GySgt said:Having never served as a Recruiter, I can only speak briefly on the subject, but since this involves Marine Corps Recruiters I feel compelled to share what I know.
Recruiters will spend every moment possible to fill their quotas. If quotas are not met, careers are destroyed. They are assigned areas of responsibility, but have complete freedom to go where they please within that sector. That being said, they visit every place where recruits are possible. They will visit schools of any social status and visit any gathering of peoples, because recruits come from all over. They are forbidden to lie, but human nature will dictate for each possible quota how far they will push that line - after all, it is their careers at stake. There is a sense of responsibility on the potential recruit as well. Individuals should know that joining the military might mean actually doing something along the lines of what militaries do. Despite missing a couple monthly quotas this year (unheard of for the Marine Corps), the Marine Corps remains strong for annual numbers.
While they are not the target, the poor have always been the strongest defender of America. There is a reason politicians do not have sons in the military. Money and opportunity. The rich offer more opportunities for their youth, while the poor see the military as a means to college. If a wealthy youth has aspirations of the political arena, he will generally serve in a more "comfortable" branch. Many of the more wealthy in our society simply have no time for the sort of “inferior” human being who is “foolish” enough to join our military.
Recruiters know this, because of what history proves, but they always keep all doors open.
Who asked you? What makes you think anyone is interested in knowing that fellatio and sodomy is your bag?Napoleon's Nightingale said::lol: Well I'm openly gay (a bit hard to hide), the arches in my feet are collapsing, and I'm manic depressive so I'm hardly qualified for the military anyway. Besides, I value knowledge about physical conquest.
GySgt said:Having never served as a Recruiter, I can only speak briefly on the subject, but since this involves Marine Corps Recruiters I feel compelled to share what I know.
Recruiters will spend every moment possible to fill their quotas. If quotas are not met, careers are destroyed. They are assigned areas of responsibility, but have complete freedom to go where they please within that sector. That being said, they visit every place where recruits are possible. They will visit schools of any social status and visit any gathering of peoples, because recruits come from all over. They are forbidden to lie, but human nature will dictate for each possible quota how far they will push that line - after all, it is their careers at stake. There is a sense of responsibility on the potential recruit as well. Individuals should know that joining the military might mean actually doing something along the lines of what militaries do. Despite missing a couple monthly quotas this year (unheard of for the Marine Corps), the Marine Corps remains strong for annual numbers.
While they are not the target, the poor have always been the strongest defender of America. There is a reason politicians do not have sons in the military. Money and opportunity. The rich offer more opportunities for their youth, while the poor see the military as a means to college. If a wealthy youth has aspirations of the political arena, he will generally serve in a more "comfortable" branch. Many of the more wealthy in our society simply have no time for the sort of “inferior” human being who is “foolish” enough to join our military.
Recruiters know this, because of what history proves, but they always keep all doors open.
Agreed, well said. Thanks for sharing that GySgtMiddleground said:Thanks for that excellent and informative post.
Fantasea said:Who asked you? What makes you think anyone is interested in knowing that fellatio and sodomy is your bag?
Then, again, are you bragging, complaining, or simply cruising?
If one's reluctance to be showered with unnecessary, unasked for, and unwanted knowledge about another's sexual proclivities is your definition of what you refer to as fag-bashing and bigotry, then I stand convicted.ban.the.electoral.college said:I'll be the first to say Napoleons Nightingale is the last person I thought I'd need to stand up for, but your remarks are uncalled for. And who asked you? What makes you think anyone is interested in knowing that fag-bashing and bigotry is your bag?
Then again, are you bragging, boasting, or simply just looking for attention?
Fantasea said:If one's reluctance to be showered with unnecessary, unasked for, and unwanted knowledge about another's sexual proclivities is your definition of what you refer to as fag-bashing and bigotry, then I stand convicted.
However, it is you, not I, who called this person a fag, isn't it.
Fantasea said:If one's reluctance to be showered with unnecessary, unasked for, and unwanted knowledge about another's sexual proclivities is your definition of what you refer to as fag-bashing and bigotry, then I stand convicted.
However, it is you, not I, who called this person a fag, isn't it.
Billo_Really said:Here is a quote and some links to the contrary. By the way, I went to your link and read your source.
(*Editors Note | Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/27/6422/printer
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/063005E.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.14A.Zalmay.Oil.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
You make it seem as if the constitution runs solely in your direction.Napoleon's Nightingale said::lol: Boo hoo about it somewhere else. If I were to talk about naked women you wouldn't mind in the least. You didn't have to read it in the first place. It's my constitutional right to say whatever I want whenever I want wherever I want. If you want to make much ado about nothing whine about it to the founding fathers.
Fantasea said:You make it seem as if the constitution runs solely in your direction.
Middleground said:I hope you have better proof of deceit, cuz this minute detail is simply grasping at straws.
Next...
SixStringHero said:Ludahai, of all things to bring up about Moore the Panatagraph is small apples compared to the rest of his duplicity. You should of brought up the Unocal oil pipeline. Moore claims that Bush and co. had plans to build and oil pipe-line thorough Afghanistan, but the reality of it was this plan was abandoned during Clinton's administration. Of course, you won't hear that omited detail from Moore.
