Looks like the libz can't ban the military from recruiting...

[Hatfield]

I've said I wasn't. Of course there wasn't a war or threat of one at the time that I would have been of any help to the armed forces, but if there is a draft, I would happily go if they needed me.

See, I believe that it would be an honor to serve my country, unlike you who think military people are dumbasses.


so you will happily go if they make you, but you don't want to join up on your own? gotcha.

they take people year round you know

[OklahomaTuba]

Do you need to take your ritalin? You can't seem to focus.So you think military recruiting is a bad thing then, huh?

[imjebus]

If you think that soultion sucks why don't you tell us your solution?


Their won't be a solution until people start treating everybody as equals instead of judging them by what they do in their personal lives. The hatred towards gays just on this board is enough to show that.

[OklahomaTuba]

You think the military only needs people during wartime?
No, but they probably only need ME during war time when they need someone to do real stuff, as I am extreamly slow moving and have a horrible shot.

But if they need me to clean something up, I can do that ok.

[Hatfield]

i am fairly sure there are many more jobs than just infantry....i am sure they could find you a nice janitorial job.

[imjebus]

Kill everybody dumber than me; therefore, we don't have to have a military.


Ha ha ha ha ha... sounds like a plan.... moron :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

:confused: This is a retarded statement, I expect better from you. :(

What you described is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is indepdent of sexual orientation. If that very same thing happened between a male supervisor and female subordinates it would have been just as bad. Get rid of all the homos and there will still be sexual harassment, ergo it's not a homo issue.

Why wouldn't your ship have women on it now? Was it a sub?

[OklahomaTuba]

so you will happily go if they make you, but you don't want to join up on your own? gotcha.

they take people year round you know

True. I nearly joined after highschool but I wanted to go in the airforce. My eyesight was horrible though. Also I am flat footed, so I am probably the last guy they need.

I did volunteer at tinker for a while though. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

i am fairly sure there are many more jobs than just infantry....i am sure they could find you a nice janitorial job.

I am sure I could, but I think my contribution as a tax payer in a high tax bracket is better for the military in the long run.

But, if my country needs me, I will go.

[NormanPride]

I hate when arguments boil down to "I'm more American than you" ****ing contests. But then again, this is the internet.

[imjebus]

True. I nearly joined after highschool but I wanted to go in the airforce. My eyesight was horrible though. Also I am flat footed, so I am probably the last guy they need.

I did volunteer at tinker for a while though. ;)


Sounds like chicken **** excuses to me....:mack:

[OklahomaTuba]

I hate when arguments boil down to "I'm more American than you" ****ing contests. But then again, this is the internet.
So did you serve?

[mdklatt]

So you think military recruiting is a bad thing then, huh?

If I answer you will you look up "discriminatory" and take your ritalin?

I don't have a problem with military recruiting. I don't have a problem with military recruiting on campuses. I don't have a problem with colleges who have a problem with military recruiting on campus. I don't have a problem with the government having a problem with colleges who have a problem with miltary recruiting on campus if they recieve federal money.

[MiccoMacey]

My eyesight was horrible though. Also I am flat footed, so I am probably the last guy they need. Plus, my being gay precluded me from serving. ;)


Haha. Just kidding. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Sounds like chicken **** excuses to me....:mack:
And your excuse of not serveing cause your scared isn't?

The irony on this thread is amazing!

[Harry Beanbag]

Why wouldn't your ship have women on it now? Was it a sub?


Because it's decommissioned. ;) It was a cruiser, considered a combat unit, not sure if women are on cruisers and destroyers now days.

[mdklatt]

I hate when arguments boil down to "I'm more American than you" ****ing contests. But then again, this is the internet.

Not only is Tuba more American than you but he also makes more money.

[OklahomaTuba]

Haha. Just kidding. ;)
shhh, don't tell em about us.

[imjebus]

And your excuse of not serveing cause your scared isn't?

The irony on this thread is amazing!


Never said I was scared, but If my reasons are chicken **** excuses then yours sure the hell are..

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't have a problem with military recruiting. I don't have a problem with military recruiting on campuses. I don't have a problem with colleges who have a problem with military recruiting on campus. I don't have a problem with the government having a problem with colleges who have a problem with miltary recruiting on campus if they recieve federal money.
Well, maybe the colleges that have a problem with federal policies should stop taking federal money then?

See, easy solution.

[MiccoMacey]

shhh, don't tell em about us.

I can't. I'm thinking about going back in. If I tell, I'm out (so to speak). ;)

[mdklatt]

not sure if women are on cruisers and destroyers now days

They're on carriers (as pilots and everything else) so I don't know why they wouldn't be other ships. As far as I know only subs are male-only.

[OklahomaTuba]

Not only is Tuba better looking than I am but he also makes more money.
Don't be so hard on yourself MD. :D

[Harry Beanbag]

They're on carriers (as pilots and everything else) so I don't know why they wouldn't be other ships. As far as I know only subs are male-only.


They were on carriers when I got out nearly 8 years ago. I think the official excuse on the small ships was no room for separated berthing areas.

[mdklatt]

Well, maybe the colleges that have a problem with federal policies should stop taking federal money then?


Yes?

[mdklatt]

I think the official excuse on the small ships was no room for separated berthing areas.

Oh.

[NormanPride]

So did you serve?

See, I want to believe this is a joke, but sometimes I just can't tell.

[OklahomaTuba]

Never said I was scared, but If my reasons are chicken **** excuses then yours sure the hell are..
Oh yeah, that right, you didn't serve cause you aren't "stupid".

What a great excuse right there. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

See, I want to believe this is a joke, but sometimes I just can't tell.

Why would this be a joke?

