Students don't know tolerence.

The fact that Bush cheated, and pointing said fact out, isn't complaining and being a 'sore loser.'

The fact is that a perversion of the voting system represents the greatest threat to our democracy, period; more than terrorism or anything else. It should be a matter of the highest importance to get to the bottom of ANY inaccuracies in the voting process; something that the current incumbent majority party is showing zero interest in doing and great reluctance in allowing others to do it for them.

This problem MUST be addressed by the American people if we are to perserve our democracy.

As for the topic of the thread; screw military recruiters. Noone is EVER being held back from finding out info about the military; all they have to do is watch TV for 15 minutes and they'll see 3 commercials for the service.

Or, if they are me, they will get 3 phone calls a week trying to get me to enlist. A recording, from a number in Savannah, Georgia. Can't tell ya how patriotic it makes me feel....

It's not as if we are going to lose our defense of the country if we are down on recruits; if you hadn't noticed, our military does precious little defending of America these days, and a hell of a lot of time is spent defending our interests.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

The fact that Bush cheated, and pointing said fact out, isn't complaining and being a 'sore loser.'

Just because your guy lost doesn't mean the other one cheated. You didn't like the results so you claim he cheated. It reminds me of my son playing a video game. He says the same thing when he loses on a game and the computer player wins. "HE CHEATED" and then he cries, kind of like many on this website.

Quote:

The fact is that a perversion of the voting system represents the greatest threat to our democracy, period; more than terrorism or anything else. It should be a matter of the highest importance to get to the bottom of ANY inaccuracies in the voting process; something that the current incumbent majority party is showing zero interest in doing and great reluctance in allowing others to do it for them.

Isn't this an issue for people at the state level? Don't they make the decisions on how elections are run? You know the people at the federal level can't do a thing about it so either pressure your state govt or drop it.

Quote:

This problem MUST be addressed by the American people if we are to perserve our democracy.

"HE CHEATED" I happen to think the system works ok. There were no issues where I lived and if there were where you live then do something and stop waiting for others to do it for you.

Quote:

As for the topic of the thread; screw military recruiters. Noone is EVER being held back from finding out info about the military; all they have to do is watch TV for 15 minutes and they'll see 3 commercials for the service.

I see when something doesn't interfer with the way you think things should be run you don't care. The military and every other govt agency should have access to the places where they provide money. If that access isn't granted then pull the money and see how fast access is granted.

Quote:

Or, if they are me, they will get 3 phone calls a week trying to get me to enlist. A recording, from a number in Savannah, Georgia. Can't tell ya how patriotic it makes me feel....

Aren't you a little old to be getting those phone calls? I never received one until I stated calling around looking at joining. You must have given someone your info to be receiving the calls.

Quote:

It's not as if we are going to lose our defense of the country if we are down on recruits; if you hadn't noticed, our military does precious little defending of America these days, and a hell of a lot of time is spent defending our interests.

Contrary to popular beleif, they are one in the same.

Army song:

First to fight, for the right and to build our nations right
and the Army goes rolling along.

That is all that needs to be said.

0 Replies

The recruiters should not have left.

Let the little knot-heads protest all they want. The recruiters had the right to be there.

Responsible adults would have ignored the recruiters booth as a form of protest. Some students who may have wanted information were denied that by the knuckleheads who were running around kicking and screaming about something they probably know little about.

0 Replies

The amount of tolerance shown on this thread is absolutely staggering.From all sides.

0 Replies

If those recruiters have the "pelotas" to go to UC Santa Cruz (a somewhat liberal bastion) I say let them stay. On the other hand, I'm sure those students would have no trouble finding the recruiting station if they so desired. And god knows we could use the cannon fodder...?

0 Replies

I agree with Rodeman; it isn't difficult to find recruiting stations.

Baldi,

I never gave my info to anyone in the army, period. I never put my personal cell number on any form. Yet the army/military has it. I suspect that Sprint sold them the list of every male under thirty. Many of my friends recieve the same calls, every week, like clockwork. Hardly inspiring.

You say that voting reform should be a 'state issue,' but it isn't a state issue; it's a national issue, as there are problems with the machines being used all over the nation, and it is affecting the direct results of Federal elections.

When asking yourself if this is important or not, think of it this way: if it were Democrats in EVERY major office, and there seemed to be a LARGE amount of evidence that the voting system was broken, if not corrupted by the Democrats, wouldn't you want every effort spent to correct this in order to preserve people's democratic right to select their leaders?

