Well, how can they be forced to contribute fully to something that they're being denied certain aspects of? Shouldn't contribution be relative to compensation?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
dont understand where you are getting at. I think I put it as simply as it can be put.mikkel wrote:
So they don't get all their money's worth?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
then they stop getting any kind of federal services, not just direct funding.
Oh, I wasn't arguing, I was just trying to clear that up. I thought that you were saying that they should pay full federal taxes while having certain federal earmarks rescinded. That wouldn't really make sense to me.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what are you arguing here friend. Thats the same way I feel. If they dont want to play by the rules, they shouldnt be forced to pay either. But, who do you think it will hurt more in the long run?mikkel wrote:
Well, how can they be forced to contribute fully to something that they're being denied certain aspects of? Shouldn't contribution be relative to compensation?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
dont understand where you are getting at. I think I put it as simply as it can be put.
Fucking hippies. Throw these pieces of shit out of the country, they dont need to be here.
Well, they are the ones who want to reject certain parts of the federal government. So, the feds can reject certain parts of their optional funding. If you screw the government, the government will screw you right back.mikkel wrote:
Oh, I wasn't arguing, I was just trying to clear that up. I thought that you were saying that they should pay full federal taxes while having certain federal earmarks rescinded. That wouldn't really make sense to me.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what are you arguing here friend. Thats the same way I feel. If they dont want to play by the rules, they shouldnt be forced to pay either. But, who do you think it will hurt more in the long run?mikkel wrote:
Well, how can they be forced to contribute fully to something that they're being denied certain aspects of? Shouldn't contribution be relative to compensation?
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly... and who needs the sissy Berkeley bitches... suprised the Marines even wanted to recruit there...mikkel wrote:
It absolutely does not. Fighting for a democracy is fighting for equality. If you're coming out of military service as something more than any commoner, you weren't fighting for democracy, you were fighting against it.Ghandi767 wrote:
Well technically, in order for their to be freedom of opinion or the democratic process, there was first a history of service to a country. So yeah, it does.mikkel wrote:
The official responses of any large organisation are typically vividly different from individual opinions by human necessity. I'm mostly referring to the people, servicemen or civilians, who seem to think that anyone who disagrees with anything any serviceman does is disrespectful. Respect is earned, and entitlement is an individual thing. Don't like it? Tough luck. A history of service to a country doesn't trumph freedom of opinion or the democratic process.
Without the service, there is no process.
Granted, I dont think servicemen should be granted some sort of immunity from law, etc. but they should be granted respect.
Servicemen shouldn't be granted respect by definition, because respect is an individual thing. That's a pretty logical concept. If you respect military service, that's your choice, but simply disagreeing with someone or something isn't disrespectful.
I thought the Marines only were looking for men...lol... Fk Berkely... the Marines protect your right to be bitches...
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-02-09 20:42:27)
Love is the answer
Apparently, these people didn't learn from the mistakes of the hippies during Vietnam. You wanna protest a war? Harass the government. Harassing a soldier usually just gets your ass kicked.
Sounds good to me, they can stop paying taxes all together and the govt. can stop all funding and benefits. I wonder who will scream chicken first....any bets?mikkel wrote:
Does that mean that they can stop paying federal taxes, too?lowing wrote:
no, you can't believe the nerve of cutting funding to berkeley when they clearly do not support the very people that is charged with their protection.Mek-Izzle wrote:
I never said it wasn't bad
Serves them right.....It also fits right in line with the liberal apologist attitude. Their opinions and attitudes are for sale.... go figure
Well, my point isn't that it should happen. My point is that the federal government shouldn't strong-arm a populace into accepting anything that isn't an official obligation or written into law when the federal government is run for and funded by these very same people. If they're obligated to accept the presence of a federal office in their city, then it's a different matter, but from what I can tell, they aren't. Admittedly and unfortunately, I'm not sure on this.lowing wrote:
Sounds good to me, they can stop paying taxes all together and the govt. can stop all funding and benefits. I wonder who will scream chicken first....any bets?mikkel wrote:
Does that mean that they can stop paying federal taxes, too?lowing wrote:
no, you can't believe the nerve of cutting funding to berkeley when they clearly do not support the very people that is charged with their protection.
