Come on, it’s one fucking amendment. Isn’t there any part of the Constitution that straights can have to themselves, like Poonther wants?
Quit being such a whiny drama queen.
:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
As far as Moto’s broad brush is concerned, if the shoe fits, wear it. I’ve just spent the last 20 minutes looking through the Examiner’s and the Chronicle’s websites looking for letters to the editors, opeds, and other articles condemning the rejection of the Iowa.
A few things popped up on either side of the issue, but the sense that is reflected in the local papers is that the Board of Supervisor’s move isn’t a big deal. If San Franciscans don’t care about what veterans think about the stupid move, well, then the shoe fits. From my vantagepoint, I hear more folks in the Bay Area complaining about the Giants having a lousy season than I hear San Franciscans complaining about their lousy Board of Supervisors.
And speaking as someone on the left side of the spectrum, there are many folks on our side of the aisle who just don’t get it when it comes to respecting military service. This is just another example of that fact. If we Democrats are going to associate with kooks, then we’re going to be treated like kooks.
I’m not simply making up this hostility to the military that is well known and in evidence in the Bay Area. I vividly recall, shortly before Gulf War I began, being directed to a school assembly in which we were told by Daniel Ellsberg that the war would last months and result in tens of thousands of American deaths (including slide charts on how our boys would be killed), how Bush I was essentially a murderer for sending our troops there, how the military preys on young men and women because anyone over the age of 25 has enough common sense to know not to join the military, and, best of all, advice from Vietnam era hippies on how to avoid the inevitable draft that was coming to support the war. Not a single person of an opposing political view was invited. I really don’t think much has changed in the Bay Area since then.
Sorry, but I think you’re assuming a fact not in evidence here yourself, namely that a non-liberal could be elected to anything in San Francisco.
Mr. Moto, if someone wanted to throw you out of your house to raise up a war memorial how would you feel?
Just because someone suggests a memorial does not mean that it is a good idea and just go forth with it. Look at how long it took to build the WWII memorial in DC.
Let’s just say that the Board of Suprevisors are all liberals and the people of San Fran are all liberals and the board did exactly what the entire city wanted them to do.
Why do you hate democracy? If the board was elected and the board did their job why get your panties in a twist about it? What is the big fucking deal bitch?
Gee, if there isn’t a battleship in San Fran then I’m sure tourists won’t go there. After all there isn’t anything to do or see there now.
These are indeed sucky motivations. I could see not docking the Iowa at Fisherman’s wharf because “That wharf’s really all about FISHERMAN, not Navy guys” or “We’ve already got too many museum ships docked there” or “the consortium that plans to run the ship is controlled by Sun Myung Moon.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I don’t suppose there’s any chance the Iowa’s draft is shallow enough that it could be towed to say Davenport, Iowa? There’s a decided lack of naval history museums in the center of the country.
There are things that can be done in that case. I’m from Pittsburgh originally, and there’s a museum ship there. It’s a WWII-era sub, the USS Requin.
The battleship, though, can’t go up the river that far. Apart from draft issues, I don’t think the ship would fit through the locks.
Well, screw SF…that’s evil battery-chucking NoCal for ya.
I’m still pushing for Victorville…plop that ship right in the mud of the Mojave River right next to the I-15 bridge, where all the LA to Vegas travellers are driving by.
Er…How many tons are we talking about here?
Is this heaven?
No, it’s Iowa.
I don’t know about him, but for fair compensation I would be honored to allow it. Of course, I’m not living on a family homestead so my opinion might be different under other circumstances. Is somebody going to lose their nome if the ship comes to San Francisco? I didn’t see anything about that.
Nonetheless, I maintain that given the naval history of San Francisco the Iowa is a natural match, especially since it is still a mothball ship and the Navy has to pay for the maintenance (thus not costing them much if anything). It’s just petty politics, in my opinion.
Banzai! The liberal media strikes!
For those without the Partisanomatic Playbook For Big Kids (“comes in two covers, but don’t collect 'em all!”), the next step is undoubtedly an invocation of Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Hillary, according to taste; perhaps Clinton’s draft-dodging will prove an apposite addition. Stir in a dash of cronyism and a frisson of electoral fraud, and it’ll be like late 2004 all over again. Hell, there’s even been a Swift boat mentioned in this thread already. Fuck yeah! Nostalgia rules!