.
ban.the.electoral.college said:He needs to be put on trial for sending 1000's of americans to their untimely deaths (not to mention afghanis, and iraqis). There is no need for us to be meddling abroad. It only serves the purpose of greed. And all who sit comfortably with this, are seriously out of touch.
cnredd said:Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively.
Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.
[Moore response: None.]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if you saw ONE video of a lion watching a gazelle walk by and the announcer says, "As you can see, the lion and gazelle live in perfect harmony...The lion will never attack a gazelle..."
To someone who has never heard of either animal, that ONE video would sound like proof that the announcer was correct. Of course 99% of the general public knows differently, and could spot the misleading quotation.
Thats how Moore works...He doesn't WANT the informed person to watch his movies...he wants the ones new to politics, especially the college kids, so he can mold them into his way of thinking. The last thing on earth Moore wants is for people to think for themselves.
His way of thinking is, "If 100 people see this movie, and 20 believe it without question, then there is 20 more votes against Bush, therefore helping the overall cause"..It now seems that he didn't expect another 60 to question his statements and motives...and when they found out the truth, they were actually put off by Moore's tactics and went the other way.
That is why some people on the Liberal side believe that Moore actually HURT their cause more than it helped.
ludahai said:Not impressed. It shows his work is sloppy at best, even if you can believe one of Michael's employees. Real objective sort, isn't he? If Michael can't get it right about a supposed ARTICLE which was actually a LETTER TO THE EDITOR and can't get it right that it was FIVE minutes and not SEVEN minutes that Moore claims that the President was in the room with the kids after he was notified about the second plane, how can we take the rest of it seriously?!?
Middleground said:Well it is obvious--and perhaps something we both agree on-- is that Moore cherry picked her quote. It's obvious, right? That said, we must now come to the resolution of why he did it. I venture without any trepidation to think that you believe he did it to misinform. Sure, it's a possibility. But perhaps, it was not. Let's dissect her quote:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
Pretty obvious, eh?
It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.
Okay, now she saying that it is not Iraq and Saddam that is responsible for 9/11, it's an ideology of hatred.
This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence.
I have no problem here. I think she's right. I bet you do too.
And they're all linked.
Hmmmm.... who's they're? It must be all nations that harbour terrorists. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the like. The only country we could possibly rule out is Iraq. Then again, she did say there was a tie. Then she said that there was not. I'm sooooo confused.
And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
Oh my... Iraq IS a central front!!!! So I guess she started by saying that Iraq is responsible for 9/11 because they harbour terrorists, then she said that they weren't, then she said that it's THE central front of terrorism!!!!
So in conclusion, all that was needed was the first line. Perhaps Mr. Moore did not want to confuse his audience with such useless drivel.
cnredd said:Lovely thought process...I will now go into my well of pasts posts to show you how dumb that was....
Using your logic, I will prove that, because my father was an alcholic, Hillary Clinton is a man....
My father used to drink....
My father used to beat the dickens out of me...
Dickens wrote "David Copperfield"...
David Copperfield makes things disappear...
The Bermuda Triangle makes things disappear...
Businesses put their headquarters in Bermuda to save taxes...
Taxes are one of the facts of life....
"The Facts of Life" starred George Clooney...
George Clooney is a man with short hair...
Hillary Clinton has short hair...
Conclusion...Hillary Clinton is a man.
Middleground said:Well I see that I wasted my time replying to you.
I will keep it in mind from now on.
"Which is the hardest part...", if you ask Tom Petty.Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Your not as clear as you could be regarding why I would not comment. Like I told you, I haven't researched this yet. When I do, you can be sure I will say something one way or another.
Originally Posted by ludahai:
We're still waiting....... and waiting...... and waiting.....
Comment on Moore:
One could get the idea of how close Michael Moore is to the truth by the level of outrage directed towards him. Much the same way one could tell how good Bill Clinton was as President by the level of hatred neo's have for him, by bringing up his name constantly, 6 whole years after he was in office.
Billo_Really said:"Which is the hardest part...", if you ask Tom Petty.
I'll do things on my timetable, not yours.
ludahai said:Why don't you put up or shut up?
Shutting me up is not an option on your table. Besides, how could we have a debate if I did that. Maybe I should let cnredd speak for me. I know that's something he's well versed at.Originally Posted by ludahai:
Why don't you put up or shut up?
Billo_Really said:Shutting me up is not an option on your table. Besides, how could we have a debate if I did that. Maybe I should let cnredd speak for me. I know that's something he's well versed at.
As far as your concerned, I couldn't help but notice a few posts back the comment you made regarding Bush's statement on Taiwan and their right to govern themselves. In there, you said something about the "...US allowing..." whatever, I can't remember specifically, but more to the point, what the f___ makes you think the US has the right to go around the world telling other soveriegn nations what they can and cannot do in their own country". That's pretty sick, the mind that thinks we have the right to do this.
We do have the right, on the other hand, to kick the shiite out of people that do in fact attack us. Hussein and the Taliban, do not fall into this catagory.
That's all for now. My Michael Moore movie is just starting. Uno, come to think of it, you have something in common with Mr. Moore. You both make me laugh.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?