Military Recruiters must await "Opt-In"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Mr. Recruiter, I dare you to call and recruit the Bush twins.

WHITE HOUSE:

Tel: 202-456-1414

Fax: 202-456-2461

BBond... i think you and i both know they are too snobby, to elitest, and to religious to join the military
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: tss4
Sweet retirement. Good deal when you can move onto a new job after that. Plus you get all the military benefits like the VA hospital, right?

yeah.... all kinds of benifits, bush has really dumped a lot of money into VA benifits... my cllege money has almost trippled since he came into office, i get paid not only tutuion but living expenses just to go to college

most enlisted retires will pull at least 45,000 a yr pension somer as much as 65,000....plsu other benifits.... on top of thier civilian pay...

officers, got it really good at least 60,000-up to about 80,000...but this changes a lot, dpeending on rank, caue with the pay grades, thier are caps for rank, so yo uwill get paid less than you should, but you get it bakci n retirement.....the military doesnt pay anyone (even admirals or generals) more than 102,000 a yr
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Deptacon


well, im getting paid "really, really, good money" to go over there, and i can underatnd why they pay so much becuase of the condtion over there, but i understand fully what to company is doing over there from my interviews and talking with comany officals, pretty much supply logistal and security jobs for the military so they dont have to use personael of thier won to do those jobs.....

of course they are profiting, since when does a compnay exist not to make a profit....unless its in a communist country, but thats what you reallt want right?

BS

"If you think this war will bring any financial(oil) gain to the USA, you have a few screws loose."

Is there financial gain in Iraq?

Yep.

I hope you actually have to do the work Halliburton bills us for. ;)

im gonna.... 14-16 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for 1 yr.... Logistical Section Manager 175,000 bucks for one yr.... not taxed

I would have asked for triple that for those hours in Iraq.

Halliburton can well afford it. They have plenty of extra cash around from *unfinished* projects. ;)

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Tylanner
If you think this war will bring any financial(oil) gain to the USA, you have a few screws loose.

Iraq is not an imperial undertaking....

Certainly it will bring financial gain to the wealthiest segments of society. And bankrupting the US treasury is a way for Bush to destroy social security once & for all, which will in turn provide further opportunities for that wealthiest 1% of society to get their hands on an even greater portion of your nation's wealth. So sad.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: BBond
Mr. Recruiter, I dare you to call and recruit the Bush twins.

WHITE HOUSE:

Tel: 202-456-1414

Fax: 202-456-2461

BBond... i think you and i both know they are too snobby, to elitest, and to religious to join the military

You have no idea what I know. ;)

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Tylanner
If you think this war will bring any financial(oil) gain to the USA, you have a few screws loose.

Iraq is not an imperial undertaking....

Certainly it will bring financial gain to the wealthiest segments of society. And bankrupting the US treasury is a way for Bush to destroy social security once & for all, which will in turn provide further opportunities for that wealthiest 1% of society to get their hands on an even greater portion of your nation's wealth. So sad.

It's another trifecta for Bush and his cronies.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

Under a provision of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law, high schools across the country are required to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their students. Schools that resist this mandate face penalties that include loss of all federal educational funding.

============================
Son of a biatch. You call this Hypocracy??? :roll:

I call it Hitler Part II U.S. Republican style :|

The more I see what is buried in all of the falsely named Republican Acts, the madder I get.

Viva U.S. Revolutionary War II



 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since parental consent is required to enlist, why can't recruiters at least talk to them?

Well, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I think recruiters should be able to at least speak with high school kids without parents having to give approval.

Should homosexuals be able to at least speak to high school students (providing information & support to kids questioning their sexual orientation, or being involved in anti-bullying programs) without parents having to give approval?

Should Pepsi, McDonald's, etc., be allowed to advertise their products on school grounds?



 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Deptacon


well, im getting paid "really, really, good money" to go over there, and i can underatnd why they pay so much becuase of the condtion over there, but i understand fully what to company is doing over there from my interviews and talking with comany officals, pretty much supply logistal and security jobs for the military so they dont have to use personael of thier won to do those jobs.....

of course they are profiting, since when does a compnay exist not to make a profit....unless its in a communist country, but thats what you reallt want right?

BS

"If you think this war will bring any financial(oil) gain to the USA, you have a few screws loose."

Is there financial gain in Iraq?

Yep.

I hope you actually have to do the work Halliburton bills us for. ;)

im gonna.... 14-16 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for 1 yr.... Logistical Section Manager 175,000 bucks for one yr.... not taxed

I would have asked for triple that for those hours in Iraq.

