Military recruiters barred from public high school

Scott Leffler · Guru

Military recruiters barred from public high school

Mindcrime · Guru

Denying recruiters access is a violation of First Ammendment rights, however, if you allow recruiters to solicit children on school grounds, then you have to allow Planned Parenthood, The 700 Club, ABATE and people like me. Most schools are very unfriendly to strangers, especially adults. How is it a military recruiter can wander a high school unchecked, and a normal person would have the police called on them for just sitting on the school's lawn? Let 'em put a poster in the guidance counselor's office and be happy with that.

I say invite recruiters to college & job fairs. This way, students will see a plethora of opprtunities, not just the option of joining the military. I watched recruiters at a mall about a month ago, they were not just handing out pamphlets like in my day, they pushed, even harrassed people about signing up.

-- Edited by Mindcrime at 07:47, 2005-05-19

NuclearLou · Senior Member

Military recruits Help AP Comments needed

alwayswatching · Guru

quote:
Originally posted by: NuclearLou
"The Associated Press needs your help -- the AP is writing an article for Memorial Day. They are looking for your comments in regards to your sons or daughters joining the military and sending them to war. Send your comments to: dcrary@ap.org "

Will they take them if we give them a quote? If so I'm in.

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

RE: Military recruiters barred from public high school

alwayswatching · Guru

Very good question PT, Scott can you ask him?

Dovey · Senior Member

quote:
Originally posted by: alwayswatching
"Very good question PT, Scott can you ask him?"

Maybe he will call in to the station....

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

quote:
Originally posted by: Paper Tigress
"Ya know, the Bush daughters have been out of school for over a year now, and still have no job. I wonder if Bush wil be quoted in that story as to why he's not sending his children to war?"

no body sends their children to war - the children must be adults and able to choose to send themselves to war or they dont go - simple enough - how long have you been out of school ?    perhaps you are one of the demoncrats that would like to reinstate the draft ?    or just a select draft for the children of great politicians ?    chelsea is even through college now , she could enlist and get a commision right off the bat ? i see you dont mention her ?   of course her father was not a great politician , but would it not be un american to not give the innocent children of traitors the same opportunities afforded to everyone ?

- unfortunatly i am too old , but if asked i will go , gladly .

this war is just , we have a choice , fight it over there or fight it over here , in the USA ,   i think it is better to fight it over there.   either way the war is going to be faught.

now if we could just find something other than DU to use against enemy armor ....     how about sodium or phosphourus encased in a tungsten dart .... saboted like the DU ammo .... higher velocity and mass for same or better penetration .... ?    worth a try .

Date: Sat May 21 6:37 AM, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: mike of the mountain
""

I personally do not care if either ones daughters go to war.WAIT we are not at war anymore!If I remember this right,It was a group of people from a bunch of different country's that did 911.And I thought their Leader was in afganistan and still is.Only my thoughts but our kids should be brought home from iraq!.....They go into poor white schools and convince 17and 18 year old kids.At 18 you think you will never be hurt,you listen to these guys talk and it's a good one.Plus every person you sign a bonus you recieve.....Back to the non war, we never stuck to what we were doing?We moved on to slicker fields............Now to the news ,where are the stories of our kids dieing,# counts.The wounded.How come we do not honor them by seeing the planes come in with the caskets covered with the flag?..On the news I see what the stars are doing....I don't care.To day is underwear saddam day.Come on where is the real news."not meant for you scott"...The biggest news of the week is Star wars.Are the news people out there?....I forgot to sign in it is Dovey....

Mindcrime · Guru

quote:
Originally posted by: mike of the mountain
"perhaps you are one of the demoncrats that would like to reinstate the draft ? or just a select draft for the children of great politicians ? chelsea is even through college now , she could enlist and get a commision right off the bat ? i see you dont mention her ? of course her father was not a great politician , but would it not be un american to not give the innocent children of traitors the same opportunities afforded to everyone ?"

Hmmm, how shall I make my point?

