COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so-all to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'" : Chaz Bufe

Congressman can go fark himself...

SSP: These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so-all to the howling approval of the all-American mob

That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

I'll take Bills of Attainder for $200

albo: That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

You going to back that up, or is an ad hominem attack the limit of your cognitive abilities?

Evil Otto: You going to back that up, or is an ad hominem attack the limit of your cognitive abilities?

it's my opinion of this Chaz Bufe based on his opinion of military members. i heartily disagree with his views and expressed it vigorously. is that wrong?

albo: it's my opinion of this Chaz Bufe based on his opinion of military members. i heartily disagree with his views and expressed it vigorously. is that wrong?

Yes, when you attack the man and not the opinion.

Yes, when you attack the man and not the opinion.

i attacked his mind and the products therefrom. not his weight or appearance or religion or such.

Good for him.

Voting to close the recruiting station was pretty stupid to begin with, IMO.

I'm no fan of the whole "military-industrial complex" thing, but nobody puts a gun to Berkeley citizens' heads and forces them to enlist.

DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:
- $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.
- $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.
- $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.
- $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.
- $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.

OK, so let's review how this guy wants to punish the City of Berkeley for its actions:

--First, he wants to cut $975K from the University of California's budget. OK, the particular item being funded here seems rather stupid and a perfect example of pork barrel partisan money, and I could see cutting on that basis, rather than on the grounds that it punishes Berkeley. Because it doesn't punish the city of Berkeley. The University of California is not part of the City of Berkeley's government. While there is a U.C. campus in Berkeley, virtually all of the students come from some other part of the state or from other states.

--Next, he wants to punish commuters who use ferry service to get to work rather than driving across the Bay Bridge, by taking away $750K their funding. Yeah, that'll show 'em. WTF do people trying to use mass transit to get to work have to do with the City of Berkeley's actions?

--He proposes cutting a total of $330K from school nutrition program. Good idea--let's fark over school kids to punish the City of Berkeley's government. If we can get to these libtards while they're still young and keep them away from nutrition information, maybe we can make 'em fat and stupid, and less likely to grow up to be adult libtards.

--Finally, he wants to cut $94K from a public safety program. That will really punish the government, huh? Maybe if he prays to Jebus really hard, he'll follow it up with a nice big earthquake. The fewer of those libtards that get public safety information, the more of them that God will have the opportunity to kill in his next big earthquake. Hallelujah!

I see a lot of punishing of kids, non-Berkeleyites, and working people, but not so much punishing of the people who make this decision.

Now if we can just get him to zero all the other pork....

albo: SSP: These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so-all to the howling approval of the all-American mob

That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

So you're saying our soldiers are not red-blooded, patriotic youths who follow orders when they are ordered to do so and the prowar public do not approve of them?

SSP: So you're saying our soldiers are not red-blooded, patriotic youths who follow orders when they are ordered to do so and the prowar public do not approve of them

boy, you really bowdlerized the original quote, there. you diddn't includ the "bend over, grab their ankles" and "blindly obey order to maim and kill." the quote is a vicious and twisted slander on our troops and needs to be called out as such.

albo 2008-02-01 01:16:08 PM

That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

the quote is a vicious and twisted slander on our troops and needs to be called out as such.

So is it "ignorant and repulsive" or is it "vicious and twisted"?

/Ad-hominem much?

Ad-hominem much?

do you even have a concept of what that logical fallacy really is and how you're using it incorrectly in applying it to opinions and commentary?

and it's all four--ignorant of facts, repulsive in viewpoint, vicious of manner, and twisted of logic.

your hate's gonna eat you up, son

SSP: So you're saying our soldiers are not red-blooded, patriotic youths who follow orders when they are ordered to do so and the prowar public do not approve of them?

Well they are Marines, not soldiers. We hate being called soldiers.

SSP: albo 2008-02-01 01:16:08 PM

That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

the quote is a vicious and twisted slander on our troops and needs to be called out as such.

So is it "ignorant and repulsive" or is it "vicious and twisted"?

/Ad-hominem much?

I do....you're a farkin asshole.

albo 2008-02-01 01:42:16 PM
Ad-hominem much?

do you even have a concept of what that logical fallacy really is and how you're using it incorrectly in applying it to opinions and commentary?

and it's all four--ignorant of facts, repulsive in viewpoint, vicious of manner, and twisted of logic.

your hate's gonna eat you up, son

So now I hate? who?

/I never said anything about hating anoyone...
/Project much?

real shaman 2008-02-01 01:50:18 PM

SSP: albo 2008-02-01 01:16:08 PM

That's a pretty ignorant and repulsive statement of a twisted and emotionally retarded mind.

the quote is a vicious and twisted slander on our troops and needs to be called out as such.

So is it "ignorant and repulsive" or is it "vicious and twisted"?

/Ad-hominem much?

I do....you're a farkin asshole.

/and your a farkin coont (Internet) tough guy
//this name calling is so fun!

Cyberluddite: I see a lot of punishing of kids, non-Berkeleyites, and working people, but not so much punishing of the people who make this decision.

