BF2S Forums This is pretty damn pathetic.....Wounded soldier refused a hotel room.

TrueMusou wrote:

lowing wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

I'm not a far left liberal, but I do side more with the left than right. I also live quite close to San Francisco, have family/friends from San Francisco, and I actually lived in SF for a short period of time.

With that said, I'll honestly give you my opinion about the story. The receptionist was in the wrong, there was no bounds to refuse the soldier service. It is an absolute wrong by the receptionist. As for the hotel policy in question, the story did not give details to why this policy was erected. So I can't comment on whether or not the hotel policy is wrong or right.

Now, I will give my honest opinion about your thread. For one, it's complete horse shit. As I mentioned before the story has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. You may very well see the world as black/white, ie: making ignorant generalizaitons like:liberals HATE soldiers. That is absolutely NOT the fucking case. I have the utmost respect for men and women of service regardless of their political or religious views and I'm a liberal. "HOLY SHIT that can't be possible! Especially coming from one of them tree-hugging, rainbow stroking hippies from San Francisco!" It is possible and I'm positive many of my fellow residents of the San Francisco Bay Area will feel similar about my story, and your ignorant thread.

I doubt it...How exactly d oyou support our men and women in the miltary? What was your postition on recruiter banning?

Also, your first sentence disqualifies you. The first thing you did was admit that you are not extreme left...Are you telling MOST of SF is not
extreme left?

Don't fucking pretend you know what it's like in San Francisco. I'm fucking FROM there! How do YOU support the men and women of military? I had recruiters in my High School. They were not incredibly intrusive and bugging students. If there were there as an information resource for kids if they were interested in the military way of life, the option is there, and that is good. I can fucking assure you that the extremist left population around here is not that prominent. I attend one of the most fucking liberal Universities in California and I can tell you the liberal presence is strong, but not overwhelming. You see, we here in California believe in free-thinking and common sense. We don't take whatever some liberal politician and claim it as truth. We like to assess the situations and that take whatever we find relevant to heart.

Again, your thread is irrelevant in terms "debating" politics. Stop trying to spin it in a way so it's a thread to bash liberals.

why so defensive, you admitted already you ar not even a liberal?

How do I support the men and women of the military? Well for starters, I served in it, and currently I am in Iraq working on a project that has been credited for saving lives already...Now, how 'bout YOU answer the question and tell what you do to support them.

Liberals assess a situation? Like voting for Obama because he is black? That can be the only reason ya have to vote for him since he will not devulge his "change" to anyone. I guess all that free thinking was what lead to SF spitting on soldiers as they got off of airplanes huh?

lowing wrote:

yet again all of these answers and not one of the will say yeah a liberal of the extremes in SF would not give a shit about this soldier or NO they would find it disgusting.

This avoidance actually says alot about what your opinions and answer would be, if of course, you would answer the question.

anyway folks, now you know why this is a liberal thread.

Okay okay, you're not really asking for a debate in the DEBATE and SERIOUS TALK forum.

Clearly none of our answers will satisfy you because you want someone to say, "YES THOSE FUCKING FAR LEFT SF HIPPIES WILL LAUGH AT THE SOLDIER AND GIVE THE HOTEL A FRONT PAGE AD IN THE SF CHRONICLES!"

That's not going to happen. As far as I know, I'm the closest thing to a SF Liberal in this forum. Seeing as how MY experience with the people I live with would satisfy you, no one will.

NO ONE can give you a definite answer because none of use are extreme left liberals of San Francisco.

The thread now holds VERY little purpose and should be closed

Spark wrote:

And as for your 'support the military' statement: your ideas are far too simplistic. One can support the troops and NOT want recruiters in high school for the simple reason that many high school kids aren't mature enough to make that decision.

First, I took your bols type off because it irritates my eyes.

Second, 18 year olds are apparently mature enough to enter into any other kind of contract.  And let us not forget it is still law to sign your Selective Service paperwork at 18.  18 is about the age that people should be thinking about their careers and what they want to do with their lives.  Being in the military is a valid career choice.  Recruiters, of any company, will try to dazzle you with BS, but none of that matters until you sign the paper.  If you are under 18, you still require a parent's signature.

At what point should children be allowed to hear military recruiters?  At what age do you think they should be considered adults?

As to your support the troops comment, many people view "support the troops" in different ways.  I knew a female soldier in Iraq.  She worked in a satillite communication truck, which gave her the unique opportunity to make calls to the states (in the guise of "testing the connection.") I was chatting with her once (I loved chatting with her when she was working; her truck was air conditioned!) and she was highly ticked off.  I ended up prying the story out of her. 