Serves them right.....It also fits right in line with the liberal apologist attitude. Their opinions and attitudes are for sale.... go figure
Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-10 06:41:55)
What it sounds like you are saying to me is, they want and are entitled to, all the benefits of federal protection and funding but do not feel they should be obligated to help contribute to it or support it..............Liberalism anyone?mikkel wrote:
Well, my point isn't that it should happen. My point is that the federal government shouldn't strong-arm a populace into accepting anything that isn't an official obligation or written into law when the federal government is run for and funded by these very same people. If they're obligated to accept the presence of a federal office in their city, then it's a different matter, but from what I can tell, they aren't. Admittedly and unfortunately, I'm not sure on this.lowing wrote:
Sounds good to me, they can stop paying taxes all together and the govt. can stop all funding and benefits. I wonder who will scream chicken first....any bets?mikkel wrote:
Does that mean that they can stop paying federal taxes, too?
I don't understand how you can misconstrue my remarks to the point of thinking that I'm favouring benefits for nothing, when what I'm saying, clearly and unambiguously, is that I support benefits relative to obligatory contribution. It seems like a really far reach.lowing wrote:
What it sounds like you are saying to me is, they want and are entitled to, all the benefits of federal protection and funding but do not feel they should be obligated to help contribute to it or support it..............Liberalism anyone?mikkel wrote:
Well, my point isn't that it should happen. My point is that the federal government shouldn't strong-arm a populace into accepting anything that isn't an official obligation or written into law when the federal government is run for and funded by these very same people. If they're obligated to accept the presence of a federal office in their city, then it's a different matter, but from what I can tell, they aren't. Admittedly and unfortunately, I'm not sure on this.lowing wrote:
Sounds good to me, they can stop paying taxes all together and the govt. can stop all funding and benefits. I wonder who will scream chicken first....any bets?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-10 07:40:48)
Obligations to support our armed forces is a given. If you are not willing to support the institutions that protect your very freedoms and privileges, in this Berkeley right to be assholes, then you should not feel entitled to rights or privileges that they protect.mikkel wrote:
I don't understand how you can misconstrue my remarks to the point of thinking that I'm favouring benefits for nothing, when what I'm saying, clearly and unambiguously, is that I support benefits relative to obligatory contribution. It seems like a really far reach.lowing wrote:
What it sounds like you are saying to me is, they want and are entitled to, all the benefits of federal protection and funding but do not feel they should be obligated to help contribute to it or support it..............Liberalism anyone?mikkel wrote:
Well, my point isn't that it should happen. My point is that the federal government shouldn't strong-arm a populace into accepting anything that isn't an official obligation or written into law when the federal government is run for and funded by these very same people. If they're obligated to accept the presence of a federal office in their city, then it's a different matter, but from what I can tell, they aren't. Admittedly and unfortunately, I'm not sure on this.
From what I read from you is............you disagree with this.
Does that mean that the people of Berkeley can't enjoy the freedom to be assholes if they, by your definition, are assholes towards the wrong people? I thought that being an asshole was amongst those rights being fought for. It sounds more like you're saying that servicemen are fighting for the rights of the people, as long as the people don't do certain things towards certain people, even if it's within the law. When was the whole "fighting for rights" thing pick-and-choose?lowing wrote:
Obligations to support our armed forces is a given. If you are not willing to support the institutions that protect your very freedoms and privileges, in this Berkeley right to be assholes, then you should not feel entitled to rights or privileges that they protect.mikkel wrote:
I don't understand how you can misconstrue my remarks to the point of thinking that I'm favouring benefits for nothing, when what I'm saying, clearly and unambiguously, is that I support benefits relative to obligatory contribution. It seems like a really far reach.lowing wrote:
What it sounds like you are saying to me is, they want and are entitled to, all the benefits of federal protection and funding but do not feel they should be obligated to help contribute to it or support it..............Liberalism anyone?
From what I read from you is............you disagree with this.
Obligations to support the armed forces isn't "a given". It's legislated, and what I'm saying is that if no legislation legally obligates the City of Berkeley to host a Marine recruitment office, then what are they doing wrong?
Receipt of federal funds comes with the understanding that the federal government can then tell you what to do ... or lose your funding.