Exactly. I'm from Berkeley, and yes, I vote there as well. I don't recall this moronic douchebag making any kind of stink in the last election when the people of Berkeley voted yes on a proposal that Bush and Cheney be impeached for war crimes.

I'd say he's just another pandering asshole who likes to play off people's perceptions of Berkeley as a hippie commune stuck in the 60's, except he's (seriously) going after kids.

\\ DeMint is the lowest of the low

Berkley is flattering itself if it thinks it's relevant anymore.
Wake up, 1968 is over.

albo: Ad-hominem much?

do you even have a concept of what that logical fallacy really is and how you're using it incorrectly in applying it to opinions and commentary?

and it's all four--ignorant of facts, repulsive in viewpoint, vicious of manner, and twisted of logic.

your hate's gonna eat you up, son

Not getting in the middle of this discussion, but there are quite a few people on Fark who think the use of anything described by a logical term is necessarily invalid, and try to throw things under other terms when they're not.

I'm waiting for someone to go, "MODUS PONENS MUCH?" or to claim that all discussions about fish are "RED HeRRINGS OMG!1!!"

In general for you Farkers who never bothered to study logic outside of Philosophy 101 (p.s. There are multiple branches of logic, not just "formal" logic): Ad hominem arguments are only always invalid syllogistically. Since they're almost never used that way in discussions online, they're not necessarily invalid. An indirect ad hominem argument is almost always presented informally, and can be a valid critique when there can be no affirmative description of the truth content of whatever statements one takes to be the theses for an argument. If a person is putting forth a claim that relies upon intangibles such as his judgment or his biases, and ad hominem argument is absolutely appropriate when said argument exists inside a sphere of evidence that the original argument is put forth dishonestly and has an intent different than what is stated.

So re-zoning a recruiting center is "hateful"?

I see what you're trying there, subby, to use the language of the left (e.g. calling bigots "hateful") against them.

I just think you have failed here. Idiot.

Cathaleon: In general for you Farkers who never bothered to study logic outside of Philosophy 101 (p.s. There are multiple branches of logic, not just "formal" logic): Ad hominem arguments are only always invalid syllogistically. Since they're almost never used that way in discussions online, they're not necessarily invalid. An indirect ad hominem argument is almost always presented informally, and can be a valid critique when there can be no affirmative description of the truth content of whatever statements one takes to be the theses for an argument. If a person is putting forth a claim that relies upon intangibles such as his judgment or his biases, and ad hominem argument is absolutely appropriate when said argument exists inside a sphere of evidence that the original argument is put forth dishonestly and has an intent different than what is stated.

You're an asshole, so nobody's going to listen to what you say.

Cathaleon:
Not getting in the middle of this discussion, but there are quite a few people on Fark who think the use of anything described by a logical term is necessarily invalid, and try to throw things under other terms when they're not.

I'm waiting for someone to go, "MODUS PONENS MUCH?" or to claim that all discussions about fish are "RED HeRRINGS OMG!1!!"

In general for you Farkers who never bothered to study logic outside of Philosophy 101 (p.s. There are multiple branches of logic, not just "formal" logic): Ad hominem arguments are only always invalid syllogistically. Since they're almost never used that way in discussions online, they're not necessarily invalid. An indirect ad hominem argument is almost always presented informally, and can be a valid critique when there can be no affirmative description of the truth content of whatever statements one takes to be the theses for an argument. If a person is putting forth a claim that relies upon intangibles such as his judgment or his biases, and ad hominem argument is absolutely appropriate when said argument exists inside a sphere of evidence that the original argument is put forth dishonestly and has an intent different than what is stated.

Dumbass.

He can introduce legislation that the number 27 hereto be referred to as Steve, but it still ain't gonna pass.

Hey! It's a start regardless of the reason...just a few billion more in riders and earmarks and we'll be getting somewhere.

R.A.Danny: Berkley is flattering itself if it thinks it's relevant anymore.

Apparently, both Fox News (who has been all over this story) and this grandstanding Congressman disagree.

Cyberluddite: Apparently, both Fox News (who has been all over this story) and this grandstanding Congressman disagree.

Ok, they're now || this relevant

R.A.Danny: Berkley is flattering itself if it thinks it's relevant anymore.
Wake up, 1968 is over.

Uh, Berkeley is relevant to Berkeley, which is the only place that this legislation refers to.

If 1968 is over, how come our economy is tanking and we're stuck in an unpopular war on the other side of the world and our soldiers are getting screwed over by the government while the American people fight with themselves over what to do?

Asa Phelps: I'll take Bills of Attainder for $200

The correct answer is the "Taxing and Spending Clause." (See, among others, South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987), Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004), Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006)). Basically, as long as it's related to something that the Congress has power to control (read: everything), and the state gets the choice to decline the federal funds, they can put whatever conditions on federal money they want to.

If this passes (and that's an "if," but not an impossible one), it's Congress' version of the Golden Rule: Their Gold, Their Rules.

Would this congressman be this reactive if they were trying to zone out the local Good Vibrations?

I have no problem with the existence of recruiting offices. What I have a problem with is the BS that they feed the kids and their parents. I'd like to see tighter regulation of the how the recruiting officers themselves conduct business.

Cathaleon: In general for you Farkers who never bothered to study logic outside of Philosophy 101 (p.s. There are multiple branches of logic, not just "formal" logic): Ad hominem arguments are only always invalid syllogistically. Since they're almost never used that way in discussions online, they're not necessarily invalid. An indirect ad hominem argument is almost always presented informally, and can be a valid critique when there can be no affirmative description of the truth content of whatever statements one takes to be the theses for an argument. If a person is putting forth a claim that relies upon intangibles such as his judgment or his biases, and ad hominem argument is absolutely appropriate when said argument exists inside a sphere of evidence that the original argument is put forth dishonestly and has an intent different than what is stated.

To follow clancifer: "There's that fag talk again..." ;)

Seriously, that was awesome, and deserves to be QFT.

Cyberluddite: I see a lot of punishing of kids, non-Berkeleyites, and working people, but not so much punishing of the people who make this decision.

And we kill lots of non-combatants by indiscriminate bombing, sanctions, and inadequate policing of conquered territories. But that works out good. That's how you win a war.

What's your point?

MasterThief: it's Congress' version of the Golden Rule: Their Gold, Their Rules.

which is how states get forced to do things the feds really can't require under their constitutional powers, most notably .08 BAC and 21 drinking age come to mind.

I have no idea who Jim Demint is, but I like him already.

BigDumbGuy: Well they are Marines, not soldiers. We hate being called soldiers.

Heh.

Didn't Berkeley do similar things to the Boy Scouts? The BSA did something that the lefty wackos on the town council didn't like, so they pulled their funding?

Yeah. Poetic justice guys. Suck it up.

I want to be a Marine, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies

Weaver95: Yeah. Poetic justice guys. Suck it up.

Please see Cyberluddite's post further up the thread.

Nothing like going after the wrong target...

Jim Demint is a tool. Furthermore, recruiters have gone over the line so much it isn't even funny, and I can fully agree with the city for not wanting them around.
If the military were really that great, then why would they need to lie to people in high school to get them to sign up?

If the military were really that great, then why would they need to lie to people in high school to get them to sign up?

i wasn't lied to. i never heard that from anyone i served with. you saying its endemic or isolated?

Weaver95: Didn't Berkeley do similar things to the Boy Scouts? The BSA did something that the lefty wackos on the town council didn't like, so they pulled their funding?

Not exactly "funding." The city's marina let the Boy Scouts have a berth to keep their boat in without having to pay rent like everyone else did. After the Boy Scouts announced that they would refuse to admit atheists (or gays), it was decided that it would be inappropriate to continue to give free rent to an organization that explicitly discriminated on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, because the city's ordinances prohibited providing financial support to organizations that discriminated. So the city said the free rent days were over and that if the Scouts wanted to keep their boat there they would have to pay rent like everyone else. The Boy Scouts whined, it went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and the court (a conservative-dominated court) told the Boy Scouts tough shiat.

Weaver95: Didn't Berkeley do similar things to the Boy Scouts? The BSA did something that the lefty wackos on the town council didn't like, so they pulled their funding?

Not exactly "funding." The city's marina gave the Boy Scouts for a spot to keep their boat in without having to pay rent like everyone else did. After the Boy Scouts announced that they would refuse to admit atheists (or gays), it was decided that it would be inappropriate to continue to give free rent to an organization that explicitly discriminated on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, because the city's ordinances prohibited providing financial support to organizations that discriminated. So the city said the free rent days were over and that if the Scouts wanted to keep their boat there they would have to pay rent like everyone else. The Boy Scouts whined, it went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and the court (a conservative-dominated court) told the Boy Scouts tough shiat.

albo: i wasn't lied to. i never heard that from anyone i served with. you saying its endemic or isolated?

TheCid must have joined a *different* army...the one with the condos and the private rooms.

albo: i wasn't lied to. i never heard that from anyone i served with. you saying its endemic or isolated?

I take it you lived somewhere where the recruiters had an easy time of meeting their quotas, then.

Because I'm well aware that recruiters have a quota, and if they have a hard time meeting those quotas, they put more pressure on people who start the process to finish it up; tell half-truths and whole lies to make it more enticing, and so forth.

Don't get me wrong, I support the military (though think we spend far too much on it) but the dirty tricks they use to recruit just shows how ridiculous it's become.

Really, there shouldn't even BE a physical recruitment division. Cut it entirely. If people want to join the military, they can sign up online. Have full FAQs, e-mail and phone support to ask questions, and maybe one or two contact officers at each base you can go talk to. Not a group that goes into high schools and colleges.

Maybe one of my Senators will work to revoke earmarks for Texas for giving rise to President Douchebag.

TheCid: Don't get me wrong, I support the military (though think we spend far too much on it) but the dirty tricks they use to recruit just shows how ridiculous it's become.

1. When have you talked to a recruiter, and what lies were you told?

2. Spending too much on gear that protects service members? Medical supplies? Bullets? Remember, bullets keep you alive.