All or nothing?

11/11/05 5:32:48 PM

Don't be a goof

same deal at universities.

If you let Walmart hire there, you have to let the US Army do it too.

Now I don't think anyone but you related it to extracurricular activities such as the chess club;-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,629

by hnick

11/11/05 6:52:57 PM

How not?

You can't not be a goof taking this crap seriously.

Seriously, though, the military shouldn't have special access to records. They get the same access as Walmart. If Walmart gets personal info about students, we may have to think about dropping the big one on Kansas. Or reforming the government. Whichever is easier...

Post #233,631

11/11/05 7:06:46 PM

Re: How not?

As for the ballot measure, which urged local high schools and colleges to bar military recruiters from their campuses, it passed with 60 percent of San Franciscans in favor of it.

Its not about giving any "special access". Its simply allowing military recruiters onto the campus the same as, in my example, WalMart.

And the fact that it passed will piss of alot of red-staters.

For me, its all or none. You don't want military recruiting on campus, then you must not allow ANY job recruiters on campus. Anything else is discriminatory. Same as not allowing BET to recruit because they televise things for black people. No different in my eyes.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,632

11/11/05 7:08:32 PM

What's the death rate of BET employees?

Compare it to the Army.
Add in crippling, dis-membering, etc.

I'd say a case could be made that dangerous occupations are barred.

Post #233,647

by a6l6e6x

11/11/05 8:29:26 PM

Black helicopters on way from Ft. Dix to Barry's house.

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #233,669

11/11/05 9:57:31 PM

So no police, fire and first responders either?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,730

11/12/05 8:48:32 AM

Unlikely

Bomb squad? Out.

Other than that, maybe.

Can we come up with the number of police officers in the country,
and then figure out the percentage of them that were killed or maimed
in a violent fashion. Falling dead of a heart attack while doing
crowd control does not count.

Then compare it against the number of soldiers in Iraq as a percentage
of the armed forces who have had the same thing happen.

It would probably also be good to break it down in age groups. Lot more
younger inexperienced people die than older more cautious people, which
make them ripe for manipulation.

How about we look at it another way?

It seems pretty universal in this country that alchohol consumption is
not legal until age 21. Why is that? Could it be because people under
that age are not deemed mature enough to make rational decisions about
alchohol consumption? It can be a life or death decision, and combined
with cars can impact others, which is pretty serious, so it is reasonable.

Yet we feel they are capable making the decision to join the Army, taking
into account the various pros and cons? Bullshit.

Recruiters brainwash kids. That is their job. They lie, they overpromise,
they ignore the real danger possibilities, they glorify the video game
killing aspect of it. They push the patiotic duty aspect, conveniently
ignoring that fact we are at war based on a pile of lies.

Welcome to 1984.

The people in the schools know this. The parents know this. They consider
it their responsibility to protect the kids as long as possible.

Also, keep in mind, this is not simply a matter of "allowing them in".

They want personal information about the kids. A lot.
[link|http://www.leavemychildalone.org/|http://www.leavemychildalone.org/]

Did you know...

... that the notorious No Child Left Behind Act includes a sneaky
section that requires high schools to turn over private information
on students to military recruiters?

And that the Pentagon has created an illegal database of 30 million
16-25 year-olds, including names, addresses, email addresses, cell
phone numbers, ethnicities, social security numbers, extracurricular
activities, and areas of study?

[link|http://www.leavemychildalone.org/index.cfm?event=showContent&contentid=37|http://www.leavemych...tent&contentid=37]

If you, as a parent, would welcome the recruiter's call, guess what?
CALL THEM!

They are happy to hear from you.

But don't pretend that the military is anything like any other job,
including 1st responders, or that are are only want equal access that
other organizations get. It is a smoke screen, and you are smarter
than that, at least I think you are.

Post #233,749

11/12/05 10:50:42 AM

Oh dear

I'm SO OFFENDED (not)

You are old enough to have had to register for selective service so the evil gov could keep track of every single eligible soldier.

Automate it and some mother builds a website.

Please stop pretending like this shit is new.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,793

11/12/05 5:04:05 PM

There you go again

</Reagan>

You addressed nothing of what I said.

Nothing!

You did the standard "It's always been this way, so why would you bother reacting" response. Words are a bit different, but not much.

Your other standard respone is: The other party is just as bad, so who cares what this one is doing.

If I'd never met you, I'd think you were a variation on the Marlow-bot.

Why do you refuse to engage in any disussion that goes beyond sloganeering?

Post #233,811

11/12/05 7:55:30 PM

I have in several posts

And in many fashions.

First, you...YOU...are deciding for others what YOU think is best for them.

Pumping gas is >safe< so you can do that, fry cook also..but soldiering is DANGEROUS so we should keep you from it. The CHEELDRUN cannot decide.

And PLEASE GOD don't use the idiotic alcohol laws in this country to defend this idiocy.

And please tell me more about this ILLEGAL DATABASE that is the EXACT SAME THING as selective service. Maybe you don't remember what you sent in..or the fact that big government was tracking your ass...cause they tracked mine across 2 continents (and I didn't tell them I was there).

But its really much, much simpler than that. YOU want to decide what is best for THEM. Because they obviously can't decide for themselves. Those EVIL RECRUITERS use evil techniques to sucker them in.

So you feel comfortable making that decision for them.

Sorry pal. That dog don't hunt with me.

If ANY employer is allowed on campus, then the military recruiters must be allowed also.

Period.

Any other result is simple discrimination, no less evil than Rosa had to face.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,812

11/12/05 7:59:02 PM

Fine

The second you can quit from the military the way you can quit from a job, then you can treat them on equal footing.

Until then, I call bullshit.

Post #233,814

11/12/05 8:01:11 PM

Until then

you feel perfectly comfortable telling people what they can and cannot do with their life.

Back of the bus for you. The front seats are for the "smart people".

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,854

by Ashton

11/13/05 12:53:30 AM

In HS, they aren't 'people'; they are CHILDREN.

Post #233,857

11/13/05 1:09:08 AM

Actually, no

They are cannon fodder.
But BeeP doesn't mind.

Post #233,867

11/13/05 10:32:27 AM

Nice ad-hom

But they cannot sign until they are legal adults.

But thats ok, we have people all to willing to make decisions for them and take potential opportunities away from them.

We're so lucky that way.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,870

11/13/05 10:50:36 AM

While they can't sign until adults

you are perfectly happy requiring high schools to send personal information (that no other recruiting entity gets, don't bother giving me that crap about equal access) to the military.

And then for the military to contact them in a continous barrage.

And for them to ignore the parents of kids who say stop calling if there is a hint that the kids was receptive (plenty of examples if you care to google).

So while the day of signing might wait until 18, the thought process is finely influenced for long before then.

Post #233,882

11/13/05 11:56:48 AM

What I've said

is that it is NO DIFFERENT TODAY than at any other time. Some website gets you all in a fluff and you ignore the reality that has always been there because the >now< supports your prejudice.

I can find supporting positions for ANYTHING on the web if "I care to Google".

My position is simple. If McDonalds can recruit on a high school campus then the armed forces should have the same ability.

You want to make this bigger than that, enjoy yourself.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,946

11/13/05 9:06:53 PM

11/13/05 9:32:59 PM

McDonald's doesn't train kids to kill or be killed

A kid can work at Mickey D's and quit if he/she wants to. You can't quit the military, no siree. You are in for your hitch, if you make it out alive.

