Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: What about the FBI???  (Read 3025 times)

social drinker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2705
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2005, 09:12:08 PM »
    4. An applicant who has used any illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991),other than marijuana, within the last ten years or more than five times in one’s life[/] will be found unsuitable for employment.

Think that's five times per drug?  I'm trying to decide whether I squeak by   8)

Yes.  That is five times per drug.

maka nani

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 9158
    • AOL Instant Messenger - redsox1079
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2005, 09:15:31 PM »
me too....i think i squeak by  :-X 8)
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL YOU DUMB FUCKS.

PSUDSL08

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
    • LS #'s
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2005, 11:12:19 PM »
    4. An applicant who has used any illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991),other than marijuana, within the last ten years or more than five times in one’s life[/] will be found unsuitable for employment.

Think that's five times per drug?  I'm trying to decide whether I squeak by   8)

Well...I can safely say that a career in the FBI is out for me.

CRDFNSKY

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • NEEERDSSS!!!
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2005, 08:08:59 AM »
Haha.  Took up for me?  I was stating what I knew on a subject of interest and posting links for her to continue her own research if she were so inclined.  I was not making assinine blanket statements for the sole purpose of creating animosity.  Don't sweat "taking up for" me, sport. 

Go ahead and try to defend what you said with evidence.  You cannot do it.  Your statements are untrue, unfounded, and idiotic. 

Sport? Where the hell did you come up with that? That sounds like something a couple of ivy league frat guys from the 40's would call each other. "Well done sport." Good show old man." "Let's go to Buffy's summer cottage for a game of croquet."

Anyway, I digress. Back to your assertion about lack of evidence. There may be some bad news for you. I found some evidence. Not  much though really. It's just a reference to a report for the DoD thrown together by a few professors. But, what the hell do professors know anyway? It's not like they use scientifically gathered data to draw conclusions or anything. It really didn't take to long for me to find this evidence either. With the right Google search term, "reasons for enlistment," it was the sixth link listed. Here's an excerpt and the link. I've underlined portions of the text that may be of particular interest to you:

The sophistication of the recruitment process becomes painstakingly clear when reading Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth: Implications for Military Recruitment (2003), a text compiled by the Committee on the Youth Population and Military Recruitment (CYPMR). This committee, established by the National Research Council in 1999 in response to a request by the DoD, is a think tank composed of academics from the Universities of Minnesota, Michigan, California at Los Angeles, and Pennsylvania (among others) who analyze dynamics of recruitment including: gender and race, education and aptitude, physical and moral attributes, military life and working conditions, and values impacting enlistment decisions. These researchers have expertise in demography, military manpower, military sociology, psychology, adolescent development, economic advertising, communication, and private sector management. To compile this text for military policy makers and recruiters, CYPMR utilized DoD documentation, three national youth-based surveys, locally based cross-sectional studies, as well as information from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Defense Manpower Data Center. The primary goal of the authors was to understand why the military has experienced a recruitment downturn; forecast future military manpower requirements, future demographic characteristics of youth, and youth attitudes toward militarism; and finally to make recommendations so the DoD can meet its recruitment goals.

Several trends and recommendations mentioned in this text have direct importance for countering military recuitment. The DoD, which is the largest employer in the nation, must successfully recruit 200,000 new recruits each year to maintain a military force of 1.2 million. According to the CYPMR, the cohort of available 18-year-olds is expected to increase from 3.9 million (1999) to 4.4 million by 2009. However, the population distribution is not expected to stay constant. Whites will experience a decrease in their percentage of the population (from 66% to 57%), Latinos will jump from 14% to 22%, while blacks will remain steady at 14%. The CYPMR noted that the greatest threat to recruitment among these groups will be a stark increase in college attendance resulting from the influence of parents with college degrees and few high-paying jobs available for those without a college degree. While whites will experience a great increase in college attainment, the CYPMR noted that blacks and Latinos will not experience much increase in college attainment. This means the projected recruitment market will ultimately be heavily brown and black youth. Furthermore, recruiters will increasingly target college campuses to attract potential college "stop outs" and dropouts. Many times these are lower-income youth who take time off of school to work to pay for tuition or youth who received a poor k-12 education. Recruiters will also be emphasizing the "money for college" offered by the military. But this is deceiving since 65% of youth who enter the military do not receive a degree from a four-year institution and many enlistees never receive any educational benefits at all.


http://www.comdsd.org/article_archive/SteppingUpRecruitment04.htm

Apparently a few college professors relied upon by the DoD seem to agree with me. I suppose their findings are untrue, unfounded and idiotic too, right?

maka nani

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 9158
    • AOL Instant Messenger - redsox1079
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2005, 08:34:29 AM »
who says sheeit?
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL YOU DUMB FUCKS.