Halliburton can well afford it. They have plenty of extra cash around from *unfinished* projects. ;)

well it can easily changed, promotions are fast paced over there, and if you sign up for an xtra yr after completting your first contracted yr, it goes to 250,000 plus becuase you already have experiance in theater....

i wil lsee how it is, im doing it cause im about to finish college, and im not going fulltime army, just part time ( no such thing really noa days, but i still need a job) and i wanna get a good financvial foot for the rest of my life, and most job offers i have recieved are around 40,000, so id like to go for the bigger cheese...


plsu id like tosee how things are first hand over there, too much propoganda etc..... its a good resume booster working as a contractor over there as well...so...im willing to do it, its not for everyone
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

Under a provision of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law, high schools across the country are required to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their students. Schools that resist this mandate face penalties that include loss of all federal educational funding.

============================
Son of a biatch. You call this Hypocracy??? :roll:

I call it Hitler Part II U.S. Republican style :|

The more I see what is buried in all of the falsely named Republican Acts, the madder I get.

Viva U.S. Revolutionary War II

now thats what I call Republican pork...wow... but is giving someone a good career opportunity who cant go to college ,cant find a decent job, and took no trade teainging a bad thing, they dont have to join if they dont want to....

and seriously, almost al lrecruiters dont watse thier day just calling around, they deal almost totally with walkin's, i had a ubddy who was a recrutier for 3 yrs

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

The USA is one of the few first world countries that actively solicits children for military service. Making children (people under the age of 18, or possibly 21) into soldiers ("child soldiers") is actually a violation of international law.

no its not, its completly voulntary,

It is almost universally recognized that children under the age of 18 are not fully capable of giving informed consent due to their immaturity in decision making. Governments actively recruiting children into the military is a moral outrage.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Deptacon


well, im getting paid "really, really, good money" to go over there, and i can underatnd why they pay so much becuase of the condtion over there, but i understand fully what to company is doing over there from my interviews and talking with comany officals, pretty much supply logistal and security jobs for the military so they dont have to use personael of thier won to do those jobs.....

of course they are profiting, since when does a compnay exist not to make a profit....unless its in a communist country, but thats what you reallt want right?

BS

"If you think this war will bring any financial(oil) gain to the USA, you have a few screws loose."

Is there financial gain in Iraq?

Yep.

I hope you actually have to do the work Halliburton bills us for. ;)

im gonna.... 14-16 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for 1 yr.... Logistical Section Manager 175,000 bucks for one yr.... not taxed

I would have asked for triple that for those hours in Iraq.

Halliburton can well afford it. They have plenty of extra cash around from *unfinished* projects. ;)

well it can easily changed, promotions are fast paced over there, and if you sign up for an xtra yr after completting your first contracted yr, it goes to 250,000 plus becuase you already have experiance in theater....

i wil lsee how it is, im doing it cause im about to finish college, and im not going fulltime army, just part time ( no such thing really noa days, but i still need a job) and i wanna get a good financvial foot for the rest of my life, and most job offers i have recieved are around 40,000, so id like to go for the bigger cheese...


plsu id like tosee how things are first hand over there, too much propoganda etc..... its a good resume booster working as a contractor over there as well...so...im willing to do it, its not for everyone


Well, if you have web access there, let us know what its like. I'm sure we'll still be bickering about it then and someones first hand account would be nice.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,411
57
91
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since parental consent is required to enlist, why can't recruiters at least talk to them?

Well, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I think recruiters should be able to at least speak with high school kids without parents having to give approval.

Should homosexuals be able to at least speak to high school students (providing information & support to kids questioning their sexual orientation, or being involved in anti-bullying programs) without parents having to give approval?

Should Pepsi, McDonald's, etc., be allowed to advertise their products on school grounds?
Please tell me you understand the differences between the Federal Government and private citizens/coorporations. Maybe you also think that Pepsi should be able to levi taxes on you? :roll: Let's put away the box of fallacies for this one, Mmkay?
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

The USA is one of the few first world countries that actively solicits children for military service. Making children (people under the age of 18, or possibly 21) into soldiers ("child soldiers") is actually a violation of international law.

no its not, its completly voulntary,

It is almost universally recognized that children under the age of 18 are not fully capable of giving informed consent due to their immaturity in decision making. Governments actively recruiting children into the military is a moral outrage.

they can't sign up before 18 without parental consent. Parents are responsible for determining the maturity of their child for such a decision. No ones talking about 17 year olds joining the army on their own. So I don't uderstand your outrage.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,411
57
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

Under a provision of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law, high schools across the country are required to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their students. Schools that resist this mandate face penalties that include loss of all federal educational funding.

:shocked: Damn. I didn't know that. What a crock.

