It would never happen, of course, but it an experiment along these lines would have some value.

Isn't Europe the experiment?

Isn't there a rather large US Navy presence in San Francisco?

Seems to me if the citizens of SF are so opposed to efforts needed to staff the Navy that spends so much money in their fair city, that Navy can just moor someplace else.

Let's see Navy + San Francisco. gotta be a Village people gay joke there somewhere.

If the US military were to withdraw protection from San Fran, I don't think Coit Tower would be in trouble... but I do think about 15% of their population would be in line for kilofloggings, being thrown headfirst from tall buildings, and immolation ... with DVDs of such horrors being the hottest selling items at Al Qaeda Fest to be held in the Moscone Center.

I still don't get how artists, gays, women, etc. aren't first in line to support this war as they are the ones who will be first in line for the timewarp to the Stone Age under these psychos.

I'm an artist. Not sure if I'm first in line, but I'm up near the front. But then I don't live in San Fran.

IreneFingIrene,

It's because, deep down, they know that the adults among us won't let it happen, no matter how loud they wail, and in the meantime, they all get to strike a pose of righteous indignation and moral superiority - the world's biggest intellectual circlejerk. They just passed a law there banning handguns - these are the hallmarks of a group of people that KNOW someone else is going to swoop in and save them when push comes to shove.

Let's see Navy + San Francisco. gotta be a Village people gay joke there somewhere.

Maybe, but there is definately something belonging to the same family as "What's long, hard, and full of seamen?", only with a transexual twist.

Over the line? -If Falafel Boy were on a vistors Visa saying that shit he'd be deported to Gitmo.

Used to be a huge Naval presence in the Bay Area, including SF, from WWII through Vietnam.
Oakland/Alameda Naval Station, etc.
Most West Coast flights of warriors headed to Vietnam went out of Oakland.
But recently SF has turned down the opportunity to be the home port of several WWII-era battleships and aircraft carriers, for not wanting to send the
'wrong' message about militarism.
Anon said these are the hallmarks of a group of people that KNOW someone else is going to swoop in and save them when push comes to shove.
Indeed.
Except that they don't see any threat, unless you consider the Jeebuslanders who are out to take away their right to gaylesbiantransgenderwomynsrights whatever.

Well said, "Anon".

I would argue that SF is no longer part of the USA. Even so, letting Al Qaida establish a 50 sq. mile area for staging, right on the border of the US, a mere 50 miles from where me and my family lives is not such a good idea in my mind. Plus, its deep water port gives it strategic value.

I say we invade it, place all its inhabitants in re-education camps and re-populate it with real Americans. As a bonus, pass a federal law that require all the new residents to own handguns.

I would argue that Bill O'Reilly is a pompous ass. I cringe when he advocates a view I believe in, because he makes it seem so stupid.

I believe the Navy is in San Diego, but I it could be in San Francisco too.

This was over the top even for O'Reilly. What was he thinking????

Wrong. Just wrong.

One can get mad and make a point without making yourself seem so extreme.

There is a Navy presence in San Francisco: there is a naval shipyard there (the Alameda shipyard), and until fairly recently there was the Presidio as well. There's also the Alameda Point Air Station.

The U.S. Coast Guard has a pretty major presence there as well.

Which makes their collective opposition to the military even more perverse.

My oh my! Such a fuss over San Francisico?

Well, it is the place for "experimentation", isn't it?

As a former swabbie, I can tell you that there's a huge Navy presence, there. But, I suspect that the derived tourist dollars may not being spent there, nowadays......

Lets them blast the golden gate bridge let them demolish fishermans warf let them wreck lombard street let them leavel ciot tower let them derail all the cable cars let them blast hanoi on the bay into a pile of rubble i will ever ever again visit SAN FRANCISCO and i never again eat RICE A RONI

San Francisco is rumored to be considering printing their own money, any day now. With the three dollar bill as their base currency........

SF International is a great airport. The city of San Francisco is not as nice as it once was due to all the alleged homeless, druggies, drunkards, panhandlers, and freaks all over the place. Willie Brown was to SF what Ray Nagin was to New Orleans...a sorry a$$ Mayor who helped ruin his city. SF now has Gavin Newsom as its Mayor who officiates at gay/lesbian weddings...oh well. Fly in and out of SF by all means... but have a safe and beautiful stay in Monterey and the central California coast. You don't want to be in downtown SF unarmed.....or Paris.

