to think that abolishing the armed forces right now is a particularly smart move.

certain people harassing other people who are trying to get certain other people to sign up to maybe die. In your country.

Yes, because people are being forced to join the Marines and go to war. Is it actually anywhere stated that they are harassing people? Unless you have a wildly different interpretation of harassment than I do.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: redglasscurls on 12 Feb 2008, 19:13
Recruitment offices aren't exactly innocent though, keep that in mind. If they EVER get a lead, they will hound the person to the end of the earth to try and get a commitment out of them. My sister's boyfriend went to an information session by the Marines at his high school, and the recruiter got a copy of the school's phonebook and called him constantly for the next two years, showed up at his house and after school at the theater, and basically made life hell. They threatened to change phone numbers and bring the police into it and the guys finally backed off.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 12 Feb 2008, 19:18
You get harassed by the armed forces just by turning 18 if you're male. Recruitment offices don't have to be involved at all. The government wants blood. Still can't be banning people.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: redglasscurls on 12 Feb 2008, 19:23
I don't agree with the banning people either, though I think it's a bit odd that they bothered putting a shopfront recruitment place in Berkely of all places. How many people do you think they manage to pull in there? It's white, rich, and liberal, the people are not really the military's main targets.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: David_Dovey on 12 Feb 2008, 19:24
I feel silly for not thinking that the U.S. Armed Forces were such a bunch of shitcocks!

Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 12 Feb 2008, 19:24
Please, pray tell, why you would applaud this.

Because I hate your freedom.

You should be banned from America for this.  We're going to deport you back to Afghanistan where you belong, you terrorist
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 12 Feb 2008, 19:26
He's in Britain.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Nodaisho on 12 Feb 2008, 19:28
Yeah... you have to sign up for that goddamn selective service thing, in case they bring back the draft. If they do though, I am going to be out of the country before they can enact the first round of drafts, I am not a pacifist anymore, but I still don't think it is right to kill simply because you are told to. And my hide is a hell of a lot more valuable to me than it is to the politicians.

I don't think this is the right thing to do though, I have nothing against the military, considering that the whole idea behind it is to take normal people and turn them into killing machines that, when faced with people in a different uniform that actually aren't really all that unlike you, try to kill them while they try to kill you. All because some politician's feelings got hurt in a dickwaving contest.

Oh, and don't worry Khar, plenty of people in the government hate it too, why do you think they came up with things like "free speech zones"?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 12 Feb 2008, 19:40
He's in Britain.

...

Touchť
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: ruyi on 12 Feb 2008, 19:41
if you're interested in watching: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=9868 (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=9868)

also, some uc berkeley student opinions (http://community.livejournal.com/ucberkeley/2840984.html). i pretty much agree with them.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 12 Feb 2008, 21:35
i think cities should start banning people from other cities.

let's try our best to fail at living, shall we?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 13 Feb 2008, 00:20

What do you guys think of this? While I am not pro-war, I believe Berkeley is making a huge mistake doing this - if you don't want to join the Marines, don't walk in there! People have a choice! You can't just BAN people and institutions you don't like! While it is highly unlikely that this could lead to bans of other places - if some town decided to ban all gay bars, for example- that shouldn't be justification for this. You can't bend the rules one time and expect no one else to do the same - but worse. I'm especially shocked at the wording encouraging and giving protestors a free pass to basically harass Marines. Does this include preventing Marines from entering their workplace? What about people who DO want to join? What defines nonviolent means? What happens when someone -a protester or a Marine- snaps and retaliates?

Let's hear your thoughts, we need a good discussion.

Banning people and institutions a government or council dislikes happens all the time. This ranges from brothels to drug dealers to polluting industries, and just those people governments decide they don't want in their country. Most countries will only allow people to be within their borders for very limited amounts of time on tourist visas and they ban them from remaining longer, and there are vast amounts of the world's population they simply wouldn't allow to enter the country at all. Berkeley has simply done what councils and governments do all the time, which is to decide that this organisation's activities are detrimental to their area and not allowed them to operate there anymore.

What's wrong with preventing marines from entering their workplace? That's one of the oldest non-violent tactics in the book, it's what you do when you're on strike to prevent bosses just replacing you by using scabs. If you don't disrupt the activities of those organisations you're against then you'll just be ignored, you need to make it unprofitable for them to continue operating. Using protest to raise public awareness is all very well but it will mostly be ignored by the people who actually make decisions. The anti-Iraq war protests in the UK are a good example. Roughly a million people marched against the war in London and were promptly ignored by the government. If those same million people had blockaded and disrupted the activities of the government and armed forces the effect would quite possibly have been very different. It would have been impossible to arrest them all and the government would have not been able to continue with its activities until it backed down from its pro-war position.

What about people who do want to join? Tough, they want to do something you're against so they need to be prevented. They should have it made clear to them that if they sign up they're doing something a lot of people think is deeply wrong, I see no reason for them to be protected from that. It's true, somebody could snap and retaliate with violence. It happens, protesting isn't easy and often involves physical danger. This isn't a reason not to do it.

In short: good for Berkeley.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: NarwhalSunshine on 13 Feb 2008, 00:33
Well that's stupid, my dad is a retired staff sergeant of 21 years so I've been around the military a lot and get lots of calls from recruiters and the marine recruiters are the most laid back, they don't have to do anything the future grunts come to them. If anything take the Navy recruiters' phone privileges away, they are worse than telemarketers.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 00:34
Some photos taken in Berkeley:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/leadhindenburg/IMG_2570.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/leadhindenburg/IMG_2571.jpg)

THIS IS THE CITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, YOU GUYS.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 13 Feb 2008, 00:42
God, If you're gonna make a protest sign, don't make it so you have to stand there for five minutes reading it

It's got to be simple
Examples: 
"Moar peace plz thx"
"God cries when you masturbate"
"Ur Doin It Wrong"
"I hate kittens"
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 13 Feb 2008, 00:49
Dude, you can find people that crazy anywhere.  Berkeley's just the only place where people have enough fun humoring them that they have the confidence to go public.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: McTaggart on 13 Feb 2008, 01:00
"Ur Doin It Wrong"

That and "Do Not Want" are two of the most succinct protest signs there could be. Thankyou, internet.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Storm Rider on 13 Feb 2008, 01:04
Berkeley's actually a pretty amusing place. Sure, there's a segment of people who think everything is deadly serious and here is a petition about that. But there are, in my experience, much more who are just sort of quirky. I had one guy do an extremely exaggerated pantomime of me walking with enormous testicles because I bought a postcard off him for some charity thing.