POLITICALLY: Every time the conservatives run out of excuses for Bush they try to shift the focus and compare him to Clinton. Bill Clinton didn't start a war. His presidency was marked by 8 years of peace. Chelsea and the Bush daughters were safe because Clinton didn't run around the globe picking fights.

HISTORICALLY: Wasn't Bush hiding out in college and a comfy US post during the Viet Nam war? Wuss...

LOGICALLY: A draft has been proven throughout history to be ineffectual. It should be used only as a last resort, and only if superior numbers will make a difference. In modern warfare, with all our long-distance technology, this entire conflict could be run by 2 monkeys and a can of SPAM. Superior numbers just don't matter anymore. It just gives the Iraqi resistance more targets.

INTELLIGENTLY: The only reason I would support the draft is it would make everyone rethink their support for this war. A lot of people in this country think all they have to do is put a magnetic ribbon on their car and they're supporting the war. If it actually stood a chance of affecting everyone in the nation, maybe we'd stop to consider if this really was a just and necessary war. A draft would create such an outcry, Congress would fear for their lives.

REALISTICALLY: How many 18 year-olds do you know that have an adult mind? They're not thinking like 30 or 40-year-olds. They're indestructible, competetive, arrogant people for the most part who don't consider consequences on their actions. (Hey, just like Bush!) They don't understand the reasons to go to war. They are easily fooled by tactics the government used right after 9/11. (Sign up for the military, or the terrorists win!) But they also know right from wrong, which is why recruitment is at a record low. They see how stupid this fracas is and they want no part of it. That's not selfishness, that's intelligence.

ANTAGONISTICALLY: Bush a great politician? Sure he is. Too bad he's not a leader, or Presidential, or compassionate, or a decision maker, or even an example to follow. He's a total freakin' retard who couldn't talk his way out of a soap bubble. I'm amazed his brain generates enough power to walk upright. And the only reason he won re-election is 'cause he has industries in his pocket and a bible up his butt.

-- Edited by Mindcrime at 09:03, 2005-05-21

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

#POLITICALLY: Every time the conservatives run out of excuses for Bush they try to shift the focus and compare him to Clinton. Bill Clinton didn't start a war. His presidency was marked by 8 years of peace. Chelsea and the Bush daughters were safe because Clinton didn't run around the globe picking fights."

silly boy , you brought up the question of "why hasnt president Bush sent his daughters to war " i have shown how the failing s of BC got over 3000 americans killed in the thread about factory jobs , feel free to read it . he did not start the war as while the bad guys attacked us HE DID NOTHING TO PREVENT IT ! unless his daliance with monica somehow helped ......

" In modern warfare, with all our long-distance technology, this entire conflict could be run by 2 monkeys and a can of SPAM. Superior numbers just don't matter anymore. It just gives the Iraqi resistance more targets."

yes i can see your great understanding of military tactics here - why not convert iraq into a layer of glass by melting their sand , we have that capability too . but since only a small percentage of the population is causing problems , why exterminate all of them ? actually most of the bad guys killed are not even iraqis ...

"ANTAGONISTICALLY: Bush a great politician? Sure he is. Too bad he's not a leader, or Presidential, or compassionate, or a decision maker, or even an example to follow. He's a total freakin' retard who couldn't talk his way out of a soap bubble. I'm amazed his brain generates enough power to walk upright. And the only reason he won re-election is 'cause he has industries in his pocket and a bible up his butt."

a retard could not get himself elected 2x to be president of USA - you have made some very nasty statements - once again - back them up - show us the proof .

Date: Tue May 24 11:43 AM, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: mike of the mountain
"i have shown how the failing s of BC got over 3000 americans killed in the thread about factory jobs , feel free to read it . he did not start the war as while the bad guys attacked us HE DID NOTHING TO PREVENT IT ! neither has bush. the last evaluation of our security said it is nearly the same 3 years after 9/11.

why not convert iraq into a layer of glass by melting their sand , we have that capability too that's just stupid. why would you even suggest something as vicious as genocide?

a retard could not get himself elected 2x to be president of USA. sure he could. everyone does everything for him

alwayswatching · Guru

Look dad no hands! We don't need toxins to fight, it seems to be the sport of choice. No one person is more at fault than the next. And from where I sit, it looks to be a fairly even match. Or is it not the fighting but rather the lack of a name that makes it unfair? Something to ponder I guess.