I've watched O'Reilley for a number of years, but I think this comment went too far. San Fransisco is now, and will always be a part of the United States, and no harm to them will ever be allowed to go unanswered. They are allowed to be different Bill, both in thought and in action, and they will still remain a part of us.

There is no longer a Navy presence in the Bay Area. Naval and Marine Corps assets, including MCAS El Toro, have been relocated to bases between Everett, WA and San Diego, CA.

And the next Navy homo joke poster gets an Alpha Strike called to coordinates within 20 feet of their residence. ;-)

SF didn't vote to disarm its police. We just voted for what a majority of our citizens want-- fewer shootings and stiffer penalties for gun crimes. And the ban was on handguns, not .50 cal machine guns that we all keep at home for defense against fascist disciples of O'Reilly.

As for patriotism, the vote against recruiting at high schools is due to the recruiters illegal tactic of lying to minors.
It has nothing to do with supporting our soldiers, marines, airmen, et al.

At some point, the Conservative Right embraced traitors like Oliver North as heroes, and measures its patriotism in the deaths of other people's children.

San Franciscans aren't afraid to be tolerant and patriotic and stand up against fascists and to uphold the Consitution. We know that the military exists to protect not just those chickenhawks in DC who start remote-controlled wars, but primarily to defend the Constitution--- the only guarantee of the American way of life.

We don't stupidly talk about the Constitution as it was "originally intended and written" because we also believe the Bill of Rights that changed its original version is an improvement.

Hate speech from closet queers who feel that their ignorant fake macho whining about San Francisco's free lifestyles is about as clear an admission of ignorance and impotence as one can make.

But you know what, San Francisco will even tolerate the likes of the dumbest ugliest most conservative person out there... and that is as American as a city in this country can get.

Even Bill O'Reilly is welcome, because real Americans don't slam their doors to people who think differently, or close their minds to new ideas.

O'Reilly should go back to Germany in WWII where he could give orders.

America is not O'Reillyism or McCarthyism-- America is for ALL Americans, not just the stupid loudmouths. They need to remember who is tolerating whom.

At some point, the Conservative Right embraced traitors like Oliver North as heroes, and measures its patriotism in the deaths of other people's children

Yes, every death fills up the Patrio-tometer a bit more. You figured it out.

Hate speech from closet queers who feel that their ignorant fake macho whining about San Francisco's free lifestyles is about as clear an admission of ignorance and impotence as one can make.

Question: it appears that "queers" is being used in a hateful context here. Ironical? Moronical? You make the call.

Hey, I think O'Reilly is an asshole, what with the phony "man of the people" gig slathered on top of his gigantic ego. Doesn't mean I'm so dumb that I think his slavering facist hordes are going to come beat down my door.

We just voted for what a majority of our citizens want-- fewer shootings and stiffer penalties for gun crimes.

Then you would have voted for "shall issue" CCW laws and those stiffer penalties. Liberalism isn't about results; it's more about controling people and ignorant feel-good platitudes.

We know that the military exists ... primarily to defend the Constitution--- the only guarantee of the American way of life.

And yet, you don't believe that "only guaranty" has any fixed meaning. You're also giving the military short shrift to say the Constitution is their "primary" concern. They exist to keep us safe, first by deterring and then by crushing our enemies. Protecting us happily includes protecting our Constitution, at least in some ways, but their mission is by no means as narrow or abstract as you suggest.

We don't stupidly talk about the Constitution as it was "originally intended and written" because we also believe the Bill of Rights that changed its original version is an improvement.

Uhhh, you ARE aware of what the originalism debate is about, right? Because it sure doesn't seem so.

Smug, ignorant and irrational. I'll go out on a limb and say this one is a real moonbat and not a parody.

Betty Crocker: We're only talking about killing San Franciscans and liberals, like yourself--

--not Americans.

Betty Crocker seems to have a real problem with those who don't toe the PC line. Which means that we intolerant, knuckle- dragging neocons are a danger to the Constitution and his/her way of life. Which means that he/she can suspend his/her PCness long enough to tell the world that we are not allowed to express our thoughts, only his/hers.

Now, not to argue or anything, but the military seems to me our safest line of defense against those who would destroy the Constitution and all for which it stands. The problem is, it can't do anything about people who's avowed aim is to destroy that document by extension (meaning those who wish to reinterpret it to fit their own aims). People like, say, Ruth Bader Ginzberg.