It was even funnier because I was like, 15 at the time.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: David_Dovey on 13 Feb 2008, 01:52
...and your testicles only grew to their current gargantuan size when you were 17?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 02:18
For the long, serious answer I could not be bothered to write, please refer to a pack of wolves' post.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: valley_parade on 13 Feb 2008, 06:06
FIGHT WAR

(http://mog.com/pictures/wikipedia/940525/Jefftweedybluesfest.jpg)
IT'S A WAR ON WAR
IT'S A WAR ON WAR
IT'S A WAR ON WAR
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 13 Feb 2008, 08:04
Recruitment offices aren't exactly innocent though, keep that in mind. If they EVER get a lead, they will hound the person to the end of the earth to try and get a commitment out of them. My sister's boyfriend went to an information session by the Marines at his high school, and the recruiter got a copy of the school's phonebook and called him constantly for the next two years, showed up at his house and after school at the theater, and basically made life hell. They threatened to change phone numbers and bring the police into it and the guys finally backed off.

That isn't true for all recruitment officers.  I went into a recruitment office to get some information for the Marines, cause I was interested in joining.  I got the information, I got a free hat, and the first guy I talked to called me once.  We talked for a few minutes about the enlisment process, and he informed me that if I had enough college credit, I would be eligible for Officer Training.  A few weeks later, another RO called to inform me of times for a pre-enlistment training meeting would happen.  I told him, that due to a recent car accident, I was hit while biking to class, I would be unable to enlist at the present time.  That was the Last Time I heard form the Marines.


Banning people and institutions a government or council dislikes happens all the time. This ranges from brothels to drug dealers to polluting industries, and just those people governments decide they don't want in their country. Most countries will only allow people to be within their borders for very limited amounts of time on tourist visas and they ban them from remaining longer, and there are vast amounts of the world's population they simply wouldn't allow to enter the country at all. Berkeley has simply done what councils and governments do all the time, which is to decide that this organisation's activities are detrimental to their area and not allowed them to operate there anymore.

There is a BIG difference between Brothels (a place with sells sex, which is illegal) and the Marine Corp.

This actually brings up the pro-war/anti-war issue.  (Just a note, I was against the war back in '03.  But now that we are there, I think we need to finish the job, because we will have to go back into Iraq if we pull out.)  Most of the people who are against Operation: Iraqi Freedom say that we should not be there because Sadaam and his country never attacked us.     Now, going back to last century, let's look at some of the major military operation the US was involved in. 

Was the US wrong to join in World War I, just because nobody attacked it?
Should the US enter into a war against Germany in WWII?  Remember, Germany never attacked the US prior to them joining the war.
Korea?
What about Vietnam? 
Should we have gone into Afghanistan in the '80s?
Kuwait in '91?
Bosnia?

I am by no means pro-war, however, I believe that it is morally good to protect those that others seek to kill and unjustly opress.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 08:39
Was the US wrong to join in World War I, just because nobody attacked it?

The US joined World War One because the German navy attacked US shipping. Besides which, World War 1 was essentially a territorial conflict between the European Great Powers. No side was in any way weak or morally superior/inferior.

Quote
Should the US enter into a war against Germany in WWII?  Remember, Germany never attacked the US prior to them joining the war.

Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan.

Quote
Korea?

The US was in Korea as part of a UN force including troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Phillipines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and the UK, and medical staff from Denmark, Italy, Norway and Sweden.

Quote
What about Vietnam? 

No fucking way you should ever have been in Vietnam. Sorry. All you managed to do was prolong a conflict in a country with no connection to you unnecessarily and get hundreds of thousands of people killed for nothing.

Quote
Should we have gone into Afghanistan in the '80s?

You didn't.

Quote
Kuwait in '91?

Again, a UN led action. Casus Belli was established by Saddams blatant contravention of international law. A fairly just war, though the sanctions imposed afterwards were inhuman.

Quote
Bosnia?

UN and NATO action. NATO became involved militarily because Serbian fighters violated the no-fly zone and were engaged by NATO forces. Actual NATO involvement in the conflict was mainly tactical and lasted less than a fifth of the whole span of the war, which was essentially civil.

History is fun. You should try it someday.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: redglasscurls on 13 Feb 2008, 08:44
Khar, you're my favorite
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: valley_parade on 13 Feb 2008, 08:58
The US was in Korea as part of a UN force including troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Phillipines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and the UK, and medical staff from Denmark, Italy, Norway and Sweden.

History is fun. You should try it someday.

I learned all of that from watching M*A*S*H.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 13 Feb 2008, 08:59
The things I learned from MASH were... a lot different.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 13 Feb 2008, 09:31
khar's responses

The UN and NATO don't make a military move without the US spearheading it.  Korea?  US spearheading.  Kuwait? US spearheading.

World War I was not a territorail conflict, it was a simple conflict between two countires that blew up thanks to alliances.

Have you ever heard of a country called French IndoChina?  Shortly after WWII, there was an uprising fueled by a small faction fo the Communist party in that country.  The US had a small contingent of soldiers there as suport for the French army in the late 50's.  It was JFK, the greatest democrat of modern times, that escalated the conflict.  It was the US Congress who caused it to become the fuck-up it is now seen as, because they did not allow the military to fight a REAL war.  By the Way, French IndoChina is now called Vietnam.

How does a country in the midst of a Civil War band together and defeat one of the World's Superpowers?  These people didn't even have proper weapons.  How did they win?  The US went in, trained them and armed them.

For Bosnia, I want you to tell that to my History professor, who was the commander of a Spec. Ops. group that was in that country from '93 to '96, and they .  He stayed with families, barely scrapping by, all over the country.

You're right.  History is fun. 
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 13 Feb 2008, 09:42
World War I was not a territorail conflict, it was a simple conflict between two countires that blew up thanks to alliances.

Disagreement. Entangling alliances only works as an explanation to far as to how the lines were drawn. The reality is that most of Europe was itching for a fight and wanted a bigger piece of a pie and the chance to use their new industrialized weaponry. In any case, there was no reason for the US to be in there because no side was correct. They were all assholes.

Have you ever heard of a country called French IndoChina?  Shortly after WWII, there was an uprising fueled by a small faction fo the Communist party in that country.  The US had a small contingent of soldiers there as suport for the French army in the late 50's.  It was JFK, the greatest democrat of modern times, that escalated the conflict.  It was the US Congress who caused it to become the fuck-up it is now seen as, because they did not allow the military to fight a REAL war.  By the Way, French IndoChina is now called Vietnam.

Uh, I'm pretty sure it would've also been seen as not a fuck-up if there was no US involvement at all. And would be considered horrific if we just razed an entire fucking country because we disagreed with the politics of a rebellious faction.

How does a country in the midst of a Civil War band together and defeat one of the World's Superpowers?  These people didn't even have proper weapons.  How did they win?  The US went in, trained them and armed them.

I thought you were looking for arguments to support military action. Because this action worked out just awesomely.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 13 Feb 2008, 09:52
For Bosnia, I want you to tell that to my History professor, who was the commander of a Spec. Ops. group that was in that country from '93 to '96, and they .  He stayed with families, barely scrapping by, all over the country.

