Jump to content

The left finally shows their strips


killeryAgainMan

Recommended Posts

The Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

 

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. 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 addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

 

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.

 

--------------------

 

The Oakland International Airport did not break any laws or regulations when it denied 200 Marines and soldiers access to the passenger terminal during a layover last year from Iraq to the troops' home base in Hawaii, the Transportation Department says.

 

The Sept. 27 layover was the last stop for fuel and food, but the troops, who were returning from a tour in Iraq, were denied access to food and bathroom facilities.

 

A Marine reported the incident to Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican and ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and said it "felt like being spit on."

 

Airport officials were concerned that the flight's ground staff could not provide "an adequate level of escort and control of such a large group of military personnel in or around the terminal area," the inspector's report said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Liberal strips? Strips of what?

 

I'll buy the Berkeley City Council as being the big, bad, "L word".

 

But the Oakland International Airport? Are the Big Bad Liberals running all the airports now?

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are the Big Bad Liberals running all the airports now?"

 

No, just Oakland's.

 

Gee. What a concidence:

 

"With the help of the Boyd Group, an aviation consultancy, U.S. News crunched some government figures to develop an Airport Misery Index: a ranking that shows which airports have the best and worst combination of delayed flights and crowded planes. Here's how the nation's 47 largest airports fared:"

 

Airport / Misery Index ranking (lower is better)

 

DTW Detroit: 47

ORD Chicago: 46

CLT Charlotte, NC: 45

JFK New York: 44

EWR Newark, NJ: 43

MSP Minneapolis/St. Paul: 42

FLL Fort Lauderdale, FL: 41

MIA Miami: 40

LAS Las Vegas: 39

DFW Dallas/Ft.Worth: 38

DEN Denver: 37

SLC Salt Lake City: 36

MCO Orlando: 35

CLE Cleveland: 34

IAD Washington, DC: 33

CVG Cincinnati: 32

PHL Philadelphia: 31

PIT Pittsburgh: 30

ATL Atlanta: 29

PHX Phoenix: 28

LAX Los Angeles: 27

IAH Houston: 26

LGA New York: 25

SFO San Francisco: 24

BOS Boston: 23

MSY New Orleans: 22

HNL Honolulu: 21

MKE Milwaukee: 20

IND Indianapolis:19

SEA Seattle: Seattle/Tacoma International 18

DCA Washington, DC: 17

SAN San Diego: 16

RDU Durham and Raleigh, NC: 15

TPA Tampa: 14

MEM Memphis: 13

SMF Sacramento, CA: 12

SNA Santa Ana, CA: 11

MDW Chicago: 10

BWI Baltimore: 9

PDX Portland, OR: 8

BNA Nashville: 7

MCI Kansas City, MO: 6

STL St. Louis: 5

DAL Dallas: 4

SJC San Jose, CA: 3

HOU Houston: 2

OAK Oakland, CA: 1

 

Sources: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Dept. of Transportation; the Boyd Group

 

I guess "conservatives" don't run airports much better than they run wars.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Oakland International Airport did not break any laws or regulations when it denied 200 Marines and soldiers access to the passenger terminal during a layover last year from Iraq to the troops' home base in Hawaii, the Transportation Department says....

 

The report also said the Homeland Security and Defense departments have no coordinated policy to conduct security screenings or a communications process to allow the Marines and soldiers in passenger terminals.

 

The review also found "miscommunication about the proper storage and safeguarding of weapons carried on board aircraft during the layover" and that the airport "could not confirm that weapons [on the plane] would be secured and safeguarded in accordance with Department of Defense regulations and that the Marines and soldiers would leave their weapons on board."

 

Cite

 

So... What we have here folks is a couple hundred soldiers, obviously with weapons, and The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense with no policy of how to deal with them at a civilian airport.

 

Again... that would be The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense.

 

So Killery unearths a story about troops being treated in a negative way. Right on cue, he blames it The Big Bad Liberals without even looking into the facts. Is this just a case of obsessive compulsive disorder, or are the Liberals running the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense too?

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, just Oakland's.

Actually..

The Oakland Airport is run by the Port of Oakland.

They have been among the project clients I have worked with/for over 15 yrs.

 

The Port of Oakland is not a "liberal" enterprise.

 

 

And Ben summed it up nicely. There was no policy in place for dealing with armed troops in transit at this airport.

Kent may know better, but it was my understanding that troops were routed through Air Force bases in past years.

 

 

The story had a great deal of coverage in local news and the end-all was that it would have happened at ANY airport.

The authorities played it safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Killery unearths a story about troops being treated in a negative way. Right on cue, he blames it The Big Bad Liberals without even looking into the facts. Is this just a case of obsessive compulsive disorder, or are the Liberals running the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense too?

 

Ben

So once the facts come out, we find that the story is another bunch of Malarkey. So again, as I predicted earlier, this can be summed up as

 

"The left" is nothing but a bunch of stupid, whiney, groupthinking liberals who do nothing but call people names.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So once the facts come out, we find that the story is another bunch of Malarkey. So again, as I predicted earlier, this can be summed up as

 

"The left" is nothing but a bunch of stupid, whiney, groupthinking liberals who do nothing but call people names.

 

He didn't get the complete and utter irony of that statement the first time, and I doubt he'll get it on the second try.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually..

The Oakland Airport is run by the Port of Oakland.

They have been among the project clients I have worked with/for over 15 yrs.

 

The Port of Oakland is not a "liberal" enterprise.

And Ben summed it up nicely. There was no policy in place for dealing with armed troops in transit at this airport.

Kent may know better, but it was my understanding that troops were routed through Air Force bases in past years.