Her mother was an anti-war activist.  She called her mom's cell phone while she was in NYC at an anti-war demonsration; her mom told her that it was her way of "supporting the troops." 

I submit to you that I do not think you can "support the troops" if you are against what servicemembers do, where they go, or you berate what their job is or how they do it.  If what you stand for is diamentrically opposed to the very idea of military service, you can not be said to be supporting the troops in any way.  San Fransisco is famous throughout the US for its anti-military stance from polls taken in the area, all the way up into the the city goverment.

imortal wrote:

Spark wrote:

And as for your 'support the military' statement: your ideas are far too simplistic. One can support the troops and NOT want recruiters in high school for the simple reason that many high school kids aren't mature enough to make that decision.

First, I took your bols type off because it irritates my eyes.

Second, 18 year olds are apparently mature enough to enter into any other kind of contract.  And let us not forget it is still law to sign your Selective Service paperwork at 18.  18 is about the age that people should be thinking about their careers and what they want to do with their lives.  Being in the military is a valid career choice.  Recruiters, of any company, will try to dazzle you with BS, but none of that matters until you sign the paper.  If you are under 18, you still require a parent's signature.

At what point should children be allowed to hear military recruiters?  At what age do you think they should be considered adults?

I don't see economists, or journalists, or accountants, or police officers, or anyone coming into school to promote their careers. So why should the military?

As to your support the troops comment, many people view "support the troops" in different ways.  I knew a female soldier in Iraq.  She worked in a satillite communication truck, which gave her the unique opportunity to make calls to the states (in the guise of "testing the connection.") I was chatting with her once (I loved chatting with her when she was working; her truck was air conditioned!) and she was highly ticked off.  I ended up prying the story out of her. 

Her mother was an anti-war activist.  She called her mom's cell phone while she was in NYC at an anti-war demonsration; her mom told her that it was her way of "supporting the troops." 

I submit to you that I do not think you can "support the troops" if you are against what servicemembers do, where they go, or you berate what their job is or how they do it.  If what you stand for is diamentrically opposed to the very idea of military service, you can not be said to be supporting the troops in any way.  San Fransisco is famous throughout the US for its anti-military stance from polls taken in the area, all the way up into the the city goverment.

Yes, but lowing's idea of 'supporting the troops' is extremely narrow. That most certainly isn't supporting the troops - but questioning someone's support because they don't like the military AS A WHOLE is a different matter. Lowing seems to think that unless you back without question the entire military and the government's usage of it, you're a 'troop-spitter'. That's wrong, and you know that.

And I submit to you: is stating that no more troops need get killed not a way of supporting them?

Last edited by Spark (2008-09-06 21:49:38)

Obviously the hotel is out of order.

Still, where is the greater evil, the hotel refusing him a room or the idiot sending him off to get wounded in a pointless 'war'?

Oh well, so the soldier doesn't want the hotel room, his loss.

Spark wrote:

imortal wrote:

Spark wrote:

And as for your 'support the military' statement: your ideas are far too simplistic. One can support the troops and NOT want recruiters in high school for the simple reason that many high school kids aren't mature enough to make that decision.

First, I took your bols type off because it irritates my eyes.

Second, 18 year olds are apparently mature enough to enter into any other kind of contract.  And let us not forget it is still law to sign your Selective Service paperwork at 18.  18 is about the age that people should be thinking about their careers and what they want to do with their lives.  Being in the military is a valid career choice.  Recruiters, of any company, will try to dazzle you with BS, but none of that matters until you sign the paper.  If you are under 18, you still require a parent's signature.

At what point should children be allowed to hear military recruiters?  At what age do you think they should be considered adults?

I don't see economists, or journalists, or accountants, or police officers, or anyone coming into school to promote their careers. So why should the military?

As to your support the troops comment, many people view "support the troops" in different ways.  I knew a female soldier in Iraq.  She worked in a satillite communication truck, which gave her the unique opportunity to make calls to the states (in the guise of "testing the connection.") I was chatting with her once (I loved chatting with her when she was working; her truck was air conditioned!) and she was highly ticked off.  I ended up prying the story out of her. 

Her mother was an anti-war activist.  She called her mom's cell phone while she was in NYC at an anti-war demonsration; her mom told her that it was her way of "supporting the troops." 

I submit to you that I do not think you can "support the troops" if you are against what servicemembers do, where they go, or you berate what their job is or how they do it.  If what you stand for is diamentrically opposed to the very idea of military service, you can not be said to be supporting the troops in any way.  San Fransisco is famous throughout the US for its anti-military stance from polls taken in the area, all the way up into the the city goverment.