I am really confused by this bit. Did you mean to leave the sentence unfinished? Or spell "scraping" with 2 Ps? Also I believe Khar was specifically talking about NATO involvement, technically not the US, although I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 10:07
The US was in Korea as part of a UN force including troops from TL;DR EVERYBODY WHO IS NOW IN NATO AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE

Fix'd
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 13 Feb 2008, 10:35
There is a BIG difference between Brothels (a place with sells sex, which is illegal) and the Marine Corp

The difference being that [opinion] I think that brothels are morally acceptable, while the USMC is not. [/opinion]
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Johnny C on 13 Feb 2008, 11:05
I am going to align myself completely with Tommy on this one.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 11:07
The UN and NATO don't make a military move without the US spearheading it.  Korea?  US spearheading.  Kuwait? US spearheading.

The United States sent the largest contingent of troops to Korea because they had large numbers of active troops based in Japan, and because they were by far the participating country least ravaged by World War Two, both economically and in terms of manpower.

As for Kuwait, same deal. They already had troops in the gulf, and have the largest standing army in NATO. Is your argument that might makes right? In both cases, the decision to go to war was approved by the UN security council and the declaration of war was by the UN or NATO. America does not, in fact, lead either organisation, no matter how much they may like to think they do or how much it seems like it.

Quote
World War I was not a territorail conflict, it was a simple conflict between two countires that blew up thanks to alliances.

Nope. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated by a pan-slavic nationalist allied with a non-government Serbian terrorist organisation, which Austria-Hungary decided to use as a pretext for annexing Serbia, which is something they'd been itching to do for ages anyway. This caused Russia to declare war on Austria-Hungary. Russia mobilised to bolster Serbia. The Germans realised this was the chance they'd been waiting for to finally finish the pesky business of the Franco-Prussian war, and attacked France through Belgium (The Schlieffen Plan). The British only became involved because of the violation of Belgium neutrality. World War One was the endgame of a series of conflicts involving the divvying up of Europe (and to an extent the Middle East and Africa) between the six great powers (France, Germany/Prussia, Britain, Russia, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) that had been going on since Napoleon.

Quote
Have you ever heard of a country called French IndoChina?

Yes. I think the most salient points about it are probably contained in its name: that it was a French colony in Indochina. As opposed to, say, anything to do with America.

Quote
It was the US Congress who caused it to become the fuck-up it is now seen as, because they did not allow the military to fight a REAL war.

The United States deployed half a million troops using the most advanced weaponry in the world at the time, and accomplished nothing of value whatsoever,despite dropping over 7 million tonnes of bombs (3 times as many as used by the US in World War Two), which is equal to a 1,000 lb bomb for every single man, woman and child in Vietnam*, in a conflict which killed nearly 3 MILLION people. I would really, really love to know what you think a REAL war would have involved.

Quote
These people didn't even have proper weapons.  How did they win?  The US went in, trained them and armed them.

They won because the Soviet Union withdrew their forces on account of their country falling apart. It's also worth noting that the Soviet Union was supporting the government of the (at the time) Democratic republic of Afghanistan, the PDPA (Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan) against Islamic fundamentalist rebels (the Muhajideen, which, incidentally, translates roughly as 'people involved in a jihad'). The weapons and cash which the United States, Saudi Arabia and the UK illegally funnelled into the Muhajideen through the military dictatorship in Pakistan were the same weapons used by the leaders of the rebellion to found and enforce the Taleban, and are the same weapons killing US and UK troops in the country today. Good one!


Quote
For Bosnia, I want you to tell that to my History professor, who was the commander of a Spec. Ops. group that was in that country from '93 to '96, and they .  He stayed with families, barely scrapping by, all over the country.

Sorry, I was talking about legal US military involvement. UN Peacekeepers were there of course since '92, in a humanitarian capacity, so I'm sure the Deltas and whatnot had a bit of fun. Pity that, whilst engaging in basically, illegal black ops, the US troops didn't actually manage to stop any of the mass killings or anything. Actually, one kind of wonders what they were doing.


*and that doesn't even count chemical weapons or naval bombardments.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 11:20
I can't wait until somebody starts talking about U.N. and, more specifically U.S. action in Kosovo. Somebody do it so I can join in the fun!
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 13 Feb 2008, 12:21
Guys, your war history pissing match is irrelevant to the point of the thread, ie. was the city of Berkley wise in their handling of the recruitment office? Reading back to your first post dissy, it is unclear why you you brought up the pro/anti-war issue other than to pick a fight.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 13 Feb 2008, 12:30
Don't you DARE screw me out of a perfectly good flamewar, Hocking.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 13 Feb 2008, 12:34
flamewar (http://www.moondoggieent.com/games/flamewar.html)
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 13 Feb 2008, 12:52
That download doesn't work, Mr Hocking.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 13 Feb 2008, 13:01
Well I'll be damned. I better contact the guys hosting the download to ask what's up.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Verergoca on 13 Feb 2008, 13:07
Yeah mr.Hocking! Cant you let is enjoy Khar ripping someone to shreds with Logic and Science in peace?

Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 13 Feb 2008, 13:08
Yes, you better do that, Mr Hocking.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 13 Feb 2008, 13:11
In the classes I teach, most of my students call me Joe, a couple call me Joseph, but I rarely get Mr. Hocking past the first day.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 13 Feb 2008, 13:31
That just means you fail at being an authority figure, Mr Hocking.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 13:47
My thoughts on the original topic of this thread have been made clear I think! The tl;dr version would be "elected local government officials have a perfect right to exclude anything they find morally objectionable from their town if they vote for it democratically; turning young people into boot-licking killing machines can be considered morally objectionable."

The whole military history thing I could not resist because I have a tragically low tolerance for untrue bullshit and a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of 20th century history, and especially international politics in the specific context of the first world war, second world war and cold war. I also find it rather sad that there are people who actually believe that there is such a thing as an altruistic war. Altruism is a pretext for war, not a cause for war. Wars are fought to maintain and enhance the power of the nations involved, that is to acquire or defend territory, resources or spheres of political and/or economic influence. The US fought in Korea and Vietnam because they wanted to shore up the geopolitical dominance of the pacific rim they acquired when they defeated Japan. They fought in World War One because it was disrupting transatlantic trade. I could go on.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Lines on 13 Feb 2008, 13:56
That just means you fail at being an authority figure, Mr Hocking.

If I remember correctly, Joe teaches electronic art or design and I don't think I've ever called any of my art profs/adjuncts by anything other than their first name. Why? Because they are that cool.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 14:03
I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 13 Feb 2008, 14:23
Reading back to your first post dissy, it is unclear why you you brought up the pro/anti-war issue other than to pick a fight.

Second post Joe, second post.  I brought it up, because this is the key issue which basically key to the main topic.  Khar misinterreted my questions as to whether or not war is justifiable only if the one country attacks the other.  I put Vietnam and Afghanistan in the list because sometimes, it is wrong to go into another country.  

We went into Vietnam because we had a new enemy, Communism.  Khar is partially right, it was to show our dominance of the area.  But, as I said, Congress fucked it up by not allowing a real war.  Look at what the Communist party did for Vietnam, so we were wrong.  It is a gorgeous place, and the people seem happy.

