Quote from: maka nani on August 06, 2005, 08:53:12 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
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.
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.
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 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.
"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.
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.