The story had a great deal of coverage in local news and the end-all was that it would have happened at ANY airport.

The authorities played it safe.

 

Armed troops routinely transit civilian airports. During layovers the weapons are secured on board by a military detail. The troops eat and crap without their weapons. What Oakland did was unconscionable and done because the staff at that airport does not like the military.

 

NO recruiting stations. REJECTED a WWII Navel memorial.

 

Now they have hung "LIBERALS ONLY" signs on their public restrooms and lunch counters.

 

Someone please explain to me why Hate is such a fundamental part of every peace movement.

 

Hypocrites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have stopped over at an Air Force, or other military base, with access to a fucking chow hall! Just another dumbass move by the defense dept. They're just pissed that they weren't greeted as liberators, with flowers. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Armed troops routinely transit civilian airports. During layovers the weapons are secured on board by a military detail. The troops eat and crap without their weapons. What Oakland did was unconscionable and done because the staff at that airport does not like the military.

 

NO recruiting stations. REJECTED a WWII Navel memorial.

 

Now they have hung "LIBERALS ONLY" signs on their public restrooms and lunch counters.

 

Someone please explain to me why Hate is such a fundamental part of every peace movement.

 

Hypocrites.

 

I believe your position to be: A bad situation occurred involving US troops, therefore those responsible for the situation must be liberals.

 

Your hatred of liberals appears to have reached the level that it is usurping your ability to think rationally.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
Armed troops routinely transit civilian airports. During layovers the weapons are secured on board by a military detail. The troops eat and crap without their weapons. What Oakland did was unconscionable and done because the staff at that airport does not like the military.

 

NO recruiting stations. REJECTED a WWII Navel memorial.

 

Now they have hung "LIBERALS ONLY" signs on their public restrooms and lunch counters.

 

Someone please explain to me why Hate is such a fundamental part of every peace movement.

 

Hypocrites.

ohfercrineoutlowd...

 

When you can post something reasonable,we can discuss it.

 

Ben's post clearly outlines the problem. The policy was not clear. And "Homeland Security" was responsible for the decision/action.

My undertsanding is that the policy has been clarified, and it won't happen again.

 

I would like to hear Kent's opinion on the matter... becasue your's is simply filled with "hate" (as you call it)

 

 

Your last post conjures up CarlD/Freedom-esque nonsensical baloney.

If you've ever been to the Bay Area there are acres of memorials.. there are floating museums, (pretty cool ones).. we have a mothballed fleet.. we have acres and acres of active and inactive bases. I regularly hike through WWII battery installations and am currently working on a post-WWII Nike site...

 

Fuck's sake.. Lots of veterans around here will completely disagree with your assessment.. but I guess they are all flaming "liberals", too?

 

And BTW. Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, etc.. are all separate municipalites with independent policies. And the Port of Oakland/Oakland Airport is a private entity. The city has minimal control over Oakland Airport policy.

 

And lastly, what did ANY of this have to do with any alleged "Peace Movement"? Feck, it ain't 1969, anymore.. The Hippies are gone. And more money flows through Haight Ashbury real estate than many big corporations.

 

Sheesh...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe your position to be: A bad situation occurred involving US troops, therefore those responsible for the situation must be liberals.

 

Your hatred of liberals appears to have reached the level that it is usurping your ability to think rationally.

 

Ben

 

Why would you say I hate Liberals? Laughing at their hypocrisy isn't hatred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ohfercrineoutlowd...

 

When you can post something reasonable,we can discuss it.

 

Ben's post clearly outlines the problem. The policy was not clear. And "Homeland Security" was responsible for the decision/action.

My undertsanding is that the policy has been clarified, and it won't happen again.

 

Sorry they were not involved with the decision. As the article states the airport authority claimed they denied access to bathrooms and lunch counters because "Airport officials were concerned that the flight's ground staff could not provide "an adequate level of escort and control of such a large group of military personnel in or around the terminal area," the inspector's report said.". What airport is overwhelmed by 200 people? You are naive to think this was just a policy misunderstanding. Two hundred soldiers in battle dress were offensive to some liberal's sensibilities. You know it and I know it. If you want to pretend this is the first time soldiers have ever laid over at Oakland airport be my guest. Someone did this on purpose.

 

I would like to hear Kent's opinion on the matter... becasue your's is simply filled with "hate" (as you call it)

Your last post conjures up CarlD/Freedom-esque nonsensical baloney.

If you've ever been to the Bay Area there are acres of memorials.. there are floating museums, (pretty cool ones).. we have a mothballed fleet.. we have acres and acres of active and inactive bases. I regularly hike through WWII battery installations and am currently working on a post-WWII Nike site...

 

Fuck's sake.. Lots of veterans around here will completely disagree with your assessment.. but I guess they are all flaming "liberals", too?

 

If we polled them I bet you'd lose that race.

 

And BTW. Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, etc.. are all separate municipalites with independent policies. And the Port of Oakland/Oakland Airport is a private entity. The city has minimal control over Oakland Airport policy.

 

And lastly, what did ANY of this have to do with any alleged "Peace Movement"? Feck, it ain't 1969, anymore.. The Hippies are gone. And more money flows through Haight Ashbury real estate than many big corporations.

 

Maybe you missed the part about the city council dedicating a parking space in front of the Recruiting office for Operation PINK?

 

Sheesh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The airport complained that they were not required by their contract with the defense department to allow the troops access to the terminal. Quoting the article.

 

"The contract to allow military layovers at the California airport "did not require that military personnel have access to the airport terminal; it only required that military personnel be allowed to deplane and stretch their legs on stops lasting over one hour," said a report released yesterday to House lawmakers who requested an investigation into the matter."