Noone is asking for the election to be overturned.

Noone is looking to kick anyone out of office.

Just trying to get to the bottom of a system with flaws in it. Every American should support this process on a national level. Why don't you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When asking yourself if this is important or not, think of it this way: if it were Democrats in EVERY major office, and there seemed to be a LARGE amount of evidence that the voting system was broken, if not corrupted by the Democrats, wouldn't you want every effort spent to correct this in order to preserve people's democratic right to select their leaders?

Baldi:

What could possibly be wrong with a certifiable paper trail in order to verify the votes?

What could possibly be wrong with an open and transparent election, rather than close down such state voting centers due to terrorist threats that NEVER came from Homeland Security, the C.I.A., OR the F.B.I.?

What could possibly be wrong with proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOUR man actually won?

If it were the Democrats doing this rather than the Republicans, would you be acting the same way and telling the Republicans to stop whining?

And last by not least: Can you even answer any of these questions?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suspect that Sprint sold them the list of every male under thirty.

It was your university. Every semester, like clockwork, I'd get a letter from the Navy asking me to be a nuclear engineer. But only those of us in the engineering school got 'em. And I stopped getting them after I switched majors.

0 Replies

I would accept that solution, except for the fact that I don't give those bums my cel number either, for precisely that reason.

In fact, I doubt I have EVER put my cel number on any form, ever, online or not. The only people who have the number as far as I can tell are my associates and Sprint, and I doubt my associates recommended me for the army Smile

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you ask them if they believe in freedom of speech, they will say, "Of course," but what they mean by it is "I should be allowed to say what I think, because I'm right." What ignorance. Freedom of speech is most important when it is speech one considers repugnant. Anyone can go along with letting people he agrees with talk.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Freedom of speech is for people of every political stripe, and is most essential when the speech is unpopular.

Supporting freedom of speech also entails the ability to utilize that freedom when one feels it's either necessary or appropriate. It deosn't mean support free speech but stand for or against nothing.

I believe the Christian right has the right to speak out freely about abortion and gay rights, but it is my freedom to speak out against them. It's the concept of exercising this very valuable freedom on what seems like contradictory latitudes that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around.

0 Replies

rodeman wrote:

If those recruiters have the "pelotas" to go to UC Santa Cruz (a somewhat liberal bastion) I say let them stay. On the other hand, I'm sure those students would have no trouble finding the recruiting station if they so desired. And god knows we could use the cannon fodder...?

<off topic>

You wouldn't say "pelotas", would you? You'd say "huevos", is what I learnt?

</off topic>

0 Replies

Quote:

Freedom of speech is for people of every political stripe, and is most essential when the speech is unpopular.

Yea, right, Brandon. That would obviously explain why Bush cannot deal with differing viewpoints on his Social Security partisan roadshow...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28120-2005Mar11.html

Freedom of speech my ass!

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
Freedom of speech is for people of every political stripe, and is most essential when the speech is unpopular.

Yea, right, Brandon. That would obviously explain why Bush cannot deal with differing viewpoints on his Social Security partisan roadshow...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28120-2005Mar11.html

Freedom of speech my ass!

There are two issues here. The first is whether you yourself believe the sentiment expressed in my quotation, independent of what Bush does, something you have conveniently avoided answering. Do you or don't you believe it? I find that most liberals these days do not, in fact, believe in any but their own freedom of speech.

In the case of the article you linked in, I will point out the obvious. Freedom of speech does not mean either that people are "free" to disrupt other people's meetings, or that campaigning politicians are constrained to include opposing viewpoints in their campaigns. Not wanting people to disrupt your meeting with protests is not a freedom of speech issue. Disrupting someone else's meeting is. It is really dismaying how consistently I have to explain the trivially obvious to you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Freedom of speech is for people of every political stripe, and is most essential when the speech is unpopular.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm surprised you would say such a thing, really.

Quote:

In the case of the article you linked in, I will point out the obvious. Freedom of speech does not mean either that people are "free" to disrupt other people's meetings, or that campaigning politicians are constrained to include opposing viewpoints in their campaigns. Not wanting people to disrupt your meeting with protests is not a freedom of speech issue. Disrupting someone else's meeting is. It is really dismaying how consistently I have to explain the trivially obvious to you.