You asked me, and I am asking you. Did you?

[Octavian]

Well, maybe the colleges that have a problem with federal policies should stop taking federal money then?

Maybe (insert entity) that have a problem w/ Fed policies should do the same.

How bout states? South Dakota, no more money for you!

[OklahomaTuba]

Maybe (insert entity) that have a problem w/ Fed policies should do the same.

How bout states? South Dakota, no more money for you!

Interestingly, that has happened.

But never mind that fact.

[NormanPride]

Why would this be a joke?

You asked me, and I am asking you. Did you?

Man, that's just sad. It would have been a great joke.

No, I didn't serve. I'm a wussy boy. But I'm also not spouting crap about the military. I have the utmost respect for what they do, because I fully admit I'm scared ****less of it.

[imjebus]

Oh yeah, that right, you didn't serve cause you aren't "stupid".

What a great excuse right there. :rolleyes:


No excuses, I didn't feel it was right for me and I think I've made that clear you just don't want to believe it. Now your excuse for not serving because you flat footed....l:P

[Octavian]

Interestingly, that does happen.

But never mind that fact.

not shocked you missed the point....

entities who disagree w/ the Fed Govt shouldn't have to simply take their ball and go home...they should challenge the Fed's decisions.

[NormanPride]

not shocked you missed the point....

entities who disagree w/ the Fed Govt shouldn't have to simply take their ball and go home...they should challenge the Fed's decisions.

Well, yes. But kicking the recruiters out just because they don't like their practices seems kind of childish, especially when they KNOW they have a right to be there.

[OklahomaTuba]

Man, that's just sad. It would have been a great joke.
Really? Was it supposed to be one of those funny jokes?



No, I didn't serve. I'm a wussy boy. But I'm also not spouting crap about the military. I have the utmost respect for what they do, because I fully admit I'm scared ****less of it.

Who is spouting crap about the military? Me? Only person I see doing so is imjebus, and he said he wasn't dumb enough to serve.

[Vaevictis]

If we give an 18y/o a rifle and tell him to "guard this post," and he does that to the best of his ability, that's all we can reasonably expect of him. IOW, "doing the job." He's no less a soldier and IMHO no less worthy of respect and admiration than a guy who does it because he feels motivated by a higher purpose or has a deeper sense of duty or honor.

I can understand where you're coming from. I agree to an extent. That said, depending on the context of your scenario, the kid in question can be radically different things. He might be a soldier in a rear guard action. He might be a man defending his home. Or he might be a criminal. The context (and his motivations) are critical.



That's also why we give medals for heroism to people who do more than is required under the circumstances.

At the risk of appearing to quibble, the way it was always described to me is that you get medals not for doing more than what's required, but for doing exactly what's required in spite of it being... and this is not quite the right word, so please don't take this as derision on my part, I just can't think of a better word ... in spite of it being "saner" not to do what's required.


When I was in, it didn't matter if a guy did the job because he was scared of the repercussions for not doing it, or did it because he wanted to do it. I preferred the latter and felt I had failed if he only did it because of the former. Maybe because I always believed leadership is really little more than making people do things you want them to do by making them believe they want to do it. Therefore, if they didn't want to do the job, that was mostly my fault as the leader, not theirs.

I have a slightly different take; to my mind, it's their fault and your responsibility. In other words, a mutual failure. But your view is entirely valid as well (not that you needed me to tell you that), just a slightly different approaches to leadership.



BTW has anyone noticed that other than Scuba, and Vaevictus none of the so called posters from the left have called this troll on this crap.

Tells me a lot.

It might just be that his ranting was so foolish that I stopped reading his posts after the first one. The idiocy was so blatant and trollish that, with my tendancy to *try* to avoid being Captain Obvious, I didn't feel the need to point it out ad nauseum. But, if you really feel the need to have someone "from the left" affirm your view that the sky is blue, fine. The sky is blue.

[OklahomaTuba]

No excuses, I didn't feel it was right for me and I think I've made that clear you just don't want to believe it. Now your excuse for not serving because you flat footed....l:P
Flat footed, slow, horrible shot. Get it right dude. I know I am not physically worthy of our military.

And again, glad to know you weren't "dumb" enough to join, as you previously said.

[OklahomaTuba]

not shocked you missed the point....

entities who disagree w/ the Fed Govt shouldn't have to simply take their ball and go home...they should challenge the Fed's decisions.
They did.

See the first page, post #1.

(heres a hint, the libz lost)

[NormanPride]

Really? Was it supposed to be one of those funny jokes?



I thought it would have been. :D "Stupid ****ing matches" "Did you serve?" The timing was priceless!



Who is spouting crap about the military? Me? Only person I see doing so is imjebus, and he said he wasn't dumb enough to serve.

I guess I phrased that wrong. A lot of the arguments here seem to degrade into the format: "I never said such and such, but you must believe that commies should rule the world".

[1stTimeCaller]

You know what they say about submariners, 400 men go down, 200 couples come up...

[OklahomaTuba]

I thought it would have been. :D "Stupid ****ing matches" "Did you serve?" The timing was priceless!




I guess I phrased that wrong. A lot of the arguments here seem to degrade into the format: "I never said such and such, but you must believe that commies should rule the world".

Ahh, ok.

I agree. But such is life ;)

[Vaevictis]

Well, I was surprised that none of the libz on this board spoke up in the beginning to say that they support our military's ability to recruit, and that suing to keep them out of the school (while happily accepting taliban members) is BS.

IMO, the military doesn't have a right to recruit anyone anywhere but on federal property. On the other hand, the federal government has the right to tie funds to certain requirements, and if one of the requirements is that the receiving institution permit military recruitment, then if the receiving institution wants the money, they had better well permit military recruitment.

