Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

As usual, UG is talking shit. What could be more democratic than allowing a town to vote to get rid of someone promoting and recruiting for an unconstitutional war of aggression?

The only shame is they backpeddled. They should have stuck to their guns and kept the Marines out.

Their shame, of course, was in this pro-fascist move against the Marines in the first place, rather than supporting the destruction of fascism in each and every corner of the world -- which if Berkeley were anything sensible, they would be doing. Instead, Berkeley posts signs at its city limits telling us we really can't bring any W88 nuclear warheads we may happen to have around into town in the car trunk. Or they'll get really really mad.

Anyway, the Republicans are actually doing the advance of democracy, whereas Berkeley isn't, and that's why I'm torqued at the Berkeley City Council.

I used to see a lot of Berkeley when I lived in the Bay Area. I even saw a copy of that dreadful Marxist newspaper some braindead bad example used to print out on one awkwardly-formatted sheet of many foldings. (There were no living ideas present anywhere on the thing. It was like, politics for zombies.)

You, my friend, are the one talking a raft of shit, owing to your absolute and furious determination never to understand either the constitutionality of our war, nor its legality. For that matter, you're not doing very much yourself to remove antilibertarianism from this Earth, are you now?

To call the war on terror unconstitutional and illegal demonstrates in black and white that you aren't a Constitutional scholar, or you would never say such things. You will note that as something of a Constitution reader myself, I for one never have. I think I know more about it than you do, and I also think I understand human nature better, and I apply that understanding when I consider politics.

Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion, for you have never even tried to prove unconstitutionality or illegality in this war, and from those with reason to think they've got it better together than you do, it invites a dose of patronizing. We end up thinking Paul's either not too bright or that his blind spots drop him over a stumbling block four times an afternoon.

It doesn't hurt libertarianism if fascism/communism/noxious-ism or any other subdemocratic social order dies, and you seem blind to this concept. This is odd; I regard it as a basic essential. How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion,

Hee hee.

[Radar]

I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.

What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq or the violations of civil rights on the part of the Bush administration is a gutless coward, and a scumbag, and is unworthy to call themselves an American.

[xoxoxoBruce]

C'mon Radar, don't beat around the bush, tell us what you really think.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.

What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq or the violations of civil rights on the part of the Bush administration is a gutless coward, and a scumbag, and is unworthy to call themselves an American.

And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. HA!

[Flint]

I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.

What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.

I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.

Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.

Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.

People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.

Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.

Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.

People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.

This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing. We defend ourselves, and we trade freely with other nations. We do not get involved in their political affairs or disputes with other nations.

This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150. It remains neutral in all disputes. It has a very strong defense. It doesn't go around sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. They are very happy and successful for this stance. This was also America's stance until WWI.

[Undertoad]

This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150.

All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation with few natural resources (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. HA!

I see the candyassed pussy who couldn't hack it in a ring with me for a minute is running his mouth again. I served with honor and I got an honorable discharge when I was done because I realized the military has too many morons and I could make a lot more money outside the military. I'm making more than 80% of Generals currently serving in the military.

I don't appreciate taking orders from idiots so after my term was done, I got out and went to college, and now I'm the one giving orders. Luckily for those who work for me, they don't have to deal with taking orders from an idiot.

[DanaC]

How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?

Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?

What if we apply the Bobby McGee Principle, IE that freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose?

Or...is it possible that if freedom killing unfreedom is wrong, we don't wanna be right?

Because...it hurts so good?

It's a hard habit to break?

Freedom, I can't quit you.

[Undertoad]

Shush gal, the battle royale is about to begin

[TheMercenary]

No one doubts the presence of any of the overseas bases are to project power for our national interests, including preserving the free flow of oil. The sooner we break the bondage from oil the sooner we can worry less about oil.

[Flint]

I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)

There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...

Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)

There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...

Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?

Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.