We went into Afghanistan for one reason, to give the Soviets a bloody nose after they helped the Vietnam rebels and the North Koreans.  That's it.

And then there are cases of where it was good.  Yes, Germany declared war on the US, but they weren't in a very good position to do anything to us at the time.  But, looking back at it, Hitler had ordered the deaths of close to 13 million people.  Same thing with Bosnia.

Patrick:  Kosovo.  Go, Go, Go!

Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Storm Rider on 13 Feb 2008, 14:27
...and your testicles only grew to their current gargantuan size when you were 17?

Yeah dude, he must have been psychic. Why he was working on the behalf of homeless guys when he could see the future, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Elizzybeth on 13 Feb 2008, 14:43
You get harassed by the armed forces just by turning 18 if you're male. Recruitment offices don't have to be involved at all. The government wants blood. Still can't be banning people.

When I was taking violin lessons, the walk from my music school to my preferred restaurant was right past a USMC recruiting office.  One evening, there was a recruiter standing outside handing out brochures or something.  I walked past him and on into the restaurant, where I sat down.  A minute later, he came into the restaurant and approached my table, handed me a business card and brochure, and proceeded to extoll the virtues of the Corps (noting my violin, he pointedly mentioned the Marine Corps band).  I was 14 and female.

Though there's probably nothing technically illegal about what he did, it felt very intrusive.  Khar and apackofwolves have both made good arguments in support of Berkeley's decision, but I have to admit that my initial "yay" at reading this was due to my irritation at being hounded by a recruiter.  I agree, though, that the official decision reeks a little bit of favoritism...
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 13 Feb 2008, 16:06
I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.


Some of my science lecture professors demand it. The others go with the first names (or something like Sensei or Mr DoomHammer or something).

I think my English "professor"* would flip a shit if her students started calling her anything other than "Professor Casola".



*I think she is a grad student because she only has one class and I think she is about 27 or 28.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 13 Feb 2008, 16:18
I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.

Presumably you call everyone Cat or Daddio right?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Lines on 13 Feb 2008, 16:30
I call all of them Mr. Snuggles. Even the females.

There are some that tell the class they are Prof. SuchandSuch or Mr./Ms. SoandSo, but none of my studio teachers have done this and some of them dislike it. I call them what they say their name is on the first day of class.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 13 Feb 2008, 17:53
I had this geometry teacher in high school who didn't want to be called Ms Murray because she thought it made her sound Old. So on the first day of class, she told everyone she wanted to go by "Eileen" or "Coach Murray" (she coached the frisbee team, too). Everyone else ended up addressing her just as "Coach", but me, of course, I decided that it would be great to call her Eileen. Except that I didn't just call her Eileen; I would call her EilEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNN and bonus points if my voice cracked in the middle a few times. She told me later that while I was a mediocre student (I was) and a so-so frisbee player (I am), one of the best parts of her day would be when I would happen to walk past her open door on the way to another class and she wouldn't even see me, just hear this "EilEEEEEEN" echoing down the halls.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 13 Feb 2008, 20:21
One of my students calls me "Teach" because she can't remember my name. As in, several times throughout class she'll scrunch up her face and concentrate, and finally she just sighs and calls out "Teach" because she needs me to come over and help her with something. I don't know why she has so much trouble with "Joe."
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 23:02
So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 14 Feb 2008, 00:35
So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.

COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 14 Feb 2008, 07:13
So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.
Are you trolling today?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Liz on 14 Feb 2008, 07:17
(http://www.rosslakecamps.com/photos/Fishing-2004/images/boat-trolling.jpg)
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 14 Feb 2008, 07:23
Are you trolling today?

Your mother trolls every day IRL.

Because she is a troll.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Feb 2008, 03:44
Interesting tidbit gathered from Snopes:

"On 6 February 2008, six Republican senators introduced companion bills called the Semper Fi Act of 2008. Said act seeks to strip Berkeley of $2.3 million earmarked for it in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill (for school lunches, Bay ferry service, disability organizations, UC Berkeley, and public safety) and give it to the Marine Corps. Similarly, California Assemblyman Guy Houston has announced he will introduce legislation that will strip Berkeley of its transportation funding until it rescinds its anti-military resolution, a move that could cost Berkeley $2.3 million in state funding over the next two years."

What do you guys think of this?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: öde on 16 Feb 2008, 03:49
What shitdicks!
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: ruyi on 16 Feb 2008, 03:55
comment from some dude in the uc berkeley lj community: (not putting it as a quote because small italics are irritating to read)




Snagged at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html)

The $2 million of federal funding to be taken away breaks down like so:

    * $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.
      Located at a state public school that happens to be co-located with the City of Berkeley. If this were the University of California El Cerrito, or UC Oakland, this funding wouldn't be withdrawn.

    * $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.
      The Berkeley/Albany ferry service is a proposed ferry route of the Water Transit Authority. The Water Transit Agency is a state-authorized interagency that coordinates Bay Area ferry service.

    * $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.
      A private organization that teaches BUSD kids how to eat well.

    * $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.
      Fair game. Probably augments some program funded by the City of Berkeley Public Safety department.

    * $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.
      Fair game. BUSD is funded by the City of Berkeley.


So of the $2 million of federal funding proposed to be withdrawn, $181,000 would actually have been received by the City of Berkeley. Less than ten percent.

But saying, "Were withdrawing two million dollars from Berkeley!!" sounds so much sexier and impactful. I guess the other 90% is just, um, collateral damage. Sorry.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: öde on 16 Feb 2008, 04:03
But still, it's a shit reaction and they're taking away stuff for children (nutrition education, no less, which is what a lot of the developed world could do with).
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Storm Rider on 16 Feb 2008, 11:31
I can say definitively, from years of living in Northern California, that Guy Houston is a massive prick who keeps his seat thanks to the wonderful magic of gerrymandering!
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jimbunny on 16 Feb 2008, 12:25
So I guess now, when the Chinese finally storm the shores of California...

Quote from: US Armed Forces
WHOOPS!
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 16 Feb 2008, 13:32
1) I think there should be a band called Berkeley and the Marines.

2) Re-appropriation of funds is one of the federal government's biggest strengths against lesser governments. They pull that kind of shit all the time if they don't have the authority and power to make an actual federal law out of something. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think negatively.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: RedLion on 16 Feb 2008, 14:03
That bill won't go through. It's just grandstanding. I guess that's true of 99% of politics nowadays, though.

Sad.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: dr.sangaygupta on 16 Feb 2008, 18:54
Are you trolling today?

Your mother trolls every day IRL.

Because she is a troll.

AWW is someone in a bad mood?

No, but seriously doesn't this decision open up a total can of worms to havimng to allow ANY type of group to protest in the same fashion as the Code Pink protesters? While I don't remember the specific law, this is the same law thatforced Target into banning any soliciting infront of theyre store fronts?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Lines on 16 Feb 2008, 19:45
Any time I hear earmark it translates to politicians being stupid and wasting money.