Big difference. That has been the point all along, Bill!

SF wants the kids to go to either college or job training. What is wrong with that? If they change their minds later, so be it. But at least let these kids get a chance to make something of their lives. It's all about vocation. If someone feels the call to be in the military, by all means, follow that call. Most kids have no idea what they want to do with their lives. And LIVE is the operative word here.

Were we not in a war, this would not be such a hot issue, but, as it stands, the people of San Francisco obviously feel it is predatory to recruit in high schools. I agree. The kids are too young and inexperienced. Training is minimal at best and then they are shipped to combat. Good luck!

Hell, even the experienced soldiers are dying! War is war! Can you blame these people for wanting to preserve a natural resource...their young people?

I just want to leave you with one thought. Why is it that only four of the 535 members of Congress have children in the military; only one, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a child who fought in Iraq?

Peace,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Edited by imqwerky Nov. 13, 2005, 09:32:21 PM EST

Edited by imqwerky Nov. 13, 2005, 09:32:59 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #233,948

by boxley

11/13/05 9:10:08 PM

just blow the wrong gender and instant discharge

that pig wont fly
thanx,
bill

"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #233,958

by SpiceWare

11/13/05 9:45:18 PM

pun intended?

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #233,960

by boxley

11/13/05 9:46:07 PM

nope, just unintended brilliance! :-)

Post #233,981

11/14/05 8:18:23 AM

Thank you for proving my point

Were we not in a war, this would not be such a hot issue

It doesn't matter what the TERMS are, you are hunting for differences to JUSTIFY your position that you know better for the cheeldrun what choices they should be allowed to make as adults by filtering and/or blocking their access to both information and the ability to commit.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,057

by jb4

11/14/05 1:36:21 PM

Sorta depends on who you ask...

...The guy who produced "Super-size Me" might argue that they do train their employees to kill.

...But I digress...

jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

Post #234,054

by jb4

11/14/05 1:32:37 PM

Re: I have in several posts

And please tell me more about this ILLEGAL DATABASE that is the EXACT SAME THING as selective service.

Well, for one thing, BeeP, the Selective Service (the doublethink aspect of the name notwithstanding) database is the result of young men (are we registering wimmens yet?) physically supplying the information (allegedly) voluntarily. The ILLEGAL DATABASE (screaming yours) is surreptitously taken from sources other than the subject.

But of course, that doesn't bother you none, now does it?

Post #234,062

11/14/05 2:00:21 PM

Look.

If I were to arrest and try every single person or group that is accused on the net by another person or group of some illegal activity...there wouldn't be anybody left (including us...who have been accused of stalking and other illegal acts by some folks)

Grain of Salt unless proven otherwise.

And again, not central to any point of mine.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,091

by Simon_Jester

11/14/05 3:29:18 PM

Technically not illegal

as the law (No Child Left Behind) says to do it. :-)

The central issue you're looking for is why does the military (if it's merely a business) get a license to collect this information on kids and Walmart/Disney/whatever does not.

After all, they're supposed to have the same access to people on College Campuses.

Post #233,710

11/12/05 12:35:05 AM

Put it another way...

...if killing people is part of the job description, then no go.

Post #233,750

11/12/05 10:51:52 AM

Then no police and no correctional officers

all who will be trained in the use of deadly force.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,755

11/12/05 11:02:42 AM

Sounds fair enough to me.

Post #233,762

11/12/05 11:30:45 AM

So then you feel comfortable

restricting others freedom to choose.

Thats very generous of you.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,776

11/12/05 1:21:09 PM

Yes, basically.

There are some professions that you should go and seek out, rather than vice versa.

They are the professions that involve hurting and killing people as part of the job description.

Post #233,781

11/12/05 2:23:19 PM

Difference of opinion, then.

I don't believe that someones options should be limited by someone else's opinion of what is good for them. That, to me, is not very far removed from not wanting them to associate with (name your group, race, religion here) because you "don't like them".

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,783

11/12/05 3:18:00 PM

No-one's options are being limited by my point of view.

I'm just of the mind that if killing people is what you want to do for a living, then you should actively have to go and seek it out.

Post #233,790

by hnick

11/12/05 4:44:30 PM

The brush is a bit broad

There was a time, here, as well as England, where young men were brought up to do a hitch before enjoying the benifits of the system we live under. Some played slide horn in the band; some killed people. In either case, when they enlisted, they didn't get the choice "killing or not killing?"

It would be nice if everybody sat around the camp fire an sang Kumbaya together. It's not going to happen soon. The military are head breakers; if you want your booboos fixed, call the Peace Corps.

My initial bitch with this was the high schools having to rat out students. College kids can make their own decisions.

If you join the military for any reason or any job classification, you should expect to kill or be responsibile for the killing of people you don't know. That's what they do for a living.

Be a nice socialist and grow up a little, please. Thank you.

Post #234,059

by jb4

11/14/05 1:46:15 PM

Ya know, Bill...

...It's not as if those who would want to be in the military are somehow limited in their ability to get ~~propaganda and lies~~ information about joining the military should they be restricted from access to the high-schooler's and collegians personal info. There's plenty enough info out there for those with the blood-and-guts-and-veins-in-my-teeth mentality to line up, sign up, and turn in their shoes! And that's the red herring in your argument. Colleges have HISTORICALLY (shouting mine, in response to your shouting) had the final say in who can and cannot recruit on campuses...it happens all the time...and those who are not welcome or welcomed onto campus still makange to find employees. Thus shall it be with the Hue-hess milit'ry!

So, unlike Barry, I don't call bullshit. I just call red herring. Nothing to see here, move along...move along....

Post #234,064

11/14/05 2:04:53 PM

Re: Ya know, Bill...

Nice justification of the offense. Same argument as Peter has made.

They can still do it if they want to.

Problem is, YOU are deciding who should and shouldn't be seen based on some prejudice or veiled "difference".

Thats not acceptable around here.

Just the same as when the skinheads want to organize and march in Dayton. I don't like what they stand for, don't agree with anything they say..but DEFEND their right to be there because thats what this thing called freedom is all about.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,066

11/14/05 2:09:42 PM

There is another POV on this.

The States run the schools. Why should the States be compelled to be recruitment centers for the Fed? You're making a specious argument here. But, you knew that, didn't you?

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #234,072

11/14/05 2:36:55 PM

You're qualifying again

If they are recruitment officers for anyone, the fed must be included.

Simple, really. If you don't want military recruiting there, don't have any recruiting there at all.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,075

11/14/05 2:40:45 PM

Private != State != Federal.

Post #234,076

11/14/05 2:45:21 PM

And you continue

with the "but, but, but >this< is different".

Wolf in sheeps clothing.

Denial or restriction of a legal choice because you don't like it.

Gave you the option. You pick.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,079

11/14/05 2:50:03 PM

It's about States autonomy from this pov.

Thought that might appeal to you. Besides, hell, let's be honest. With the millions upon millions of US Taxpayer dollars going to advertisements on the teevee (not to mention the army's foray into online games), guess where most of these students that do sign up are going to be recruited? That's right, in their living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, etc.

Post #234,090

11/14/05 3:29:13 PM

No it isn't.

You're moving way down the chain on that.

Its about "Joe's" right to information and access to choices that >you< don't like. You want to tell Joe he can't. You want to infringe on Joe's liberty for (insert your choice of reasons why >this< is different here).