 

"The Sept. 27 layover was the last stop for fuel and food, but the troops, who were returning from a tour in Iraq, were denied access to food and bathroom facilities."

 

Please try and defend the airport for not even allowing the troops to use a bathroom?

 

Give me a break. Only an Oakland liberal, military hating asshat would find some loophole excuse in the rules to deny troops that have flown all the way from Iraq access to a bathroom.

 

The report is a laundry list of CYA, excuses for the fact that they made no effort to accommodate our men and women in the service and in my humble opinion, it was intentional. Anyone with even a modicum of respect and gratitude for the troops would have bent over backward to make their return to America as pleasant as possible.

 

Malarkey's daughter flies for the airline that transports the troops. I'll have to ask him to ask if it was her flight or someone she knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malarkey's daughter flies for the airline that transports the troops. I'll have to ask him to ask if it was her flight or someone she knows.

It wasn't her flight. She was tied up in my basement with a ball gag in her mouth and a champagne bottle up her ass. She's coming back next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malarkey's daughter flies for the airline that transports the troops. I'll have to ask him to ask if it was her flight or someone she knows.

Carl might believe that.... You had him at "hello".

 

It wasn't her flight. She was tied up in my basement with a ball gag in her mouth and a champagne bottle up her ass. She's coming back next week.

Korbel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The airport complained that they were not required by their contract with the defense department to allow the troops access to the terminal. Quoting the article.

 

"The contract to allow military layovers at the California airport "did not require that military personnel have access to the airport terminal; it only required that military personnel be allowed to deplane and stretch their legs on stops lasting over one hour," said a report released yesterday to House lawmakers who requested an investigation into the matter."

 

"The Sept. 27 layover was the last stop for fuel and food, but the troops, who were returning from a tour in Iraq, were denied access to food and bathroom facilities."

 

Please try and defend the airport for not even allowing the troops to use a bathroom?

 

Give me a break. Only an Oakland liberal, military hating asshat would find some loophole excuse in the rules to deny troops that have flown all the way from Iraq access to a bathroom.

 

The report is a laundry list of CYA, excuses for the fact that they made no effort to accommodate our men and women in the service and in my humble opinion, it was intentional. Anyone with even a modicum of respect and gratitude for the troops would have bent over backward to make their return to America as pleasant as possible.

 

Malarkey's daughter flies for the airline that transports the troops. I'll have to ask him to ask if it was her flight or someone she knows.

 

Someone's off their Meds....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the Berkeley City Council to force the Marines to leave.

 

The vote before the council was to "ask" the marines to leave.

 

There is nothing "fascist" about asking someone you don't like to leave. The Marines can simply say,"Sorry, we're staying". And Berkeley has no recourse.

 

And FWIW.. most of Berkely thinks this is nonsense, too. But if folks from a 1000-3000 miles away want to get all lathered up about a non-issue, while our country slides into deeper trouble due to REAL problems... have at it.

 

 

 

And BTW.

Berkeley is not Oakland and niether have much of anything to say about how the Oakland Airport chooses to interpret or enact policy on any given day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Oakland airport story happened, I'm sure I got some details wrong, But I recall that the military personnel did not go through security clearance when they got on the plane. The military uses a contractor to move the troops around. It was the contractor's job to make sure the screening happened. It did not happen. There was no way to screen the personnel once they were on the tarmac at Oakland. This would have happened at any airport.

 

 

If this story really had legs, it would have stayed in the news a lot longer than it did. Perhaps there's really no story there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Oakland airport story happened, I'm sure I got some details wrong, But I recall that the military personnel did not go through security clearance when they got on the plane. The military uses a contractor to move the troops around. It was the contractor's job to make sure the screening happened. It did not happen. There was no way to screen the personnel once they were on the tarmac at Oakland. This would have happened at any airport.

If this story really had legs, it would have stayed in the news a lot longer than it did. Perhaps there's really no story there.

 

 

There is only one thing I would add:

 

It could well have been a simple "we gots to follow the rules" thing.

Current security rules are likely that NOBODY get's into the terminal

without screening. I can tell you that Marines flying with their arms

may well be talking into leaving their rifles on the plane (BTW, passengers

must be deplaned for re-fueling) but those that had them for damn sure

they can't be talked into leaving their sidearms unattended.

They can eyeball any airline personel for a rifle, but not a sidearm,

and the security detail can only be expected to look after so much.

For a Marine to lose a firearm is to live in a world of shit. There

is no tenable excuse, other than death, or perhaps dismemberment as

long as it involves at least two or more limbs.

 

Getting em' all though screening was apparently too much of a PITA.

Had any decided that they must use the head, special screening

is usually provided. The situation of armed Marines at re-fuel

stops is always somewhat problematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is only one thing I would add:

 

It could well have been a simple "we gots to follow the rules" thing.

Current security rules are likely that NOBODY get's into the terminal

without screening. I can tell you that Marines flying with their arms

may well be talking into leaving their rifles on the plane (BTW, passengers

must be deplaned for re-fueling) but those that had them for damn sure

they can't be talked into leaving their sidearms unattended.

They can eyeball any airline personel for a rifle, but not a sidearm,

and the security detail can only be expected to look after so much.

For a Marine to lose a firearm is to live in a world of shit. There

is no tenable excuse, other than death, or perhaps dismemberment as

long as it involves at least two or more limbs.

 

Getting em' all though screening was apparently too much of a PITA.

Had any decided that they must use the head, special screening

is usually provided. The situation of armed Marines at re-fuel

stops is always somewhat problematic.

