You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8120433?source=rss
If they want to ban the US armed forces from their city, well, fine... As long as they no longer receive any benefits from the federal or state gov't,
If they want to ban the US armed forces from their city, well, fine... As long as they no longer receive any benefits from the federal or state gov't, I am fine with it. This is unbelieveable..
****in' figures. What's next? Spitting on troops? Calling them baby killers?
__________________ Better than a sandwich and far more entertaining than bread.~kingsjohn/Obediah "You are out of your mind" ~Deeker "All reactionaries have is Conflict as a tool. Consensus is a foreign word." ~go
Gee,,well I could have posted somethin' ketchy like,,"the devil dogs been ousted from Berkely", but that just sounded retarded. So I just posted the link with my opinion of the issue and I'll leave it at that.
If they want to ban the US armed forces from their city, well, fine... As long as they no longer receive any benefits from the federal or state gov't, I am fine with it. This is unbelieveable..
I didn't realize Fed (or even state) benefits depended on whether or not you allowed recruitment in your city. Since when?
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
If they ban recruitment of one group then it seems fair that they should ban all recruitment in the city from any group. That is prejudicial against that one group.
__________________
Vote For Team Sexy
Quote:
"If you can accept losing, you can't win." Vince Lombardi
If they ban recruitment of one group then it seems fair that they should ban all recruitment in the city from any group. That is prejudicial against that one group.
You mean like the USMC bans recruitment of openly gay people?
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
I didn't realize Fed (or even state) benefits depended on whether or not you allowed recruitment in your city. Since when?
jom
The city of Berkely, being part of the state of California, and thus part of the USA, directly benefits from the protection provided by the US gov't and the US armed forces. In my opinion it can either contribute as all other cities do, by allowing recruiting, or it can forego the protection said gov't provides. There may not be a law one way or the other, I just posted my "2 cents" as it were. Remember, giving the choice of enlistment to people, not forcing them to enlist, is what we are talking about. Why should Berkely be allowed to deny anyone that right by removing a nearby opportunity to obtain information.
That is the nice answer. Berkely in general has a history of this idiocy, and I can't believe the Marines, or any other branch would even have a recruiting office there. I mean, I don't want a bunch of flag burnin', bong-smokin', America bashin', VW drivin'..never mind...
You mean like the USMC bans recruitment of openly gay people?
All branches ban it, but that doesn't prevent it from happening. I've known more than a few gay men and women in the Marine Corps and never had a problem with it. Most Marines wouldn't either. Do your job and we're good. The problem is that there are still quite a few bigots out there who join also, and when you have an idiot who thinks homosexuality takes away from the merit of a person, it's BAD for unit cohesion. They still don't really allow women in any pure combat MOS. They can be pilots of aircraft fixed and rotor wing alike that enter combat, but they can't be grunts. Stupid really when you take into account that most of the women in the Marine Corps that I know are repeat expert shooters. It's wrong, but it's policy, and to some gross extent necessary. Even if they allow it, there's a high population in all branches that would have a strong issue with it. Sadly enough, an openly gay man (more so than an openly gay woman) would be constantly harassed verbally and quite possibly physically. There's still a good portion of the military that has little to NO experience with working with or for women. There's a myriad of reasons why it's not the best idea for someone to be openly gay in the military for better or worse.
In any event, for an entire city to take this strong a stance against any recruiter, even to the point where the MAYOR states:
Quote:
"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates
it blows me away. I can't wrap my head around it.
__________________ Better than a sandwich and far more entertaining than bread.~kingsjohn/Obediah "You are out of your mind" ~Deeker "All reactionaries have is Conflict as a tool. Consensus is a foreign word." ~go
Sorry, but they do not ban it just just don't want to know about it.
Sure they ban it. If you walk into a recruitment office and openly state that you are gay, you are shown to the door.
If you're deployed, as say an Arabic translator in the Navy, and you mention you're gay in an e-mail to a family member/friend (the service reads soldier's e-mail to make sure they aren't giving sensitive/classified information out--understandable), you'll be sent back home.
The armed forces were created for a purpose, and that purpose was not to provide a fair and just workplace for all. Someday, it may work out that way, but that is really irrelevant. Almost anyone can serve as long as they make their service their priority not their sexual orientation. If one chooses to do otherwise then they will be discharged. It is that way and R.P.I.T.A. said it well. It may not be right, but it is that way, and it should not even be a top priority for discussion during time of conflict in my opinion.
Either way, Berkely doesn't have the right to exclude the Marines, and then expect their protection. That was the original pretense for this post.
All branches ban it, but that doesn't prevent it from happening. I've known more than a few gay men and women in the Marine Corps and never had a problem with it. Most Marines wouldn't either. Do your job and we're good. The problem is that there are still quite a few bigots out there who join also, and when you have an idiot who thinks homosexuality takes away from the merit of a person, it's BAD for unit cohesion. They still don't really allow women in any pure combat MOS. They can be pilots of aircraft fixed and rotor wing alike that enter combat, but they can't be grunts. Stupid really when you take into account that most of the women in the Marine Corps that I know are repeat expert shooters. It's wrong, but it's policy, and to some gross extent necessary. Even if they allow it, there's a high population in all branches that would have a strong issue with it. Sadly enough, an openly gay man (more so than an openly gay woman) would be constantly harassed verbally and quite possibly physically. There's still a good portion of the military that has little to NO experience with working with or for women. There's a myriad of reasons why it's not the best idea for someone to be openly gay in the military for better or worse.
Then the bigots should be the ones who are reprimanded, not the gay soldier.
This war for Hearts and Minds will never be won and here's a major reason why: Don't you think the same people who are hostile to homosexuality are less likely to appreciate and understand the cultural differences of your average Mohamed in the Middle East? If they don't like gays for religious reasons, aren't they more likely to be openly hostile to Muslim beliefs? If they dislike gays and women for Machismo reasons, aren't they more likely to call Iraqis all manner of racist terms? (This being said, I doubt that your average Iraqi would be very friendly to an army of openly gay guys and masculine women foot-soldiers either.)
In a sense we're punishing bigotry in the Middle East while endorsing it in our own Military. It's classic do as I say, not as I do.
Welcome to the world of freedom folks. It sucks. Berkley has every right to ban recruiting if they like. And those of you that are soldiers have the unpleasant task of defending them. As far as I know, you didn't swear to protect american citizens only if they agreed with you or allowed you to operate within their city limits. I believe your oath is a little more general than that. We can all think berkely is stupid, but they are still american. Until we decide that only some of us born here are worth protecting while others aren't, you get to protect everyone.
Besides which... I don't see Berkely as being a major target for a terrorist... or really.. any hostile entity. I imagine even as alien invasion would bybass Berkely for more interesting locales.
And cutting of federal funding? C'mon now, we fund states that fly the confederate flag above their state capitals. Flying a foreign nations flag over a state capital is a blatant act of treason as far as I'm concerned.
The peoples republic of Berkely strikes again.. 
Royal P.I.T.A.