I have yet to hear of a good earmark. All I hear is negative crap about them, so this alters my opinion.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Alex C on 16 Feb 2008, 21:18
Tell me about it; like RedLion said, 99% of it is grandstanding. The only thing congress accomplishes efficiently these days is voting themselves in another pay raise and hastily creating poorly devised laws named after young crime victims.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 16 Feb 2008, 21:23
So I guess now, when the Chinese finally storm the shores of California...

Quote from: US Armed Forces
WHOOPS!

that would be fun. I'd be laughing all the time, waving my little red flag. all sipping vodka in front of the TV as BMPs patrol the walk of fame, shooting at Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Patrick on 17 Feb 2008, 00:00
I think there should be a band called Berkeley and the Marines.

THIS
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: usmcnavgeek on 17 Feb 2008, 05:13
The recruiting office wasn't even an enlistment center; it was an officer selection office, so all they were doing was processing college graduates who wanted to be officers, not actively recruiting 17 year old kids from local high schools.

The whole 'Semper Fi' act is probably a little over the top, but let's face it; every OTHER city in the country lets recruiters operate, and they all get federal funding (or could if they lobbied hard enough for it, whatever).  Congress needs to be able to register its displeasure somehow, and from what general opinions I've their displeasure mirrors the majority of their constituents, which is a (admittedly sometimes rare) good thing.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 17 Feb 2008, 10:11
That download doesn't work, Mr Hocking.
Sorry to dredge up this off-topic bit again, but is the download working now? I just switched it to a new host.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 17 Feb 2008, 15:12
Yes, it is. Thanks!
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 18 Feb 2008, 18:50
The recruiting office wasn't even an enlistment center; it was an officer selection office, so all they were doing was processing college graduates who wanted to be officers, not actively recruiting 17 year old kids from local high schools.

This isn't really what it's about though. The problem isn't just dodgy tactics being used by the US armed forces to recruit people, it's what they do once they're in the armed forces that people are so against.

Quote
The whole 'Semper Fi' act is probably a little over the top, but let's face it; every OTHER city in the country lets recruiters operate, and they all get federal funding (or could if they lobbied hard enough for it, whatever).  Congress needs to be able to register its displeasure somehow, and from what general opinions I've their displeasure mirrors the majority of their constituents, which is a (admittedly sometimes rare) good thing.

Perhaps Congress should look into why people are so appalled with the activities of their own country's armed forces that they wish to remove recruitment centres instead of withdrawing funding from unrelated activities as an act of revenge.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: RedLion on 18 Feb 2008, 19:06
A lot of their recruiting tactics are underhanded and big on bullshit, though. Two of them more or less burst into my high-school band class two years ago and started talking about how we should all join the army band because "no one in the band gets sent overseas, seriously." My dad's a retired Colonel, and when I went home, I questioned him about that, and his response was "Shit. What? Those are always the first people to go overseas. They're not doing any important work; they're dispensable."

And in the Commons area of my school last year, the marines had some football throwing contest rig set up and would encourage all the kids to come play during our lunch hour--after which the marines would lecture the kids ad nauseum about how awesome they are. (Because throwing a football through a small hole is totally relevant to what the Marines do.)

That actually pissed me off enough that a group of friends and I went to the school Administration and somehow managed to get the principal to agree to stop them from pulling shenanigans like that again.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 18 Feb 2008, 19:15
On protesting the military/recruiters:
Protesters are people that can't find anything better to do. The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others, just you have the higher chance of dieing while getting what you want. Also it does the little thing of making sure Canada doesn't invade the US (Harder then you think. They train with bears.... BEARS!) People say its a right to be able to protest the military... a cornerstone for EVERY successful country? Then they can fend for themselves. Keep in mind this is coming from a person that is currently loosing weight so he can join the Army, grew up in a town with a air base in it, has MANY military friends and friends that come from military families.
On recruiters:
Yeah some recruiters are underhanded... recruiters are salesmen, they have quotas to fill. Dumber people will be taken advantage of. That never happens in any other walk of life right? Right?...  In fact I was in my recruiters office and another recruiter was trying to pull me away from the branch office I was waiting in. Also the marines there were classic jarheads... dumb as a stump.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KvP on 18 Feb 2008, 19:24
A lot of their recruiting tactics are underhanded and big on bullshit, though. Two of them more or less burst into my high-school band class two years ago and started talking about how we should all join the army band because "no one in the band gets sent overseas, seriously." My dad's a retired Colonel, and when I went home, I questioned him about that, and his response was "Shit. What? Those are always the first people to go overseas. They're not doing any important work; they're dispensable."
They don't see much combat, though. My best friend from high school's an official Army bassist (whatever the fuck that is) and he mostly just hooks up with other musicians in the service to play and waits until he gets his money.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: usmcnavgeek on 18 Feb 2008, 19:44
This isn't really what it's about though. The problem isn't just dodgy tactics being used by the US armed forces to recruit people, it's what they do once they're in the armed forces that people are so against.
Militaries are a necessity in our world.  If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.  This is an unfortunate fact of our global society.  If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it.  I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war.  I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason.  I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent.  But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them.  You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)

Perhaps Congress should look into why people are so appalled with the activities of their own country's armed forces that they wish to remove recruitment centres instead of withdrawing funding from unrelated activities as an act of revenge.
I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war.  You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...).  Still, I stand by my opinion.

Also the marines there were classic jarheads... dumb as a stump.
Hey, I resemble that remark.

As for recruiters...I could never do that job.  I agree that some recruiters resort to 'underhanded' tactics.  But not nearly all; for every 'underhanded' recruiter you have ten who go exactly by the book.  You just have to realize that 'the book' says to keep trying to contact potential applicants until you've been explicitly told no, I do not now or ever want to join the armed services.  And all those cheesy football tosses, chin up bars, or whatever?  All that is for is visibility; to get the Marines out and seen.  Recruiting is half advertisement, half salesmanship.

Heck, the Blue Angels' sole purpose?  Recruiting.  The Navy has an entire precision flight demo team at the cost of umpteen million dollars in training and equipment, and the Marines have their show C-130 and crew, and why?  To get seen, and get the idea that 'hey, that's cool, maybe I might want to do something like that' into the heads of people.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 18 Feb 2008, 20:02
Sorry usmcnavgeek, but I have run into too many USMC grunts that were unbearably dumb or annoying to respect the current generation of grunts. However a few ex-marines I have talked to were really cool.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 18 Feb 2008, 20:10
I'm so glad I'm not a country.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: usmcnavgeek on 18 Feb 2008, 20:15
Sorry usmcnavgeek, but I have run into too many USMC grunts that were unbearably dumb or annoying to respect the current generation of grunts. However a few ex-marines I have talked to were really cool.

Hey, I know I'm the exception to the rule, it's cool.  :)
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: supersheep on 19 Feb 2008, 05:33
On protesting the military/recruiters:
Protesters are people that can't find anything better to do.
You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...