Incidentally, is there some sort of Godwinesque observation about the length of a thread, and the probability of someone invoking their “right to complain/comment/fart in some direction” approaching one? Because if not, there should be. Can it be mine, please?
What, with Diebold around? I’m amazed Pat Robertson isn’t on the board, frankly. Mumblemumbleflipflopmumblefloridamumblehangingchadsinventedtheinternetmumble…
God, what a stupid issue to take a stand on, but hey, if it really pisses conservatives off this much, then I’m all for it.
What happens when the government uses our military to forward its own misguided agenda by pre-emptively attacking a country under false pretenses? What happens when said false pretenses are revealed to be outright lies? What happens when said government’s lack of a post-blowing-things-up-plan causes massive strain on our countrie’s military such that 80-year-old women are being “called up” and sent overseas? And what happens when said government fails–even with conservative control of all three branches–to adequately equip forces being put in harm’s way?
Some of us, apparently a minority, tend to lose faith in said government. It’s easy for me to separate my faith and respect for the men and women who die for our country from my disdain for the administration that sends them to a false war…until <broad-fucking-brush>those same men and women vote to re-elect the administration that sent them there</broad-fucking-brush>.
As long as we’re making blanket statements, and all, we all know that when the right wing of this country needs to win an election, they can count on the military’s vote just like they can count on the votes of the Jesus-freaks. Just like we all know that all liberals hate Jesus and the military.
Bottom line: if you get sent to war in the name of our country under completely misguided pretenses, you have my untainted respect and admiration. If, however, you then vote in support of the leadership that sent you there under those pretenses, I won’t say you lose that respect, but it certainly begins to erode. If you then whine to me that the problem is that I don’t respect you, I laugh in your face. If you don’t want to die for no good reason, then don’t vote for the people who’d have you do it. But if you do–and that’s your right–you aren’t automatically entitled to the same respect as others who have worn the same uniform.
How dare I dishonor the great veterans who gave their lives in past wars? I don’t dishonor them, even though they probably think I do. But that’s their problem. I see a big difference between the military of today and the military of WWII, and I’m not just talking about the fact that in the latter war we actually went after the countries that attacked us in the first place. Just like I see a huge difference between the militaries of the Civil War and the military of WWII. It’s not an honor-us-all or nothing proposition. We’ve had lots of wars, and not all of them were honorable. Our warriors are citizens first, and when they support continuation of a dishonorable war, they themselves are dishonored.
That’s why conservatives love words like “honor” and “tradition” so much…it allows them to blur the line between the present and the past, as though the wars in Iraq are simply a continuation of America’s Grand Tradition of Defending Freedom. It’s what allows someone like George Bush to say, “they hate us for our freedom,” and have the whole country swallow it hook, line, and sinker. You’ve got the whole bloody country on your side, Mr. Moto, but here you are complaining about a handful of liberals? I don’t get conservatives, really: the more they win, the more they whine.
Tell you what. Let’s take the Iowa, scrap it, and use the metal to make better armor for our people fighting today. What’s more important, to honor dead warriors or protect living ones?
It is not about if someone would lose his home. It is about the idea that some people seem to think that *any proposed * military memorial must be built. I don’t think that ‘not wanting a particular thing’ equalls being an idiot that hates American veterans. So they don’t want the Iowa. The Iowa is pretty damn big, much bigger than a sub.
I’m also going to take a wild stab and guess that the board members who voted for the Iowa represented areas that would benifit financially from this the most.
Sure. But what reasons did they give for the rejection. Here’s a hint, they weren’t related, for the most part, to practical concerns such as this. They were related instead to a rejection of the military, and an inability to separate an honor to veterans from current military and administration policy.
It’s not merely the fact that San Francisco doesn’t want the museum. It’s also the fact that they went out of their way to insult veterans in the process.