It just so happens that the Supreme Court is in agreement, it's the law of the land, and everything is as it should be. There's no need for me to go off on a rant about how some fool challenging this is some unpatriotic commie hippie libz, because the Supreme Court just did it for me. *shrug*

[MiccoMacey]

Vaevictis = unpatriotic commie hippie libz ;)

[Vaevictis]

We didn't have females on our ship.

Yeah, but you did have Marines, right?

(cough cough)

[OklahomaTuba]

IMO, the military doesn't have a right to recruit anyone anywhere but on federal property.
Yet the military has the job of protecting everything even if it isn't federal property.

Makes sense, in a mdklatt kind of way I guess.

[mdklatt]

You know what they say about submariners, 100 men go down, 50 couples come up...

Fixed. (Submarines aren't very big.)

[OklahomaTuba]

Vaevictis = unpatriotic commie hippie libz ;)
No, it would be lib (singular)

libz is plural.

[MiccoMacey]

libz be plural.

Fixed. ;)

[NormanPride]

Yet the military has the job of protecting everything even if it isn't federal property.

Makes sense, in a mdklatt kind of way I guess.

Well, it is private property. I can see your point that it would be nice to let the people who defend us at least recruit anywhere they want to, but that's just too much government meddling for some. Just because someone doesn't want the military recruiting on their property doesn't make them bad. It may be bad for business, for one reason or another. Maybe they're a peace organization and it would seem ironic or out of place.

[mdklatt]

Makes sense, in a mdklatt kind of way I guess.

Yeah, I'm the one that doesn't make sense around here....

[mdklatt]

Well, it is private property.

Private propery...what are you, some kind of communist?

[Vaevictis]

Yet the military has the job of protecting everything even if it isn't federal property.

Makes sense, in a mdklatt kind of way I guess.

Welcome to the United States, Tuba. Have you read our Constitution? It's a wonderful document outlining what powers the federal government has, and what rights the citizenry has.

I especially recommend it to people who are considering joining the military (or have joined!), as they have to swear a mother@#$$#^$#@#@#@#@#$#^ing oath to defend it, and if you're going to swear an oath to that effect, you MIGHT want to know what the f*3%#^#%^@%$ing thing says -- and what it does not say.

Particularly, it does not say that the military has the right to put troops on private or state property for the purpose of making a mother@$%#$%$#ing sales pitch. In fact, considering that we have a pretty strong tradition of a citizen's right not to have the government to intrude on private property -- or state! -- (and certain clauses in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting such intrusions, and others reserving unenumerated rights to the people), some people might make an actual argument that, without the consent of the citizen or state, it's EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED.

If you disagree with the Constitution on this point, I suggest you avail yourself of the thoughtfully included amendment process, or go a country more to your liking. Considering that you seem to want the military to have the right to do anything it wants in order to do whatever it wants to do, I would *strongly* suggest that you consider a totalitarian state run under the form of a "military dictatorship."

[OklahomaTuba]

Just because someone doesn't want the military recruiting on their property doesn't make them bad. It may be bad for business, for one reason or another. Maybe they're a peace organization and it would seem ironic or out of place.

Supporting our military shouldn't be considered "bad for business".

If it is, those people flat out suck.

And tell me, what other organization has brought more peace to this world than our military?

[OklahomaTuba]

Yeah, I'm the one that doesn't make sense around here....
Well, on ocassion you do.

But most of the time, not really.

[mdklatt]

Well, on ocassion you do.

But most of the time, not really.

Let me guess...I only make sense when I agree with you, right? Which I do in the case of this Supreme Court ruling and yet you're still jumping in my ***.

[NormanPride]

Supporting our military shouldn't be considered "bad for business".

If it is, those people flat out suck.

And tell me, what other organization has brought more peace to this world than our military?

Like it or not, it can be. Not to mention the constitutional issues that Vaevictis mentioned, though I think "totalitarian" is going a bit far.

And that is a very strange question full of pitfalls and misinterpretations. I'd just say that calling our military a peace-giving organization is a bit... Machiavellian.

[NormanPride]

...and yet you're still jumping in my ***.

Let's not turn this into ANOTHER gay thread. :D

[mdklatt]

And tell me, what other organization has brought more peace to this world than our military?

There's no running in the War Room. Somebody could get hurt!

[OklahomaTuba]

Particularly, it does not say that the military has the right to put troops on private or state property for the purpose of making a mother@$%#$%$#ing sales pitch.
Thanks for the rant. :rolleyes:

Actually, according to the SCOTUS (see page one, post one) if some entity is accepting federal funds, then they do have to accept military recruiters so they have make a mother@$%#$%$#ing sales pitch.

Unlike you, I have no problem with this.

I like the fact that our military can recruit, so it can protect me and and my way of life.

But there i go again, with my facist close-minded point of view. Thank GOD for people who are openminded like Vaevictis, who only want to ban certain people.

[mdklatt]

Let's not turn this into ANOTHER gay thread. :D

Every thread on the SO will become a eventually become a gay thread if it stays on the front page long enough.

[OklahomaTuba]

Let me guess...I only make sense when I agree with you, right? Which I do in the case of this Supreme Court ruling and yet you're still jumping in my ***.

Or maybe its the comments from you like "take your ritalin" and such?

:rolleyes:

[usmc-sooner]

hey to all the guys who don't share my political opinions but still thought imjebus was stupid for saying only dummies join the military, I thank you.


that goes to Hat, md, Scuba, Octavian, Vaevictus, NP and anyone else I missed.