Alright, that's all I needed to understand. Thanks!Stingray24 wrote:
Receipt of federal funds comes with the understanding that the federal government can then tell you what to do ... or lose your funding.
No problem!
He knew what I was saying, he was just being a bubbaloian smart ass......Stingray24 wrote:
No problem!
Not really, no. I was trying to get around all your accusatory conclusions that went completely contrary to everything I posted. I don't know if you have a grudge against me, or if you're just looking for conflict, but you definitely weren't answering my questions.lowing wrote:
He knew what I was saying, he was just being a bubbaloian smart ass......Stingray24 wrote:
No problem!
So the US federal government - which is supposed to be a democratic government - is going to steal funding in order to thwart the freedom of expression. It does seem odd that a civic government would use it's powers to protest the US's military campaigns, but perhaps the civic government at Berkley is also democratically elected, so it's representatives are following the wishes of those it represents.
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
Actually I think I made my self quite clear. It was clear that Berkeley is anti military. It is clear that they were going to get their funding cut off. The reasons why were clear. It was clear they backed down becasue they dcided to sell out their opinions and hard stance at the first sign of resistance ( just like a liberal) for cash..mikkel wrote:
Not really, no. I was trying to get around all your accusatory conclusions that went completely contrary to everything I posted. I don't know if you have a grudge against me, or if you're just looking for conflict, but you definitely weren't answering my questions.lowing wrote:
He knew what I was saying, he was just being a bubbaloian smart ass......Stingray24 wrote:
No problem!
You have made it clear that you think govt. funding should be unconditional. I think I have mqde it clear that that notion is completey absurd.
The way I see it, you are only one left in the dark.
Typical left coast liberal hippie BS. Just another example.
"San Francisco Lawmaker Wants Blue Angels Grounded During Fleet Week"
"Cox, along with other members of the group, is also opposed to the pro-military theme of the show, and the fact the Blue Angels are a recruiting tool for the Navy. He also says the performances cause "noise pollution."
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont … 5fbcb83b98
"San Francisco Lawmaker Wants Blue Angels Grounded During Fleet Week"
"Cox, along with other members of the group, is also opposed to the pro-military theme of the show, and the fact the Blue Angels are a recruiting tool for the Navy. He also says the performances cause "noise pollution."
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont … 5fbcb83b98
Last edited by usmarine (2008-02-10 13:03:48)
sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh liberals.Point&Shoot wrote:
So the US federal government - which is supposed to be a democratic government - is going to steal funding in order to thwart the freedom of expression. It does seem odd that a civic government would use it's powers to protest the US's military campaigns, but perhaps the civic government at Berkley is also democratically elected, so it's representatives are following the wishes of those it represents.
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
lowing wrote:
sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh liberals.Point&Shoot wrote:
So the US federal government - which is supposed to be a democratic government - is going to steal funding in order to thwart the freedom of expression. It does seem odd that a civic government would use it's powers to protest the US's military campaigns, but perhaps the civic government at Berkley is also democratically elected, so it's representatives are following the wishes of those it represents.
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
lol. It's not often I agree with you, lowing, but yes, here I do.lowing wrote:
sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh liberals.Point&Shoot wrote:
So the US federal government - which is supposed to be a democratic government - is going to steal funding in order to thwart the freedom of expression. It does seem odd that a civic government would use it's powers to protest the US's military campaigns, but perhaps the civic government at Berkley is also democratically elected, so it's representatives are following the wishes of those it represents.
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
First, how can the Federal Gov steal money from its self, and then the second part of your statement is pretty much a stupid rant.Point&Shoot wrote:
So the US federal government - which is supposed to be a democratic government - is going to steal funding in order to thwart the freedom of expression. It does seem odd that a civic government would use it's powers to protest the US's military campaigns, but perhaps the civic government at Berkley is also democratically elected, so it's representatives are following the wishes of those it represents.
It's so crazy, why can't Americans just shut and follow their leaders. GWB was elected by a majority of US citizens to lead the country to world military domination. Perhaps the city council at Berkley should be locked up at Guantanamo and tried for war crimes as well. How dare they try to act against the might of the empire of the United States of America. All hail BUSH!
The president might have the majority vote, but it is the Electoral College that actually elects him. Why do you think the parties focus on certain states?
Hail Bush!