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,098

11/14/05 4:06:01 PM

Again, this time with feeling.

The States run the schools. The States, therefore, have the right to decide who is permitted on campus. It's curious that you are insisting that the Federal Government has a right to usurp the authority of the States. If the States don't want their schools to be fertile ground for Federal job recruitment then that is clearly within the States rights. It is a big, fat, whopping, "Saddam is an imminent threat" kind of distortion to suggest otherwise.

Post #234,103

11/14/05 4:16:15 PM

You are mixing things up

They can decide if they want to recruit or not.

If they decide to recruit, they can't decide to recruit for "only who you like"...that falls under a completely different section of law.

You are trying to mix up arguments.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,114

11/14/05 5:10:15 PM

If the Federal Government really wants to, they can

make the states and local governments cooperate.

Section 8, clause 12. Congress has the authority To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; The following clause is about the navy.

I believe that requiring that states and local governments cooperate with the federal efforts to raise armies is within that Congressional grant of power. However right now they aren't choosing to do that. They are waving the carrot of money, not the cudgel of the Constitution. But they don't have to be nice about it.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,126

by boxley

11/14/05 6:30:59 PM

They can raise armies as needed, but pussy communists

dont allow that. They can open up the draft or even press gangs for any ablebodied male citizen between 16 and 45 bu they cannot force public schools to host recruiters unless other companies are allowed to recruit giving a limited public platform for that type of free speech.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,140

11/14/05 7:26:52 PM

why don't you tell us what you really feel box.

Don't hold back now ;-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,153

by boxley

11/14/05 8:39:22 PM

pussy communists, where the army cant be used in the US

its an ammendment passed after reconstruction tried to destroy the south
thanx,
bill

Post #234,158

11/14/05 8:48:19 PM

:-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,211

11/15/05 9:16:48 AM

What are you on about?

[link|http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8090|http://www4.army.mil...story_id_key=8090]

Looks to me like the army is being used in the US. And what's with the "pussy" communists? You mean these guys? [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/21/newsid_3560000/3560175.stm|http://news.bbc.co.u...60000/3560175.stm]

Post #234,216

by boxley

11/15/05 9:29:29 AM

rent a movie called tank

Post #234,217

11/15/05 9:33:16 AM

That '84 Maverick flick? ;0)

Post #235,671

11/23/05 11:24:18 AM

"by any means necessary" is implied, then?

I'm not, by any means, an expert on this. And I'm not usually one to argue for States' rights (probably because I'm a descendant of Southerners and "States' Rights" in that region have always been code words for "Racist Policies"). But I don't read that section you posted as necessarily mandating that the States participate.

Post #235,791

11/23/05 10:25:51 PM

Not quite ANY means..

But the latitude is wide enough that it has included pressgangs and military drafts in the past. So I'd assume that the federal government has quite a bit of latitude here.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,302

11/28/05 12:09:40 PM

Has that ever been challenged? Did any State try to opt out?

Post #236,309

by boxley

11/28/05 1:08:26 PM

not since 1865

Post #236,316

11/28/05 1:55:45 PM

Thanks. I meant USSC cases. ;0)

Post #236,338

11/28/05 5:09:24 PM

Yes, and I do not know

[link|http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/getcase.gillette.html|http://www.mainstrea...ase.gillette.html] is an example of a USSC case involving the draft. (The outcome is that one can't register as a conscientious objecter because you object to the current war.)

I don't know of any cases offhand where a state tried to keep the federal government from enforcing a draft, but I cannot imagine that it would go well for the state. National defence is clearly a federal responsibility in the Constitution.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,492

by jb4

11/16/05 1:54:01 PM

Red Herring alert number 2581 (or so)

Its about "Joe's" right to information and access to choices that >you< don't like

Uhhh...actually no it isn't. Its about giving...no -- let's be accurate here for a change. It's about compelling certain institutions to provide private information to a particular Federal agency (one whose motives are suspect, to be sure; and one whose image, through no fault of its own, is rather tarnished). And, its about one municipality who has given the big digit to said compelling. Military recruiters don't come to high schools to try to win the hears and minds of the Cheeldrins from Big Corporate...they're too chicken, and besides, they can't enlist anybody until they'r basically outof HS anyway. So no "access to choices", whether >I< like them or not, is being impinged.

But thank you for playing. It's so much nicer listening to you than Rush or Pat...you, at least, have intelligence....

Post #234,077

by imric

11/14/05 2:45:28 PM

But, must everybody be allowed to recruit if the Fed is?

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #234,078

11/14/05 2:47:23 PM

Any specific exclusion should be frowned upon

yes.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,171

by imric

11/14/05 10:17:46 PM

How about groups that promote violence and killing?

Of course, that would encompass not only the armed forces, but the Republican Party and the 700 Club.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #234,176

by boxley

11/14/05 10:27:27 PM

or democrats depending on your point of view

Post #234,187

11/15/05 12:23:00 AM

Was wondering where that was headed

yeah...them too.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,214

by imric

11/15/05 9:23:15 AM

Political parties are not businesses either.

So you mean that if business is allowed to recruit, ANY ORGANISATION AT ALL should be allowed to recruit - just clarifying here...

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #234,233

11/15/05 10:56:38 AM

Are they paying now?

I didn't get my check, in that case.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,251

by imric

11/15/05 12:00:26 PM

Yes you did. $300.00

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #234,256

11/15/05 12:23:42 PM

That was my money

early loan repayment was all that was.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,212

11/15/05 9:19:38 AM

How about Al Qaida? CPUSA?

Post #234,235

11/15/05 10:58:18 AM

What, trying to find somebody I don't like?

So that I'll capitulate to your groupthink mentality?

I'm arguing for one already, why would I change my mind for these others.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,248

11/15/05 11:46:37 AM

Nope. Just testing your metal. ;0)

Post #234,380

by a6l6e6x

11/15/05 10:11:46 PM

Then here's one for you.

North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #234,381

11/15/05 10:13:39 PM

You're right

don't like them.

But there's also scoutmasters and priests

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,383

11/15/05 10:22:43 PM

NCLB Sec 9525 covers the Boy Scouts.

[link|http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html|No Child Left Behind]. Scroll down to section 9525 - it's the "Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act".

So they don't have anything to worry about...

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,487

by jb4

11/16/05 1:39:18 PM

11/16/05 1:40:15 PM

Section HOW MANY?!?

No law, in anything resembling a Democracy (even if in name only) should have 9525 sections!

Edited by jb4 Nov. 16, 2005, 01:40:15 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #234,493

11/16/05 1:57:51 PM

It's not that bad.

[link|http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html|Almost], but not quite. It's better than, say, Title VI, Part XI, Sec 13, Subparagraph J2(ii), isn't it?

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,088

by boxley

11/14/05 3:24:32 PM

they take the federal dole, thats why

Post #234,092

11/14/05 3:31:19 PM

Even that doesn't feature in my reasoning.

Though it gives them a club, should they (and they often do) want to use it.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,100

11/14/05 4:07:38 PM

Not much, they aren't.

Post #234,490

by jb4

11/16/05 1:43:33 PM

Yes I am...

...as a HS or College administrator, because...as you have most often said in this thread...it happens all the time! And if you want to recant that "it happens all the time" line, fine! Then we'll get onto the no special access part of the argument....

Post #234,014

11/14/05 11:20:25 AM

Um, that wouldn't be freedom. That'd be indoctrination.