The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.
There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.

If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.
There are plenty of countries that have a military and end up getting rolled in on anyways. Also, if a military is for defence against enemies who want to take your stuff, why does the US need such a big one? Democratic Peace Theory implies that Canada will never attack, and Mexico probably not, so who do you have to fear? Apart from the Aleutians and Hawaii, no part of US soil has been touched by a war since the nineteenth century.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Feb 2008, 05:39
Militaries are a necessity in our world.  If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.  This is an unfortunate fact of our global society.  If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it.  I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war.  I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason.  I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent.  But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them.  You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)

Personally, I have no faith in governments ever listening to me, which is why I don't vote. I see why you think protesting doesn't change anything but I think it has more chance of doing so than voting does. Congress' reply is to stamp down which is the usual reaction of the body in a position of authority that's being protested against. As for a military being necessary for a country you have a point, but I'm not much of a fan of countries as a system of organising the world. I'm very much in favour of the free movement of people with disregard to borders. Then again, my viewpoint is very much a marginal one since I have little interest in reform, only change. Besides there's a big difference from just a military and the US military as it currently exists.

Quote
I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war.  You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...).  Still, I stand by my opinion.

Iraq isn't the only reason to be against the actions of the US military. There's Afghanistan, the use of cluster bombs, Guantanamo Bay...

Quote from: JazzyJoe
People say its a right to be able to protest the military... a cornerstone for EVERY successful country? Then they can fend for themselves.

I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 19 Feb 2008, 05:41
Personally, I have no faith in governments ever listening to me, which is why I don't vote.

I fully understand this sentiment, trust me, but ... self-fulfilling prophecy much?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Feb 2008, 05:47
Not really, I think they'd be less inclined to listen if I did vote for them. That way I'd be saying that I approved of the party I voted for, which I don't, so why should they ever pay any attention to me? They already have the only thing they will ever be interested in me for which is my assistance in gaining or retaining power, so any complaints I might have would be irrelevant to them. I live in the UK and I can't see the system of parliamentary democracy we have here ever creating any useful change so I decided a long time ago to give up, since meaningful alteration can only come from instituting a new system of running the society rather than reform of the present one.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 19 Feb 2008, 07:34
The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.
There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.


Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.

One more thing before I leave this thread: I firmly believe that militaries will be necessary as long as people believe them to be. Once they stop, we won't need them anymore.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 12:24
Quote
You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...
Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.

Quote
There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.
So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...

Quote
I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.
Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.

Quote
Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.
No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong. 
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Alex C on 19 Feb 2008, 12:40
Well, looking at the Federalist papers and the way our system of government was structured, it's kind of hard to argue that the United States didn't limit the power of the poor by design, just like every other country of the day. The founding fathers were generally rather open with their stance that the middle class was too ignorant to govern, that the rich cannot be trusted and that giving suffrage to the poor would be even worse and could result in the popular vote forcing a redistribution of wealth. Much like capitalism, the the entire US system is based in large part on the idea that no one group is capable of looking out for anyone but themselves. Besides, this is Berkeley we're talking about here; many of the people who are protesting there do not believe "like normal" is acceptable to begin with. Don't you find it a little naive to believe that the government isn't capable of stacking the deck against various social classes? Governments have been doing that for hundreds of years; you could easily make the argument that the entire function of government is to dilineate whose rights will be deferred to at any given time. I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 12:50
Edit: I took a while to type this, Whipstitch got in there first. He says what I say at the end of this post far more eloquently.

The only time a protest is 'useless' is when nobody listens, thankyou. Things might be 'normal' but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is wrong either. It's just what you're used to. If a person is okay with being treated poorly because it's 'normal' then that's entirely up to them. Personally, I'd like to see improvement on many subjects than be content with their current state because it's "normal". Sitting around and watching TV is "normal", but I don't think that's healthy. Minimum wage is "normal" but I think it's far too little. Racism, sexism, all forms of prejudice are "normal", but they HAVE to stop in order for us to progress as a species.

The economic draft is, I believe, bullshit. It's taking advantage of people who can't afford anything else, people who have given up hope on finding another way out. The government should be providing alternative ways of dealing with poverty in it's country. Signing the poor over the military is a horrible and unfair practice. The alternative, however, is 'stay poor'.

There is currently no nation that successfully reached 'utopia' because no nation has ever made a real effort. Nobody is willing to take the first step. a country such as the US announcing plans to get rid of all it's nuclear weapons would be a great first step, but it'll never happen because people don't trust people. Whenever a person comes along and suggest such things, they're dismissed as a fool.

JazzJoe, suggesting that a government doesn't have the power to keep certain demographics poor is incredibly naive. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the world's wealth is owned by a relatively small number of people? Surely, if taxes work like they're supposed to, things like this wouldn't be such an issue. Unfortunately, a single mother on minimum wage pays more in taxes than a millionaire businessman in the US, and the only reason this is possible is because of laws and loopholes that the government put in place. 
The poorest people in the worst living conditions in the US are primarily black. Why? It's not a genetic trait that makes a person predisposed to being poor. It's the same thing again. Black communities receiving less 'special attention' from their government than the privileged rich white people.
Why would a government do this? Well, in the particular examples I brought up, it's all about money and racism. When your government makes promises, always check the fine print. For example, all those tax cuts that were made? Read about them carefully. Who really benefit the most? The poor black community, or the rich white men?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Feb 2008, 13:09
Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.

Things running like normal is wrong. Even if you disagree with that, wouldn't you agree that the right to and existence of protesting is necessary to any healthy democracy? Not that I'm saying the US is a healthy democracy, but it's something at least.

Quote
So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...

Nobody suggested that, but the military isn't a particularly effective tool for getting people out of poverty so arguing in favour of it because it sometimes has that effect doesn't hold up very well. High quality free education and healthcare would be a much better use of the funds put into the military if getting people out of poverty was the concern.

Quote
Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.

No it isn't, a utopia is a perfect world. A world without governments and their armed forces would not necessarily be utopian. It also isn't impossible, the idea that humans are incapable of changing their societies just doesn't hold up. We aren't burning people for witchcraft and many countries have moved on from monarchies and feudalism. Why should we assume nation-states and standing armies are inevitable?

However, I am unable to look at countries who went for the ideal of ridding themselves of their governments and armed forces since their aren't any I can think of. For example, the elements who were urging this in the Spanish and Russian revolutions were wiped out by various elements in the former and the Bolsheviks in the second, so in neither instance could the country be described as following that route. In fact, to go for it I would argue disregarding the idea of individual countries separated by strictly controlled borders would be a necessity, so no country as an entity would be able to pursue that ideal.

Quote
No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong. 

It doesn't give them much encouragement to do anything about poverty if it provides them with the human resources for their armed forces which they rely upon though. I would agree with you that the power of elected officials is often minimal, but given that allowing them large armed forces at their beck and call seems an ever more ill-advised idea since in reality they'll act in the interests of the larger power that controls the government.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 13:20
To put this to bed I am not talking about forcing poor people to join the military. Poor people joining the military happens anyway, the poor and young have always been the ones to die.

