page four laughs at those weaklings in Berkeley

2/11/2008 9:15:12 PM

Where Marines Are Called 'Intruders' and Recruiting Office Is Unwelcome

Quote :

"BERKELEY, Calif. — On Tuesday night, the nine members of the Berkeley City Council are expected to do something they, or the Marines, for that matter, very rarely do: retreat in the face of fierce opposition. 'The staff are supposed to be there to protect us from our stupidity,' said Councilwoman Betty Olds, who is 87, as feisty as a cornered rattlesnake and a leader of the retrenchment. 'And they didn't do any better than we did' [emphasis added]."

Quote :

"Typical of the outrage was a posting on Monday on Townhall.com, a conservative Web site, that decried 'patchouli-smelling Berkeley hippies' [emphasis added ] and 'radical antimilitary haters.'"

Quote :

"It is not completely surprising that line is in this liberal enclave of 100,000 people. The Council regularly takes up foreign policy and other faraway issues. But even veterans of the scene say the Marine hoopla is one for the books. Ms. Olds, who voted for the parking spot but not the language about the Marines, said she had never seen such a response. Not that the Council did not deserve it, she added. 'I live in the hills,' Ms. Olds said. 'And they don't like this one bit' [emphasis added]."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/12berkeley.html?em&ex=1202965200&en=3328133f36c858d7&ei=5087%0A

Ha-ha--"patchouli-smelling Berkeley hippies." A classic.

[Edited on February 13, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2008 1:03:01 AM

fucking liberals lets just send them to Gitmo to rot with the terrorists.

2/13/2008 8:35:46 AM

^ I smell patchouli.

2/13/2008 12:57:52 PM

Quote :

"After listening to nearly four hours of public comment Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, and receiving more than 25,000 e-mails on the subject, the council voted 7-2 not to send the resolution to the Marines but to restate the council's opposition to the war. The dissenting votes came from Betty Olds and Gordon Wozniak, who felt the council should have gone a step further and apologized for the ruckus, which made international headlines and drew the wrath of pro-military groups and Berkeley residents who thought the council had gone too far. 'We insulted the Marines and they deserve an apology,' said Wozniak at the council meeting. 'At this point, the issue is not the war. The issue is what the Berkeley City Council did. We failed our city.'"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/13/BAGKV1OL5.DTL

Fucking Berkeley idiots. I guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause:

Quote :

"The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the 'Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.' This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

2/14/2008 12:46:11 AM

I say let the hippies go ahead and try and overrun the recruiting station. The Marines will simpley follow protocal: last Marine alive climbs the flag pole, knocks off the truk, and opens the can of WHOOP-ASS inside.

2/15/2008 12:31:47 AM

^ Ha-ha! I love that myth. In the Army, it was actually a promotion board question:

Q."There's one truck on this post, corporal, where is it?"

A. "On the flagpole, sergeant major."

Except some claimed ours had a match (to burn the flag so the enemy couldn't capture it); a .45; and one round (so the enemy couldn't capture you). All I knew was that if we were ever overrun, I sure as hell was going to find a better fighting position than up the flagpole.

2/15/2008 1:30:27 AM

I figured my fellow vets would get a kick out of it. The whoop-ass thing is a joke among us Marines. The truk also holds a razor blade to cut away the stripes from the flag before burning it with the match. I also understood that the round is burried in a box a certain distance and direction from the pole and is supposed to be the last round fired. In some cases a muzzle loading pistol is substituted for the .45. The tradition only still exists on the oldest, bases if at all, I don't really know for sure though.

2/15/2008 1:55:13 AM

i don't get the truk thing

2/15/2008 5:26:00 PM

^ Flags matter a lot to the military--sizes, materials, when to fly them or not, and so on. So the parts of flagpoles matter, too. A truck--and it is "truck"--is simply a flagpole part.



The military myths about trucks are just that: myths--but they're fun. Even if some of these items actually have been ceremonially placed in some trucks, nobody honestly thinks anyone is going to climb a flagpole or knock it down during an attack to retrieve a pistol and a round and a match--and possibly a razor--that allegedly have been there since the flagpole was erected, which in many cases is decades.