I think you guys might be a little hard on Tuba, and he's probably a little hard on you libz:D

now let's all shake hands and come out swinging :D

[mdklatt]

Or maybe its the comments from you like "take your ritalin" and such?

:rolleyes:

What didn't make sense about that? You seem to have inordinate difficulties answering direct questions, instead answering with other questions or non-sequiters.

And I'm still not sure you know what "discriminatory" means.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'd just say that calling our military a peace-giving organization is a bit... Machiavellian.
How so?
Who defeated fascism, communism, and is fighting terrorism??

Who has freed millions in the last 3 years from tyrannts??

Who defends your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

It isn't a peace group rioting in the streets breaking windows and setting the flag on fire.

[Octavian]

Considering that you seem to want the military to have the right to do anything it wants in order to do whatever it wants to do, I would *strongly* suggest that you consider a totalitarian state run under the form of a "military dictatorship."

Tuba Heaven?

[mdklatt]

I think you guys might be a little hard on Tuba, and he's probably a little hard on you libz:D


It's funny you should mention "Tuba", "libz", and "hard on" in the same sentence, because I think his obsession with liberals goes way beyond political ideology. Let's just say that hate is not the opposite of love....

:D

[OklahomaTuba]

What didn't make sense about that? You seem to have inordinate difficulties answering direct questions, instead answering with other questions or non-sequiters.

And I'm still not sure you know what "discriminatory" means.

Actually, I have answered more questions on this thread than anyone.

I think it is you that has the talent for answering questions with stupid, off base questions to make a point.

And of course I know what discriminatory is. Its the exact thing these colleges are trying to fight "discrimintion" with.

We don't agree with them, so they can't be allowed here!

Ironic, isn't it?

[NormanPride]

How so?
Who defeated fascism, communism, and is fighting terrorism??

Who has freed millions in the last 3 years from tyrannts??

Who defends your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

It isn't a peace group rioting in the streets breaking windows and setting the flag on fire.

Well... They did that all through violence, though. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's Machiavellian, and perhaps not the vision of peace that I would choose. And I would say that a "peace group" that riots is a bad peace group. :D

Though I don't know that "bringing peace" to anywhere is really a good statement in general.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well... They did that all through violence, though. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's Machiavellian, and perhaps not the vision of peace that I would choose.

Well, if defeating evil isn't a part of your definition of peace, then you may want to examine that. I don't think the bad people just go away cause we put our guard down.

[Octavian]

How so?
Who defeated fascism, communism, and is fighting terrorism??

Who has freed millions in the last 3 years from tyrannts??

Who defends your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

It isn't a peace group rioting in the streets breaking windows and setting the flag on fire.

Richard Myers and Dick Cheney deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

And Rummy should get something too....God Bless these benign visionaries for their enduring commitment to peace

[NormanPride]

Well, if defeating evil isn't a part of your definition of peace, then you may want to examine that. I don't think the bad people just go away cause we put our guard down.

I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that a fighting force isn't exactly peaceful. Can we agree on that? Their cause is noble, but their actions are still violent. Technically, defeating anything isn't really a part of peace, but that's nitpicking. :D

Really, this is just ideological nonsense. I know the American Army causes peace in its wake wherever it wanders. ;)

[mdklatt]

Actually, I have answered more questions on this thread than anyone.



You don't answer questions. You respond to questions with another question, or something entirely different.

Respond to this question, yes or no, without changing the subject:

Do you think the military policy of dicharging people for being gay is not discriminatory?

[OklahomaTuba]

Richard Myers and Dick Cheney deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

And Rummy should get something too....God Bless these benign visionaries for their enduring commitment to peace

Must have been why they won re-election vs a vietnam vet.

[Vaevictis]

Actually, according to the SCOTUS (see page one, post one) if some entity is accepting federal funds, then they do have to accept military recruiters so they have make a mother@$%#$%$#ing sales pitch.

Unlike you, I have no problem with this.


IMO, the military doesn't have a right to recruit anyone anywhere but on federal property. On the other hand, the federal government has the right to tie funds to certain requirements, and if one of the requirements is that the receiving institution permit military recruitment, then if the receiving institution wants the money, they had better well permit military recruitment.

It just so happens that the Supreme Court is in agreement, it's the law of the land, and everything is as it should be.

Yeah, I obviously have a problem with the ruling.

Christ. Did your attention span stop developing when you were three years old, or did you get knocked on the head so hard that you forget everything every 20 minutes or something? You responded to that exact post *literally* less than 30 minutes prior.

[OklahomaTuba]

You don't answer questions. You respond to questions with another question, or something entirely different.

Thats BS and you know it.




Respond to this question, yes or no, without changing the subject:

Do you think the military policy of dicharging people for being gay is not discriminatory?
No, I do not.

Why? Because they are not discharged for being gay, they are discharged for telling someone they are gay which violates a policy from the Clinton Admin.

Last time I checked, one can be gay without tell people where you work about it.

Just like when someone is discharged for any other activity the military doesn't condone like infidelity, abuse, etc

Again, gays are currently in the military, no?

[Octavian]

Must have been why they won their first popular election since 88 vs a vietnam vet who was swiftboated.

agreed.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yeah, I obviously have a problem with the ruling.

Well, you just said the ruling was unconstitutional, since the consititution (according to you) doesn't allow for mother@#$@$@#$%@ing sales pitches.

I figured you would have a problem with those sorts of things. Guess I was wrong.



Christ. Did your attention span stop developing when you were three years old, or did you get knocked on the head so hard that you forget everything every 20 minutes or something? You responded to that exact post *literally* less than 30 minutes prior.

Nice.
You seem to have a gift for debating without resorting to personal attacks. An indication of a strong intellect no doubt. Keep it up, that should win you lots of support around here.