If rejecting the berthing of a ship is evidence that liberals disrespect the military, then I am sure that you will not find any naval ships berthed in Boston, or New York City, or Portland, OR or even Pittsburgh, right? I mean, I thought according to you conservatives, Boston was the seat of liberalism and priestly pederastery, right? Certainly they would also reject anything that respected the military, given your logic? These other cities also have shameful histories of voting Democrat. I’m sure there are others I haven’t thought of.
Moto, you’ve never been one strong on logic, but you’ve simply gone around the fucking bend.
And when a politician publically states the reason they do something, it is always the complete truth.
Some how I think that you would be bitching no matter what. If Diane Fienstein managed to get the ship there you would bitch about such a fine ship in bad ol’ liberal San Francisco.
I doubt that.
How exactly are any of these statements related to your statement that “they went out of their way to insult veterans in the process”? I see an opposing opinion about the military’s policies regarding homosexuality. How does that disrespect veterans? By thinking that all of them should be treated equally? Yeah, very disrespectful.
And opposing the war is going out of your way to disrespect the military? If that’s true, then half the country disrespects the military. But it’s not true. One can oppose a war and still hold veterans in the same regard you hold for anyone who works hard in the belief that they are performing a service for America. One can reject the military action in Iraq and still admire the bravery and expertise of the men and women stationed there. Don’t be a fucking idiot.
First of all, put me down as yet another liberal pro-gay SF bay area resident who would have loved to see the Iowa in SF. (Which, I will point out, seems to be the majority view of dopers… what does that tell us about liberals as a whole?)
Where you lose me, Mr Moto, aside from your broad brushing, and then your denial of your own broad brushing, is how you somehow bring veterans into it. The two stated reasons from anti-Iowa supervisors are:
(1) They object to the current Iraq war
and
(2) They object to the current and historic gays-in-the-military policy
Now, both of those are opinions that I hope you would agree that it is possible for patriotic and reasonable Americans to hold, even if you disagree with them (which you might or might not).
Where the supervisors lose me is where they decide that, due to their opinions about the iraq war and gays-in-the-military, it is important enough to send symbolic messages against the current military, in the role the administration has it playing, and in its stance on gays; that they have decided to reject the Iowa, a historic monument which is obviously military in nature.
Now, I happen to disagree with that decision, but that disagreement is basically one of prioritizing. It is entirely possible for two people to both agree that:
(a) Iraq war = bad
(b) military policy on gays = bad
© general veterans = deserving of respect
(d) WWII = generally something that on ought to be proud of America’s role in
without agreeing on specific situations like the Iowa.
Also, it’s entirely possible for someone to take an action which veterans would find insulting without having “insulting veterans” as any part of their intent at all. In fact, it’s entirely possible to take an action which veterans would find insulting while ACTIVELY REGRETTING that veterans would find it insulting.
Unless you can provide a clear and logical argument that:
(a) the anti-Iowa supervisors actively dislike and disrespect veterans
and
(b) the voters who elected them were supportive of, or at best, indifferent towards, that opinion
then your entire argument is full of beans.
You do realize who you’re addressing, right? You might as well tell rain not to be wet.
Because the ship is intended to be a World War II memorial. It’s the equivalent of boycotting the WWII monument in Washington because Bush and company invaded Iraq. One has nothing to do with the other. But by doing what they have done they have symbolically taken a shot at WWII veterans, and they have long been perceived as inviolate in this country. “WWII vets aren’t worth a monument because Bush sucks” is for all intents and purposes what they have said here.
It’s a bit late for this post now, but nothing is more pointless than saying “oh, and I bet if X happened you’d say Y”. It’s an insult which is either (a) impossible to defend against, in which case it’s unfair, or (b) as in the current case, EASY to defend against, which just makes you look dumb and shrill. There are plenty of valid arguments against Mr Moto in this thread without making up hypothetical ones.
Also, Sequent, I admit that I’m a bit puzzled by what precisely you’re trying to say. So you support our troops, except for the individual ones of our troops who voted for Bush? What about ones who voted for Bush because they agree with his economic views, but disagreed with his foreign policy views. What about ones who voted for Bush but now regret it? What about ones who voted for Bush because, god bless 'em, they’re just really dumb? Are they somehow not worthy of support and respect?