Hey junkernaut, I DID hear about this on Michael Savage.

http://www.savage-productions.com/SF...e_Marines.html

Basically the marines wanted to film a commercial on 911 on the Golden Gate bridge. A woman named Mary Curry (who apparently decides who can and can't film on Golden Gate) said no. She gave as a reason the alleged "fact" that firearms (real or fake) are not allowed on the bridge and the Marines wouldn't give up their guns.

Which begs the question HOW MANY ARMED POLICEMEN, Military, and or legally carrying citizens cross that bridge daily?? AKA she is full of shit!!!!

Right now Savage is the ONLY one reporting this story but lest you think it can't be possible, consider the following stories which have been reported elsewhere.

http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/06...e-blue-angels/
San Fransisco attempts to ban the Blue Angels because they are loud.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...itary_bigotry/
San Fransicso bans JROTC from area high schools.

Here's a notable quote from that article:
"We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions," said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006...9312076692.txt
San Fransisco blocks the US Iowa from coming there as a floating museum saying it is indicative of warmongering.




Well I for one am getting sick and damn tired of San Fransisco liberals shitting all over our military. Ms Curry you wouldn't have your plush job were it not for those soldiers you won't even allow to film a commercial. Although Ms Currie apparently had no problem when a guy named Eric Steele filmed roughly TWENTY SUICIDES off that bridge and released a "film" called Bridge.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/4109643/detail.html

Note how at the beginning of the article Ms Curry is supposed to be mad but by the end she is "considering" the film maker's request to interview her staff. The bitch can't even tell the truth about being mad!!!

BUT OUR MARINES CAN'T FILM A COMMERCIAL THERE!!!

Well as always wilthrill likes to offer solutions and I've got a good one for you. We are going to kill a few birds with one stone.

1. pull EVERY US SOLDIER (even the Coast Guard) from San Fransisco.
2. Build the fence along the border of Mexico.
3. Build a fence along the perimeter of San Fransisco
4. That fence will have one gate and we will station troops there. No one comes out.
5. Run public service announcements nationwide telling all the illegal aliens in the US to go to San Fransisco. After all San Fransisco want to pay for their health care and welfare. San Fran wants them to vote. And San Fran is so much more tolerant than the rest of US.
6 Sit back and watch what happens when LIBERALISM is put into practice and liberals get to spend their own money (as opposed to mine) helping the "unfortunates".

so did I.....and this goes with the whole free speech thing as far as im concerned. she should of let them film there

__________________
jesus had a great publicist

Well as the numerous articles in the first post indicate, this is just ONE example.

As far as I can tell the Shit All Over Our Military movement began back in the 60's when liberal colleges began kicking recruiters and ROTC programs off campus.

If it were a PRIVATE college I would say they are within their rights to deny certain groups access.

BUT many of these were STATE colleges and quite frankly if they are taking US tax dollars then they OUGHT to HAVE TO allow the military to GIVE INFO and present CHOICES to the student body.

But again it is just another display of how INTOLERANT liberals really are. In fact liberals make the Ku Klux
Klan appear TOLERANT by comparison.

im not sure if i could criticize the colleges for doing this back in the 60s, given the political climate of those times. dont get me wrong here, my father and uncle are viet nam veterans, so im not opposed to the military or rotc or any other military traing on campus. but the politcal climate on most college campuses during those days was chaotic to put it lightly. many colleges were struggling with security issues anyway. keeping the rotc's on the campuses wouldve been highly disruptive to students and faculty alike. whether it was anti war students protesting the rotcs or the rotc students protesting against the anti war movement. theyres more of a push to support the troops nowadays then there was then, so things are different in this situation.

__________________
jesus had a great publicist

So we let the anti-war demonstrators control what groups can come on campus?????

I thought the liberals were always telling us how colleges were "marketplaces of ideas". You know present all sides of an issue, teach critical thinking and allow the students to make up their own mind. But apparently that "marketplace" is only open to ideas they agree with because they didn't kick the anti-war demonstrators off campus!!!!

Ok patron saints of tolerance (aka liberals), tolerance, BY DEFINITION, is NOT CONFINED to the ideas YOU agree with!!!!

dont misunderstand me will...we agree on this issue.....freedom of speech is open to all, granted i tend to side with the anti war group, until they cross the line and start assaulting the very people who are defending the rights that they are practicing. my point is that u cant fault the colleges for trying to preserve the security and not have a disruptive environment for those who truly want to learn. maybe they couldve handled it differently, but the intention was reasonable

__________________
jesus had a great publicist

If they wanted to not have a disruptive environment why didn't they kick out the PEOPLE CAUSING THE DISRUPTION namely the anti-war protestors?

Answer: because the hypocrite liberals who ran the colleges agreed with the anti-war protestor. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITARY CAUSING TROUBLE ON THOSE CAMPUSES!

You know if I walk up in a public place and, out of the blue, punch you in the face it wouldn't be just to remove YOU from the public place and justify it by saying, "You were a threat to my security"