[usmc-sooner]

You don't answer questions. You respond to questions with another question, or something entirely different.

Respond to this question, yes or no, without changing the subject:

Do you think the military policy of dicharging people for being gay is not discriminatory?

I'll answer that, the military is very discriminitory, against gays, people with handicaps, fat people, old people.

It is the way it is because it has to be.

The military picks and chooses what it wants, you have to take a test to see if you get in. (not a real hard test) but if you fail they don't take you.

If you have a physical handicap -they won't take you

If you can not maintain physical fitness standards--see ya

If you get too old ---see ya

I knew of 2 for sure gay service members---One a female Navy officer, One an enlisted E-5 male. ---both of them had "room mates" The male lived by me and the female's partner worked with my wife. Neither one was kicked out. I guess I could have turned them in but they never bothered me.

I knew a Marine who I thought was (don't actually know) but everyone else thought he was gay as hell. He was freakin miserable in the USMC. He developed a drinking problem, was put on suicide watches, and eventually went UA.

[mdklatt]

Thats BS and you know it.

I'm going to use my Ask the Audience lifeline, Regis.

Does anybody else have trouble following Tuba's train of thought?




Why? Because they are not discharged for being gay, they are discharged for telling someone they are gay.


They're discharged for being openly gay. If any business in America did that it would be illegal. Why? Because it's defined as discrimination. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the military discriminates. That's just a fact.

EDIT: And see usmc-sooner's post above.

[1stTimeCaller]

I too have trouble at times. Most of the time to be more accurate.

[SicEmBaylor]

The simple solution to this problem for a university truly committed to its principles is to reject its publically funded money.

[Vaevictis]

Well, you just said the ruling was unconstituional.

No, I didn't. I said that the military has no right to recruit on private or state property. I then said that the federal government CAN, however, condition funding on the private or state institution's consenting to military recruitment on property.

I then explictly said that the Supreme Court ruling was correct.

And in a later post, I reiterated that the military has no such right embedded in the Constitution, and that the Constitution prohibits the military from intruding on private or state property. Keyword: intruding. It's not intruding if the citizen or state consents.


I figured you would have a problem with those sorts of things.

You figured wrong. And then you tried to shove words into my mouth that lined up with your broken "figure".


Nice.
You seem to have a gift for debating without resorting to personal attacks. An indication of a strong intellect no doubt. Keep it up, that should win you lots of support around here.

Sorry about that. I have a low tolerance for stupidity and incompetence, and I'm reflexively hostile when people exhibit those traits.

[Okla-homey]

The simple solution to this problem for a university truly committed to its principles is to reject its publically funded money.

But if you read the opinion (as I did) you will note that the Court said Congress had the power to order the universities to grant equal access to military recruiters directly too. That appears to me at least, to put them on notice not to try that "keep your filfthy lucre, we'll stand by our principles and deny access to recruiters" trick either. heh!:D

See, Congress has very broad authority to raise and support the military under Art I section 8 of the Constitution. Couple that authority with the good 'ol "necessary and proper" clause at the end of the section and you have a juggernaut.

Thus, attempts to interfere with the legitimate aim of military recruiting even under color of some First Amendment complaint doesn't cut it, especially since opponents of DADT are still free to make cute picket signs and protest or flash peace signs and wave rainbow flags as the recruiters go in to meet with students. IOW, there are less intrusive ways for them to have their free speech that don't involve saying "NO MILITARY RECRUITING IN OUR HALLOWED HALLS."

It's also worth noting that this was an 8-0 slam dunk (Alito didn't join in the opinion because he wasn't on the Court when the case was heard.) That means even the three judges considered liberal told these schools to knock-it-off and get with the flippn' program!;)

[Okla-homey]

No, I didn't. I said that the military has no right to recruit on private or state property. I then said that the federal government CAN, however, condition funding on the private or state institution's consenting to military recruitment on property.



Hey friend, sorry to bust your bubble, but, if you'll see my immediately previous post, you'll see why you are in fact wrong. The military can pretty much recruit wherever it needs to and threatening to cut-off federal funds received by the protesting entity are not the only way Congress can twist arms. It can, if it chooses, order them directly to do so by statute irrespective of funding questions. That's the part of this case that is flying over most folks' heads.

That old "necessary and proper" clause is a powerful bastage. It ended segregation, Jim Crow, brought about a minimum wage and a host of other good things opposed by states and private parties and now it has been used to blast these military loathing law professors right in the face.:D

[Ike]

Thus, attempts to interfere with the legitimate aim of military recruiting even under color of some First Amendment complaint doesn't cut it, especially since opponents of DADT are still free to make cute picket signs and protest or flash peace signs and wave rainbow flags as the recruiters go in to meet with students. IOW, there are less intrusive ways for them to have their free speech that don't involve saying "NO MILITARY RECRUITING IN OUR HALLOWED HALLS."

It's also worth noting that this was an 8-0 slam dunk (Alito didn't join in the opinion because he wasn't on the Court when the case was heard.) That means even the three judges considered liberal told these schools to knock-it-off and get with the flippn' program!;)

from what I understand, the court roundly rejected the first ammendment claim of the universities by stating (correctly in my opinion) that barring military recruiters is not speech at all....I may have just said that all wrong but thats what I seem to remember hearing on NPR on the drive home while talking on the cell phone and eating fast food...

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm going to use my Ask the Audience lifeline, Regis.

Does anybody else have trouble following Tuba's train of thought?

Odd question to ask, since according to you I never answer any questions

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Odd question to ask, since according to you I never answer any questions



Do you see what I mean about non-sequiters? What the hell does this mean?