 

 

I'll also add that in the same time frame, a second plane full of troops landed at Oakland, and were allowed in the terminal. Their contractor followed security procedures to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll also add that in the same time frame, a second plane full of troops landed at Oakland, and were allowed in the terminal. Their contractor followed security procedures to start with.

Thats easy.

It was a rare Oakland conservative staffed that day who oversaw the potty run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Oakland airport story happened, I'm sure I got some details wrong, But I recall that the military personnel did not go through security clearance when they got on the plane. The military uses a contractor to move the troops around. It was the contractor's job to make sure the screening happened. It did not happen. There was no way to screen the personnel once they were on the tarmac at Oakland. This would have happened at any airport.

If this story really had legs, it would have stayed in the news a lot longer than it did. Perhaps there's really no story there.

 

Actually you are wrong. You are screened before you enter the secure area to board a plane. When the plane makes a stopover there is no screening as you exit the plane and as long as you stay inside the gate area you are free to deplane, eat, piss and stretch without further screening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you are wrong. You are screened before you enter the secure area to board a plane. When the plane makes a stopover there is no screening as you exit the plane and as long as you stay inside the gate area you are free to deplane, eat, piss and stretch without further screening.

I MADE THE LIST! I feel quite privileged, Malarkey. Was it targeting your house or the champagne bottle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll also add that in the same time frame, a second plane full of troops landed at Oakland, and were allowed in the terminal. Their contractor followed security procedures to start with.

 

Source? Unless the "same time frame" means before Oakland Airport was reamed for their treatment of the plane in question it is irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you are wrong. You are screened before you enter the secure area to board a plane. When the plane makes a stopover there is no screening as you exit the plane and as long as you stay inside the gate area you are free to deplane, eat, piss and stretch without further screening.

 

 

Were the troops screened in the first place? Did their contractor make no mistakes in protocol?

 

This was a clerical error. It started before the troops got on the plane. It has nothing to do with Oakland airport. In fact, I'm glad to hear that the airport followed all security procedures. For as frustrating as it seems at times, you don't always want security personnel using common sense and breaking the procedures in place.

 

Troops have landed and entered the Oakland airport with no problems before and after this particular incident occurred. Again, if this story really had merit, it would have stayed in the news a lot longer than it did. There is no story. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Source? Unless the "same time frame" means before Oakland Airport was reamed for their treatment of the plane in question it is irrelevant.

You're struggling with logic on this one KAM.

 

The real Malarkey wouldn't be caught in such a logic death trap.

 

 

I'd throw you a rope.. but you'd only hang yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you say I hate Liberals? Laughing at their hypocrisy isn't hatred.

 

In this example, not unlike the numerous others you have given us in the past, you are applying negative character traits to an entire group based on political ideology. That is irrational. It is not unlike a Klu Klux Klan member applying negative character traits to an entire group based on their skin color. In the later case, such irrational thinking is largely assumed to be the result of simple hatred. I am applying the same assumption to your irrational thinking.

 

Not all blacks are dirty, uneducated criminals.

 

Not all liberals are hypocrites who hate the military.

 

Unless you can agree with both of those statements, then you are a bigot. And as a bigot, you will be prone to ridiculous conclusions that ignore pertinate facts. You see your "job" as to point out every example of bad behavior, be it real or perceived, on the part of Liberals. Kinda like these guys:

 

Niggermania: Doing Our Part to Keep TNB (Typical Nigger Behavior) And The Putrid Stench of Nigger Under Control!

 

While this thread is just another example of you doing your part to point out TLB (Typical Liberal Behavior), suggesting that Liberals are now in charge of an entire International Airport just sounds silly. What's next? The flaws of Liberal personal hygiene?

 

That last question was rhetorical, by the way.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're struggling with logic on this one KAM.

 

The real Malarkey wouldn't be caught in such a logic death trap.

I'd throw you a rope.. but you'd only hang yourself.

 

He said a similar plane load of soldiers was not denied facility access. He has gone silent when asked for a source of that fact and said only it was the same "Time Frame". What kind of a semantic dodge is the term "Time frame"? Was this after or before the plane I posted about. Oakland airport has caught a lot of flack over this so if the "Time Frame" plane is after they were taken to the wood shed then I can understand his obfuscatory Lib-Speak.

 

I didn't realize you needed to be spoken to pedantically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In this example, not unlike the numerous others you have given us in the past, you are applying negative character traits to an entire group based on political ideology. That is irrational. It is not unlike a Klu Klux Klan member applying negative character traits to an entire group based on their skin color. In the later case, such irrational thinking is largely assumed to be the result of simple hatred. I am applying the same assumption to your irrational thinking.

 

Not all blacks are dirty, uneducated criminals.

 

Not all liberals are hypocrites who hate the military.

 

Unless you can agree with both of those statements, then you are a bigot. And as a bigot, you will be prone to ridiculous conclusions that ignore pertinate facts. You see your "job" as to point out every example of bad behavior, be it real or perceived, on the part of Liberals. Kinda like these guys:

 

Niggermania: Doing Our Part to Keep TNB (Typical Nigger Behavior) And The Putrid Stench of Nigger Under Control!

 

While this thread is just another example of you doing your part to point out TLB (Typical Liberal Behavior), suggesting that Liberals are now in charge of an entire International Airport just sounds silly. What's next? The flaws of Liberal personal hygiene?

 

That last question was rhetorical, by the way.

 

Ben

 

 

Judging by this thread ......

 

Ben Wynn's Eight Rules of NeoCon Denial, A Quick Reference on Zero Accountability

 

Posts: 3940

Joined: 30-September 04

Member No.: 3440

 

I've been doing some thinking on how NeoCons can continue to support a position that seems to be proven more and more wrong everyday. I think I have come up with eight basic rules of denial that fit every condition of the Iraq War, past, present, and future.

 

I offer this as a service to NeoCons everywhere. It assures a complete denail system to avoid any accountablity whatsoever, whenever. You're welcome!

 

 

I'd say my argument. that liberals are hypocrites, remains unchallenged.

 

 

 

.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say my argument. that liberals are hypocrites, remains unchallenged.

You would say it, but you will not because you know how foolish (and bigoted) you would look by making such a gross generalization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He said a similar plane load of soldiers was not denied facility access. He has gone silent when asked for a source of that fact and said only it was the same "Time Frame". What kind of a semantic dodge is the term "Time frame"? Was this after or before the plane I posted about. Oakland airport has caught a lot of flack over this so if the "Time Frame" plane is after they were taken to the wood shed then I can understand his obfuscatory Lib-Speak.

 

I didn't realize you needed to be spoken to pedantically.

 

Before and after. Years before. This is a non story, unless you want to blame the contractor.

Pick a new battle, you lost this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Judging by this thread ......

 

Ben Wynn's Eight Rules of NeoCon Denial, A Quick Reference on Zero Accountability

 

Posts: 3940

Joined: 30-September 04

Member No.: 3440

 

I've been doing some thinking on how NeoCons can continue to support a position that seems to be proven more and more wrong everyday. I think I have come up with eight basic rules of denial that fit every condition of the Iraq War, past, present, and future.

 

I offer this as a service to NeoCons everywhere. It assures a complete denail system to avoid any accountablity whatsoever, whenever. You're welcome!

I'd say my argument. that liberals are hypocrites, remains unchallenged.

.....

 

Wow. You had to go all the back to a post I made over 2 years ago? (Or in "Malarkey Years", four identities ago).

 

I don't beleive I have ever made a blanket statement about Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, or Republicans. When I wrote that list, I was using the term "Necon" as a pejorative, and (at the time) saw it universally accepted as such. Basically, I saw nobody claiming themselves to be a "Necon" any more than they would claim themselves to be an "idiot". I could titled that list The Eight Rules of Political Idiot Denial and accomplished the same goal. The only people that list would apply to are those who actitively practice those specific rules. Sadly, I think those people exist.

 

Since that time, the word "Neocon" seems to be on the border of actually becoming what many would see as a legitimate political ideology. I beleive people are now claiming the title. And I have intentially refrained from using the term as a broad brush.

 

And... Once again, you infer that I am a liberal. Once again, you ignore key facts to the contrary. I have posted many views on this forum that would qualify as that of a Conservative, even though not all my views align with either that of a Liberal or Conservative.

 

However, assuming I just buy into your ability to know the thoughts of others, let's say I am a Liberal. In light of the fact, that I have on more than one occasion seen a uniformed troop having dinner, and had the check sent to my table to pick up their dinner anonomously. I have, on more than one occassion, got a uniformed troop to the front of a long security line at an airport.

 

So either I am not a Liberal or your blanket statement about Liberals hating the military is false. Which is it?

 

Or perhaps I am lying. Which I guess makes me a black guy. Or French, maybe.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, assuming I just buy into your ability to know the thoughts of others, let's say I am a Liberal. In light of the fact, that I have on more than one occasion seen a uniformed troop having dinner, and had the check sent to my table to pick up their dinner anonomously. I have, on more than one occassion, got a uniformed troop to the front of a long security line at an airport.

 

So either I am not a Liberal or your blanket statement about Liberals hating the military is false. Which is it?

 

Or perhaps I am lying. Which I guess makes me a black guy. Or French, maybe.

 

Ben

 

Actually, Ben ole chap, the thread is titled "The left". You introduced the label "liberal" not I. Maybe you saw yourself in there somewhere. "The Left" is a reasonable corollary to your use of "Neocon".

 

Therefore you are a hypocrite and as such you are not an exception to my rule. Until I meet someone on the left who is not a hypocrite and appreciates military service, my rule remains unchallenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Ben ole chap, the thread is titled "The left". You introduced the label "liberal" not I. Maybe you saw yourself in there somewhere. "The Left" is a reasonable corollary to your use of "Neocon".

 

Have you met anyone who claims the title of "Necon" and is proud of it? Besides, I already told you I have refrained from using it in the way that I did over two years ago. You don't even have the integrity of keeping the same identity for that length of time.

 

Anyone on the forum consider themselves a "neocon"? Anyone? Bueller?

 

Therefore you are a hypocrite and as such you are not an exception to my rule. Until I meet someone on the left who is not a hypocrite and appreciates military service, my rule remains unchallenged.

 

When you see an example of someone who, in your mind, demonstrates a non-appreciation of the military, then that person must be a member of "the left", thus proving the left does not appreciate the military. I believe that logical fallacy is called "affirmation of the consequent". The "strawman argument" in calling me a member of the left is just icing on the cake, and is your standard MO. It's all illogical bullshit. I suspect that the fact that you use illogical bullshit will remain unchallenged for quite sometime.

 

Congratulations.

 

And speaking of hypocrites, remember the picture you posted of your dad's gunrack with all your soldier toys on top of it?

 

"They came with an R/C Sherman WWII Tank the kids gave me. The two Yanks in the middle are the crew and get to run over the goose stepping Nazi. Can't see it in the photo very well but the Limey on the other end has a limp wrist."

 

cite

 

Nothing says appreciation for military service like a figurine of a soldier with his hand in a limp wrist position.

 

Or maybe allied soldiers don't count in your book. That tells me that you care less about truly appreciating military service and more about boosting your own ego with insincerely preaching it about US troops. In that respect, you assinine assessment of the Oakland Airport incident makes sense: It makes you feel good about yourself. Kinda like a yellow ribbon magnet sticker. A self agrandizing advertisement of your "support", without even going to the miniscule committment of using actual paint.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Ben ole chap, the thread is titled "The left". You introduced the label "liberal" not I. Maybe you saw yourself in there somewhere. "The Left" is a reasonable corollary to your use of "Neocon".

 

Therefore you are a hypocrite and as such you are not an exception to my rule. Until I meet someone on the left who is not a hypocrite and appreciates military service, my rule remains unchallenged.

 

Reasonable people note that returning veterans who choose to enteri political life almost universally elect to join the left leaning democratic party

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do y'all think about the Berkley thing being done by .gov ?

 

It's bullshit.

 

A city council proclaiming that a government agency is "not welcome" in their city and altering law to accomodate protestors is proposterous. The fact that it is a US military recruiting station makes it obscene to me.

 

I like this response:

 

"WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.

 

DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.

 

"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."

 

"If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added."

 

Cite

 

About 2 million bucks, according to the article.

 

What makes this especially ironic to me is that Berkeley is very near one of the largest earthquake faults in the state. The place could be devastated by a major earthquake. If that earthquake were to happen under a different adminstration (that has the competence to respond to its aftermath), they would be sending in US troops. And I suspect those troops will be doing just as good a job in Berkley as they would anywhere else. For one thing, that is just what they do. For another, the entire populace of Berkely is not the city council nor has an aversion to the military.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done, Ben ...

 

Among the more than 1,300 comments posted (so far) on SFGate, few have been in defense of the City Council or Code Pink. The vast majority, from far and wide - as well as from liberal Berkeley itself and people who otherwise consider themselves anti-war - have been along a continuum of outrage.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apples and Oranges in my opinion.

 

The Berkeley City Council action is clearly based on ideology alone. I can see where the Mayor of Toledo would be able to make a case for his actions, and it would be interesting to see all the facts.

 

Or we could just skip the work needed for an objective assessment and just consider him a member of "the left who hates the military". If this comes back at him in the next election, he could always find work at the Oakland Airport. There is a "I hate the military" checkbox on their application for employment.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed, and Respect, for a rational response, Ben.

 

note that I did not call you "reasonable"

 

;)

 

I should have included a note that the Oakland Airport reference was intended for our resident "left hater", and not you. I think you got that anyway.

 

The Berkeley City Council appears to be experiencing more than a bit of backlash, and rightfully so. Should be fun to watch.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Ben, on the "left hater" bit, but keep in mind I'm firmly on the starboard side of the boat, (but not hanging out over the rail)

 

re/backlash yup, the city council is going to take SO many boots in the nuts (and richly deserve them all )

 

 

 

Back to Toledo,

The mayor's spokesperson Brian Schwartz said, "the mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people. He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."

 

I think that is a bullshit way of concealing his own ideology.

 

Police issued a press release earlier in the week saying the Marines would be wearing green camouflage uniforms, operate military vehicles, carry rifles, perform foot patrols and fire blank ammunitiion during the exercise.

 

Hardly going to "make the children cry" , if everyone is informed before hand,

 

,and I would think that a lot of folks would enjoy watching "the show". I know I sure would.

 

The Marines drilled here three times during the Ford administration and once under the Finkbeiner administration. After the last visit, the mayor told then police chief Jack Smith, that he did not want the Marines back. Smith failed to inform the current police administration of the mayor's feelings," Schwartz said
.

 

Can we presume that there weren't any problems the 3 times under Ford administration?

 

, and it's not until Finkbeiner is in office that there is an issue?

 

 

I think that "making the children cry" is a bullshit way of concealing his own ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that "making the children cry" is a bullshit way of concealing his own ideology.

 

Not being able to read minds, I cannot reach that conclusion.

 

In that respect, its good to have a few of you psychics around to keep us in the loop.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
"They came with an R/C Sherman WWII Tank the kids gave me. The two Yanks in the middle are the crew and get to run over the goose stepping Nazi. Can't see it in the photo very well but the Limey on the other end has a limp wrist."

 

cite

 

Nothing says appreciation for military service like a figurine of a soldier with his hand in a limp wrist position.

 

Or maybe allied soldiers don't count in your book. That tells me that you care less about truly appreciating military service and more about boosting your own ego with insincerely preaching it about US troops. In that respect, you assinine assessment of the Oakland Airport incident makes sense: It makes you feel good about yourself. Kinda like a yellow ribbon magnet sticker. A self agrandizing advertisement of your "support", without even going to the miniscule committment of using actual paint.

 

Ben

 

Obviously you are not a Python fan or you would remember the Gay Limey drill team skit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if Berkeley if full of 'the left', and they're finally showing their strips, and those strips involve marching down to City Hall to tell the council to get fucked on their decision to be mean to the marines, it seems to me that those strips are red, white and blue.

 

True patriots those folks out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember when the military was running urban warfare war-games in Oakland?

(and no, you funny guys.. I'm not talking about the typical early hours of Saturday morning at 98th and International)

 

Ya know.. Oakland. The city due south of Berkeley and the home of the Oakland Airport?

 

oh.. and what's that big ass flat topped ship parked out there by Nelson's?

and that really cool yacht that cruises sunsets on the bay?

and that sub over there near Pier 39?

and those nifty blue jets that fly in formation overhead?

 

And lastly.

How many private high schools in the Bay Area have ROTC?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Years before? How germane!

 

Very germane. It shows a history of no problems at Oakland airport. It shows procedures in place and working. It shows that the contractor's clerical error was the problem.

 

I can't believe you want airport security to breach security procedures. Maybe you just don't understand the world we live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That should make for fun viewing. I expect the city council to back down quicker than Carly can change a subject when confronted with facts which fly 180% counter to what he claims.

ever have anything like this in YOUR backyard?

 

The East Bay portion of a simulated military combat operation began yesterday with the landing of troops in Alameda and continues this week in Oakland. The joint Marines' Urban Warrior and Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment Echo program is a large-scale test of 21st century warfare in a coastal urban environment.

 

 

Oakland/Alameda: In Oakland, 700 troops conduct disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and urban combat exercises this week at the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital and the former Alameda Naval Air Station. They are supported by 6,000 Marines and sailors aboard five ships offshore: the Coronado, the Bonhomme Richard, the Port Royal, the John Paul Jones and the Pearl Harbor. Hovercraft and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters are used at the former Alameda NAS, now called Alameda Point. UH-1 Huey and CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters are flown to Oak Knoll.

 

Concord: Reconnaissance operations take place at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, where Marines test a remote-controlled, four-wheel all-terrain vehicle called Flyer.

 

Moffett Field: Teams test a precision intelligent targeting system called Viper, which uses binoculars fitted with global-positioning systems and a laser range-finder to mark enemy targets for later destruction by gunfire. Marines also test an unmanned aerial vehicle fitted with cameras and target recognition systems to enable it to hunt and destroy targets without risking friendly forces.

 

Jack London Square: Following the military combat operation, the ``Forward From the Sea'' exposition will be held Friday through Sunday at Jack London Square in Oakland. It includes military bands, AV-8B Harrier and powered parafoil demonstrations and ship tours.

 

It was pretty feckin cool actually..

But I still can't beleive they use these feckin hovercraft things. Maybe the noise alone is enough to drvie off the mooslumms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ever have anything like this in YOUR backyard?

 

It was pretty feckin cool actually..

But I still can't beleive they use these feckin hovercraft things. Maybe the noise alone is enough to drvie off the mooslumms.

 

 

I still don't get what exactly they were protesting about. Do they just hate the military so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Feb 11 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I still don't get what exactly they were protesting about. Do they just hate the military so much?

They don't hate the military anymore than the next guy.

Just that lots of folks here don't like having the machines of war paraded down thier streets, run up on thier beaches, flying overhead, etc.

 

Perhaps a greater fraction of people here would prefer we opt for less use of military. Some here, don't want thier children exposed to recrutiment activity. These are fair opinions to hold. And when more people hold them, more "resolutions" and more "demonstrations" occur.

 

I've had several good friends serve. Several family have as well. I support our military. I do not necessarily support what they have been tasked with. In fact I seldom do.

 

But I do not want ROTC in public high schools.

I have no problem with them opening recruitment offices downtown. They can open recruitment offices near college campuses, if they'd like. And would I have no problem with them having open recrutiment activities for public admission... even to adult supervised kids.

I just don't want kids wearing play military "uniforms" to school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Jeff B @ Feb 11 2008, 01:50 PM) I still don't get what exactly they were protesting about. Do they just hate the military so much?

They don't hate the military anymore than the next guy.

Just that lots of folks here don't like having the machines of war paraded down thier streets, run up on thier beaches, flying overhead, etc.

 

Perhaps a greater fraction of people here would prefer we opt for less use of military. Some here, don't want thier children exposed to recrutiment activity. These are fair opinions to hold. And when more people hold them, more "resolutions" and more "demonstrations" occur.

 

I've had several good friends serve. Several family have as well. I support our military. I do not necessarily support what they have been tasked with. In fact I seldom do.

 

But I do not want ROTC in public high schools.

I have no problem with them opening recruitment offices downtown. They can open recruitment offices near college campuses, if they'd like. And would I have no problem with them having open recrutiment activities for public admission... even to adult supervised kids.

I just don't want kids wearing play military "uniforms" to school.

 

I have no problem with you and others holding that opinion about the military and not wanting it paraded in front of them. But as far as ROTC, isn't that a CHOICE that informed parents and students would make as to whether they would join ROTC? Why deny other kids access to it if they choose because you're afraid of having your kid exposed to that? It would be like me saying that we should ban gay students and gay clubs in HS because it might influence my kid! Besides, if you are the parent you should be, you would not fear the recruitment and ROTC influences because you would have informed your child correctly. Same as I would not fear the gay kid because I think I would be confident that my child was well informed by me.

 

Do you think military recruiters should be banned from HS and college campuses? If so, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeff B @ Feb 11 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't get what exactly they were protesting about. Do they just hate the military so much?

They don't hate the military anymore than the next guy.

Just that lots of folks here don't like having the machines of war paraded down thier streets, run up on thier beaches, flying overhead, etc.

 

Perhaps a greater fraction of people here would prefer we opt for less use of military. Some here, don't want thier children exposed to recrutiment activity. These are fair opinions to hold. And when more people hold them, more "resolutions" and more "demonstrations" occur.

 

I've had several good friends serve. Several family have as well. I support our military. I do not necessarily support what they have been tasked with. In fact I seldom do.

 

But I do not want ROTC in public high schools.

I have no problem with them opening recruitment offices downtown. They can open recruitment offices near college campuses, if they'd like. And would I have no problem with them having open recrutiment activities for public admission... even to adult supervised kids.

I just don't want kids wearing play military "uniforms" to school.

just wondering...is it just military recruiters that you don't want in high schools and colleges or is it all...such as big businesses (oil industry, medical/pharma, tech, etc) and professional sports, and why?

 

edit to add: there was a time when the military was an honorable career choice, has that changed? if so, that sucks...hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just wondering...is it just military recruiters that you don't want in high schools and colleges or is it all...such as big businesses (oil industry, medical/pharma, tech, etc) and professional sports, and why?

 

edit to add: there was a time when the military was an honorable career choice, has that changed? if so, that sucks...hard.

My opinion on recrutiing goes to the age 18.. happens to be the rough age between HS and college for most kids. I don't beleive ANY one should be recruiting on campus. ROTC is recruiting.

 

The obvious difference is that military will sign you at age 17.. (if I am not mistaken).

Corporate America isn't gonna hire or "sign" anyone until they finish, at MINIMUM, an undergraduate degree.

Corporate recruting o HS campuses around the country is near zero.

 

 

And I do have a problem with professional sports taking athletes out of high school. I do not think that business should be involved... It is one thing to offer scholarships to college. It is entirely different if, say.. Microsoft was to open computer labs in every school of ITS choice.

 

These are fine lines, I know.. because as funding for schools gets more and more "creative", we will see more corporate influence.

And no I don't like that... not one little bit.

 

 

At age 18 I am willing to bend those rules... being of legal age and all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion on recrutiing goes to the age 18.. happens to be the rough age between HS and college for most kids. I don't beleive ANY one should be recruiting on campus. ROTC is recruiting.

 

The obvious difference is that military will sign you at age 17.. (if I am not mistaken).

Corporate America isn't gonna hire or "sign" anyone until they finish, at MINIMUM, an undergraduate degree.

Corporate recruting o HS campuses around the country is near zero.

And I do have a problem with professional sports taking athletes out of high school. I do not think that business should be involved... It is one thing to offer scholarships to college. It is entirely different if, say.. Microsoft was to open computer labs in every school of ITS choice.

 

These are fine lines, I know.. because as funding for schools gets more and more "creative", we will see more corporate influence.

And no I don't like that... not one little bit.

At age 18 I am willing to bend those rules... being of legal age and all that.

 

The military will sign you up at 17 with a parent's signature. If you try to sign a contract (which an enlistment is) before age 18 it is null and void.

Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Feb 11 2008, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have no problem with you and others holding that opinion about the military and not wanting it paraded in front of them. But as far as ROTC, isn't that a CHOICE that informed parents and students would make as to whether they would join ROTC? Why deny other kids access to it if they choose because you're afraid of having your kid exposed to that? It would be like me saying that we should ban gay students and gay clubs in HS because it might influence my kid! Besides, if you are the parent you should be, you would not fear the recruitment and ROTC influences because you would have informed your child correctly. Same as I would not fear the gay kid because I think I would be confident that my child was well informed by me.

 

Do you think military recruiters should be banned from HS and college campuses? If so, why?

umm.. Jeff.

 

The gay vs military analogy is.. well its dumb.

No one is offering an enlistment with signing bonus to be gay.

 

No. Military recruiters should not be allowed on HS campuses.

I don't like the idea of them on college campuses. but I'd allow it if I were writing the rules.

 

Lets turn this issue a bit.

 

Whats so god-damned hard about picking up the phone and making an appointment to see a military recruiter?

Why is this something that belongs on a HS campus?

We have counselers..and they are supposed to counsel on careers. We have parents. And parents are supposed to counsel on careers. If they are doing thier jobs (personal responsibility and all that) then anyone has all the exposure they need to military recrutiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The military will sign you up at 17 with a parent's signature. If you try to sign a contract (which an enlistment is) before age 18 it is null and void.

Not null and void. Voidable. There is a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just see something that says "17 with parents permission." In US common law, a contract with a minor is voidable by the minor, though if they received any benefit from the contract they may have to repay such benefit. The minor can agree to be bound by their agreement once they pass the age of majority, and it is treated as a new contract. They can also declare that it is void after majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, just see something that says "17 with parents permission." In US common law, a contract with a minor is voidable by the minor, though if they received any benefit from the contract they may have to repay such benefit. The minor can agree to be bound by their agreement once they pass the age of majority, and it is treated as a new contract. They can also declare that it is void after majority.

 

Clean, I know you're a lawyer, and you're used to parsing language, but if someone underage tries to enlist, he will get booted. From http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/...RX.html#932.132

 

931. ART. 131. PERJURY

 

Any person subject to this chapter who in a judicial proceeding or in a course of justice willfully and corruptly--

 

(1) upon a lawful oath or in a form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, gives any false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry; or

 

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty or perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, subscribes any false statement material to the issue or matter of inquiry; is guilty of perjury and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

 

932. ART. 132. FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

 

Any person subject to this chapter--

 

(1) who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent--(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or (B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; (2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States or any officer thereof

 

(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain false or fraudulent statements;

 

(B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the oath to be false; or

 

© forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper, or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;

 

If you enlist in the military fraudulently (under age without parents written permission), they will be court martialed for fraud. After all, the government is giving them a paycheck, so they have violated 932.132 (1a) - fraudulent claim against the government. If he/she has a forged parents signature, they get them under 932.132 (1c)

 

 

You should know that common law has very little bearing when dealing with the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if Berkeley if full of 'the left', and they're finally showing their strips, and those strips involve marching down to City Hall to tell the council to get fucked on their decision to be mean to the marines, it seems to me that those strips are red, white and blue.

 

True patriots those folks out there.

 

Are you really the simple minded? What are your trying to say? Berkley is governed by centrist independents and the vote was a fantasy made up by a Neocon conspiracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...