Do I have to explain something trivially obvious to you?

Sheesh

Not all Democrats are going to disrupt your meeting or protest

Asking questions at a 'town hall' which are purported to be REAL QUESTIONS from REAL PEOPLE is not being disruptive, or invasive, it's asking the DAMN PRESIDENT a SIMPLE QUESTION.

What country do we live in where opposing sentiment is not allowed? When simple questions aren't allowed? Remember that PUBLIC MONEY is being used to fund this Bambelpalooza tour...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Freedom of speech my ass!

Not only that, Dookie. Do you know about the "Free-Speech Zones"?

"Free-Speech Zone" - The administration quarantines dissent.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...Asking questions at a 'town hall' which are purported to be REAL QUESTIONS from REAL PEOPLE is not being disruptive, or invasive, it's asking the DAMN PRESIDENT a SIMPLE QUESTION.

What country do we live in where opposing sentiment is not allowed?...

Well, maybe, but it's not a freedom of speech issue, even if it is some other kind of fairness issue. At these meetings, the president is not constrained to allow people who have not been called on to speak. Indeed, few politicians would allow much opposition at their scripted propaganda events.

0 Replies

Really? Protestors shouted at Clinton several times during his career and you never saw him trying to bar those who disagreed with him.

But, you are still dodging the issue that it IS a free speech issue; not free speech to speak out of turn or disrupt the 'Town Hall,' but the freedom to sign up, get the mike, and ask Bush a simple question. You're not even allowed to do that if you are suspected to be a Democrat, hell, you can't even get in!! And this is paid for by PUBLIC MONEY!

I'll ask you again: What kind of country doesn't allow people to ask questions of their president if they are suspected of disagreeing with his views, or making him answer tough questions?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? Protestors shouted at Clinton several times during his career and you never saw him trying to bar those who disagreed with him.

But, you are still dodging the issue that it IS a free speech issue; not free speech to speak out of turn or disrupt the 'Town Hall,' but the freedom to sign up, get the mike, and ask Bush a simple question. You're not even allowed to do that if you are suspected to be a Democrat, hell, you can't even get in!! And this is paid for by PUBLIC MONEY!

I'll ask you again: What kind of country doesn't allow people to ask questions of their president if they are suspected of disagreeing with his views, or making him answer tough questions?

Cycloptichorn

Oh, come, come Cyclops (or whatever), don't be obtuse. Like I said before:

(1) The principle of freedom of speech does not require anyone to allow someone else to speak out of turn, disrupting a meeting, whether Clinton did it or not.

(2) Although the idea of allowing disparate viewpoints at one of these "Town Hall" meetings may be a fairness or good government issue, it is not a freedom of speech issue, since Bush is allowed to hold his own campaign events anyway he wants.

You are failing to hold my interest here.

0 Replies

Quote:

campaigning politicians are constrained to include opposing viewpoints in their campaigns.

That's an unbelievable amount of BS coming from you, Brandon9000. Bush wasn't a candidate campaigning for election. He was talking about Social Security, which effects people on BOTH sides of the aisle. He is ALSO a public official. Do you know what a public official is? I would imagine you probably don't even have a clue...

Clinton was excellent in these forums, but he didn't need a script, nor did he need people in his own party to read from one. Kerry did a pretty damned good job, too, during his campaign. Let's face it; Bush doesn't have the intellectual capacity to address those who oppose him. He is sheltered from ALL of that by his secret little circle of presidential aids, press secretaries and secret service.

Maybe it's because he's actually getting senile a little early in life:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm

All that drinking really CAN permanently destroy brain cells. Didn't you know that?

Quote:

You are failing to hold my interest here.

For failing to hold your interest, you keep coming back, Brandon.

0 Replies

Gyar!!!!!

Quote:

(2) Although the idea of allowing disparate viewpoints at one of these "Town Hall" meetings may be a fairness or good government issue, it is not a freedom of speech issue, since Bush is allowed to hold his own campaign events anyway he wants.

Social Security Town Hall meetings, on a 60-day, cross-country trip designed to show the President speaking to regular people and answering questions about SS reform, paid for by taxpayer money[/size=16]are not campaign events!!!!! He's not campaigning![/size]

Am I still failing to hold your interest? Do you get our objections yet?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Students don't know tolerence.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know