[Okla-homey]

from what I understand, the court roundly rejected the first ammendment claim of the universities by stating (correctly in my opinion) that barring military recruiters is not speech at all....I may have just said that all wrong but thats what I seem to remember hearing on NPR on the drive home while talking on the cell phone and eating fast food...

You are correct. It said that. It also said that their right of free speech was not infringed since they were free to protest, demonstrate, hold their breath, whatever.

IOW, the honorable Court saw this for what it actually was -- a thinly veiled attempt to "punish" the mean old military for not allowing homosexuals to slow dance with each other at the Officers Club.

You can read the entire opinion here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

click on Rummy v. FAIR. Its the latest one . Very readable. Its also the first opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts.

[Ike]

Do you see what I mean about non-sequiters? What the hell does this mean?


I think I've come close to figuring out this free-range-internet-algorithim we know as 'tuba'. For the past few months I have been studying his posts (not at all very closely mind you, as do have real science work that I have to get to, but I do devote about 3 nanoseconds per day to it). It starts with a set of ideas and assumptions, which for the sake of consiseness we will just call A, and when responding to any post, it first and foremost checks whether the poster has ever posted anything that did not completey fall within the idea-space of A. It then automatically equivocates the post being responded to as being either completely within or completely outside of A before examining the content of the post. When it examines the content of the post, it will then go through 3 or 4 logical examinations before returning a post characterizing the poster as a dirty lib or a fine upstanding american. During the process of these arguments, sometimes the definitions of IF, AND, or OR have to be changed, randomly, to reach the final conclusions, and of course, these 'in between' steps are hidden from user.


;);););)

[OklahomaTuba]

No, I didn't. I said that the military has no right to recruit on private or state property. I then said that the federal government CAN, however, condition funding on the private or state institution's consenting to military recruitment on property.

I then explictly said that the Supreme Court ruling was correct.

And in a later post, I reiterated that the military has no such right embedded in the Constitution, and that the Constitution prohibits the military from intruding on private or state property. Keyword: intruding. It's not intruding if the citizen or state consents.

So the school in essence is saying they are not allowed, wouldn't this be intruding?

I mean, that is the basis of the law suit and ruling, no?

So given that, and todays ruling, your opinion of the military having no right to recruit on private or state property is incorrect if you agree with the SCOTUS which it what I pointed out before you went bezerk.



You figured wrong. And then you tried to shove words into my mouth that lined up with your broken "figure".My apologies then. I figured most people would have a problem with things they consider unconstitutional are allowed.




Sorry about that. I have a low tolerance for stupidity and, and I'm reflexively hostile when people exhibit those traits.Proving you incorrect seems to also bring out these charming traits it seems.

[OklahomaTuba]

Do you see what I mean about non-sequiters? What the hell does this mean?
Why are you asking me a question if I won't answer them dammit!

And why do you insist on denying the antecedent all the damn time?

[Vaevictis]

But if you read the opinion (as I did) you will note that the Court said Congress had the power to order the universities to grant equal access to military recruiters directly too. That appears to me at least, to put them on notice not to try that "keep your filfthy lucre, we'll stand by our principles and deny access to recruiters" trick either. heh!:D

Having just read the opinion, I'm not sure you're correct, but I'm not sure you're incorrect, either. What I've read that's registering says:

1. Congress has broad powers with respect to raising armies -- that are still limited by the Constitution.
2. Congress can require universities to have access, and that this does not violate the First Amendment.

Now, I admit that I may be missing something, but based on what I'm reading there, the Court tossed the case because the plaintiff's argument that the *first* amendment was being violated held no water.

It doesn't look like they said that it's open and shut that Congress can force anyone and everyone (or even just universities) to permit military recruiters on the premises, only that such doesn't violate the first amendment (which is sufficient grounds for the Court to rule against the plaintiff, as this was their argument).


The Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence." "[t] raise and support Armies" and "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy." Art. I S8, cls. 1, 12-13. Congress' power in this area is "broad and sweeping," O'Brien, 391 U.S at 377, and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. That is, of course, unless Congress exceeds constitutional limitations on its power in enacting such legislation.

They say that "there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters," but they *instantly* temper that statment with "That is, of course, unless Congress exceeds constitutional limitations on its power in enacting such legislation." There's a whole lot of Constitution (if you include the Amendments) that apply Constitutional limitations on Congress.

The Court seems to be -- in my admittedly unexpert opinion -- deliberately leaving the door open to smack Congress down if it steps out of line. It deliberately does not say that Congress' powers in this regard are unlimited, only that they are "broad," and it deliberately and explicitly invokes the whole "exceeding Constitutional limitations."

I don't think unlimited power in this regard is what the Court intended to convey.

[SCOUT]

They're discharged for being openly gay. If any business in America did that it would be illegal. Why? Because it's defined as discrimination. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the military discriminates. That's just a fact.

EDIT: And see usmc-sooner's post above.

I don't thinkthe military is discriminating per se because the have deemed this a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When an employer can demonstrate a BFOQ they are free to discriminate against a protected class. The easiest example is woman who wants to be a men's room attendant.

[Okla-homey]

Having just read the opinion, I'm not sure you're correct, but I'm not sure you're incorrect, either. What I've read that's registering says:

1. Congress has broad powers with respect to raising armies -- that are still limited by the Constitution.
2. Congress can require universities to have access, and that this does not violate the First Amendment.

Now, I admit that I may be missing something, but based on what I'm reading there, the Court tossed the case because the plaintiff's argument that the *first* amendment was being violated held no water.

It doesn't look like they said that it's open and shut that Congress can force anyone and everyone (or even just universities) to permit military recruiters on the premises, only that such doesn't violate the first amendment (which is sufficient grounds for the Court to rule against the plaintiff, as this was their argument).



