The Energon Pub

Autobot032 wrote:I think that Berkley is run by idiots

Pyrostrata wrote:Too bad for Berkeley! Hope they never need The Corps for any reason....

...cuz they would not deserve it!

First Gen wrote:that town doesn't deserve the country's finest among them.

tech348 wrote:The city council of bizerkely and probably most of there populace are a bunch of tree hugging a-holes.

Thanks guys. I truly appreciate it.

This is why the Philosopher's Forum was shut down. And here I am playing that card:


My new friends at school are from Berkeley.

My father grew up there, and was educated by their fine University.

My mother was educated at their fine University, along with my father.

I live in Emeryville, which is right smack on the border, and I'm on the edge. It's safe to say I live in Berkeley.

Granted there are a lot of people that piss me off. People who have lost faith in the voting process, and then sit around complaining about how bad the world is today while chain-smoking their cigarettes. That pisses me off too.

But their frustration is real. Berkeley is the way it is because it has the benefit of not only being an educated college town, but also right on the border of Oakland, which is third only to LA and Sacramento in crime, poverty, and drugs. Mix that up and what do you get? Pissed off people studying as much Noam Chomsky and Alexis DeToqueville as they can. You get angry people in the streets that feel slighted, and betrayed by their country.

And can you blame them? People like you are saying we don't deserve protection. Thanks for proving us right.


(And for the record, the military should be allowed to recruit within reason in our town for as long as they want, and people should be allowed to protest within reason outside the office for as long as they want. It's in the Constitution unless I've been living in a box for my whole life.)

Dark Zarak wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:I think that Berkley is run by idiots

I can't speak for the rest of those you quoted, so I'll focus only on my earlier statement.

I do believe it's idiocy for the people in charge to deny the Marines (or any military branch) it's legal and fully protected entrance into their community. One day the community will need to call on the military for protection and while they're entitled to it...it won't be well received and it most certainly won't go well. They'll actually regret pulling a France move.


However...
I do see where they're coming from (to a certain extent) and I fully support their right to an opinion and I even agree with them on the anti-war stance. I recognize their right to protect what is rightfully their's (namely their families and their children.)

I see both sides of the issue, which is why I said it was heartbreaking. I know I broke my rule about not making any other posts, but I wanted to make sure my point was clarified and not one sided in either direction.

Dark Zarak wrote:Thanks guys. I truly appreciate it.

This is why the Philosopher's Forum was shut down. And here I am playing that card:


My new friends at school are from Berkeley.

My father grew up there, and was educated by their fine University.

My mother was educated at their fine University, along with my father.

I live in Emeryville, which is right smack on the border, and I'm on the edge. It's safe to say I live in Berkeley.

Granted there are a lot of people that piss me off. People who have lost faith in the voting process, and then sit around complaining about how bad the world is today while chain-smoking their cigarettes. That pisses me off too.

But their frustration is real. Berkeley is the way it is because it has the benefit of not only being an educated college town, but also right on the border of Oakland, which is third only to LA and Sacramento in crime, poverty, and drugs. Mix that up and what do you get? Pissed off people studying as much Noam Chomsky and Alexis DeToqueville as they can. You get angry people in the streets that feel slighted, and betrayed by their country.

And can you blame them? People like you are saying we don't deserve protection. Thanks for proving us right.


(And for the record, the military should be allowed to recruit within reason in our town for as long as they want, and people should be allowed to protest within reason outside the office for as long as they want. It's in the Constitution unless I've been living in a box for my whole life.)

So basically you're saying, it's okay for Berkely to act the way they are cause they're " a bunch of " Pissed off people studying as much Noam Chomsky and Alexis DeToqueville as they can." People who feel slighted by their country.

Praytell, what does this have to do with the Marines? Cause people in Berkely have a chance of being robbed or given the feeling of insecurity, it's the recruiter's fault? Welcome to life pal. Thats the WHOLE WORLD.

You wan't the Marines to protect you? Is that it? You want Marshall Law, so you can "feel safe"? You want to live the life of an Iraqi child who goes to school in hopes of one day changing his homeland, only he doesn't know if he'll live to see the sunset cause of some jackass suicide bomber or IED?

Think about what you say before you say it. You really proved no point but supported those against you.

First Gen wrote:So basically you're saying, it's okay for Berkely to act the way they are cause they're " a bunch of " Pissed off people studying as much Noam Chomsky and Alexis DeToqueville as they can." People who feel slighted by their country.

Praytell, what does this have to do with the Marines? Cause people in Berkely have a chance of being robbed or given the feeling of insecurity, it's the recruiter's fault? Welcome to life pal. Thats the WHOLE WORLD.

You wan't the Marines to protect you? Is that it? You want Marshall Law, so you can "feel safe"? You want to live the life of an Iraqi child who goes to school in hopes of one day changing his homeland, only he doesn't know if he'll live to see the sunset cause of some jackass suicide bomber or IED?

Think about what you say before you say it. You really proved no point but supported those against you.

Did you miss the whole thing I said at the end of my post about how the Marines should be allowed to recruit?

Because I said it. I don't agree with them for chasing the recruiting out.

What I disagree with is all you people saying everyone in my town are a bunch of a-holes and tree huggers and we don't deserve protection blah blah blah.


Why don't you think before you say something? Once again we have a military man flying off the handle at us liberals.

Here it is for the record:

The military should be allowed to recruit here, because it's part of the US.

But at the same time, they should not be allowed to bad mouth the whole town because of the actions of a few.

Stop shit-talking my town.

Dark Zarak wrote:Why don't you think before you say something? Once again we have a military man flying off the handle at us liberals.

Here it is for the record:

The military should be allowed to recruit here, because it's part of the US.

But at the same time, they should not be allowed to bad mouth the whole town because of the actions of a few.

Stop shit-talking my town.

Congressmen do not get involved in situations like this when only a few people are involved.

Gotta problem, maybe you should talk to those few and thank those Marines for choosing their lifestyle so you can complain about them.

First Gen wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Why don't you think before you say something? Once again we have a military man flying off the handle at us liberals.

Here it is for the record:

The military should be allowed to recruit here, because it's part of the US.

But at the same time, they should not be allowed to bad mouth the whole town because of the actions of a few.

Stop shit-talking my town.

Congressmen do not get involved in situations like this when only a few people are involved.

Gotta problem, maybe you should talk to those few and thank those Marines for choosing their lifestyle so you can complain about them.

Don't Americans have local government?

This all sounds like two of one and half a dozen of the other.

You're right, the Marines chose the lifestyle they have; but that doesn't mean that they're on a plateau above criticism from society for being dickheads.

First Gen wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Why don't you think before you say something? Once again we have a military man flying off the handle at us liberals.

Here it is for the record:

The military should be allowed to recruit here, because it's part of the US.

But at the same time, they should not be allowed to bad mouth the whole town because of the actions of a few.

Stop shit-talking my town.

Congressmen do not get involved in situations like this when only a few people are involved.

Gotta problem, maybe you should talk to those few and thank those Marines for choosing their lifestyle so you can complain about them.

You really should stop. Dark Zarak is trying to defend both you and his home, and you just keep attacking him.

Honestly, all you're doing is giving Marines a bad name.

And I wouldn't just thank the Marines, I think the Army, Air Force, and Navy all deserve equal, if not more credit.

Shadowman wrote:You really should stop. Dark Zarak is trying to defend both you and his home, and you just keep attacking him.

Honestly, all you're doing is giving Marines a bad name.

And I wouldn't just thank the Marines, I think the Army, Air Force, and Navy all deserve equal, if not more credit.

First off, I know what Dark is doing. He's entitled to his opinion on the situation as am I. He stated only a few people are causing the ruckus, which is not true. Read my above posts for more on that.

Second, how can I give Marines a bad name when all I'm doing is defending their rights? I'm not attacking Zarak, I'm attacking the protestors who think that the world should be all happy go lucky, weed should be legal and all that. I have plenty of liberal friends. Using the tag liberal is a cop out on this matter. I'm a Democrat, I'm not a complete right wing freak, but lets be real, the Marines would not BE if they didn't recruit. What makes the people of Berkley so great that they shouldn't be asked to serve? We need more GOOD Marines. Alot of which could most likely come out of that town. There's the freedom of a NATION at stake. You may not think this is serious, that its only a town and they should get what they want, but you hurt us all when you deny GOOD LEADERS the opportunity to serve.

And finally, only the Marines are in question. I already gave the other services there due, again READ MY ABOVE POSTS so you can see that.

Blast Cannon wrote:

First Gen wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Why don't you think before you say something? Once again we have a military man flying off the handle at us liberals.

Here it is for the record:

The military should be allowed to recruit here, because it's part of the US.

But at the same time, they should not be allowed to bad mouth the whole town because of the actions of a few.

Stop shit-talking my town.

Congressmen do not get involved in situations like this when only a few people are involved.

Gotta problem, maybe you should talk to those few and thank those Marines for choosing their lifestyle so you can complain about them.

Don't Americans have local government?

This all sounds like two of one and half a dozen of the other.

You're right, the Marines chose the lifestyle they have; but that doesn't mean that they're on a plateau above criticism from society for being dickheads.

Did you even read what was going on?

I'm a Marine, you calling me a dickhead?

As I read it, this isn't some legislature voting that the Marines can't recruit there-- they voted to agree that they don't like them there. Not to halt operations, or to begin actions to impede there progress. Simply agreeing "We don't like it." They aren't actually insulting the Marines, at least not an addressed one, either. There's a big difference there. As well, there is to note that in many areas a simple majority is all that's needed, so the case basically is that a possibly marginal majority in whatever group are agreeing they don't like the Marines recruiting there.

Doesn't seem too big to me. A bit of an uneducated move, but nothing really illegal, nor all that threatening, nor a good representation of the whole of Berkley. I'd agree with the past said--I personally hate when people treat a group like it's a singular individual, then place the blame of an action of the some to the everyone. Makes for bad logic.

As well, I hate when people throw around the word 'treason.' Our government has a definition of it, and this case does not meet it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Such comments simply attempt to say that the people hate the USA as a whole for disliking or disagreeing a fragment of it. In truth, citizens are vocal in such matters usually for the opposite reason: they love the nation enough to try to fix what they see is wrong. Some go about it half-assed, but at least they care. Proper tact and strategy, ie. the thought to actually address the commanders of those in battle, rather than the followers themselves, can be educated into an idividual, but proper loyalty or passion cannot.

DesalationReborn wrote:As I read it, this isn't some legislature voting that the Marines can't recruit there-- they voted to agree that they don't like them there. Not to halt operations, or to begin actions to impede there progress. Simply agreeing "We don't like it." They aren't actually insulting the Marines, at least not an addressed one, either. There's a big difference there. As well, there is to note that in many areas a simple majority is all that's needed, so the case basically is that a possibly marginal majority in whatever group are agreeing they don't like the Marines recruiting there.

Doesn't seem too big to me. A bit of an uneducated move, but nothing really illegal, nor all that threatening, nor a good representation of the whole of Berkley. I'd agree with the past said--I personally hate when people treat a group like it's a singular individual, then place the blame of an action of the some to the everyone. Makes for bad logic.

As well, I hate when people throw around the word 'treason.' Our government has a definition of it, and this case does not meet it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Such comments simply attempt to say that the people hate the USA as a whole for disliking or disagreeing a fragment of it. In truth, citizens are vocal in such matters usually for the opposite reason: they love the nation enough to try to fix what they see is wrong. Some go about it half-assed, but at least they care. Proper tact and strategy, ie. the thought to actually address the commanders of those in battle, rather than the followers themselves, can be educated into an idividual, but proper loyalty or passion cannot.

Ok, that was a perfect argument. I can add nor take away anything from that.

First Gen wrote:Second, how can I give Marines a bad name when all I'm doing is defending their rights? I'm not attacking Zarak, I'm attacking the protestors who think that the world should be all happy go lucky, weed should be legal and all that. I have plenty of liberal friends. Using the tag liberal is a cop out on this matter. I'm a Democrat, I'm not a complete right wing freak, but lets be real, the Marines would not BE if they didn't recruit. What makes the people of Berkley so great that they shouldn't be asked to serve? We need more GOOD Marines. Alot of which could most likely come out of that town. There's the freedom of a NATION at stake. You may not think this is serious, that its only a town and they should get what they want, but you hurt us all when you deny GOOD LEADERS the opportunity to serve.

I actually agree with this.

A lot of good marines could come out of that town. They'd hate the war, but they'd do as they are asked and fight actual insurgency, and wouldn't fly off on a gung-ho rampage on some poor schmucks in Iraq who were just minding their own business.


But this is California we're talking about. We aren't all tree-huggers and "a-holes", but there are a lot of people who overreact to even the moderate viewpoint. For instance, the other night I was graciously informed by a chick in old hippy clothes at a small party that I'm evil for shopping at Safeway.

She is not one of the Noam Chomsky reading University students I was referring to, either. She hadn't even heard of him. I like the guy, and I also drive a car that uses gas made from oil, shop at a major supermarket chain, and wear halfway normal-looking clothes.

First Gen wrote:

Blast Cannon wrote:

First Gen wrote:Don't Americans have local government?

This all sounds like two of one and half a dozen of the other.

You're right, the Marines chose the lifestyle they have; but that doesn't mean that they're on a plateau above criticism from society for being dickheads.

Did you even read what was going on?

I'm a Marine, you calling me a dickhead?

Yes, I read what was going on. And I was making the point that I'm sick of the 'holier-than-thou' attitude that marines seem to have when dealing with civilians. Get some bloody perspective. And stop taking every single criticism as a personal affront, because then you are a dickhead.

First Gen wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:As I read it, this isn't some legislature voting that the Marines can't recruit there-- they voted to agree that they don't like them there. Not to halt operations, or to begin actions to impede there progress. Simply agreeing "We don't like it." They aren't actually insulting the Marines, at least not an addressed one, either. There's a big difference there. As well, there is to note that in many areas a simple majority is all that's needed, so the case basically is that a possibly marginal majority in whatever group are agreeing they don't like the Marines recruiting there.

Doesn't seem too big to me. A bit of an uneducated move, but nothing really illegal, nor all that threatening, nor a good representation of the whole of Berkley. I'd agree with the past said--I personally hate when people treat a group like it's a singular individual, then place the blame of an action of the some to the everyone. Makes for bad logic.

As well, I hate when people throw around the word 'treason.' Our government has a definition of it, and this case does not meet it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Such comments simply attempt to say that the people hate the USA as a whole for disliking or disagreeing a fragment of it. In truth, citizens are vocal in such matters usually for the opposite reason: they love the nation enough to try to fix what they see is wrong. Some go about it half-assed, but at least they care. Proper tact and strategy, ie. the thought to actually address the commanders of those in battle, rather than the followers themselves, can be educated into an idividual, but proper loyalty or passion cannot.

Ok, that was a perfect argument. I can add nor take away anything from that.

I try.

I recognize that a lot of heated arguments are based around one's overreaction to what the other is said, or rather, reacting to what one believes has been said. Really placing it all on the line firsthand, providing definitions and personal interpretation of the situation, defines what is actually being argued, as to avoid people taking their own interpretation and arguing what they see while the other does the same for their own, merely muddling a matter. Thus, I try to make myself as clear as possible.

If two people argue about a man's conduct as told by the sentence "He helped his uncle Jack off a horse," there's very likely to be two signficantly different interpretation's of the situation expressed, and people's failure to define what they are arguing for in the first place, what they see or interpret from the data, heightens the chance they may be both arguing about two views that are completely different, and may very well have agreed on at least some things if they had both interpreted the data the same.

As well, recognizing the other sides of the argument as valid and stating the areas in which one agrees also saves time-- it basically says, "Let's not fight about this part anymore-- let's go here." Keeps energy better spent, and lessens the possible frustration posed above.

In general, I find in many cases hostility is bred merely by misunderstanding, as I think BC and others are doing here, as well as yourself. I believe they see a military man being rough and aggressive to all dissenting opinion, holier-than-thou, if you will, while you see those who do not appreciate your work or the services you or your country provide to its people. Both groups seem to be arguing different things. Thus, what is happening is only natural and logical taken from each perspective. However, I hope now this assessment is right, and a bit of an understanding can be reached.

Dark Zarak wrote:

First Gen wrote:Second, how can I give Marines a bad name when all I'm doing is defending their rights? I'm not attacking Zarak, I'm attacking the protestors who think that the world should be all happy go lucky, weed should be legal and all that. I have plenty of liberal friends. Using the tag liberal is a cop out on this matter. I'm a Democrat, I'm not a complete right wing freak, but lets be real, the Marines would not BE if they didn't recruit. What makes the people of Berkley so great that they shouldn't be asked to serve? We need more GOOD Marines. Alot of which could most likely come out of that town. There's the freedom of a NATION at stake. You may not think this is serious, that its only a town and they should get what they want, but you hurt us all when you deny GOOD LEADERS the opportunity to serve.

I actually agree with this.

A lot of good marines could come out of that town. They'd hate the war, but they'd do as they are asked and fight actual insurgency, and wouldn't fly off on a gung-ho rampage on some poor schmucks in Iraq who were just minding their own business.


But this is California we're talking about. We aren't all tree-huggers and "a-holes", but there are a lot of people who overreact to even the moderate viewpoint. For instance, the other night I was graciously informed by a chick in old hippy clothes at a small party that I'm evil for shopping at Safeway.

She is not one of the Noam Chomsky reading University students I was referring to, either. She hadn't even heard of him. I like the guy, and I also drive a car that uses gas made from oil, shop at a major supermarket chain, and wear halfway normal-looking clothes.

Cali has ALOT of GOOD people there. I actually met more right wind psychos in my stay there than the typical warm hearted liberal. Although my girlfriend at the time was a SUPER liberal. She was great though. How we ever got along I'll never know.

Lets agree that every place has its jerks. The Marines probably being the majority. I'll freely admit Marines can be pompous asses about things. I just hate when we get attacked just cause we're Marines.