Personally, I hated dealing with the recruiters in High School. We were required (I assume?) to take that ASFAB test or whatever our senior year. I apparently scored remarkably well (maybe they just say that to everyone), as I had recruiters ringing me several times a day, and even pulling me out of class to "go over some paperwork." I finally just told them that I wasn't interested and already had college scholarships and that was it.

Pushy bastards - and I can see how some more weak-willed students could fall right in. But then again, when you are talking about children, it all comes back to parents and their responsibilites.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since parental consent is required to enlist, why can't recruiters at least talk to them?

Well, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I think recruiters should be able to at least speak with high school kids without parents having to give approval.

Should homosexuals be able to at least speak to high school students (providing information & support to kids questioning their sexual orientation, or being involved in anti-bullying programs) without parents having to give approval?

Should Pepsi, McDonald's, etc., be allowed to advertise their products on school grounds?
Please tell me you understand the differences between the Federal Government and private citizens/coorporations. Maybe you also think that Pepsi should be able to levi taxes on you? :roll: Let's put away the box of fallacies for this one, Mmkay?

I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.

I don't find your distinction between government and private organisations to be relevant from a moral perspective. With both the armed services, and fast food companies, you have entities which are pitching their product to a captive audience of school children. In both cases, the product is potentially harmful to the health of those children (death on the battle field, or detrimental health effects from unhealthy foods.)

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Deptacon

Are your oral communication skills as poor as your written ones? This is the result of a college education? You hope to hold a managerial position with such attenuated skills? You fly off the handle and resort to name calling when talking to those with differing opinions? Good luck in the real world.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,411
57
91
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since parental consent is required to enlist, why can't recruiters at least talk to them?

Well, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I think recruiters should be able to at least speak with high school kids without parents having to give approval.

Should homosexuals be able to at least speak to high school students (providing information & support to kids questioning their sexual orientation, or being involved in anti-bullying programs) without parents having to give approval?

Should Pepsi, McDonald's, etc., be allowed to advertise their products on school grounds?
Please tell me you understand the differences between the Federal Government and private citizens/coorporations. Maybe you also think that Pepsi should be able to levi taxes on you? :roll: Let's put away the box of fallacies for this one, Mmkay?

I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.

I don't find your distinction between government and private organisations to be relevant from a moral perspective. With both the armed services, and fast food companies, you have entities which are pitching their product to a captive audience of school children. In both cases, the product is potentially harmful to the health of those children (death on the battle field, or detrimental health effects from unhealthy foods.)

You libs need to make up your minds. Do you want someone's "morals" forced upon us or not? I am talking about from a legal standpoint - leave your morals out of it.

Army recruiters visting schools to "pitch" their ideas of the Armed Forces is the legal equivalent of Congressmen visting schools "pitching" their ideas of how a bill becomes a law, or the President "pitching" his ideas on "voting."

I'm truly sorry you think that private entities should be just as allowed to "pitch" thier products/services to our children, from a "moral" perspective.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Deptacon

Are your oral communication skills as poor as your written ones? This is the result of a college education? You hope to hold a managerial position with such attenuated skills? You fly off the handle and resort to name calling when talking to those with differing opinions? Good luck in the real world.


And I thought I was the only one who noticed. ;)

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

You libs need to make up your minds. Do you want someone's "morals" forced upon us or not? I am talking about from a legal standpoint - leave your morals out of it.

Army recruiters visting schools to "pitch" their ideas of the Armed Forces is the legal equivalent of Congressmen visting schools "pitching" their ideas of how a bill becomes a law, or the President "pitching" his ideas on "voting."

I'm truly sorry you think that private entities should be just as allowed to "pitch" thier products/services to our children, from a "moral" perspective.

There you go again, playing the liberal card to divide us, as though we're all either totally conservative or totally liberal.

Ever heard of the military industrial complex? Ever heard of corporate welfare? Pepsi and several other major soft drink and snack companies have already infiltrated America's schools. I read stories of shcools, strapped for cash in today's Bush led starve the beast (except for certain connected special interests) mentality have signed contracts with those companies for exclusive rights to sell their products in vending machines in public schools. Perhaps you remember the outcry when students in public schools were being forced to watch commercials -- talk about a captive audience.

And to compare Army recruiters with politicians pitching their views is absurd. Learning about how a bill becomes law or ideas on voting is entirely removed from having a highly trained high pressure military salesman pitching a commitment to kids who can barely understand the scope of what they are being sold.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I dont think students should be forced to go and listen to some recruiter. I imagine the military recruiter shows up at a scheduled assembly and then the students are forced to listen to the recruiter, without no one else giving an opposing view point. I think this is totally wrong.

However, I think if the recruiter wanted to put up a poster or show up on career day or something like that, then that would be all right. I dont even see anything wrong if the recruiter wants to show up one day during the week and announce he is there to talk to anyone who is considering the armed forces. Just do not force students to watch or listen to them if they dont want to.

One thing I dont agree with is giving a list of all the students or their phone numbers. I know this is going on in some instances.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont think students should be forced to go and listen to some recruiter. I imagine the military recruiter shows up at a scheduled assembly and then the students are forced to listen to the recruiter, without no one else giving an opposing view point. I think this is totally wrong.

However, I think if the recruiter wanted to put up a poster or show up on career day or something like that, then that would be all right. I dont even see anything wrong if the recruiter wants to show up one day during the week and announce he is there to talk to anyone who is considering the armed forces. Just do not force students to watch or listen to them if they dont want to.

One thing I dont agree with is giving a list of all the students or their phone numbers. I know this is going on in some instances.

I concur.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

Under a provision of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law, high schools across the country are required to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their students. Schools that resist this mandate face penalties that include loss of all federal educational funding.

:shocked: Damn. I didn't know that. What a crock.

Personally, I hated dealing with the recruiters in High School. We were required (I assume?) to take that ASFAB test or whatever our senior year. I apparently scored remarkably well (maybe they just say that to everyone), as I had recruiters ringing me several times a day, and even pulling me out of class to "go over some paperwork." I finally just told them that I wasn't interested and already had college scholarships and that was it.

Pushy bastards - and I can see how some more weak-willed students could fall right in. But then again, when you are talking about children, it all comes back to parents and their responsibilites.

How can you be surprised??? :confused: :| :roll: :cookie:

Example after example continousuly comes up of the crock shiat that the Republican machine has cranked out since Bush is in Office and this is what you and the rest support in here.

There goes the crock excuses again too, while a lot of blame can be attributed to poor parenting, things like a Military Recruiter brainwashing a child thanks to a Republican falsely named Law is not 100% the parents fault except if they voted for the bastages.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since parental consent is required to enlist, why can't recruiters at least talk to them?

Well, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I think recruiters should be able to at least speak with high school kids without parents having to give approval.

Should homosexuals be able to at least speak to high school students (providing information & support to kids questioning their sexual orientation, or being involved in anti-bullying programs) without parents having to give approval?

Should Pepsi, McDonald's, etc., be allowed to advertise their products on school grounds?
Please tell me you understand the differences between the Federal Government and private citizens/coorporations. Maybe you also think that Pepsi should be able to levi taxes on you? :roll: Let's put away the box of fallacies for this one, Mmkay?

I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.

I don't find your distinction between government and private organisations to be relevant from a moral perspective. With both the armed services, and fast food companies, you have entities which are pitching their product to a captive audience of school children. In both cases, the product is potentially harmful to the health of those children (death on the battle field, or detrimental health effects from unhealthy foods.)

You libs need to make up your minds. Do you want someone's "morals" forced upon us or not?

You appear to have completely misread my posts.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I am talking about from a legal standpoint - leave your morals out of it.

It is immoral for a government to be recruiting children into the military. The fact that they are doing that at schools - where children are essentially a captive audience - without seeking permission from parents, is grossly unethical.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Army recruiters visting schools to "pitch" their ideas of the Armed Forces is the legal equivalent of Congressmen visting schools "pitching" their ideas of how a bill becomes a law, or the President "pitching" his ideas on "voting."

That is not correct. Army recruiters are seeking to convince children -- i.e., people under the age of 18, who are almost universally acknowledged as not capable of giving an informed consent -- to enlist in a job which in all likelihood will place them in mortal danger. That is entirely different than a politican educating children on the political process.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I'm truly sorry you think that private entities should be just as allowed to "pitch" thier products/services to our children, from a "moral" perspective.

I do not believe that private entities should have the freedom to market their products or promote their particular agenda to school children. I don't believe that private organisations (whether gay rights organizations, pro-gun groups, religious groups, whatever) should have free range to promote their products or views to school kids. It is totally inappropriate.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Liberals support 13 year olds having abortions without parental notification, yet they want to pass legislation that would prevent military recruiters from contacting students unless their parents "opt-in".

Typical nonsense and hypocrisy from the left.

Link

The USA is one of the few first world countries that actively solicits children for military service. Making children (people under the age of 18, or possibly 21) into soldiers ("child soldiers") is actually a violation of international law.

no its not, its completly voulntary,

It is almost universally recognized that children under the age of 18 are not fully capable of giving informed consent due to their immaturity in decision making. Governments actively recruiting children into the military is a moral outrage.


what did I JUST SAY, they need parnetal CONSENT under 18 to sign up....