Next you'll be wanting mandatory seminars in Mom, Apple Pie and the absolute wonder of capitalism.

Post #234,017

11/14/05 11:24:09 AM

you'll be wanting to ban books from libraries becasue you don't like their content.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,022

11/14/05 11:32:38 AM

Um, that wouldn't be me. That'd be DHS. ;0)

Post #234,040

by boxley

11/14/05 12:34:57 PM

like what you teach your kids :-) /me dux

Post #234,047

11/14/05 1:12:40 PM

I don't teach my kids anything anymore. They teach me.

And largely, I don't like it. ;0)

Post #234,053

by boxley

11/14/05 1:32:27 PM

tell me about it

oldest boy asking questions about juggling two girls simultaniously. I shrug and say as long as you dont tell them you love them or get them pregnant. He states "Dad, I dont believe in pre-marital sex" WTF!!! Different world out there.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,058

11/14/05 1:37:34 PM

If that's true,

how old is he and would he like to date one of my daughters? :-)

Post #234,060

by boxley

11/14/05 1:46:38 PM

will be 17 in Jan, link below

[link|http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/i/williamoxley/allnme.JPG|http://bellsouthpwp....moxley/allnme.JPG] the one with the donkey on his shirt.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,067

11/14/05 2:10:36 PM

Thanks. I'll give 'em a gander ;0)

Post #234,071

by SpiceWare

11/14/05 2:31:48 PM

is it pre-marital if they're not going to get married?

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #234,089

by boxley

11/14/05 3:25:48 PM

Im afraid to ask :-)

Post #234,099

11/14/05 4:06:56 PM

Well, clarify that before I go show mine the pic. ;0)

Post #234,146

11/14/05 7:52:43 PM

He didn't give you the whole story

It's not pre-marital if he is not going to get married.

Post #234,147

by Andrew Grygus

11/14/05 7:57:20 PM

Just because he doesn't believe in it . . .

. . doesn't mean he isn't going to do it, as rampant STDs among the sworn abstainers has shown.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #233,739

by imric

11/12/05 9:40:28 AM

In the South?

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #233,771

by tuberculosis

11/12/05 12:33:50 PM

8/21/07 5:45:47 AM

That's not gonna fly

I have no problem with recruiters at COLLEGE campuses AS LONG AS the recruiters don't have favored access. IOW, they get exactly the same level of access as Joe Local Company.

Also, they have to leave the big hardware at home - no helicopter fly-ins etc (which was a point of contention at a local high school - they wanted to bring a blackhawk to the high school on career day - not appropriate on lots of levels).

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:47 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #233,856

by Ashton

11/13/05 1:00:51 AM

Indeed: SHOCK n'AWE competing with GM corner office -

How Orwellian must this country get, before anybody much.. Notices?

I suspect.. a tad more
The Nintendo generation is pretty Suggestible, if things go BANG.
:-/

Post #233,720

by Ashton

11/12/05 2:59:41 AM

Discrimination.. we have to give that up, too?

So it's officially an epithet?
It follows then -
No more discriminating tastes, either.. (why that would be, no Taste at all.)

You're looking at everything as Boolean. Still.
Why then: all killing is murder. (No Qualifiers - you're being non-discriminating.)

But I demur, as do the educators. And the recent voters, it seems.
We don't have to let admitted trainers in organized-murder seduce young students - near-100% within the Poverty Class - to ransom their lives, merely to obtain cash-enough to eventually acquire a 1960s grade education (instead of a 2000's grade edjaKayshun.) If they live long enough, or can manage with a prosthesis.

Solution:
All interested parties must watch The Green Table ballet, write a review - then come back and exercise some discrimination about priorities, empires and - where we went Wrong.

I'm confident that a discriminating person will not vote to allow military representatives or drug cartels on campus. (Unless, of course - we acknowledge that it's cheaper to eat impoverished children - and it's OK to keep doing that. And Legislators' progeny remain exempt, by 'virtue' of possessing $$.)

But each one who believes that to be This Country's policy:
* HAS TO SAY IT OUT LOUD. Taped, of course. Rebroadcast whenever and however often.

Rest case.

* Probably would make no difference; many would pose for the camera. Properly made up.
This is the USA. Shame is uncool.

Post #233,751

11/12/05 10:54:10 AM

Ah, I see.

You are SMARTER than THEM. You have to PROTECT THEM from their own STUPIDITY and not allow them to make THEIR OWN CHOICE.

After all, the big bad military is SNEAKY and UNDERHANDED and dupe every single member into joining up.

How NICE of you.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,802

by CRConrad

11/12/05 6:01:17 PM

Yeah, he *is* "SMARTER than THEM". They're KIDS.

Aren't *you* "SMARTER than THEM" your kids? Don't you make a lot of their decisions for them, to "PROTECT THEM from their own STUPIDITY"? Prove me wrong: Hand your car keys and handgun to your youngest.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Yes Mr. Garrison, genetic engineering lets us correct God's horrible, horrible mistakes, like German people. - [link|http://maxpages.com/southpark2k/Episode_105|Mr. Hat]

Post #233,813

11/12/05 7:59:16 PM

At 18, I might be smarter...

but I don't have the right to do anything about it.

And I CERTAINLY don't feel I have the right to tell anyone else's kids what they should or shouldn't do with their life.

They have every right and should have every freedom to make any stupid choice they so desire.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,822

11/12/05 9:42:12 PM

So you agree

that joining the military is a stupid choice.

Thanks!

Peace,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #233,825

11/12/05 9:52:01 PM

Not so fast dearest

It appears that those deciding for others think it is a stupid choice...and thus feel that they shouldn't be afforded it in equal measure.

For some, it is a very good and wise choice. There are some here that I'm sure wouldn't be the same people had they not made that choice.

You will need to ask them if they feel they made a stupid choice.

Somehow I don't think you'll like their answer.

I posted it in that fashion for illustrative purposes only.

There are many that think abortion is a stupid choice. Care to take that choice away from an 18 year old female or restrict her rights to information about that choice in any way?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,829

by andread

11/12/05 10:02:39 PM

Re: Not so fast dearest

So voting isn't good enough?

We have lots of laws that various folks find
to be stupid or worse but the courts say that if
they don't violate the Constitution they are OK

For me, the more regulation on military recruiters
the better

A

Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]

Post #233,830

11/12/05 10:04:19 PM

Tis a law I believe

should be struck down by the Court.

Discrimination is discrimination.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,839

11/12/05 10:32:26 PM

Discrimination is not created equal

Is it discrimination on the basis of race, religion, disability or gender?

Nope?

Then it's legal. You might not like it, but it's legal.

Of course if the strict constructivists get their way, then the law saying that discriminating based on race, religion etc is illegal is an unconstitutional law. So by what I understand of your political views, that should be legal as well.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,842

11/12/05 10:40:49 PM

Then you have a poor understanding of what I think

But this is a simple matter of forcing views.

If they want to limit recruiters access, then they need to limit ALL recruiters.

But, since we're talking about the military...its a popular view to restrict.

Now, if you want to compare it to religion, I believe you would be the minority viewpoint, yet it is perfectly ok to restrict the majority so that their views aren't forced upon you.

I guess I'm the only one here that sees this as a HUGE double standard.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,846

11/12/05 11:21:06 PM

Re-read what you wrote

I'm not commenting about the military being in schools. I'm commenting about the double standard in your post.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=233830|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=233830]

You say that this law should be struck down by a court.

I'm saying that there is no way that a judge can do that without making law, which is something that I thought you were against. Furthermore I pointed out that the law which has been the basis of other anti-discrimination actions is one which is of questionable constitutionality.

So by my understanding of your views, no matter how much you dislike this law, you shouldn't want a court to strike it down.

Am I missing something?

Cheers,
Ben

PS Having read the bill, I'll venture a position on it. I'm personally for having the military be able to recruit from an equal position with other employers. I'm against giving them the kind of special access they have. But that isn't an option in the San Francisco decision. Given the alternatives presented, I prefer the one that they chose. However, like most votes in our democracy, that's a "least evil" choice, not a "I agree with that" choice.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,850

11/12/05 11:50:47 PM

I am of the opinion

that equal access would not be a creation of new law, but an enforcement of exist.

Now I'm not willing to spend a day looking through the codebook to verify that and, of course, IANAL.

Having the court weigh the constitutionality of a law is something that I agree with.

Having a court in SF create the ban on the military would be a creation of law (and something that happens all the time) and that is what I don't favor.

On the personal note, we are in agreement.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,851

11/13/05 12:34:41 AM

My understanding is...

that your opinion is factually wrong. Outside of a very specific list of categories, discrimination is allowed. In particular discriminating against specific businesses or classes of businesses is both allowed and common.

For instance where I worked in NYC had a product that was sold for a very different price to broker dealers (who issue bonds) than traders (who buy bonds). When I asked whether that was discrimination, a lawyer there told me that it was blatant discrimination, but perfectly legal since it wasn't one of the narrow classes of things that you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of.

And why aren't you allowed to discriminate on the basis of a limited number of things? Mostly because of [link|http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm|The Civil Rights Act]. And what is the Constitutional justification for this law from Congress? It is that they have the power, To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; What does a restaurant in Atlanta hiring an employee from Atlanta who will serve people in Atlanta, most of whom are permanent residents there, have to do with interstate commerce? According to Scalia et al, it shouldn't. Hence my comment about how the strict constructivists want to do away with the existing federal law in this matter.

BTW the right to discriminate comes up in regular life as well. For instance if I don't like Walmart, then I have the right to not buy stuff from Walmart. I don't have to give a reason. Is that discrimination? Of course! But it is perfectly legal discrimination.

That applies to groups as well. For instance if a troupe of girl scouts wants to not buy things from Walmart, they don't have to. They have a right to discriminate that stems out of their right to free association.

The San Francisco case is similar. The Federal government gives money. That money comes with strings attached. The city doesn't like those strings. The city decides that it doesn't want the money or the strings. If they don't accept the money, why should they be forced to do what they don't want to do?

It is not as if the kids won't find out about the military. Turn on the TV, go to a movie, there are ads everywhere for how to join. The option is available whether or not the military shows up at those schools.

Now I'd prefer that they give limited access. But I don't think that they should be forced to. And I'm pretty sure (I'm not a lawyer, but I've talked with plenty) that they are within their legal rights to choose not to. Unless (which is always possible) there is some law from Congress mandating that schools have to allow that.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,852

11/13/05 12:43:40 AM

Different situation altogether

Your examples are all of people being allowed to not do something that they do not want to do.

This is not that type of situation.

This is a public facility (a school) that wishes to allow job recruiting. Now a group of people want to disallow one employer but allow others. You examples of shopping at WalMart don't apply. Your examples of pricing differently to different customers also does not apply.

This is about access to public facilities in an equal fashion.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,855

11/13/05 1:00:25 AM

There's something basic at stake here

In order for a court to say that the law should be rejected, the court has to have a justification for rejecting it. That is if someone wants to say that the city can't do this, the burden of proof is on them to prove it.

You've complained that it is discrimination, and discrimination is not allowed. I've pointed out that lots of discrimination is allowed. In fact you're only not allowed to discriminate based on a narrowly defined list of specific cases. (And the legal justification for those exceptions is open to question.) That my examples are different from this case is irrelevant - their purpose is to establish that discrimination is allowed by default. They did that.

So unless you are of the opinion that judges should create law (which I don't think you are), then your position that a court should strike this law down should be backed up with justification for why a judge should have that authority.

I'm asking you to present that justification.

Thank you,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,868

11/13/05 10:35:12 AM

And I'm telling you that I think its different

because it is a measure of equal access that I think already exists in the law.

We have a different opinioni on what law exists...but not being a lawyer I don't have a library of case law and a bunch of lackies to research the specifics.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,912

11/13/05 3:24:50 PM

In short, I'm wasting my breath

Because your opinion is already made up, and you're uninterested in producing something as mundane as "facts" to support it.

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,922

11/13/05 6:42:27 PM

Box gave you one

I am of the opninion there are more. And yes, I'm comfortable enough in that knowledge to disagree with you without bothering to spend an hour searching the web to prove you wrong.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,957

11/13/05 9:44:58 PM

Yes, boxley did. But even if he didn't, you wouldn't have.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,982

11/14/05 8:22:49 AM

For the stated reasons

You imagined a "gotcha" in my position which, based on my understanding of the law, was not a "gotcha" at all...and since I didn't care enough to prove to you what I already was comfortable in my knowledge of, you decided to take offense.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,877

by boxley

11/13/05 11:48:18 AM

lets try some case law shall we?

its called viewpoint discrimination, it attackes the first ammendment

"[I]t appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to those who advocate military service. The Board then refused, without a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated, "to permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views . . . is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." . . . In other words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." . . . Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public forum.

its clear although the complainant in the above case is anti military, you cannot restrict viewpoint presentation (recruitment) in public school.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,913

11/13/05 3:47:26 PM

Can you say where that case is from?

Context makes a huge difference. I can't tell how closely it applies in this case.

I do know that freedom of speech means less than you might expect. For instance remember the [link|http://www.savethepinebush.org/NewsArt/XGates/Protest.html|tshirt eviction] from a mall? The mall eventually dropped the case because of the publicity, but in conversations with a lawyer at the time I was told that, had it gone to court, there was little doubt that the mall would win. Malls are private property, and may eject whomever they want, whenever they want, for any reason that they want as long as it is not one of the reasons given in the Civil Rights Act. If you refuse to leave private property when requested, you are guilty of tresspass. Apparently wearing a t-shirt is not exactly the same thing as free speech.

I can't tell from what you quote what your case was about. But I'm going to guess that some government organization ("the Board") accepted military advertisements but not non-military advertisements in some forum. Depending on the details, the San Francisco people are going to have to be careful to not violate that precedent. However I think that if they both deny military recruiters and do not provide a platform for anti-military spokespeople, they are fine. That is, freedom of speech only applies if you're providing a platform for speech. Don't provide the platform, and nobody can fault you for not letting someone specific speak.

Of course if the school provided a platform for people who hate the military to come in and give special presentations to the school, then didn't allow the military to present their case as well, then it looks like your case might apply pretty well indeed.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,950

by boxley

11/13/05 9:23:24 PM

hmm, thought I linked it, here ya go

[link|http://www.efn.org/~eugpeace/lawyerletter.htm|http://www.efn.org/~.../lawyerletter.htm]
and another, perhaps better one
[link|http://www.doe.state.in.us/safety/legalad.html|http://www.doe.state...fety/legalad.html]

Thus a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the discussion of any topic, or to the entire public for the discussion of certain topics, or some combination of the two. "Once the state has created a limited public forum. its ability to impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite restricted[.] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." Id., at 1475, citing to Perry Education Assoc. v. Perry Local Education Assoc., 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955 (1983).

Once the state creates a limited public forum, ie recruiters of firms seeking employees, peace corp etc. Note again "and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest" there is no compelling state/city/muni interest in restricting access to an arm of the Federal Government unless in a state of open rebellion and insurrection, although SF is constantly flirting with that, they havnt seceded yet. Case law is clear. Now they can use local laws that prohibit organizations that prohibit homosexuality to prevent recruiters but that is not settled law yet, its working its way thru the courts.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,955

11/13/05 9:42:46 PM

That does look applicable, thanks

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,853

by Ashton

11/13/05 12:52:04 AM

Sophistry flying under perverse banner, Social Darwinism 101

And while advocating the allowance of sophisticated, Tested+Refined persuasion techniques upon High School children, you remain -typically- silent about the Main ingredient within this propaganda barrage; the one which is so often Decisive
(even for the smarter-than-You, but poorer-than-You, TARGET of these recruiters):

The Chance to escape the fate of that 20-million or 40, depending on selected stats - who haven't a 'prayer' of acquiring the education and skills they'd Like to have - without help.

You will smugly permit, nay encourage - this Faustian bargain which the US Government will offer in lieu of actual Help.

Don't want a life of Mickey-Ds? Gamble that Life!
Gl\ufffdcksspiel mit uns!

..and we'll train you to Kill, by a massive variety of slick techno means.. why, it will be just like playing Doom (only *YOU* get to push the FIRE button on that Blackhawk, over that village we're conquering this week.
ZZzzOOooMmmm - *BANG* Exciting, Ain't it, Sonny?

Fie on your 'Principles', Oh Liber-contrarian or {whatever Logo}.
They are as bloodless as that Econ spreadsheet; the one which putatively measures National 'Wealth' / but has no box for 'Personal Greed'/ or one for the 'Social defunding' as follows, and many others which determine qualities of a real 'Life' == in those neatly-balancing equations.

(I can see why your typ answer to every event is a slogan; your essay-answers give away quite too much, of those cards held-so-close to the chest.)

Maybe ~when Your Kids get to that magic 18, when they are presumably to be fair game for Every Scam extant? your POV shall have prevailed, and Rev Moon *LLC will be able to make His hoary presentations too: "Go with My Messiahhood and.. and.. the Mansion you get after death will be bigger than Jesus' and with better Nintendo."

* THAT makes him a Bizness too, so then: Equal Access, Baby (and.. cha cha cha)
Gawd knoze - it's a $multi-Billion one already; wait til it's a Franchise too.

Maybe the US needs to consider its collective IQ <-> VS The World - and raise that Age of Majority to ~23?

Post #233,869

11/13/05 10:43:10 AM

Sophistry ?

The mantra chanted is "We know better".

How charitably presumptuous of you.

And in this case you are oh so charitable with your intellect. We must "save them from themselves".

And with healthcare, we are "bad" because we don't follow the majority...but here we have no mandatory service...and this, of course is a good thing...made better by our "elite minds" who, in order to protect "the cheeldrun", feel that those evil, mind warping recruiters will fool our young into a life of carnage.

Ignoring the fact that 1) not eveyone in service gets to shoot people and 2) they don't need your help to decide...its NOT YOUR JOB.

If they are allowed to be wooed by McDonalds at a job fare (with promises of benefits, promotion, money, education) then they should be, nay must be allowed to hear the same information from another potential employer...be it army, navy, air force or Marine.

Thats the joy of freedom boys.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,871

11/13/05 10:52:04 AM

They can quit McDonalds

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this difference?

Post #233,884

11/13/05 11:58:47 AM

Because it makes no difference

Its THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. You want to make it for them.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,915

by andread

11/13/05 4:55:30 PM

11/13/05 4:55:51 PM

no difference

no one is banning anyone from joining the armed forces
only putting a limit on how the military goes about
getting its volunteers

A

Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]

Edited by andread Nov. 13, 2005, 04:55:51 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #233,924

11/13/05 6:44:58 PM

More of a limit

than on any other organization.

And they are doing it because they don't LIKE it.

My humble apologies for being OFFENDED by that.

And I would recommend to my children that they DON'T enlist.

I am not being pro-military in this defense...but I'm sure most think that I am.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,942

by Simon_Jester

11/13/05 8:14:53 PM

I think some people

see the point that you're making regarding the military. But you brushed away the other two points (that the military already had unequal access from "No Child Left Behind" and the removal of choice a la legal drinking ages) so dismissively (and apparently without validating those points) that your issue appeared to be solely military access.

Post #233,873

11/13/05 11:26:49 AM

Companies are not the same as the armed forces

That's my point. There's a world of difference between being a junior greasemonkey at McDonald's and being a junior greasemonkey in the army in Iraq.

Post #233,883

by imric

11/13/05 11:57:00 AM

Other employers

cannot fundamentally alter the rights they have. The armed services can. Normal employers don't have putting employees in combat situations as a reason for being. Normal employers can't force extended service, and don't have their own laws, courts and prisons.

Employer<>Armed services. Just like Business<>Government. They aren't the same, and shouldn't be the same.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #233,885

11/13/05 11:59:22 AM

See above.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,886

by imric

11/13/05 12:04:37 PM

No.

The Army is not a job. any more than government is business. It's not something that can be quit. The fact that you may permit businesses to recruit does NOT mean that you must let all organisations everywhere recruit.

You are completely wrong here, my friend.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #233,887

11/13/05 12:20:51 PM

You continue to hunt for things

that change the fundamental argument.

It is THEIR CHOICE you are taking away because you don't like that they are choosing. All these differences make it BAD FOR THEM so you shouldn't LET THEM do it.

You are being sucked into the forest and missing the tree.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,890

11/13/05 12:44:21 PM

No-one's taking any choices away, though.

The recruiting office is still there, where it always was.

Post #233,928

11/13/05 6:50:37 PM

Without equal access

because someone knows better than you what choices you should be allowed to make.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,971

11/14/05 1:32:34 AM

Yes, adults do know better than children.

Post #233,894

by hnick

11/13/05 1:01:52 PM

Ok, how about this?

The college students can do what they want. They can be recruited for anything and do as they please. They've been trying to run their own lives for a while now, so let them. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

High school students may still legitimately be protected from predators. Military recruiters eminently qualify as predators, particularly if they are way behind in their quotas. The kids still have to sign up for selective service when they hit 18; that's law. The military doesn't need any more information than that. We should be able to protect our young, even when they approach 18 and you want to turn their air off. If they're 18 and want to enlist, it's their choice. Nothing to be done about it. But we don't have to give predators extra information to hook them.

Post #233,907

11/13/05 1:32:44 PM

But but but

Think of the poor recruiters!!!

Post #233,908

by hnick

11/13/05 1:38:35 PM

Their problem. TS as it were...

Post #233,909

11/13/05 2:07:05 PM

I guess I needed the sign

Post #233,910

by hnick

11/13/05 2:41:25 PM

Me too

Post #233,926

11/13/05 6:49:32 PM

I'm cool with that.

The "extra information" part can go away. In fact, I would support that it does.

Not allowing recruiters access is my problem, especially of other organizations are allowed to recruit.

Thats a "groupthink" issue and I have a problem with that. Its making choices for others because you know better than they do what is good for them. I'm disappointed in several here for not seeing this and coming to the table with "but this is different" and the tried and true "but its for the cheeldrun".

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,930

11/13/05 6:53:01 PM

It was impossible to tease that out though

from you, since you refuse to engage.

At least to me.

That was one of my specific points that made me unhappy.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=233870|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=233870]

Post #233,931

11/13/05 6:57:56 PM

I engaged

on the point that I was making. Since the info seemed to have more legs, I addressed it here.

The info piece was not central nor important to my point.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,932

11/13/05 7:01:46 PM

Sorry

It was to mine.
I should have been clearer.

Post #233,933

11/13/05 7:05:56 PM

No reason for that

If I was pissed, I know where you live :-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,934

11/13/05 7:06:05 PM

11/13/05 7:06:29 PM

dupe

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Edited by bepatient Nov. 13, 2005, 07:06:29 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #233,977

by Ashton

11/14/05 5:34:33 AM

If there's any 'groupthink' here, Mr. Legal Theoretician

(Too many hours memorizing Atlas Shrugged?)

- it's in your refusal to acknowledge that the Military is *NOT* a business, that their techniques include baldfaced, premeditated harassment; Psych Warfare. Recruits, barely ex-children thus utterly inexperienced with even civilian law: enter a surreal NON-civilian Code of Military Justice from Day 1.
(And the rest of Peter's, Imric's clear and relevant points - which you completely ignored.)

Remember? Recruiters commence this Psychological pre-Warfare while these are still CHILDREN.
(Officially! in that arbitrary but Scriptured legal definition of Age of Adulthood - and anyone sane notices that THAT number necessarily ignores the considerable variation in individual 'maturity': both ways.)

But WTF, BeeP - you aren't the only one around who will Stay The Course, No Matter Where that course actually Led. Why, I'd bet you'd reach any conclusion - based on nothing but a few things you deem to be some sort of legal factoid / screw all context. (Some might call that, a simple-minded obsession with the pseudo-science of The Law; you know: "computers can do the Boolean on 'Statutes' and no messy human or humane Live People need attend / spoil the mathematical Efficiency.")

But I call your obdurate repetition of the most simplistic aspect of this proposition: purest Digital Think.
Your faith clearly is in Formulas. (Legal 'Scripture'?)

You're not even 'arguing' - just contradicting. Any deeper, more nuanced examination of this Issue appears beyond your chosen shallow mechanistic mindset. (Speaking of mantras..)

Shit, might's well just Google: "Should I let my kid be exposed to this icky ~~sex edjaKayshun~~ Psyche Manipulation or Not?" Google says: _____.

Pshaw. Wait'll they start bringing in some of that 'missing' Iraqi plastic-wrapped stacks of $100s and dangling them in front of 17 yos... Oh wait -

Post #233,984

by boxley

11/14/05 9:20:04 AM

conclusions should be made on rationale not gut think

we are a nation of laws and any "law" created by an elected assembly needs to fit within the framework of our body of laws. Going "ook bad" is fine but not legally defensible. Going "ook bad because our body of laws do not allow this" actually gets the argument further along.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,988

11/14/05 9:44:40 AM

Bullpucky

I don't HAVE to acknowledge the difference.

You want to take other people's freedom to choose away from them because you don't like their choice, or for some don't think them smart enough to make it, or for some think that its some "evil enterprise" in action, brainwashing our poor children (some of whom are your fellow posters now that they're all growed up, btw)

This is not contradiction. Its not even support for the military. Its a defense of one of the most fundamental aspects of this country.

And some say...well they can choose them...but "we don't have to make it so easy". Again, bullshit. If you are going to give them access to choice 1...then you need to give them equal access to choice 2...WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

Welcome to the US of freakin A, pal.

But because its the military, all eyes here are blind to this. The hatred that you show for the current regime and their policies has you completely blind to the most fundamental aspect of this debate.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,990

11/14/05 9:46:11 AM

No-one's freedom to choose has been taken away.

Unless, of course, recruiting offices are being blockaded.

Which they aren't.

Post #233,991

11/14/05 9:49:54 AM

That is in there

you are making it harder to choose this by restricting access.

maybe over there, Peter...but not here. That dog don't hunt here. Not allowed.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,996

11/14/05 10:10:17 AM

It's harder to choose because it's not the same.

The military and the corporations are not equivalent.

And access isn't restricted, unless the aforementioned recruiting offices are blockaded, which they're not.

Post #233,998

11/14/05 10:14:56 AM

But the access to choose

by the individual must be the same.

They decide if the difference warrants another choice. Not you.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,000

11/14/05 10:21:24 AM

By that logic...

...you might as well invite in the KKK; I'm sure they have a number of PR openings.

Post #234,002

11/14/05 10:28:37 AM

Chuckle

you would have to let them if they wanted.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,003

by boxley

11/14/05 10:28:41 AM

as a matter of fact you might have a hard time keeping them

out if there is an extra currecular black history studies group.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,993

by boxley

11/14/05 9:52:09 AM

either equal access for all or no access for anyone

that is how things work here. Socially unacceptable is not a criteria for banning public discourse in America, Yet.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,001

11/14/05 10:21:52 AM

Suppose this was rural Nevada rather than SF.

Should brothel owners be allowed to attend high school career day or recruiting events in Nevada? Why or why not?

Recall that only a small percentage of those in high school will be of the age of majority. Also recall that brothels are legal in many counties of Nevada.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who sees a higher standard other than merely "non-discrimination" that needs to be applied in high school career day events.)

Post #234,004

11/14/05 10:30:51 AM

Its a legal occupation

In they come.

Somehow you think my position would change because of this?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,005

by boxley

11/14/05 10:31:12 AM

prostitution is a venerable profession

put their booth right next to planned parenthood and the Focus on the Family displays.
thanx,
bill

Post #234,116

11/14/05 5:13:08 PM

I misread that as...

"Prostitution is a venereal profession."

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #234,125

by boxley

11/14/05 6:18:01 PM

intended this time :-}

Post #234,127

by Ashton

11/14/05 6:35:48 PM

11/14/05 6:44:26 PM

OK Beep, you've convinced me

Of what is needed to level the playing field. It IS now 2005 and not 1776, before Persuasion became a $Growth$ Industry, staffed by legions of mercenaries with the same level of conscience as your 'strict construction' Scalia argument displays.

Premise:
IF.. in '05 - a 17 yo has not yet figured out that *everyone* with something to Sell is Lying -??- (by omission if not commission) in his/her selective-data presentations:

Perhaps that naif *IS* Just the sort of malleable cannon fodder we shall need more and More-of, to bring US-defined 'Democracy' to Everyone; by all means possible (whether or not practicable.) You appear to be onboard with this view. You, Ayn and and Mr. John Galt.

Initial solution:
The clear next step then, in refining this Open-to-Every-POV process, is:

Each Presenter's table has, (placed a decent audio-space away) a Second table - staffed by any group which wishes to deconstruct the messages from the Main table, employ whatever persuasion techniques as they care to employ / as does the Presenter.

(Headphones, etc. lest duelling audio cancel-out Both sides)

This policy would ensure (at least) two aspects of all 'recruitment' on any *school campus* anywhere:

Conditions:
A) Each student is reminded, properly: to weigh the fact that All Presenters are Salesmen and are minimizing that which you would not Like to find out only.. AFTER it is Too Late.

Presenters are magnifying that which you'd Like to believe -- but in practice, you may have SIGNED-away your chances ever, of Enforcing.
[The reason there should also be a lawyer assigned to Each Child, in order to clarify the often weasel-words in the Promises.] 'Course that would cost some money once pro-bono was exhausted, but WTF - what's a 'child' worth?

B) Each student also is reminded that, No Job! is *without* its negatives; some of these negatives may place your life (or your mental health or both) in far more jeopardy than you can possibly guess - at AGE 17. 'Death' may be less onerous a risk than quadriplegia - for just one example.
(Hell, you can die when your Pinto gets nudged at 20 mph, enroute to the Finest-grade imitation-leather cubicle..)

(And, re a Military career: screen before Recruitment Day - Johnny Got His Gun and preferably, too: The Green Table ballet, for a change of Media - as a small sop for the fact that these are indeed, 'Children' being hustled by Pros.)

(Oh, equivalency for the Corporate ladder to climb: every student gets, if wanted - a tour of the largest local Cubicle Farm, preferably to silently observe ... ... for a period of several hours; a second trip if requested.)

Of course, were this realized - there might be more candidates for Monasteries, but W.T.F.

WITHOUT (A + B): I aver that your 'principle' remains as simplistically Boolean as when proffered and, like the ostrich - its position remains both vulgar and vulnerable.

Ashton,

CIEIO -
The OTHER Side, LLC

War is Good (for) Bizness: Invest Your Son/Daughter/Ward -
But FIRST: pay us some Conscience money, so when you visit the kid later, in the rehab clinic - you can say, Well, we tried to warn you - remember?

tysop

Edited by Ashton Nov. 14, 2005, 06:44:26 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #234,141

11/14/05 7:28:37 PM

11/14/05 7:30:56 PM

WDYHASM?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Edited by bepatient Nov. 14, 2005, 07:30:29 PM EST

Edited by bepatient Nov. 14, 2005, 07:30:56 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #234,144

by Ashton

11/14/05 7:44:37 PM

(Because it's Broken?)

Post #234,143

by Andrew Grygus

11/14/05 7:44:33 PM

Judging by infected computers . . .

. . today's kids don't develop a suspicion of the word "free" until they're about 24 years old. I suspect their suspicion of other sales pitches is similarly weak until that age.

Naturally, our government is anxious to recruit the required quota of canon fodder from the 18 to 23 year olds, because beyond that it's "game over". I'm sure they'd recruit them at 12 years if they could - boy could they make hay then!

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #233,845

by boxley

11/12/05 11:18:38 PM

ya might want to check into title 9 etc

and while in the general neighborhood the fact that freedom from association does not apply to public, taxpayer funded institutions, only private groups accepting no federal largess.
thanx,
bill

Post #233,847

11/12/05 11:25:14 PM

Ya might want to actually read my post

Title 9 is about discrimination based on gender. Which was on the list of things that I said you can't discriminate on the basis of. (According to US federal law.)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #233,831

11/12/05 10:10:54 PM

Now wait just a minute!

How did we get to military recruitment to abortion? We are talking about how the military seduces high school kids with all the whizz-bang gadgetry to lure them into a four year hitch. You don't see abortion clinics glamorizing the procedure.

So, let's not mix our apples with our oranges, okay?

Peace,
Amy

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #233,833

11/12/05 10:20:21 PM

And there you go.

Those evil recruiters luring some poor stupid person to make a bad choice.

Hmmm.

Maybe I think that the clinic doesn't give the graphic nature of the procedure to the girl and thus leads her to make a bad decision.

Point is...you assume that someone else isn't capable of making a valid choice (for whatever reason) and thus force YOUR VIEWS on them.

But thats ok, as long as its the military (or something else you may not like). Its not ok when you are on the other side of the debate, though, is it?

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #233,840

11/12/05 10:35:56 PM

Use the source, Q!

[link|http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_index.asp?id=33918|Proposition I]:

PROPOSITION I

Shall it be City policy to oppose military recruiting in public schools and consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

THE WAY IT IS NOW: The San Francisco Unified School District operates the City's public schools. The District receives federal money to pay part of its operating costs. By accepting federal money, the District must permit U.S. military recruiters access to its schools. Colleges and universities that receive federal funds are subject to similar requirements.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition I is a declaration of policy that the people of San Francisco oppose the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military.

Proposition I is also a declaration that San Francisco should consider funding scholarships for higher education and job training that could provide an alternative to military service.

A \ufffdYES\ufffd VOTE MEANS: If you vote \ufffdyes,\ufffd you want it to be City policy to oppose military recruiters\ufffd access to public schools and to consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service.

A \ufffdNO\ufffd VOTE MEANS: If you vote \ufffdno,\ufffd you do not want this to be City policy.

The legal text is [link|http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Guides/PropI_Legal%20Text.pdf|here] (2 page .pdf). It says:

Resolved, that the people of San Francisco oppose U.S. military recruiters using public school, college and university facilities to recruit young people into the armed forces. Furthermore, San Francisco should oppose the military\ufffds \ufffdeconomic draft\ufffd by investigating means by which to fund and grant scholarships for college and job training to low-income students so they are not economically compelled to join the military.

The summary doesn't mention college and university facilities. My personal opinion is that it appears to be a declaration with no teeth. O'Reilly's reaction is typical of too many pundits - being upset at a symbolic protest action while ignoring substantive issues.

That said, if the ballot didn't mention college and university facilities and only mentioned public schools, then it borders on being a deceptive ballot, IMO. I see value in ROTC and military recruiting on college campuses. Recruiting at high schools is more problematic.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #233,848

11/12/05 11:40:45 PM

May the Source be with me!

"It's never too late to be who you might have been." ~ George Eliot

Post #233,949

11/13/05 9:22:14 PM

A hitch is 8 years these days.

At least in the [link|http://www.army.com/enlist/compare_active_duty_and_reserves.html|Army or Army Reserve]. And you can go in at 17.

Just more fuel for the fire.

Carry on all y'all's 'un's. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #234,015

11/14/05 11:22:05 AM

Reality check.

After all, the big bad military is SNEAKY and UNDERHANDED and dupe every single member into joining up.

You think the military doesn't intentionally mislead adolescents into signing up? Time to change crack brands, beep.

Post #234,019

11/14/05 11:26:06 AM

Let the attacks continue

can't argue the point, attack the guy who made it.

Par for your course.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,023

11/14/05 11:34:06 AM

So, you're saying the military doesn't mislead?

I remember being recruited. I have friends who served and were substantially misled from where they'd be stationed to how much dough they'd get for college.

Post #234,027

11/14/05 11:40:28 AM

Not saying any such thing.

You are.

It has nothing to do with my point.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,029

11/14/05 11:43:51 AM

Bad form.

I replied to (and quoted) the statement you made I took issue with.

HTH.

Post #234,030

11/14/05 11:45:32 AM

And assume

that any answer would somehow change the fundamental argument, which it does not.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #234,032

11/14/05 11:48:51 AM

Heh.

So, you make (presumeably in support of your position) outrageous Claim A. I call you on it and you concede (I think) that Claim A is clearly false. And somehow I'm not addressing the argument but launching a personal attack? Okay, I did tell you to put the crack pipe down again - shorthand for "C'mon beep. That statement is ridiculous on its face."

Post #234,048