When has the poor ever had power besides uniting to overthrow? That is not happening anymore since everyone is looking out for themselves... which is going in a circle basically. Every nation favors the rich and to some degree the middle class. As long as the world has money poor people WILL be stepped on no matter how perfect a country is. I am not condoning this at all. I just know that is how it works. However thinking that the US government is forcing people to stay poor is not true. Also blaming the government for keeping people poor is a very convenient excuse for poor people that want wealth without work.

Quote
I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.
I also agree with this point. I just don't see much protesting as useful. More like people holding onto an era in the US that did basically nothing.


I don't care to reply to Sox's post.. don't try to tie racism to a and sexism to your post to try and make yourself look right. Also I know  many people that simply WORKED to get themselves out of debt or poverty, I don't care to debate this subject with you Sox. You seem to ignorant for me to care.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 13:31
There's a difference between forcing somebody into doing something, or giving them no other option. It's a small difference as far as government is concerned. A lot of people who join the military because they are poor do so because they don't really have a better option. The current attitude seems to be 'sign up or stay poor'. It's okay telling people to work into order to achieve something, but surely, a government has an obligation to give it's people the necessary tools to help themselves? Other people have suggested that more focus should be placed on better education, they have a point.

Please, don't stop the debate. I do not think that you are wrong, I'd very much like to continue the discussion with you. Working yourself out of poverty is the right way to do it, but some people just aren't in that position. People without qualifications, people who can't get a job that pays more than the minimum wage. Yes, these people will always exist. Unless we demand change.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 19 Feb 2008, 13:50
I don't care to reply to Sox's post.. don't try to tie racism to a and sexism to your post to try and make yourself look right.

Everything he mentioned in his post is relevant to the discussion. You can't declare these factors as inadmissible just because it doesn't fit into your personal vision.

Also I know  many people that simply WORKED to get themselves out of debt or poverty, I don't care to debate this subject with you Sox. You seem to ignorant for me to care.

Don't pull this dick move here. Don't pretend to be above an argument just because you are having your ass handed to you.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 14:12
It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 19 Feb 2008, 14:18
Your opinion is fair enough. I'm referring to this -

Quote from: JazzyJoe
I don't care to debate this subject with you Sox. You seem to ignorant for me to care.

His posts are informed, reasonable and unbiased in this thread. There's really no call for this sort of asshattery in a discussion.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 19 Feb 2008, 14:21
JazzyJoe, what economic class would you say you belonged to?
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 14:28
 
It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.

Except for the part where it isn't. It's proof that some people have been in a situation where they are able to work themselves out of debt.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm nowhere near informed enough to know whether people are being screwed into poverty or not, but you definitely need more 'proof' than that.
People are certainly forced into poor conditions in developing countries, I don't see why a developed country would be any different. All it takes is a corrupt government.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Feb 2008, 14:56
Not even a corrupt government is necessary, at least not a legally corrupt one. You just need a government willing to let the status quo stand rather than upsetting the rich, powerful elements in society by attempting to redistribute the wealth they hoard.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 15:01
Which is, by my personal definition, corrupt.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 19 Feb 2008, 15:05
You know, I would think the existence of all the "Get Out Of Debt" companies and federal and fiscal aid programs you can sign up for would set off more people's suspicions about our society being set up to put people in debt just so some other people can make money helping them out of it. I mean, I guess it is our excessively consumerist society and the vicious capitalisation by the debt management companies that are to blame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still kind of a set-up.


Or it could all be a government conspiracy, too, I guess.



Edit: Instead of double posting I guess I will edit.
It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.

You do realise that most people in America never actually work themselves out of debt entirely, right? There is a reason there are laws now state that upon a person's death, any debt they may have incurred during their lifetime that still exists will be repaid by the liquidation of the person's assets and estate, but if that is not sufficient to pay the debt, the rest of it disappears. Otherwise there would be so much debt being passed down from generation to generation that either no one would ever be free of it, and by this point we would probably all have been born into family debts we could never dream of paying.


I find myself very close to being in debt; I am about $2500 away from it, I would say. If it weren't for the Hope Scholarship that I get from the state government because of my grades, I'd already be in it. I am also faced with being a newcomer to a community with an excessive supply of part-time labour (other students) and very little demand for it, either because all the positions are taken or because of the current state of the economy. I have basically come up against a wall, and I am slowly draining my savings account because I actually can not get a job. If no one will hire you, there's simply very little you can actually do about it.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 15:19
Yeah I know alot of debts go unpaid. Still you can't blame the government for people that don't know dick about money... that is if we are talking on the same level.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 19 Feb 2008, 15:43
Could you blame a government for a scenario whereby people are essentially forced into debt just to exist on a day to day basis? Just to get a mortgage for example? Would that be at least in part the responsibility of the government? Especially if the current administration has provided extensive tax breaks for the rich? Who defines the very restrictions within which corporations who lend money operate? Looking across the spectrum of those in office and those who have previously held office, are there many poor people? Who did these people work for before, during and after holding office? Would it be reasonable to assume that whilst in office, these people would maintain a certain relationship with said corporations? Would it be fair to suggest that people who hold office are not always acting through altruism and often at the behest or to the advantage of businesses which they were previously employed or may in the future be employed by? Considering the financial sway that global corporations wield, would it be fair to say that on occasions the government will pass legislation in favour of them over the poor?

I think there's some basic confusion about why poor people are poor. They are poor because they have nothing and pay for everything.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 19 Feb 2008, 15:47
No way man. The problem is that poor people don't want money.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 19 Feb 2008, 15:52
CALLING ANY MODERATOR:  LOCK THIS TOPIC

REPEAT:

CALLING ANY MODERATOR:  LOCK THIS TOPIC
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 15:54
This topic is doing fine. Why does it need to be locked? If you don't like it, don't read it. Several people have made some really great points and raised some very important questions. Locking the thread before a conclusion or rebuttal at this stage would be a dick move.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: negative creep on 19 Feb 2008, 15:57
No way man. The problem is that poor people don't want money.

No, they're poor because they are lazy fucks.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Dissy on 19 Feb 2008, 15:59
From the Rules thread:

Quote
Threads about religion & politics are undesireable in this forum because they are two topics that make Jeph angry/set off his depression. He has specifically asked us to kill these kinds of topics, especially if they are veering into argumentative or "DOOOOM!" modes.

This has broken down into a political debate. 
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 19 Feb 2008, 16:52
JazzyJoe, what economic class would you say you belonged to?

I repeat the question. I want to know if you have ever actually been poor. I feel this is vitally important.

