Berkeley, CA Wants Marines Out

paul_valaru · Feb 25, 2008

Gato_Solo said:
Now we have a group of people, who don't agree with the FEDERAL MANDATE.

what is wrong with that? they are not breaking any laws. It is about suppressing their rights to free speech, and their rights to disagree with the government. sounds like they are about as successful at it as S'n'P is at converting Gonz to the belief the CSA was a legal government.

Inkara1 · Feb 25, 2008

I think he's saying they can disagree all they want, but they're also stopping people from doing their ordered duties.

Cerise · Feb 25, 2008

paul_valaru said:
but seriously, what happened to freedom of speech?

Apparently, it's only for libs.

If you don't like what they have to say, ignore them.

Unless you're a freak. Then, the Berkeley city council will give you a sound permit and a private parking space.

:shrug:

spike · Feb 25, 2008

paul_valaru said:
you know who else liked to forcefully relocate people?

Gato and SNP are acting all Anti-American. I say we relocate them out of the country.

If they can't respect the laws get rid of them.

spike · Feb 25, 2008

jimpeel said:
How many laws that invade your privacy, rights, and lifestyle have started out as a "suggestion" by some government hack or special interest group? How fast has the law then spread to other states and communities? How many of those laws have been enhanced over and over to further encroach on your rights and become ever more restrictive with time?

That's right Jim. SO GET RID OF FREE SPEECH. DON"T STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS.

Man, you'd make a good Nazi.

spike · Feb 25, 2008

Gato_Solo said:
I guess you don't see the whole thing. Here we have a group with a FEDERAL MANDATE doing a job they are MANDATED to do. Now we have a group of people, who don't agree with the FEDERAL MANDATE, unilaterally deciding to remove those FEDERALLY MANDATED people from their job.

I guess you didn't read the article. Just spouting off anyway though huh?

spike · Feb 25, 2008

Inkara1 said:
I think he's saying they can disagree all they want, but they're also stopping people from doing their ordered duties.

Except that they aren't.

Gonz · Feb 26, 2008

spike said:
That's right Jim. SO GET RID OF FREE SPEECH. DON"T STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS.

Man, you'd make a good Nazi.

Let me guess. You think gun registration is a good thing?

spike · Feb 26, 2008

Gato_Solo · Feb 26, 2008

Inkara1 said:
I think he's saying they can disagree all they want, but they're also stopping people from doing their ordered duties.

Exactly. It also falls upon the duly elected officials to support such federally mandated actions until/unless the federal law is changed. It doesn't mean that the private citizen can't complain, or contact their representation to make a change through due process.

Cerise · Feb 26, 2008

US Code Part 1 Chapter 115 § 2388 Activities affecting armed forces during war:

"Whoever, when the United States is at war.... willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Hindering military recruitment during wartime is illegal and the law should be enforced to the max.

Gato_Solo · Feb 26, 2008

Cerise said:
US Code Part 1 Chapter 115 § 2388 Activities affecting armed forces during war:

"Whoever, when the United States is at war.... willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Hindering military recruitment during wartime is illegal and the law should be enforced to the max.

As I've pointed out...this is not a war. Its a use of authorized force. While it may not seem any different to folks on the ground, it is vastly different on the legal home-front.

Cerise · Feb 26, 2008

I hear you.

If only low lifes like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecp8ZCC3tB8 could be made an example of under the Sedition Act.

jimpeel · Feb 26, 2008

spike said:
That's right Jim. SO GET RID OF FREE SPEECH. DON"T STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS.

Man, you'd make a good Nazi.

Spoken like a true liberal. Someone says something with which you disagree and you take the premise waaaaaayyy out to the furthest reaches of the known universe and start calling them Nazis. Such a convenient word for you liberals isn't it?

Gun controllers always take the argument to the extreme of nuclear weapons. They call pro-firearms proponents Nazis also.

[enough belittling...Gonz] Your avatar is so apropos.

spike · Feb 26, 2008

How many laws that invade your privacy, rights, and lifestyle have started out as a "suggestion"

You want people to stop standing up for their beliefs so that rights are not violated.

Spoken like a true hypocritical conservative [enough belittling...Gonz]. :rofl3:

jimpeel · Feb 26, 2008

spike said:
You want people to stop standing up for their beliefs so that rights are not violated.

You really need to re-read that again. Are you SERIOUS???? You are FOR the violation of RIGHTS?

Does the word RIGHTS mean anything to that addled mind of yours or is it just a nondescript combination of letters with no meaning?

spike said:
Spoken like a true hypocritical conservative dumbass Walmart greeter.

What? Ran out of adjectives?

spike · Feb 26, 2008

jimpeel said:
You really need to re-read that again. Are you SERIOUS???? You are FOR the violation of RIGHTS?

Look who needs to re-read. Standing up for your beliefs is a right.

Does the word RIGHTS mean anything to that addled mind of yours or is it just a nondescript combination of letters with no meaning?

WTF are you on about? Are you drunk or something?

jimpeel · Feb 26, 2008

spike said:
Look who needs to re-read. Standing up for your beliefs is a right.

WTF are you on about? Are you drunk or something?

So let's parse what you wrote, shall we?

You want people to stop standing up for their beliefs so that rights are not violated.

You ... that would be me ... want people .... the people who are protesting ... to stop standing up for their beliefs ... telling others what they should do ... so that rights ... the rights of other people, not the protestors ... are not violated.

So you believe that the protestors should be able to espouse the abrogation of the rights of others; and you call that "standing up for their beliefs". The beliefs of all others take a back seat to the rights of those who are attempting to abrogate the rights of other people.

Now who's drunk and looks like a drunken monkey who just fell down and go "boom".

spike · Feb 26, 2008

jimpeel said:
So you believe that the protestors should be able to espouse the abrogation of the rights of others; and you call that "standing up for their beliefs". The beliefs of all others take a back seat to the rights of those who are attempting to abrogate the rights of other people.

Think about it for a second dumbass. People have a right to protest. Protesting does not infringe on others rights. You don't want the people to be able to protest.

Get some coffee and sober up.

jimpeel · Feb 26, 2008

spike said:
Think about it for a second dumbass. People have a right to protest. Protesting does not infringe on others rights. You don't want the people to be able to protest.

Get some coffee and sober up.

Berkeley, CA Wants Marines Out

100% Pure Canadian Beef

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

molṑn labé

New Member

Out-freaking-standing OTC member

Well-Known Member

Out-freaking-standing OTC member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member