Yes, but lowing's idea of 'supporting the troops' is extremely narrow. That most certainly isn't supporting the troops - but questioning someone's support because they don't like the military AS A WHOLE is a different matter. Lowing seems to think that unless you back without question the entire military and the government's usage of it, you're a 'troop-spitter'. That's wrong, and you know that.

And I submit to you: is stating that no more troops need get killed not a way of supporting them?

Sorry Spark, if you do not support the roll of the military ( which is defined by civilians not the military) you do not support their mission, you not support them WHILE on their mission. Go out of your way to destroy the morale of the troops in the field with all of your protests and shit. Then you can no way support the troops. Or I guess the troops that fought in Vietnam were just supported all to hell weren't they?

Immortal said it best so re-read his post. It is true.

TrueMusou wrote:

lowing wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

Okay okay, you're not really asking for a debate in the DEBATE and SERIOUS TALK forum.

Clearly none of our answers will satisfy you because you want someone to say, "YES THOSE FUCKING FAR LEFT SF HIPPIES WILL LAUGH AT THE SOLDIER AND GIVE THE HOTEL A FRONT PAGE AD IN THE SF CHRONICLES!"

That's not going to happen. As far as I know, I'm the closest thing to a SF Liberal in this forum. Seeing as how MY experience with the people I live with would satisfy you, no one will.

NO ONE can give you a definite answer because none of use are extreme left liberals of San Francisco.

The thread now holds VERY little purpose and should be closed

lol, ok so they would support the soldier Got it....would the support come before or after he was spat on and labeled a baby killer?

We live in 2008 now lowing. I believe you are referring to NAM.
We have welcome home gatherings for soldiers at SFO and other local airports.
I ask you, just stop this lowing, stop digging now and you can salvage a SMALL shred of respect from the more lenient members of the forums.

Holy shit!, Ya mean SF actually supports our military and is NOT one of the corner stones for extreme socialist liberal idiology? Wow, did anyone tell SF this yet?

My God, is there anything on the internet that paints SF as you describe it, ya know, something other than a anti-military, anti-freedom, anti-American city?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738823/posts

Spark wrote:

I don't see economists, or journalists, or accountants, or police officers, or anyone coming into school to promote their careers. So why should the military?

what?  where do you get your info from?

Spark wrote:

I don't see economists, or journalists, or accountants, or police officers, or anyone coming into school to promote their careers. So why should the military?

Because if brave men don't volunteer people like you might just find themselves being forced into service.

Edit: Taking away your bold.

Last edited by jord (2008-09-07 16:16:16)

lowing wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol, ok so they would support the soldier Got it....would the support come before or after he was spat on and labeled a baby killer?

We live in 2008 now lowing. I believe you are referring to NAM.
We have welcome home gatherings for soldiers at SFO and other local airports.
I ask you, just stop this lowing, stop digging now and you can salvage a SMALL shred of respect from the more lenient members of the forums.

Holy shit!, Ya mean SF actually supports our military and is NOT one of the corner stones for extreme socialist liberal idiology? Wow, did anyone tell SF this yet?

My God, is there anything on the internet that paints SF as you describe it, ya know, something other than a anti-military, anti-freedom, anti-American city?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738823/posts

I find it funny that you pull your news sources from a heavily conservative website and call yourself the high and mighty well of infinite knowledge and correctness.

I'm sorry my personal experiences in the SF area for decades fail to  satisfy your fantastic vision of SF.

Do us all a favor and fuck off.

Stingray24 wrote:

You dispute the events?  Oh that's right, your personal experience renders them null and void.

I really don't care to argue with yall about this. If you all feel like you can take information from the internet to heart, hell, whatever floats your boat. I know what goes on around where I live. If you feel like you know better from sources on the internet, all the power to you cause we all know that the internet tells the unspun, unbiased absolute truth. Fuck it, I'll let yall live in the fantasy that you've manifested.

TrueMusou wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

You dispute the events?  Oh that's right, your personal experience renders them null and void.

I really don't care to argue with yall about this. If you all feel like you can take information from the internet to heart, hell, whatever floats your boat. I know what goes on around where I live. If you feel like you know better from sources on the internet, all the power to you cause we all know that the internet tells the unspun, unbiased absolute truth. Fuck it, I'll let yall live in the fantasy that you've manifested.

Sorry, SF was well know for its liberalism long before the internet. The problem with the internet ( for you) is that is yet another media exposing SF as a city for what it is.