They say that "there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters," but they *instantly* temper that statment with "That is, of course, unless Congress exceeds constitutional limitations on its power in enacting such legislation." There's a whole lot of Constitution (if you include the Amendments) that apply Constitutional limitations on Congress.

The Court seems to be -- in my admittedly unexpert opinion -- deliberately leaving the door open to smack Congress down if it steps out of line. It deliberately does not say that Congress' powers in this regard are unlimited, only that they are "broad," and it deliberately and explicitly invokes the whole "exceeding Constitutional limitations."

I don't think unlimited power in this regard is what the Court intended to convey.

Here goes. Read section III of the opinion on pp. 8-10. They said attaching conditions to the funding cannot be unconstitutional because Congress could require access directly. IOW, they could tell these private universities they had to grant access to recruiters whether they recieved a dime of federal money or not. In Supreme Court-ese, that's a slam dunk.

Here's the other part. You can study the entire body of Constitutional law and only find one or two instances in all of US history where the Court intervened to enjoin a law it deemed "exceeded Constitutional limitations" with regards to Congress's authority to raise and support armies, and that is not that there haven't been tons of lawsuits. There have. They either just refuse to hear them or rule as we saw here.

I agree, of course they left the door open. They are judges and judges rarely speak in terms of absolutes. If Congress passed a law that said that soldiers all had to vote a certain way or something equally as egregious, they would weigh in. But not on something like this. Its simply judicial deference to the executive and legislative branches on military matters and that is a principle that is as old as the republic itself.

The Supremes are simply very reluctant to weigh in in matters of defense because that is the province of the executive and legislative branches under the constitutional separation of powers and they simply will only very rarely go there.

Frankly, that's also why they've refused to hear any of the plethora of lawsuits which sought to throw out DADT in the first place. It's a military call, made by the President (Clinton) as commander-in-chief, and they are very unwilling to second-guess the president or his military department.

[mdklatt]

I don't thinkthe military is discriminating per se because the have deemed this a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When an employer can demonstrate a BFOQ they are free to discriminate against a protected class. The easiest example is woman who wants to be a men's room attendant.

That makes sense.

[Vaevictis]

Here goes. Read section III of the opinion on pp. 8-10. They said attaching conditions to the funding cannot be unconstitutional because Congress could require access directly. IOW, they could tell these private universities they had to grant access to recruiters whether they recieved a dime of federal money or not. In Supreme Court-ese, that's a slam dunk.

Yeah, I read that part. It's what I quoted, in fact -- and the reason I'm not so sure that it's instantly a slam dunk as you say is because they *instantly* back off of the implication of unlimited power by tempering it with Constitutional limitations.

Maybe I'm wrong to infer it, but to instantly (literally the next sentence) and strongly temper such a statement has to be deliberate and suggests to me that the Court was saying that Congress had better not go hog wild on this, because it's not open season by any means.

But as I said, I'm no expert in this regard.


Here's the other part. {snip} They either just refuse to hear them or rule as we saw here.

Fair enough. I'm familiar with... what's the right term, "judicial deference" with respect to defense.

[usmc-sooner]

look college is about getting an education so you can have a career. The military offers a lot of people a good career. It also offers you a good education. You get to go out and see the world for what it really is. That's a heck of a lot better than sitting in class and letting some left leaning prof or (right leaning) tell you what he's only read about in books.

Most recruiters at college just stay in their offices and wait for you to come to them. Or they may hang up a few flyers. I've seen a lot liberal demonstrations on college campuses, the recruiters don't do anything near as radical as these guys.

Besides if you're 18 - 24 and you can't tell the recruiter you don't want to join then you probably shouldn't be in college anyways.

[Okla-homey]

look college is about getting an education so you can have a career. The military offers a lot of people a good career. It also offers you a good education. You get to go out and see the world for what it really is. That's a heck of a lot better than sitting in class and letting some left leaning prof or (right leaning) tell you what he's only read about in books.

Most recruiters at college just stay in their offices and wait for you to come to them. Or they may hang up a few flyers. I've seen a lot liberal demonstrations on college campuses, the recruiters don't do anything near as radical as these guys.

Besides if you're 18 - 24 and you can't tell the recruiter you don't want to join then you probably shouldn't be in college anyways.

That's pretty much what the Supreme Court said too when they said if students are'nt capable of being able to distinguish colleges being required to give recruiters access from wholesale "we love the military and their policies and that is why these recruiters are here" then they have no business being in college anyway because they are dumb-arses.

The whole thing was absurd from the beginning. I've watched this case since the Court granted cert. I just think its cool the Court saw this for what it was which was grandstanding by a group of Ivy League profs who have an axe to grind with the entity that makes it possible for them to spew their drivel. IMHO, this case will also be cited by DoD when faced with peacenik high school administrators who are refusing to give student contact information to recruiters too.

Everybody hates the idea of a draft, but many also want to limit what and where recruiters can do and go. The way I see it, they can't have it both ways. I think the Court would agree with me. You either have a volunteer force which is allowed to recruit among the richest source of potential service people, or you need to fire up the draft board.

[Vaevictis]

I don't have a problem with the military recruiting in high schools per se.

Mostly I have a problem with the double standard that they're old enough to be recruited for a dangerous job like the military, but not old enough to:

1. Sign up for a dangerous job in the private sector.
2. Vote.
3. Drink.

If they're not old enough to do those things, they're not old enough to be recruited by the military. Pick one or the other. (personally, I fall on the side that they're definately old enough by the time they're in 11th and 12th grade. 9th and 10th... not so sure about.)