[Edited on February 16, 2008 at 6:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2008 6:50:11 AM

Look at these stupid fucking idiots from Code Pink and their friends in Berkeley:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kNEraLEvj-M&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3-w-_g4eBPU&feature=related

Jesus.

Marines being singled out for a special Berkeley initiative:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=99BWHWPmvro&feature=related

2/18/2008 3:55:35 AM

they look like fucking fags

2/18/2008 8:51:02 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mMEWflz-L8I

BOYCOTT BERKELEY!

2/29/2008 3:45:05 PM

Quote :

"Fucking Berkeley idiots. I guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause:"

Uh, what the hell does a resolution have to do with the Constitution? A resolution (of this type) expresses the general sentiment of a legislative body - it's not binding and carries no force of law. Which is why Congress passes them all the time - they're useless paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution

2/29/2008 3:57:12 PM

Quote :

"Look at these stupid fucking idiots from Code Pink and their friends in Berkeley:"

I don't agree with them completely, but they look like my kind of people.

2/29/2008 4:16:14 PM

^^ Yeah, no shit that nonbinding means, well, nonbinding. BTW, I guess the Wiki poster that supplied the info in your link doesn't know the hyphen is unnecessary--or maybe he or she uses a foreign style manual.

In any event, even though the resolution was--of course--nonbinding, the Berkeley loons went further than "general sentiment" on "useless paper":

Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city'

Quote :

"'If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders,' the item says. It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/

Berkeley mayor offers to help Marines leave

Quote :

"Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates offered Friday to help the U.S. Marines leave town by negotiating an end to the lease for their recruiting station, even as he backpedaled on a City Council resolution declaring the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8143578

Give it up, man. The people that voted in favor of the resolution in question are fucking loons--and if you align yourself with them, you're a fucking loon, too.

2/29/2008 5:09:38 PM

Quote :

"If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders,' the item says. It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."

Which - surprise! Still has no binding force of law. "Applauding residents" means about jack shit legally, aside from, well, exposing themselves as a bunch of retards.

Again - what hell does this have to do with the supremacy clause?

Quote :

"Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates offered Friday to help the U.S. Marines leave town by negotiating an end to the lease for their recruiting station, even as he backpedaled on a City Council resolution declaring the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city."

Again - where is the supremacy clause conflict? The Berkley action declares a sentiment of the Marines being "unwelcome" - which for all intents and purposes means calling them all doo-doo heads on a piece of paper. It has no legal power. So where is the supremacy clause conflict, when there is no law?

Meanwhile, terminating their lease just means the Marines have no office - and last time I checked, there's no federal law saying they must rent offices to Marine recruiters.

Again - a dumb action. But bringing up the Supremacy Clause? Kind of even dumber.

2/29/2008 11:20:01 PM

Blast Damages Times Square Recruiting Station

Quote :

"Latest Update, 11:35 a.m. | The police have attributed the blast to an improvised explosive device, and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said the device had been placed in an ammunition box like the kind that can be bought at a military supply store. Mr. Kelly spoke with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference at 9:30 a.m. in Times Square. The authorities are looking into a possible connection to two earlier bombings at foreign consulates in Manhattan, in 2005 and 2007. Officials said that in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle. Subways and traffic are running normally through Times Square."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/police-investigate-explosion-in-times-square/index.html?hp

I'm sure this crime was perpetrated by supporters of the military[/sarcasm].

3/6/2008 11:53:13 AM

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=U44xGirOIHM

3/6/2008 11:55:01 AM

^ Please suspend.

3/6/2008 12:04:02 PM

Why? You're posting completely unrelated things to the original topic in this thread, so I thought I would post something similarly unrelated. Both of our posts involve the military however, so if I get suspended so should you by your logic.

3/6/2008 12:05:19 PM

^ A type of protest--I mean, a bombing is sure as hell not showing approval--at a military recruiting station is "completely unrelated"? How so?

3/6/2008 12:29:32 PM

Video Shows Bicyclist Fleeing Times Sq.

Quote :

"NEW YORK (AP) — A small bomb caused minor damage to a landmark military recruiting station in the heart of Times Square before dawn Thursday, and police were searching for a hooded bicyclist seen on a surveillance video pedaling away. The video shows the bicyclist getting off a bike at 3:40 a.m. Thursday and walking toward the building. A minute or so later, the person returned to the bike and rode away. A brief flash and a cloud of white smoke follows. A bike, believed used in the crime, was later found in the trash on West 38th Street, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia2BgoXMP31noJgDf74W3U7Hr4kAD8V84BRG0

Well, thank God the bomber wasn't using a carbon-emitting vehicle during the attack.

And this. . .

Does New York Have a Serial Bomber?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1720061,00.html

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2008 5:03:40 PM

Quote :

"Again - what hell does this have to do with the supremacy clause?"

Still waiting on my answer to this one, hooksaw, since this thread appears to be your hobby horse...

3/6/2008 5:11:09 PM

^ Um. . .I answered your question--sorry you don't like it.

Quote :

"Yeah, no shit that nonbinding means, well, nonbinding. BTW, I guess the Wiki poster that supplied the info in your link doesn't know the hyphen is unnecessary--or maybe he or she uses a foreign style manual. In any event, even though the resolution was--of course--nonbinding, the Berkeley loons went further than 'general sentiment' on 'useless paper': Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city' 'If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders,' the item says. It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.' http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/ Berkeley mayor offers to help Marines leave Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates offered Friday to help the U.S. Marines leave town by negotiating an end to the lease for their recruiting station, even as he backpedaled on a City Council resolution declaring the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city. http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8143578 Give it up, man. The people that voted in favor of the resolution in question are fucking loons--and if you align yourself with them, you're a fucking loon, too. "

3/6/2008 11:24:09 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1573064479792014346&q=henry+rollins&total=1244&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

3/6/2008 11:36:10 PM

^ I was listening to Black Flag and Rollins Band before you were born, boy.

3/6/2008 11:51:47 PM

Quote :

"^ Um. . .I answered your question--sorry you don't like it."

To which I also pointed out that even this has no binding force of law.

So, that Supremacy Clause - what about it?

3/6/2008 11:59:35 PM

^ We can keep doing this.

Quote :

"In any event, even though the resolution was--of course--nonbinding, the Berkeley loons went further than 'general sentiment' on 'useless paper.'"

3/7/2008 12:09:19 AM

All it says is, to quote your article:

Quote :

"It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.'"

Explain exactly how "applauding residents and organizations" has any legal effect other than to make them asshats, much less to incur the wrath of the Supremacy Clause.

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2008 12:45:13 AM

^ We can keep doing this.

Quote :

"In any event, even though the resolution was--of course--nonbinding, the Berkeley loons went further than 'general sentiment' on 'useless paper.'"

Berkeley mayor offers to help Marines leave

Quote :

"Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates offered Friday to help the U.S. Marines leave town by negotiating an end to the lease for their recruiting station, even as he backpedaled on a City Council resolution declaring the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8143578

3/7/2008 12:55:54 AM

Uh, yeah.

A) Beyond the scope of the original City Council Resolution
B) Still has no binding force of law - it's an offer to negotiate, not even a legally backed mandate
C) Find me the mandate in the Constitution that indicates local cities must lease out to armed forces recruiters. (Third Amendment kind of stalls you on that one.)

So... where's that Supremacy Clause conflict?

Really not that hard, is it?

3/7/2008 1:01:09 AM

^ Unless the city owns the property, it isn't the lessor--a private owner is. And can you show me where in the U.S. Constitution is reads that cities may elect not to lease property to recruiters of the armed forces?

BTW, the Third Amendment addresses forced quartering of soldiers in homes. You'd make a sorry attorney.

3/7/2008 1:16:26 AM

Quote :

"Unless the city owns the property, it isn't the lessor--a private owner is. And can you show me where in the U.S. Constitution is reads that cities may elect not to lease property to recruiters of the armed forces?"

The same way they can elect not to lease property to anyone else they see fit, including pornography stores, certain other types of retail outlets, and so forth?

Look, cities pull dumb crap like this all the time. They ban "big box" stores like Wal-Mart. They ban "adult bookstores." How exactly is a military recruiter particularly different than other types of establishments cities regularly refuse to allow to operate?

Meanwhile, there was no legal mandate forcing them not to lease. Simply "negotiation" - not really the same thing.

Further - until you can prove a specific obligation under Federal Code that obligates leasing to recruiters, 10th Amendment applies - the burden of proof is on you to prove the obligation exists, not on me to prove a lack of one.

So... where was that Supremacy Clause conflict?

Quote :

"BTW, the Third Amendment addresses forced quartering of soldiers in homes. You'd make a sorry attorney."

Yes, that was a joke. Obviously lost upon you.

3/7/2008 1:47:33 AM

^ *Sigh*

Supreme Court rules against law schools

Quote :

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges receiving federal funds must open their campuses to military recruiters, dealing the largest setback yet to Yale Law School's battle against the Pentagon's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. The court's decision upholds the 1994 Solomon Amendment [emphasis added], which allows the federal government to withhold funds from universities that bar Pentagon recruiters. In the 8-0 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that while campus communities remain free to voice their disapproval of the military's message, the high court was unconvinced that the presence of military recruiters violated a school's right to associate."

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/16890?badlink=1

UNITED STATES of America v.The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 798 F.2d 81

Quote :

"In the brief opinion accompanying its order, the district court concluded that the supremacy clause prohibits any state or local agency 'from interfering with or attempting to frustrate the willingness of private citizens or entities or public entities from participating with the United States to carry out a joint effort protected under the constitution.' The Commission and the Task Force, together with the American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Philadelphia ('the A.C.L.U.') and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ('Lambda'), take issue with this conclusion and contend that the district court improperly granted summary judgment to the United States and Temple."

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/798/81/

It is my opinion--and I am not a lawyer--that the Supreme Court's upholding of the Solomon Amendment and Third Circuit's holding could be examples of the Supremacy Clause in action. And you brought up this:

Quote :

"C) Find me the mandate in the Constitution that indicates local cities must lease out to armed forces recruiters. (Third Amendment kind of stalls you on that one.)[Yeah, this really looks like a joke--not]."

The burden is on you to show that local governments can stop military recruiters from carrying out their lawful and constitutional duties. When last I checked, the City of Berkeley as an entity is not providing national defense for the United States of America--so that power would not be reserved to them:

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

3/7/2008 1:16:28 PM

^

A) Solomon Amendment applies to colleges receiving federal funds, and its constitutionality was only decided based on Congress' power of the purse. Colleges are free to ban military recruiters if they forsake funds.

Seeing as the City of Berkley is not a college (despite all the hippies), this argument doesn't even apply.

B) Re: UNITED STATES of America v.The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA - the only way you can possibly apply this is in their actions giving direct legal sanction to interfering with the ability of people to walk in and sign up for the armed forces. Useless resolutions don't count. Negotiating for an end to their lease doesn't count.

C) Seeing as the City of Berkley isn't trying to replace any function of national defense, this argument is idiotic. Until you can establish that Federal law conclusively forces the city to lease space to recruiters, the presumption is against federal power. That's what the 10th Amendment means.

So... where's that Supremacy Clause conflict?

[Edited on March 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : Anyone? Bueller?]

3/8/2008 3:12:31 PM

^ I. You are a fucking idiot loon of the Berkeley variety.

A. Berkeley is an entity--just like a college (GASP!)--that receives federal funds. Berkeley has largely reversed its position and chosen not to risk losing federal funds either.

B. Just because you say something doesn't count doesn't mean shit. If I incite a riot, my call to riot has no binding legal force--yet I will held accountable for those actions. Read some of the Berkeley language again:

Quote :

"It goes on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley' [emphasis added]"

There has already been violence, and police are posted at the site daily. The riot potential is there--not to mention the financial costs--and I sincerely hope the Berkeley loons are held accountable.

C. Recruiters are going about their lawful business as part of the armed forces providing for the national defense. And you made an argument for me: Since Berkeley isn't providing for the national defense, the power is not reserved to it.

D. We can keep doing this.

Quote :

"In any event, even though the resolution was--of course--nonbinding, the Berkeley loons went further than 'general sentiment' on 'useless paper.'"

E. And I simply posted the following:

Quote :

"Fucking Berkeley idiots. I guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause:"

Did I post that there was a "conflict"? You assumed so, right, troll?

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 4:08 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 4:06:53 AM

Wow. I always knew you were a moron, but goddamn are you a moron.

I mean, first, you don't even get your numbering right. Then, when confronted, you just spew and sputter. Awesome.

But seriously:

Quote :

"A. Berkeley is an entity--just like a college (GASP!)--that receives federal funds. Berkeley has largely reversed its position and chosen not to risk losing federal funds either."

Which part of "the Solomon Amendment only applies to colleges receiving federal funds was unclear? Was it the "colleges" part?

Quote :

"B. Just because you say something doesn't count doesn't mean shit. If I incite a riot, my call to riot has no binding legal force--yet I will held accountable for those actions. Read some of the Berkeley language again:"

No, I said "it has no legally binding effect." Which is pretty much indisputably true. Except in your right-wing paranoid fantasy land, apparently.

Now, if Berkley suddenly ceased to exercise due diligence in their law enforcement capacity, then you might have a civil case on your hands. Until then, it's another Useless Resolution passed by Generic Lawmaking Body.

Quote :

"C. Recruiters are going about their lawful business as part of the armed forces providing for the national defense. And you made an argument for me: Since Berkeley isn't providing for the national defense, the power is not reserved to it."

Show me the part where this means the city must allow for them to lease office space. The argument at hand is that they can keep doing their job even if they aren't leased office space, because - get this - there are other places to lease space!

Quote :

""Fucking Berkeley idiots. I guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause:" Did I post that there was a "conflict"? You assumed so, right, troll?"

Is that honestly the best you can do? Wow, man - weak. You're getting desperate. Because, uh, when you say "Guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause," that would imply - and get this - that there's a conflict! Otherwise, any lamentations about the Supremacy Clause are completely and totally irrelevant.

So... Where's that Supremacy Clause Conflict?

3/10/2008 11:57:01 AM

^ I stand on my previous statement. Can you show "conclusively" where I posted that there is a conflict?

3/10/2008 12:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Is that honestly the best you can do? Wow, man - weak. You're getting desperate. Because, uh, when you say "Guess they never heard of the Supremacy Clause," that would imply - and get this - that there's a conflict! Otherwise, any lamentations about the Supremacy Clause are completely and totally irrelevant. So... Where's that Supremacy Clause Conflict?"

3/10/2008 12:46:17 PM

^

Quote :

"imply"

Quote :

"I stand on my previous statement. Can you show 'conclusively' where I posted that there is a conflict?"

3/10/2008 4:55:19 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise, any lamentations about the Supremacy Clause are completely and totally irrelevant."

Is it reading or logic that's a problem for you? Let me know.

3/10/2008 5:00:11 PM

Normally, I can't stand Jon Stewart, but this is some funny shit. Even hooksaw will like this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley

3/12/2008 6:03:45 AM

^^ Ha-ha! I didn't see this before--fucking hilarious!

Even The Daily Show knows that these people are fucking bananas.

Quote :

"Rob Riggle: If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech. . . . Code Pink loon: Wouldn't that be great? Riggle: That would be outstanding!"

On a serious note, though, there's this from some shitheads calling themselves the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG):

Evict the military recruitment station, cage the recruiters!

Quote :

"On Wednesday, March 19, POG will be holding a torch-lit march to a modern day castle of abominations—our local military recruiting station. If the station remains open, we intend to evict it and everything inside of it, occupy the location, and transform it into something useful for the community. We'll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors. Of course, the station may be closed and recruiters may flee or hide behind the police apparatus that enables the war to continue [emphasis added]. That is often the case, and we've seen in the past the overwhelming resources the state directs against these anniversary events because of their importance as a symbol of dissent. We believe in acting effectively, in confronting the war, at times and places of our choosing."

http://www.organizepittsburgh.org/



[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2008 4:44:12 PM