Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[erniezap]

Brian,

My words were in no way intended towards UC Berkely, just the town itself.  UC Berkely is a top notch school.  It's just the surrounding idiots that I have a problem with.

[erniezap]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/15276998/detail.html

[SPIDERMAN]

Brian,

My words were in no way intended towards UC Berkeley, just the town itself.  UC Berkeley is a top notch school.  It's just the surrounding idiots that I have a problem with.

And predominantly my favorite (NOT) ethnic group at that Ernie. But thanks for clarifying. I get worked up because UCB is a favorite target of Billo when he really means the city.

B B

[FNGw/08SERK]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/15276998/detail.html

Thanks for the update Ernie. Could someone please explain this politically correct nonsense of "we support the troops but not the war"? Seems like if these men and women are ALL volunteering knowing we're at war then to not support the war is not supporting them. Period!!

I could MAYBE understand that statement if our warriors were drafted. What a crock!!

[SPIDERMAN]

Thanks for the update Ernie. Could someone please explain this politically correct nonsense of "we support the troops but not the war"? Seems like if these men and women are ALL volunteering knowing we're at war then to not support the war is not supporting them. Period!!

I could MAYBE understand that statement if our warriors were drafted. What a crock!!

I beg to disagree FNG. Our young men and women at arms volunteered to serve their country. I support that to the limit. As a matter of fact, I spend every day of the week supporting that. Without those brave young (and sometimes not so young) men and women, the USA would not be the home of the brave and the land of the free. BUT, by your own arguments, I believe I can correctly say that they fight for my rights as a citizen of this country and one of those rights is the right to dissent. While I do not agree with what is happening in the CITY of Berkeley,  I don't see any conflict in saying I am pro-military and anti-Bush Administration policy with regard to Iraq.

B B

[FNGw/08SERK]

I beg to disagree FNG. Our young men and women at arms volunteered to serve their country. I support that to the limit. As a matter of fact, I spend every day of the week supporting that. Without those brave young (and sometimes not so young) men and women, the USA would not be the home of the brave and the land of the free. BUT, by your own arguments, I believe I can correctly say that they fight for my rights as a citizen of this country and one of those rights is the right to dissent. While I do not agree with what is happening in the CITY of Berkeley,  I don't see any conflict in saying I am pro-military and anti-Bush Administration policy with regard to Iraq.

B B

Thanks for steppin up on this one BB as I honestly do not understand this "I support the troops but not the war phenomenom. As you stated, and I certainly agree, in our great country everyone has the right to dissent. I served to help preserve this right.

Where I'm confused is how the PC machine has gotten away with gettin us to buy into this mindset. If many of these men and women who are either in Iraq or have been in Iraq in the past and they continue to re-enlist to go back that signals to me that there are many who are there because they believe in what they are doing. I am NOT refering to the politics or the Bush administration. I'm looking at this from a boots on the ground question.

What's wrong with people who disagree with the war owning that disagreement in its totality and just saying they disagree-period. Why the need for the disclaimer when they voice there objections?

Howie

[SPIDERMAN]

Thanks for steppin up on this one BB as I honestly do not understand this "I support the troops but not the war phenomenom. As you stated, and I certainly agree, in our great country everyone has the right to dissent. I served to help preserve this right.

Where I'm confused is how the PC machine has gotten away with gettin us to buy into this mindset. If many of these men and women who are either in Iraq or have been in Iraq in the past and they continue to re-enlist to go back that signals to me that there are many who are there because they believe in what they are doing. I am NOT refering to the politics or the Bush administration. I'm looking at this from a boots on the ground question.

What's wrong with people who disagree with the war owning that disagreement in its totality and just saying they disagree-period. Why the need for the disclaimer when they voice there objections?

Howie

Howie,
          I think and it's just that, my thoughts on the subject is that we as Americans are shamed by the way the military during Vietnam was treated on arriving home and the symbolism in saying " I support the Troops but not the war " is fueled by that. Never again will we as a nation disrespect the sacrifices made by those who protect our freedoms. HOWEVER, as you agree with me, the right to dissent is basic to our way of life hence the framing of the issue in the terms you are speaking to.

As usual, just my $0.02

B B

[iski]

When is that sensitivity class taking place?? Believe it was mentioned over in the infamous Obama thread. 

No Need for a sensitivity training thread.  This group is so damn sensitive to everybody's feelings, it'd be overkill.  Now a good Poll post on Polls is another thing entirely.



Anyway, if the citizens of Berkley wish to protest the war in Iraq, ok. Actually, if they also wish to mouth anti-USA rhetoric & support al-quaida, they are protected by their rights to free speech as well.  Yeah, that's difficult for some to get their head around, but freedom of SPEECH allows for many forms of dissent. When they go beyond speech with actionable offenses, then a few laws start to kick in, and that's where they get into trouble, legally.

When the Berkley folks decided to go after a Marine recruiting station, that is their right as well.  Do not agree here of course but it's their community. If Congress decides to lop off a few million $ in fed funds, as a result of their right to be idiots, that's ok also.  That's why they relented on this - money cutbacks scared them.  Bush hatred has created another  idiot class in this country and I for one am happy they get to prove themselves to be idiots freely.  Freedom of Speech allows that to occur.