-- Edited by alwayswatching at 21:53, 2005-05-24

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

Mike OTM,

I would go to war if the cause were just and important. But it's not. This war is wrong and should never have been started. You can't fight an idea like terrorism with a tanglible army. And I don't see the point in coercing young people into a situation that they don't know enough about to make a good decision. That's all.

Neither Clinton nor Bush could've prevented 9/11, but attacking an uninvolved nation makes no sense.

Mindcrime · Guru

Exactly! If this were a just war, if the enemy and purpose were clearly defined, that would be a different story. As it is, we're just swatting at flies in Iraq. Our military might is misplaced, we're wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, we're needlessly putting our soldiers into harm's way, and the threat of terrorist attack is as strong as ever. (If our mission were really "accomplished," why do we still have Terror Alerts? Why not relax our airport security?)

Yes, Saddam was an evil man who is better off posing for beefcake photos in prison than running a middle eastern country, BUT it was not our responsibility, nor our right, to overthrow him. No matter how you slice it, no matter what good comes of this regime change, no matter how long this delicate democracy lasts in Iraq, it was not our place to interfere. No one seemed to like it when Muslim extremists imposed their will on our way of life. What makes you think they're any happier when we do it to them?

I don't think recruiters should be allowed the same indiscretion their commander-in-chief has. I realize quotas are down, but that doesn't give them permission to harrass and coerce people into joining up. They bend the truth and paint a rose-colored picture of military life. They are paid to be spin-doctors in uniform, and their mission is to hook as many fish as they can. A public school is not the place for that kind of proposition.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

quote:

Originally posted by: Mindcrime
"Exactly! If this were a just war, if the enemy and purpose were clearly defined, that would be a different story. As it is, we're just swatting at flies in Iraq. Our military might is misplaced,

"Neither Clinton nor Bush could've prevented 9/11, but attacking an uninvolved nation makes no sense. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2 fer 1 , you are both mistaken - the enemy and the purpose of the enemy are clearly defined by the enemy .   THEIR STATED MISSION IS TO KILL ALL WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VERSION OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION , WAHHABI ISM . unless you practice the wahhabi religion YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR LIST OF PEOPLE TO BE KILLED . as is mine and every one else's name reading this .    To my way of thinking , that alone justifies this war .

link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402391/posts    one of zillions , but it is better to type " wahhabi terror " into google and just read a few things that come up ,    THIS IS NO BS , not a movie or comic book , they are at war and we have liberals at home worried about " their feelings " .   ?   i am standing beside myself ?

    one good thing about battle in iraq and afghanastan is that most of the bad guys we are killing there are not residents or citizens of either of those countries , most are iranians or syrians or saudis with a sprinkling from other radical islamic nations .     they are seeking our military over there , THE BAD GUYS ARE NOT SEEKING TO COME TO AMERICA AND KILL AMERICANS IN AMERICA , at this time ,      the bad guys are being killed at a ratio of about 30 to 1 of ours last time i checked on the DOD website . if our military were not "over their" killing them there is little to no reason to believe that they would not return their focus to KILLING AMERICANS IN AMERICA .

clinton could have prevented 9/11 by removing the head of the snake - as i have irefutably shown in another thread , he admitted he had the capability of , here is another link with the timeline of what happened . http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

president Bush of course could not have prevented it .    but he is doing his very best to make sure it does not happen again .