I hope San Francisco is spared attack, but if it isn't, the evil genii of the military will respond to that attack. This is not to say I wouldn't have a smile on my face if a giant earthquake were to slice that part of the country off into the ocean. Sure, we'd lose a few square miles of land, but then the moonbats would have one more reason to blame the God they despise so much.

Hey people, I said what I said, too bad you can't accept a different point of view without having to go to defcon 5. I wasn't talking about YOU unless you think my comments fit. I don't judge without knowing some facts... that's the American way: Due process. Not vigilante justice and fascism.

What I learned about the Constitution in law school couldn't possibly equal the knowledge you possess about the Founding Fathers and your "conservatively correct" dissing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I'm sure you're basing your opinions on your lengthy analysis of her written opinions, not what you overheard Rush Limbaugh vomit.

San Francisco, like the internet, was built by all kinds of people for all of us to enjoy. San Franciscans don't go on the news calling for investigations into the Christian Taliban in the midwest trying to substitute Jesus for Newton. We just remember how lucky we are to live in California instead of the United States.

Two of my kids are protecting your free speech online, one a sailor and the other a marine, and have been since before 911... so don't presume to preach to me about who's protecting whom... They're San Franciscans and they're proud of the job they're doing, even protecting the right of your free speech. May I suggest you try to work some facts into your opinions?

FOX ain't the real world. I read your opinions to expose myself to other viewpoints, and agree with more than you would bother to give credit. That's a fact, whether you choose to dispute it, ridicule it, or dismiss it. This would be a better country if "conservatively correct" people didn't try to trash everyone that disagrees.

O'Reilly has a right to his opining... just like the rest of us have a right to reject it. But in case you all hadn't noticed that all the red states are almost half blue... let Arnold's come uppance be a reminder.

Conservatives don't own the dialog, and don't speak for anyone but themselves.
Liberals try to improve the quality of life for all... including conservatives.

The real difference between Dems (not childishly Dims) and Repubs (not Pukes) is that they are both crooked, but the Dems share. Repubs try to keep it all to themselves. Ain't that pathetic? And I mean both...

This country is s'posed to be big enough for everybody, not just you or else me--- it's for all of us. People who preach otherwise are the traitors. Thanks for hearing me out! Good luck to all of you in this hard life, I hope you all make it to your goals, whatever they are.

My sons are patriots, and none the less so because we happen to choose San Francisco as our home. I could talk trash about any city... what's the point? To reveal MY ignorance about YOUR town?

Admit it-- you don't know shit about SF from experience. If you did, you wouldn't repeat the same fart jokes about gays.

I used "queer" before just like some of you... I'm glad you recognized it as Hate speech. Now recognize it when it comes out of your mouth. And then stop hating without reason, without facts, without insight or intellect.

Research your views and make sure that you don't base your belief on some O'Reilly fiction or Limbaugh hallucination.
Visit SF instead of just watching gay parades at home on tv. This is the 21st Century not the 12th.

We just voted for what a majority of our citizens want-- fewer shootings and stiffer penalties for gun crimes.

So you think the criminals have respect for law eh?

I'm willing to bet $1000 that SF sees an increase in burglary, rape, and murder within the next two years. This has been the pattern wherever goofy laws like this have been enacted.

Any takers?

There is no reasonable reading of my words that would support the inference that I think criminals have respect for the law. Of course they don't or they wouldn't be criminals, obviously that is the hallmark of a criminal. Big duh...

If the "conservatives" hadn't cut taxes beyond the ridiculous, we'd have the money for a real police presence, walking the beats again when vandalism and crime weren't rampant.

Problem is conservatives don't want to pay for ANYthing except mercenaries and private security guards, and screw the rest of society.

That's what I'm talking about when I say at least the Dems share the wealth, by FUNDING social services including hiways, cops, fire depts, etc etc. Not cut cut cut, and then give all the citizens' money to corporate profiteers like Halliburton and Enron...

What morons think criminals have respect for the law? Asking such a setup fake question is a great tactic for making your point, but please don't attribute your fake question to me, because I didn't say anything remotely resembling your implication.

I'm happy to discuss what I think if you feel like having an actual discussion, I welcome it.

I'm happy to discuss what I think if you feel like having an actual discussion

I'm afraid your first comments earned you all the vitriol you have received. You told the conservatives here that they "measures its (their) patriotism in the deaths of other people's children" and called the US government "chickenhawks." Not a promising start for a rational discussion.

Your statement about the Bill of Rights completely misses the point, as mentioned above. No orginalists have complained about the Bill of Rights - it is the penumbras of the last 40 years that are at issue.

And then you seem conflicted: Bill Reilly is welcome in SF, but should go to Germany?

If you want serious discussion, then please avoid the pejorative emphasis and clarify your arguments. And please providing supporting cites for statements such as military recruiters lying to minors.

The problem I see with some posts here is that they invent what they respond to instead of responding to what was posted.... I didn't call the "US GOV'T" chickenhawks, I called the ones that started this needless war chickenhawks.

The Government is a lot more than the current administration occupying the White House. At last look, at least before Bush was selected, the US Govt included 3 branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary.

I don't deserve any vitriol for saying less inflammatory things than the other posters. No one deserves vitriol. I tried to tell you I was talking about issues not YOU --- unless for your own reason you feel the shoe fits... apparently you feel it fits.

There is no conflict between saying O'Reilly is welcome in SF and should go to Germany in WWII if you read what I wrote. The law permits O'Reilly to go where he wants, and me too, even to your town without your permission or invitation. It's really not complicated. My comment about Germany was directed at his fascist nature and attitude, acting as if he is superior to those he judges.

He's a sex pervert who was caught on tape harassing a woman, remember?
What's his high moral ground? That he sells his books and coffee mugs to people who think he's intelligent and American?

I assumed you read the news and are aware of the problems all the service branches are having meeting their Iraq quotas, and the national problem of recruiters lying to try to make the numbers... It's been in all mainstream press over several months.

If you don't know that, no wonder you and O'Reilly didn't understand the SF vote against the recruiters going to High Schools. That lack of understanding doesn't entitle anyone to flame SF for the flamer's misunderstanding.

It wasn't a vote against your mommy and daddy or apple pie. It was a vote against predatory recruiting of minors resulting in their premature death on a pointless war, just like Vietnam.

Yet the vitriol that flows in these postings towards the people of SF is ok? I didn't see ONE supported cite for any of the hate speech here. I read some homphobic knee jerk comments, but they certainly omitted any cites to justify that commentary. I didn't notice anyone invoking the "provide cites for statements" in response to any other vitriol in the preceding posts.

Is there a double standard, or are my points connecting?

I don't mind avoiding the pejorative emphasis if that is the new rule here and applies to the rest of the posters.

A google of "recruiting abuses" or "recruiting quotas" should give you all the supporting cites you need.

Let me know if you come up empty and I'll dig some up. I don't just make shit up and then cite it as fact. That's O'Reilly's forte, twisting the facts and cutting off anyone who disagrees, and he's damn good at it!

Betty Cocker, you should really have read my views on homosexuality. You would have enjoyed them. We're totally on the same wavelength.

...fascism...

Hey boys, you know who likes to use this word a lot? Commies.

What I learned about the Constitution in law school couldn't possibly equal the knowledge you possess about the Founding Fathers and your "conservatively correct" dissing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Commie.

I'm sure you're basing your opinions on your lengthy analysis of her written opinions, not what you overheard Rush Limbaugh vomit.

Yes. I'm sure you're a twit. And a Commie.

San Franciscans don't go on the news calling for investigations into the Christian Taliban in the midwest trying to substitute Jesus for Newton. We just remember how lucky we are to live in California instead of the United States.

Elitist atheist? Commie.

Two of my kids are protecting your free speech online, one a sailor and the other a marine, and have been since before 911... so don't presume to preach to me about who's protecting whom... They're San Franciscans and they're proud of the job they're doing, even protecting the right of your free speech. May I suggest you try to work some facts into your opinions?

Commies say "your opinions are merely opinions, my opinions are facts, because I am a Commie." Commie.

FOX ain't the real world. I read your opinions to expose myself to other viewpoints, and agree with more than you would bother to give credit. That's a fact, whether you choose to dispute it, ridicule it, or dismiss it. This would be a better country if "conservatively correct" people didn't try to trash everyone that disagrees.

"I will trash anyone who disagrees with me, then I will accuse everyone else of trashing people who disagree with them." This is known in as projection. It is a common trait in Commies.

O'Reilly has a right to his opining... just like the rest of us have a right to reject it. But in case you all hadn't noticed that all the red states are almost half blue... let Arnold's come uppance be a reminder.

Commies are always going on and on about how their revolution is right around the corner. The proles are going to take over and put the elites in the positions of power where they can rule over the masses with a iron fist in a velvet glove. Any day now. Just wait. Next election.

Okay, not this election, but maybe the next one.

Damn it, not this one either. They've just GOT to win one SOON! THEY'RE OVERDUE!

Conservatives don't own the dialog, and don't speak for anyone but themselves.

Non-Commies don't control the propaganda organs. Neener neener neener.

Liberals try to improve the quality of life for all... including conservatives.

Commies will take your money and property away for your own good. Okay, it's really for the Commies' good. Same thing.

The real difference between Dems (not childishly Dims) and Repubs (not Pukes) is that they are both crooked, but the Dems share. Repubs try to keep it all to themselves. Ain't that pathetic? And I mean both...

Commies share. They will make sure everyone else shares too. It makes it much easier to get the proles to share when you've taken their guns away, and only the Philospher Kings have guns. Poverty will be shared amongst the masses, and fine dachas for Enlightened comrades, da.

This country is s'posed to be big enough for everybody, not just you or else me--- it's for all of us. People who preach otherwise are the traitors.

Commies love the whole "share the land" shpiel. Woody Guthrie was a Commie.

Thanks for hearing me out! Good luck to all of you in this hard life, I hope you all make it to your goals, whatever they are.

"We have a record harvest this year comrade!"

My sons are patriots, and none the less so because we happen to choose San Francisco as our home. I could talk trash about any city... what's the point? To reveal MY ignorance about YOUR town?
Admit it-- you don't know shit about SF from experience. If you did, you wouldn't repeat the same fart jokes about gays.

"You're ignorant if you say anything negative about Sodom on the Bay, but I am Enlightened so I can call all of you a bunch of sisterhumping pickup-truck-driving yahoos from Jesusland a few paragraphs back and you're too ignorant to notice that I'm your typical hypocrite Commie."

I used "queer" before just like some of you... I'm glad you recognized it as Hate speech. Now recognize it when it comes out of your mouth. And then stop hating without reason, without facts, without insight or intellect.

I'm a Commie, he's a Commie, she's a Commie, wouldn't you like to be a Commie too...

Research your views and make sure that you don't base your belief on some O'Reilly fiction or Limbaugh hallucination.
Visit SF instead of just watching gay parades at home on tv. This is the 21st Century not the 12th.

"Stop listening to anything not ordained by our Enlightened masters Ted Turner and Les Moonves! You're so ignorant to judge a place without visiting it first, unlike how I judge Jesusland! Religion is the opiate of the masses! Power to the people! Allahu Akbar!"

I think I can live with my own personal arrangement of totally hating the mother fucking shit out of Bill O'Rielly AND Betty Cockup.

peace

At last look, at least before Bush was selected, the US Govt included 3 branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary.

And the executive and legislative branches were in favor of the war. The judiciary, of course, was irrelevant in this case.

... apparently you feel it fits.

You painted all conservatives with a pretty broad brush, and an completely unfounded one at that. As with all things, you get what you put in - if you drop nasty asides, people will flame you. And you would deserve it. In this case your original comment is littered with such asides.

As far as Bill O'Reilly goes - most people here don't think much of him. In this case his statement struck a chord with this audience. And your statement is still confused: he may have 'permission' to go anywhere, but by your comments he is certainly not 'welcome' in SF, as you originally stated.

Yet the vitriol that flows in these postings towards the people of SF is ok?

Are they asking for, or receiving, considered responses to their venting? Not really. They're just blowing off steam to dispel the horror they feel when hearing about SF's latest follies.

I didn't notice anyone invoking the "provide cites for statements"

Again, you complained that you weren't getting a reasoned response. If that's the level of discussion you want, then cites are required. If not, then feel free to vent and unload to your heart's desire.

A google of "recruiting abuses" or "recruiting quotas" should give you all the supporting cites you need.

No - it's your argument, so you need to support it. As soon as you do, we can go at it hammer-and-tongs (in a logical, well-mannered way, of course). But I'm not going to make your argument for you.

Gawd no, please, I am the only conservative here in Alameda right across the bay from SF. A little ol' suicide car bomb at Coit Tower, mebbe, but nothing nuclear.

Okay, not Coit Tower, but that ugly as shit Bank of America Bldg -- be my guess, al Queda.

Problem is conservatives don't want to pay for ANYthing except mercenaries and private security guards, and screw the rest of society.

I was under the impression SF had police and procecutors...maybe even *gasp* a jail.

Perhaps I was mistaken. It has been 10 years since my last visit there...

Long, long infantile dumps. Definitely a genuine moonbat.

It was a vote against predatory recruiting of minors resulting in their premature death on a pointless war, just like Vietnam.

And the theory is once again borne out: moonbats are perpetually stuck in other decades. They just don't have the brainpower to work outside of their templates.

I assumed you read the news and are aware of the problems all the service branches are having meeting their Iraq quotas, and the national problem of recruiters lying to try to make the numbers... It's been in all mainstream press over several months.

This is precisely why I like to start with cites. Of course I'm aware of the recruiting shortfall stories in the press, but we long ago delved more deeply and found that the press cherry-picked most of the data. The stories about recruiters lying seemed poorly sourced., and not symptomatic of an endemic problem. So if you're going to defend SF on that basis, I think you've got an uphill climb.

Oh, and here is the latest recruiting press release (the annual active duty recruiting metrics are conspicuously absent), which show a strong end-of-fiscal-year closeout.

Active duty recruiting. All of the active duty services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the month of September. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 4,818, and it enlisted 4,886 (101 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 3,694, and it recruited 3,738 (101 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,682, and it recruited 2,771 (103 percent). The Army's goal was 8,365, and it recruited 8,710 (104 percent).

Active duty retention. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals. The Navy achieved 91 percent of its mid-career goal.

Reserve forces recruiting. Three of the six reserve c*mponents, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve, exceeded their September recruiting goals. The latter two also exceeded their goals for the fiscal year.

* Army National Guard: Goal: 6,148 Recruited: 6,048 (98 percent)
* Army Reserves: Goal: 2,018 Recruited: 2,208 (109 percent)
* Air National Guard: Goal: 969 Recruited: 908 (94 percent)
* Air Force Reserves: Goal: 260 Recruited: 465 (178 percent)
* Navy Reserves: Goal: 916 Recruited: 643 (70 percent)
* Marine Corps Reserves: Goal: 127 Recruited: 131 (103 percent)

Reserve forces retention. For September, Army National Guard retention was 104 percent of the cumulative goal of 32,571, and Air National Guard retention was 110 percent of its cumulative goal of 10,413. Losses in all reserve c*mponents in August were within acceptable limits. Indications are that trend continued into September.

What hypocrites! You condemn Betty Crocker for being somewhat confrontational in his posts, and tell him you'll engage with him if only he'll be more civilized. But someone posts that we should put the people of San Francisco in camps, and there are repeated references tio killing the people of San Francisco, and they're just "blowing off steam?" Oh, I know, it was just satire. I'm sure it was, but tolerating such weak satire while taking someone to task for allegedly being a little too snarky is just hypocritical.

And VRWC Agent: in case you haven't noticed yet, comments like yours are generally the province of people who don't have the intellectually capacity to actually make an argument. "Long, long infantile dumps. Definitely a genuine moonbat." The key word there is "long." Did the thought of having to do all that reading give you the shakes, just like back in school? Here's the best part: "moonbats are perpetually stuck in other decades." This after reading someone repeatedly call those she disagrees with "commies." Commies? Are you shitting me?

What hypocrites!

If you actually read the posts, you'll see that I said that if Betty wants reasoned discussion, she took the wrong tack. I'm not saying that Betty's comments were out of place in the thread, but that they were out of line if a reasoned discussion is her real goal.

Of course, this thread is not a particularly good place to start a reasoned discussion, based on the subject of the original post.

Did the thought of having to do all that reading give you the shakes, just like back in school?

Nah. I enjoyed watching Betty give a low wattage civics lesson, chickenhawk rehash and military analysis in a room full of lawyers and vets. I just didn't respect it.

Commies? Are you shitting me?

I'm sure Sue knows you like to be called "Progressives" now.

This after reading someone repeatedly call those she disagrees with "commies." Commies? Are you shitting me?

No, Commie, I'm not shitting you. I don't call all whom disagree with me Commies. I call Commies Commies. Commie.

If you believe that it's fine to force others to "share" via the fear of imprisonment or bodily harm, then you're a damned Commie.

If you believe that it's peachy to disarm the citizenry, leaving them defenseless against criminals and power-hungry tyrants, then you're a damned Commie.

If you believe that it's hunky-dory for someone to just make shit up and call it Constitutional just because they're wearing puffy black robes, then you're a damned Commie.

If you believe that it's super duper to destroy the family and Judeo-Christian societal structures and replace them with Marxist tripe via Gramscian/Lukacsian/Marcusian methods, then you're a damned Commie.

Just remember we won't be around when you manage to fuck yourself over after the next Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Castro starts fertilizing the soil with you and your friends. Provided the Islamists don't get you first.

To be fair, Sue, I think they would be satisfied with most forms of secularist totalitarianism. As long as the people are made powerless clients of the state and we are all equal in our misery, their brand of justice has been served.

Point taken, VRWC.

So Sue, I guess Bush must be a COMMIE! for establishing formal diplomatic ties with Vietnam?

I hope your mattress is on the floor because otherwise you'll hurt your back looking under it every 5 minutes.

Who are you and VRWC Agent talking to and about, anyway?
Maybe you both saw Manchurian Candidate too many times together?

I resent you calling the parent of two fine servicemen "Commie" but they will still fight to protect certifiable conservatively correct Moonbats like you. You take the cake, girl, and Betty Crocker knows cake!
COMMIE? I know you are but what am I?

Geoff, I don't think quoting the propaganda from the DOD about recruiting is very credible. What you might ask yourself is whether or not they've simply dropped the quotas to below their actual recruitment so they can brag about how swimmingly the war is going. Given that the majority of American citizens now reject the war, do you think they might feel pressure to lie, just like you apparently concede finally that their recruiters have been doing?

The DOD is also telling us that they've provided all the armament our troops need, which any troop in Iraq will tell you is a lie.

All I need for telling you WHAT the SF vote was about is to point out the fact that O'Reilly and you overlooked in your rush to judgement (never a good idea-- the definition of UnAmerican). I have no argument to make. The facts that you acknowledged are common knowledge even out here in California. The vote was in response to that problem in SF. Take it or leave it, Geoff, it won't change the facts that led SF to vote that way. That was my point. If you want to argue, we can do that, and I will cite credible sources for whatever argument I have.

But informing you of the facts about the recent vote here is not an argument.

Previous flamers and vitriolics railed against SF, taking up O'Reilly's anti-American banner and running with it. I merely pointed out to those careless crusaders that they had their basic facts of the issue wrong. Still do.

My favorite line in your republication of the DOD propaganda about recruiting (suddenly and suspiciously) EXCEEDING their goals

I support our troops with action, not lies.
I support this Democracy by voting and providing military personnel to fight-- my sons-- I donate, instead of pontificate or fabricate.

But like YOU, I have an opinion and choose to share it.

My ideas and opinions might differ from yours, and that's ok. Yours might differ from mine, and that's ok.

I never said you were wrong about anything except your mischaracterization about SF. I am a San Franciscan so I think I know a little more about it than you do.

What is your hometown? I'm sure you know more about it than I do. If you all vote a certain way about things going on in your town, in a way that is legal and Constitutional, such as voting, I won't flame you with my ignorance.

That's what I saw here, ignorance on the facts, so I dared to broaden the discussion to share a different view point so that you might consider a few more facts before making YOUR argument.

I didn't know Christians could also be COMMIE? But I guess I am IF believing in America makes you a COMMIE.
IF speaking out for what you believe makes you a COMMIE.
IF supporting your own sons in a fake war makes you a COMMIE.
IF voting instead of demonstrating makes you a COMMIE.
IF believing Bush lied makes you a COMMIE.
IF paying taxes makes you a COMMIE.
IF not complaining when students take loans for higher education makes you a COMMIE.
IF believing that unions are necessary only where management is corrupt makes you a COMMIE.
IF welcoming refugees from oppressive regimes makes you a COMMIE.

And guess what? FASCISTS were and are the enemy of our Constitution. So if hating fascism and their kangaroo courts and total LACK of due process makes me a COMMIE, then you are too right!

Because you say so, I must be!

McCarthy was a fascist. Woddy Guthrie? A COMMIE? Who cares? Did you know that belonging to a political party is legal in the United States?

Why don't you worry about skinheads and Nazis?

Commies? What time warp are you waking up from??

The majority of Chinese don't even belong to the Party... they're capitalists at heart, because everyone has to make a living.

I never espoused taking from the rich. that's the rich man's lie you are spouting.
It isn't communist to complain about ENRON and every other major corporation NOT paying taxes, while they depend upon tax supported courts and military to defend THEIR interests.

Wake up. Smell the truth.

You really got my number!
I'm the original Commie Bastard: Betty Crocker. I give up, you aren't worth the trouble.

Geoff, I don't think quoting the propaganda from the DOD about recruiting is very credible. What you might ask yourself is whether or not they've simply dropped the quotas to below their actual recruitment so they can brag about how swimmingly the war is going.

Could be. Why don't you try demonstrating any of your speculations?

My favorite line in your republication of the DOD propaganda about recruiting (suddenly and suspiciously) EXCEEDING their goals

Suspicious to you perhaps, but the recruiters have been saying all along that they didn't think the situation was as dire as portrayed by the unfriendly media. And retentions have been higher than projected throughout the conflict.

So once again, howz about the slightest bit of backing for your rampant speculation?

COMMIE? I know you are but what am I?

Ah, the famed laser-like intellect of the left.

Also amusing is the idea that she "supports" the troops by voting for the left and with the "action" of her sons' enlistment. (Hint: an action of yours would be something you do. Typical, though, for a point of view that thinks charity is handing out someone else's money.)

But like YOU, I have an opinion and choose to share it.

You have that right. And we have the right to mock it for being completely foolish.

McCarthy was a fascist.

I do not believe that word means what you think it does.

And by the way, who argued it was illegal to be a commie? You have a legal right to be a commie, to shout about corporate conspiracies, to vote against our military and a whole host of other things. Having the right to be destructive and stupid just doesn't really justify destructive stupidity.

"I do not believe that word means what you think it does."

That sounds great, coming from someone who defends calling people "Commies." Do you even know what Communism is? What in the world does opposing the Bush administration have to do with being a Communist? And you guys refer to othe people as moonbats? Even if you think I don't support this country, that doesn't make me a "Commie." I suppose you think bin Laden is a "Commie" too? Now you better hurry, Leave It to Beaver is on.

That sounds great, coming from someone who defends calling people "Commies."

Please cite the quote that has you confused about whether I know what communism is. Last I checked, I was on the record saying you guys are basically OK with any form of secularist totalitarianism as long as it means citizens are clients of the state and everyone is equally miserable.

And you guys refer to othe people as moonbats?

Well, it's a little more selective than just "other people," if you know what I mean.

Now you better hurry, Leave It to Beaver is on.

Thanks, moonbat.

McCarthy was a fascist

When Chris and tubby and all the other little moonbats that fly around here reveal their ignorance of history and politics and instead insist on vomiting back the talking points memo they were given at the Young Democrats meeting I can't help but wonder where our education system went wrong.

Hey, Betty Crocker...

Your biscuit recipe sucks the ass of a dead goat.

I can't help but wonder where our education system went wrong.

Two words: Gramsci. Unions.

Hey, Goat's ass! I didn't mean to make you homesick for that home cookin' homeboy!

I think my work filter is screwing this up. Let's try this in two parts then.

Of course they don't know what fascism really is, VRWC. They think telling the truth about people is the same thing as dragging them out of their homes and abusing them. They are completely out of touch with reality.

Betty Commie, for instance. She thinks she "donated" her sons for a "fake war." She seems to equate independent adults volunteering for military service with throwing babies into the flames for Moloch. And of course, anyone who disagrees with her is a fascist, because Communist propaganda teaches that the fascist is the traditional enemy of the Communist.

Part 2:

Betty Commie is correct that I devote more attention to Communists (neo-Marxists is probably a better term) than I do neo-Nazis and skinheads. That's because the latter are hated and marginalized, as they should be, while the former are in control of an entire U.S. political party due to the "long march through the institutions." Let us all thank John Dewey for all of his hard work in poisoning young minds here in the good old U.S.A.

Two words about screams of "McCarthy was a fascist!": VENONA Files.

Communist propaganda teaches that the fascist is the traditional enemy of the Communist.

And yet they are like peas in a pod. I guess no feuds are as bitter as the ones within a family.

Jumping Jesus Christ! What is it with nutbags of all flavors and them long, long screeds? Why can't they ever take one point at a time and argue it, but have to drop the whole catechism plop into the middle of a comment section? Is it because none of it holds up point-by-point?

Let the whole damn place fall into the ocean its qite apparent that hanoi on the bay is no longer part of the USA lets just boycott the whole damn place

I support our troops with action, not lies.
I support this Democracy by voting and providing military personnel to fight-- my sons-- I donate, instead of pontificate or fabricate.

Donated? Really. Do you get a tax break for that? Adjusted gross income?

Didn't you warn the boys about those lying recruiters?

Kids.