[FNGw/08SERK]

No Need for a sensitivity training thread.  This group is so damn sensitive to everybody's feelings, it'd be overkill.  Now a good Poll post on Polls is another thing entirely.



Anyway, if the citizens of Berkley wish to protest the war in Iraq, ok. Actually, if they also wish to mouth anti-USA rhetoric & support al-quaida, they are protected by their rights to free speech as well.  Yeah, that's difficult for some to get their head around, but freedom of SPEECH allows for many forms of dissent. When they go beyond speech with actionable offenses, then a few laws start to kick in, and that's where they get into trouble, legally.

When the Berkley folks decided to go after a Marine recruiting station, that is their right as well.  Do not agree here of course but it's their community. If Congress decides to lop off a few million $ in fed funds, as a result of their right to be idiots, that's ok also.  That's why they relented on this - money cutbacks scared them.  Bush hatred has created another  idiot class in this country and I for one am happy they get to prove themselves to be idiots freely.  Freedom of Speech allows that to occur.

An exercise in "freedom of speech" is just hot air if the consequences that comes with it are negated by being allowed not to "own" the position! In that case I believe the term freedom has been marginalized.   

[iski]

An exercise in "freedom of speech" is just hot air if the consequences that comes with it are negated by being allowed not to "own" the position! In that case I believe the term freedom has been marginalized.   

Freedom of Speech was never promised without responsibility for said speech.  If you say something and it creates harm or in some cases breaks laws, then you are liable for it.

A person yells "fire!" in a crowded theater for "fun" & there is no fire.  An infant is trampled to death when folks rush out the theater doors.  That person is liable, even though their intent was not to harm, originally. 

Words and actions have consequences - we enjoy much greater freedom in the USA in these areas than many other parts of the world but that does not mean we can say or do any damn thing we want & not expect to be responsible for it.

Of course I agree with your right to disagree here. 

[FNGw/08SERK]

Freedom of Speech was never promised without responsibility for said speech.  If you say something and it creates harm or in some cases breaks laws, then you are liable for it.

A person yells "fire!" in a crowded theater for "fun" & there is no fire.  An infant is trampled to death when folks rush out the theater doors.  That person is liable, even though their intent was not to harm, originally. 

Words and actions have consequences - we enjoy much greater freedom in the USA in these areas than many other parts of the world but that does not mean we can say or do any damn thing we want & not expect to be responsible for it.

Of course I agree with your right to disagree here. 

This is precisely why I object to the "i support the troops but not the war" slogan. It allows us to remove the consequences similar to a disclaimer. Ok fire away           

[iski]

This is precisely why I object to the "i support the troops but not the war" slogan. It allows us to remove the consequences similar to a disclaimer. Ok fire away           

Actually if somebody believes they support our military but do not support the functions, purposes, actions, or missions of our military, than they are entitled to that belief system.

The phrase itself has little to do with the reality or possibility of such a belief - politically it is quite acceptable in many circles to say such gibberish about our military and heads are a-nodding in agreement.  And such gibberish is considered PC by the nodders as well.  I find that slogan indicative of the disconnect folks have with the reality of the situation they are attempting to describe.  But they have the right to say it as well as believe it. Not about to convince any of them otherwise - even though its a position that defies reality.

Disclaimers are free speech also. Your objection is not an iconoclastic view - many share that belief as well.  Typically I do not object since free speech allows those to express opinions which reveal their belief systems - even if they are in my view gibberish.

But what do I know?   

[Hoist!]

Buncha friggin' Hippies over there!!! Send 'em all up to Coolbreeze! He'll know what to do with them!!!

Hoist!

[FNGw/08SERK]

Actually if somebody believes they support our military but do not support the functions, purposes, actions, or missions of our military, than they are entitled to that belief system.

The phrase itself has little to do with the reality or possibility of such a belief - politically it is quite acceptable in many circles to say such gibberish about our military and heads are a-nodding in agreement.  And such gibberish is considered PC by the nodders as well.  I find that slogan indicative of the disconnect folks have with the reality of the situation they are attempting to describe.  But they have the right to say it as well as believe it. Not about to convince any of them otherwise - even though its a position that defies reality.

Disclaimers are free speech also. Your objection is not an iconoclastic view - many share that belief as well.  Typically I do not object since free speech allows those to express opinions which reveal their belief systems - even if they are in my view gibberish.

But what do I know?   

I also find it noteworthy to point out that "their" view is accepted more redily than mine! Free speech my a$$!!    

[iski]

I also find it noteworthy to point out that "their" view is accepted more readily than mine! Free speech my a$$!!    

In certain circles, yes.  In others, no. In my opinion. 

I live in a bastion of liberal la-la land.  I hear the phrase you mentioned all too frequently.  If I point out that is an impossibility due to contradiction in terms, then some quickly jump on some hate/label wagon & get nutty and/or funny. I find it sad as well as amusing.