Mindcrime · Guru

quote:
Originally posted by: mike of the mountain
"the enemy and the purpose of the enemy are clearly defined by the enemy . THEIR STATED MISSION IS TO KILL ALL WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR VERSION OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION , WAHHABI ISM . unless you practice the wahhabi religion YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR LIST OF PEOPLE TO BE KILLED . as is mine and every one else's name reading this . To my way of thinking , that alone justifies this war . "

So why havn't we attacked every other nation or group out there that has threatened us? There are groups in this country that want to kill Americans for all kinds of reasons, why aren't we shelling their homes and compounds with artillery?

This kind of justification is at best, inconsistent.

Are these Wahhabiists wearing nametags or something that sets them apart from civilians? You can't just look at someone and say, "Well, they look like they might kill someone someday. Better kill them first..."

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

"So why havn't we attacked every other nation or group out there that has threatened us? There are groups in this country that want to kill Americans for all kinds of reasons, why aren't we shelling their homes and compounds with artillery? " because these turds actually did kill over 3000 Americans , they were not just bitching about it .

This kind of justification is at best, inconsistent. no , any group of turds that attacks and kills Americans has earned the same treatment .

Are these Wahhabiists wearing nametags or something that sets them apart from civilians? You can't just look at someone and say, "Well, they look like they might kill someone someday. Better kill them first..." our military targets individuals without uniforms but with weapons , and individuals with the uniform of the enemy , or our uniforms after the individual has displayed hostile actions to American soldiers if they cant be confirmed to be American or freindly . our people are trained to identify who to go after . and we have our neat electronics to watch what the bad guys are doing , when the bad guys dont think they are being watched .

follow some of the links - you did not have time before you responded .....

alwayswatching · Guru

quote:
Originally posted by: Mindcrime

So why havn't we attacked every other nation or group out there that has threatened us? There are groups in this country that want to kill Americans for all kinds of reasons, why aren't we shelling their homes and compounds with artillery?

North Korea and China come to mine as excellent examples.

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

Hey, wasn't Timothy McVeigh a "turd that attacked & killed Americans?" Why hasn't the government napalmed Western New York yet?

Remember Columbine? 2 students attacked and killed children. Why haven't we started executing a few dozen sophmores a week on national TV?

If the Army is so effective at recognizing criminals just by looking at them, why haven't we won the 20 year "War On Drugs?" We could have saved all the time & money the government wastes on enforcing anti-drug laws...

See what happens when you make generalizations and use them as an excuse to go to war?

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

"Hey, wasn't Timothy McVeigh a "turd that attacked & killed Americans?" Why hasn't the government napalmed Western New York yet? " last time i looked Tim was a little dead . i have never stated the entire population of any where is our enemy , only the bad guys that are actively involved in killing Americans need to be killed or locked away in a cold dark damp place ....

"Remember Columbine? 2 students attacked and killed children. Why haven't we started executing a few dozen sophmores a week on national TV?" the offending sophmores are also a little dead . the rest of the sophmores are not attempting to kill other Americans , there is no reason to consider "executing " young Americans for any reason [ why would you even suggest such a thing ? ] - we have law enforcement to deal with crime from all age groups as perscribed by our rule of law .

If the Army is so effective at recognizing criminals just by looking at them, why haven't we won the 20 year "War On Drugs?" We could have saved all the time & money the government wastes on enforcing anti-drug laws... o our laws do not permit our military to operate inside our border if there is/are no wars going on inside our borders [unless authorised by proper proceedures] . law enforcement has that task . as long as there is a market for drug abuse , there will be a supply source . and we do have face recognition software [and other neat things] that IS used at the discretion of law enforcement at airports and public events and stadiums , etc etc . to pluck bad guys from the general population ....

See what happens when you make generalizations and use them as an excuse to go to war? i am not the one making the generalizations ..... we did not need an excuse to defend our selves WE HAVE BEEN UNDER ATTACK SINCE 1993

Scott Leffler · Guru

RE: RE: Military recruiters barred from public hig

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

RE: RE: Military recruiters barred from public high school

kspeer · Senior Member

RE: RE: Military recruiters barred from public hig

kspeer · Senior Member

RE: Military recruiters barred from public high sc