Also, you CAN blame the government for people having poor fiscal skills, because that is an aspect of education. Poor educations are one of the many things that sustain class divisions. I mean, look at me. I'm middle class, my parents are well-off, I went to private school, I got into a good university. I'm pretty much guaranteed a good job*. There's social factors as well; anyone find it interesting that there's not much mass produced media emphasising the benefits of saving and working hard, but lots suggesting that conspicuous consumption is the mark of wealth and social status? And then there's the criminal justice system of course. Crime is a big shitter. Put simply, if you're poor, and live in a shitty neighbourhood, and went to a crap school, you're more likely to commit crimes. You're going to steal because you're poor as shit and can't get a better job than working the counter at mcdonalds because you have no qualifications. You're going to take drugs because your life sucks (and here we could go into the inequalities and ridiculous harshness of drug laws, especially in America. Look up the penalties for possession of poor, often coloured peoples drugs like crack and meth, and then look up penalties for possession of rich peoples drugs like powder cocaine and vicodin). Ironically of course, once you have a criminal record, you're basically fucked for life. You get out of prison, you've got no money, you've got nowhere to live because you could never get on the property ladder**, you can't get a loan because you've got a criminal record, you can't get a decent job, your only viable solution, really, is to commit more crimes.

Society is wonderful.



*not actually true, as I'm doing a Fine Art BA.

**I don't think anyones yet bought up how utterly crucial this is.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 17:10
I am lower middle class. My parents are local missionaries so I basically support myself for everything besides shelter since it just wouldn't be possible for me to live on my own now... that is without working too many horrible jobs only to afford a terrible, small apartment.  One reason why I am going into the military. For what I want to do I might be able to make a decent living... and if my past work history follows me I may be able to make my way through the ranks.

Also sorry for not answering earlier... this forum layout is causing me to miss a few posts here or there. I am new here... meh...
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: KharBevNor on 19 Feb 2008, 17:14
So, you live with your parents.

And you can't personally be bothered to work your way up the economic ladder the hard way.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 17:19
So, you live with your parents.

And you can't personally be bothered to work your way up the economic ladder the hard way.

Interesting.
I am working my way up the ladder. I just promised myself I wouldn't end up at a desk when I was about 12. Hence... military...
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Feb 2008, 18:04
You get out of prison, you've got no money, you've got nowhere to live because you could never get on the property ladder**, you can't get a loan because you've got a criminal record, you can't get a decent job, your only viable solution, really, is to commit more crimes.

You're also quite possibly also institutionalised, or have a serious substance abuse problem, or severe mental health problems. Prison has to be the single most blatant example of why taking revenge on people who transgress is a really, really, titanically bad idea. The concept of taking people who in a large amount of cases are already screwed up and placing them for an extended period in an environment which is practically guaranteed to horrifically damage their minds, and then send them back into a society which has been conditioned to treat them even more poorly than before they went in is utterly insane to me. The last time I did vote it was for the Green party, but not because of their environmental policies (which were ok, if a bit wishy-washy). It was because they promised prison reform.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 18:20
Please, this thread is doing you no harm. If you don't like it, don't read it. The fact it's active on the front page shouldn't bother you. A good portion of the negativity in this thread is from people needlessly calling out for locks and/or complaining about the thread seemingly for no other reason other than that they dislike the discussion of 'heavy' issues.
Take the negativity to some other place.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Ozymandias on 19 Feb 2008, 18:22
The threat of Jeph being annoyed with INTENSE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS and locked yet another random forum is enough potential harm for me to agree with Anyways.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 18:36
If Jeph doesn't like it, he shouldn't read it. It's an easy decision. Your biggest worry should be Jeph coming in here and seeing a bunch of asshats incapable of handling a political debate. If these so-called 'political arguments' were really the threat you think they are, we'd have seen a lot more locks in the past few weeks than we have. Fortunately, we are good at political debate and such action hasn't been required.

Stay calm, if you don't like it, don't read it. If you're really as worried as you're trying to convey, stay out of the thread and don't make the situation any worse by complaining about it. I hope I won't need to repeat this again.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: sean on 19 Feb 2008, 18:38
Sox, this thread should be locked. Political talk is clearly against the rules and having this thread is way too dangerous. The only reason why this thread hasn't been locked is cause we really only have one active mod (Harry (Inlander))

Basically, the thread is a land mine and if we keep it open much longer, somebody's gonna fucking step on it. 

And jeph is no stranger to locking forums. Go look at the sandbox and don't be stupid, or whatever its called.

Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 19 Feb 2008, 18:51
I hope I won't need to repeat this again.
Wow, for a guy who's only been here a week you sure are acting like you own the place.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 18:58
Several threads were moved and/or locked in the time this thread has been active. There are active mods and they have seen this thread. Threads don't get dangerous as long as people are being sensible. That is why they haven't been locked, yet. Inlander said it best when he said "I won't lock this thread...because I shouldn't have to."

I took a look at the old, locked forums. They weren't locked because of arguments or political debate. They were locked because of immaturity. Please realise that the complaints are quite possibly the loudest parts of these discussions. They're obviously having zero-impact and serve only to create more fuss where there shouldn't be any. If you don't want locked forums, prove that you are capable of handling these debates. They're not against the rules because Jeph hates politics and religion. I'm fairly certain that Jeph is a sane and rational man. The reason they are against the rules is because he doesn't think we can handle it. That's the only rational explanation. Show him that you can handle a little heated discussion like an adult, like KharBevNor, A Pack Of Wolves, Tommydski, Switchblade, Schimmy, Jhocking, Ruyi and many others that I can not remember off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: jhocking on 19 Feb 2008, 19:03
Switchblade... Jhocking
It's kind of ironic listing us among your examples of maturity. If you want to know why it's ironic, well, it was a long time ago.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Sox on 19 Feb 2008, 19:09
Well, we all grow more mature with time. I'm going by only what I have seen in the past week. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's irrelevant now.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: calenlass on 19 Feb 2008, 23:09
If Jeph doesn't like it, he shouldn't read it.


You seem to fail to understand the fact that these are his forums and exist by his whims alone.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: Trollstormur on 20 Feb 2008, 02:49
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/sademie/RAAAAGE.png)
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: tommydski on 20 Feb 2008, 02:50
The rules of the forum have evolved over the course of the last few years though.

There's an unspoken consensus (which est was in part responsible for) that discussion is appropriate as long as it isn't needlessly abusive or one sided. I don't think this thread is a problem and I didn't really think the one about Scientology was a problem. I think Sox is talking sense here. The rules can be stretched slightly on a thread by thread basis. Nothing in this thread is overtly political in the sense that one unique manifesto is being preached, it's a discussion of a largely fiscal matter which is relevant to the original post.
Title: Re: Berkeley and the Marines
Post by: a pack of wolves on 20 Feb 2008, 03:01
I'm with tommy and Sox. If we can't occasionally have an adult discussion then we might as well just replace I Like Fish with a funny cat picture and leave it at that. Party politics should be left well alone, as should those of us who don't align themselves with a party getting up on their soapbox and ranting, but there are several threads on this board right now that I would call definitely political (the bodies thread, the one about the Balkans, the tazer thread) and all have been perfectly sensible.