CRDFNSKY

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • NEEERDSSS!!!
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2005, 09:40:22 AM »
I would say you're generally right about professors. They are humans after all, but my point is they do rely on a method for reaching conclusions about data that is more sophisticated than the average person's response when encountering information. Whether or not they are always right is another thing. Regardless of that, the poster challenged me to find evidence, and I did that. The main point of that report was not the part I highlighted, but that portion was relevant to this discussion. However, the main purpose of the report, which was ultimately to help the DoD meet recruitment goals, when taken with that evidence I highlighted raises an interesting implication. The military acknowledges that the qualified pool of potential recruits sees it as both dangerous and a default low paying job, so the qualified candidates with other options have opted out. The DoD is concerned with understanding these attitudes so they can tailor their recruitment efforts to attract qualified candidates and battle declining recruitment.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the whole report, but I bet the statistics I cited would be supplemented with specifics. I bet you're right though, media reports do play some role in deterring educated people from enlisting. Despite the reasons, educated people still realize they have other options, and the undereducated minorities cited in the excerpt realize they have few, if any, other options regardless of their media fed opinions about the military. When one has better options they usually take them. When one does not have better options they must take the default, and for many people the default is military.

Ok, now you can have your thread back. I'm moving today and will be off line for a week, and I fully expect this thread to be dead by the time I'm back on. MSU, thanks for your points, and I envy the non-primitive way in which you present them. Good-bye Sports.

btideroll

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2005, 12:57:46 PM »
I would say you're generally right about professors. They are humans after all, but my point is they do rely on a method for reaching conclusions about data that is more sophisticated than the average person's response when encountering information. Whether or not they are always right is another thing. Regardless of that, the poster challenged me to find evidence, and I did that. The main point of that report was not the part I highlighted, but that portion was relevant to this discussion. However, the main purpose of the report, which was ultimately to help the DoD meet recruitment goals, when taken with that evidence I highlighted raises an interesting implication. The military acknowledges that the qualified pool of potential recruits sees it as both dangerous and a default low paying job, so the qualified candidates with other options have opted out. The DoD is concerned with understanding these attitudes so they can tailor their recruitment efforts to attract qualified candidates and battle declining recruitment.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the whole report, but I bet the statistics I cited would be supplemented with specifics. I bet you're right though, media reports do play some role in deterring educated people from enlisting. Despite the reasons, educated people still realize they have other options, and the undereducated minorities cited in the excerpt realize they have few, if any, other options regardless of their media fed opinions about the military. When one has better options they usually take them. When one does not have better options they must take the default, and for many people the default is military.

Ok, now you can have your thread back. I'm moving today and will be off line for a week, and I fully expect this thread to be dead by the time I'm back on. MSU, thanks for your points, and I envy the non-primitive way in which you present them. Good-bye Sports.


Just because the military may be a fairly open job opportunity, how and the hell can you honestly justify belittling the body that which preservces freedom for your little ass. If you are honestly threatened by someone with military service in a competitive situation where it is you v. them for the job (which you obviously are) then you probably envy them deep down inside. That, or you are admitting that military service gets preference over the rest. If it does, why shouldn't it?

I don't care how default you think it is, it surely isn't the most glamorous, and can be the most dangerous. You wouldn't be able to bear some of the conditions some of the troops have to life with. And to think you only agree with the military regarding the officer track? So apparently some of the military is ok? What about those who enlisted and then became officers? What happened to their default job? Some people want it as a career, others for leadership, others for action. But to base your opinion on an entire body of service that is fighting and dying for you right now just because some people enter because its the "Default" way, is very pathetic.

Another point to make then I'm out of this sickening thread--if people like you weren't did have a piss poor attitude towards such a "Default" institution, and if "better" citizens (obviously, yourself) would have the marbles to apply, maybe the military wouldn't be spiraling down into a body desparate to get qualified individuals (by recruiting the drop outs, poor, those that you cited, etc...) Before, pretty much every man (didn't matter who you were) served. Now, getting volunteers isn't like it used to be.

PSUDSL08

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
    • LS #'s
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2005, 01:21:15 PM »
Quote
Just because the military may be a fairly option job opportunity, how and the hell can you honestly justify belittling the body that which preservces freedom for your little ass. If you are honestly threatened by someone with military service in a competitive situation where it is you v. them for the job (which you obviously are) then you probably envy them deep down inside. That, or you are admitting that military service gets preference over the rest. If it does, why shouldn't it?

I don't care how default you think it is, it surely isn't the most glamorous, and can be the most dangerous. You wouldn't be able to bear some of the conditions some of the troops have to life with. And to think you only agree with the military regarding the officer track? Some apparently some of the military is ok? What about those who enlisted and then became officers? What happened to their default job? Some people want it as a career, others for leadership, others for action. But to base your opinion on an entire body of service that is fighting and dying for you right now just because some people enter because its the "Default" way, is very pathetic.

Another point to make then I'm out of this sickening thread--if people like you weren't did have a piss poor attitude towards such a "Default" institution, and if "better" citizens (obviously, yourself) would have the marbles to apply, maybe the military wouldn't be spiraling down into a body desparate to get qualified individuals (by recruiting the drop outs, poor, those that you cited, etc...) Before, pretty much every man (didn't matter who you were) served. Now, getting volunteers isn't like it used to be.

I sympathized with your frustrations all the way until the last paragraph. When you say that in the past, pretty much everyone served...I believe you're comparing WWII to the conflict in Iraq, which is like comparing apples and oranges. If the mighty nation of Iraq was in the position to possibly take over all of Europe, you could bet your ass that there would be people from all walks of life fighting overseas. If this wasn't the comparison you were trying to make, then disregard what I said.
"Better" citizens aren't enlisting because they don't support this war, and they don't support this administration. Bush's approval rating continues to dwindle, as does support for the conflict in Iraq.

btideroll

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2005, 02:59:52 PM »

Quote

"Better" citizens aren't enlisting because they don't support this war, and they don't support this administration. Bush's approval rating continues to dwindle, as does support for the conflict in Iraq.

That is exactly the liberal attitude I'm talking about. Don't support the WAR? LOL What the hell. That bs started in vietnam. I guess I'll never understand how people can live in a country, demand all of these rights, yet not be supportive of their country. I guess they should be happy at this point that they even have a choice. It is the freedom too many have taken for granted that has pushed this country downhill. I sometimes wonder how the country even functions with the blatant disrespect given. You give people freedom and they turn it against you. Sickening. To those who are blatantly disrespecting the US because Bush is in office, I'm sorry another glamorous Clinton couldn't be in office to reap the rewards of delayed economics brought on by other presidents. Or better yet, I apologize that Kerry isn't in office so he can inflate his heroism when in fact, it was such a bs story that it is laughable at best. The bottom line is people should support their country, period. Look past the smoke and mirrors of politics and stop letting it sway your dignity. /speech off.

PSUDSL08

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
    • LS #'s
Re: What about the FBI???
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2005, 04:48:48 PM »

Quote

"Better" citizens aren't enlisting because they don't support this war, and they don't support this administration. Bush's approval rating continues to dwindle, as does support for the conflict in Iraq.

That is exactly the liberal attitude I'm talking about. Don't support the WAR? LOL What the hell. That bs started in vietnam. I guess I'll never understand how people can live in a country, demand all of these rights, yet not be supportive of their country. I guess they should be happy at this point that they even have a choice. It is the freedom too many have taken for granted that has pushed this country downhill. I sometimes wonder how the country even functions with the blatant disrespect given. You give people freedom and they turn it against you. Sickening. To those who are blatantly disrespecting the US because Bush is in office, I'm sorry another glamorous Clinton couldn't be in office to reap the rewards of delayed economics brought on by other presidents. Or better yet, I apologize that Kerry isn't in office so he can inflate his heroism when in fact, it was such a bs story that it is laughable at best. The bottom line is people should support their country, period. Look past the smoke and mirrors of politics and stop letting it sway your dignity. /speech off.

This is exactly the conservative attitude I'm talking about...equating disapproval with the war in IRAQ with not supporting our country..That we're disrespecting the women and men of our armed forces b/c we don't agree with the cause or the post-offensive planning that the leaders of our country have implemented. Unbelievable...maybe you should stop watching John Wayne and old war movies and look at the facts. Vietnam? hmm...how bout our government lying to the public through the use of propaganda to fight communism...a form of government which, more or less, died on it's own. Iraq? eerily similar...going in under the premise of finding WMD's, then switching the story around that we're trying to achieve "freedom" for the Iraqi people.
To solidify my position...do you think that any liberals weren't in support of going into Afghanistan? no Do you think that liberals don't want our men and women (and 18 year old kids) to come home safely..no ...Patriotism was at an all time high (since WWII) after the horrific events of 9-11. I don't even need to delve into the f-up's that have happened in Iraq and with our foreign policy...but the question I have is, what happened to Iran?? Iran has several nuclear facilities inlcuding underground plants and a hard water plant in Nahanz. They brutalize their people just as bad, if not worse than Saddam did in Iraq..What did Iraq have weapons wise? Nothing. Did Bush forget that their main nuclear sites were destroyed by the Israeli's during the 80's? We found Saddam in a foxhole, but haven't found the guy who masterminded the largest attack on American soil.
I agree that Clinton walked in during the right time...and he f'd up when it came to our pre 9-11 intelligence..but at least he could talk to the public without sounding retarded...Maybe bush should start having sex with his White House interns? I'd rather have him lie about sex than everything else.
In terms of our rights...where are they going. Roe v. Wade will probably be overturned within the decade (I won't even go into another abortion debate). He's limited the ability of our senior citizens to obtain cheaper medications from Canada...he passed a bill allowing gun stores to destroy records of their customers after a short period of time (cant remember if it was 1 month or two). The Patriot Act?..i'll stop there
I'll wrap up my "liberal manifesto"...his approval rating sucks, the states in most danger for another terrorist attack were almost all blue states (who wants to bomb the carolinas?)...and while Kerry was probably the worst democratic candidate we've had in years, I think a circus monkey could make better decisions than Cowboy Bush. Speech with logical reasoning off.