With respect to the ones on college campuses, if all recruiters were so respectful, I wouldn't have a problem with recruiters at all. The ones on college... when you say, "Not interested," they move on. I had a group of recruiters (Army, Marines, Air Force) call me for *six* years straight, even after 5 years of telling them to stop calling. Six years of 2-3 calls a month from recruiters... yeah, that made me a bit sour to most recruiters. :/

[usmc-sooner]

I don't have a problem with the military recruiting in high schools per se.

Mostly I have a problem with the double standard that they're old enough to be recruited for a dangerous job like the military, but not old enough to:

1. Sign up for a dangerous job in the private sector.
2. Vote.
3. Drink.

If they're not old enough to do those things, they're not old enough to be recruited by the military. Pick one or the other. (personally, I fall on the side that they're definately old enough by the time they're in 11th and 12th grade. 9th and 10th... not so sure about.)

With respect to the ones on college campuses, if all recruiters were so respectful, I wouldn't have a problem with recruiters at all. The ones on college... when you say, "Not interested," they move on. I had a group of recruiters (Army, Marines, Air Force) call me for *six* years straight, even after 5 years of telling them to stop calling. Six years of 2-3 calls a month from recruiters... yeah, that made me a bit sour to most recruiters. :/

you have to be 18 to join the military at that age
1)they can have any job they can get hired for in the private sector
2) they can vote
3) they get plenty to drink, you can see that at every college campus in America and they drink at 18 in the military as well.

I'm not calling you a liar but recruiters have a quota and I doubt they are going to waste time recruiting the same guy for that long of a period. Recruiting is a B Billet and is only a 3 year gig. Maybe shorter.

I told the AF no, I talked to the Navy Recruiter twice told him no, told the Army no. None of them harrassed me. I talked to the Marine recruiter, I went to him, they didn't come to me. It wasn't that big a deal.

[Vaevictis]

I'm not calling you a liar but recruiters have a quota and I doubt they are going to waste time recruiting the same guy for that long of a period. Recruiting is a B Billet and is only a 3 year gig. Maybe shorter.

shrug, I got called at least once a month for six years, starting when I was 15, ending when I was 21. Some calls were from the AF, some from the Marines, and most from the Army.

Yeah, recruiters have a quota, but my understanding is that the quota is/was also a "points" system, and in that points system, various actions are worth a certain amount of points. Talking to any prospective recruit at all is worth some points, iirc.

[usmc-sooner]

I wasn't calling you a liar. If you had recruiters calling you from 15-21 they are freaking retarded, and you had more patience than I would have had. You should have told them you were gay, I bet they would have stopped calling then. :D

I'm not sure about the other branches but the Marines don't care about near misses. Just like all walks of life you got your 10% and we got ours.

BTW I'm not calling you gay just saying you could have used that to end the calls. I think it would be funny

[Okla-homey]

I did some checking because I wanted to be sure before posting. According to the AF recruiting service, recruiters don't contact students before their junior year in high school. It makes sense, since the earliest possible enlistment age is 17 (with parental consent). But more importantly, a HS diploma (or GED certificate) has been a requirement for entry in the AF at least as long as I was affiliated with it -- which extends back to 1980.

Therefore, FWIW, whoever was calling you at 15 could'nt have been an AF recruiter.

[Harry Beanbag]

They're discharged for being openly gay. If any business in America did that it would be illegal. Why? Because it's defined as discrimination. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the military discriminates. That's just a fact.

EDIT: And see usmc-sooner's post above.


The military isn't a business. And if colleges are so worried about discriminatory policies, why do they themselves use Affirmative Action?

[usmc-sooner]

I did some checking because I wanted to be sure before posting. According to the AF recruiting service, recruiters don't contact students before their junior year in high school. It makes sense, since the earliest possible enlistment age is 17 (with parental consent). But more importantly, a HS diploma (or GED certificate) has been a requirement for entry in the AF at least as long as I was affiliated with it -- which extends back to 1980.

Therefore, FWIW, whoever was calling you at 15 could'nt have been an AF recruiter.

same with the Marines,

somebody was having a huge laugh at his expense.

However at 15 his parents should have stepped in and took over the calls.

[Hatfield]

homey and the guy that is almost spelled veritas...you are both sort of right....while homey they do mention that even without funding the recruiters could probably come in, they don't rule on that issue. (which they shouldn't since it isn't before them).

So it is an unknown at this point. A recruiter couldn't use that dicta as precedent to show he is allowed onto a private university's campus which receives no fed. funding.

they are sort of just offering up their opinion on the matter without being held to task for it.

so there...you should each bask in the glow of knowing you are both psuedo right.

[Hatfield]

The military isn't a business. And if colleges are so worried about discriminatory policies, why do they themselves use Affirmative Action?

the military is big business.

[Harry Beanbag]

the military is big business.


:rolleyes: Oh gawd, here comes another conspiracy theory.

[Hatfield]

not at all. Just look at the size of their contracts, their many and varied job opportunities, etc. the armed forces are a very diverse and large entity which also happens to be an employer. That and they also employ civilians.

that is what i meant by big business.

[jeremy885]

The military isn't a business. And if colleges are so worried about discriminatory policies, why do they themselves use Affirmative Action?

excellent point. Does anyone else remember the scale OU used back in the mid 90's?

For one scholarship listed in the Freshman application, the ACT scores needed are below:

White male/Asian male 31
White female/Asian female 30
Black male 28
Black female 26

I may have the numbers off a little bit, but this is what I remember the last one because I had a 26 when I applied.

[imjebus]

I think you guys might have seen a little hard on Tuba:D

fixed

[Harry Beanbag]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif