The Term "San Francisco Values" was used a lot before the mid-term election, especially by Bill O'Reilly.

Here is a list from his book Cultural Warrior:

*Cradle to grave entitlements for the poor with a punishing tax rate to pay for them.

*An anti-military attitude. San Francisco voters approved a nonbinding referendum banning military recruiters from city schools. The SF School Board recently abolished the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program (JROTC). Last year, city supervisors refused to allow the retired USS Iowa, a historic World War II battleship, to be docked in the Port of San Francisco.

*Legalized drugs.

*Unfettered abortion rights, no parental notification for minors having abortions.

*Rehab not punishment for many dangerous criminals.

*No restrictions on the southern borders. San Francisco welcomes all illegal aliens.

*An anti-Christian attitude. The supervisors last March condemned a rally by a conservative Christian youth group, kids. The supervisors called it "anti-gay and anti-choice," but the city apparently is comfortable with militant gays dressing up as nuns in a public parade and mocking said nuns. No proclamation condemning that.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,227846,00.html

Those tie in closely with the democrat's vision of America, but don't expect them to admit it.

Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do and how they vote.

Herb

Some yes. Some no.

I guess I have my own values...again.

DANG it.

It really is sad that one city can be so "generalized". Anyone who knows SF also knows that most residents are not gay, do not take illegal drugs, and don't ALL vote democratic. Many SF residents are married, have kids, politics middle of the road, and simply don't fit the stereotype.

The main point here is we stereotype way too much in this country, and O'Reilly is just trying to stir the pot. He is a commentator/talk show host/entertainer. He ain't dumb, he knows how to get reactions...but come on, leave the City by the Bay alone for gawdsakes!

Where would you feel safer raising a family, San Francisco or Branson, Missouri?

Herb

Not a bad question, but most sociologists will tell you that crime rates have less to do with political leanings, and more to do with low per capita income.
In which case, Branson loses. Branson loses again because it has become a tourist mecca, and that generally drives UP the crime rate.

Bill O'Reilly? We're really giving creedence to something Bill O'Reilly said? Come on, there are legitimate conservative thinkers out there who aren't members of the Freak Show like Bill O'Reilly is.

True but the crime rate is not that much of a factor if in the case of San Francisco we have activist judges who will let out a pedophile after serving only a few months in prison, if at all. I don't know what the judge situation is in Missouri but I bet its harder on criminals than San Francisco is.

Sutton, agreed, O'Reilly is somewhat of a freak show and does not always reflect intelligent conservative thought. That is why I reject his Frisco generalizations. (Oh, and they don't like it when you call them Frisco) Whoops, I guess I just made a generalization too. Oh well.

Redford, What do think of SF's anti-military attitude?

Not sure I get your question...you mean they don't want any military installations there? Or that the populace tends to be anti-military? (uh oh, another generalization).

My opinion is that even though there are many conservatives in SF, the majority will rule and city politics will prevent any military presence within the city. However, the Bay Area in general provides much military assistance not only in hardware, but (dare I say it?) software. This is something that doesn't get talked about a lot, but the Silicon Valley has played a key role in the development of the US military. Not commonly known, but much of our military technology has come from an area just about an hour south of what is considered the most anti-military liberal city in the country.

I'm referring to the second talking point on the list.

Abolishing JROTC in public indicates a majority of San Franciscans really dislike the military. It's ridiculous that a historic WW11 battleship can't be docked in SF.

Agreed.

Do you think anyone in elected office will lose their job for their anti-military stance?

LOL - uh, no. No they will not. Because it's secret. Only Republicans can see it.

Decoder ring or something.

Author: Digitaldextor
Monday, December 04, 2006 - 8:32 pm


I'm referring to the second talking point on the list.

Abolishing JROTC in public indicates a majority of San Franciscans really dislike the military. It's ridiculous that a historic WW11 battleship can't be docked in SF.

----
the reason for the dislike of the military is because of course the "don't ask don't tell" policy. But I doubt if that city would like the military if that were even abolished.

Of course that's it. Couldn't possibly be anything else.

Thanks for cutting the the fog of misunderstanding. Once again you have crystalized my thoughts perfectly Paul.

His real name is Wayne.

And mine is David.

"Of course that's it. Couldn't possibly be anything else.

Thanks for cutting the the fog of misunderstanding. Once again you have crystalized my thoughts perfectly Paul."

I lived in downtown San Francisco for a summer about 12 years ago. I found the city to be a great place, and the entire Bay area to be very impressive. The generalizations about SF are way overblown and overplayed. The facts are SF is an educated, thinking city. This is why they earn so much more than most other cities. Plus, it's beautiful down there. Other cities wish they could be SF!

San Francisco's health benefits include sex changes for city employees.

So what? The people of SF seem to make a lot better wages than anyone here in Oregon, so they've got to be doing something right. Oregon could only wish for an employment market like SF.

DD>> "San Francisco's health benefits include sex changes for city employees.

In that case check out City of San Francisco Job Opportunities.

RIP - San Francisco reminds me of a bigger, busier, more important Seattle.

Yes, the wages are higher, but my God so is the cost of living. Finding a damn place to live down there ... eeeesh. I would imagine that the wages there have to do a lot with the cause-and-effect with the cost of living. Seattle is the most educated city in the nation and the wages there aren't NEARLY as high.

Yes, indeed.... I have "San Francisco values". I was born and raised there in the 50's, when the average Joe was honest, hard-working, probably a union member and genuinely proud to be part of Everyone's Favorite City.

It's the city that fostered the best radio ever heard on the West coast, with the likes of KSFO, KGO, KFRC and KYA. I would listen to those stations at night in bed, and then on a little Sony transistor radio in the early mornings while delivering the San Francisco Chronicle on some of the steepest hills a kid ever walked, through neighborhoods that changed color and attitude every 5 blocks.

It's the city with fog-filled summers, mild winters and absolute magic in the air. The music that came from that city in the 60's was (to use an abused phrase) simply awesome. And I was there to hear it.

San Francisco has become, I'm sorry to say, just about what everyone above has described, and that's why I live in Oregon.

...but it's still my home town.

When year did the liberal lunacy start?

Same year the neo-CONer lunacy started in America.....

If having "San Francisco Values" means not being homophobic and backward like O'Reilly and a few of our friends hanging around here, then count me in.

Whats being homophobic? does that mean having any moral values at all? If thats homophobic than I am guilty.

Wayne, you are a text book example of someone who is homophobic, and it has nothing to do with moral values.

I am considered homophobic because I oppose what is wrong. The terms homophobia and morality have become two mutually exclusive terms, Pete. The only cure for homophobia is moral relativism, isn't that true, Pete?

You are homophobic because you believe in discrimination against gay people, and as far as I'm concerned, it's YOU that's immoral for your beliefs. You're a modern day bigot molded by your bigoted church.

I am homophobic because I oppose what is wrong. Discrimination is only one thing to you and that is gay marriage. You are just as disciminatory as I am because you won't let people marry their pets or have polygamic marriages. You see marriage is not mentioned in the constitution anywhere.

Being gay is not against the law, it's only against the beliefs of your bigoted religion.

And as far as the Constitution goes, equal rights are guaranteed by it.

I care that Wayne is homophobic about as much as I care that Herb is gay.

Big deal. Doesn't surprise me.

Although, yes, I understand why it is discussed. I do it too. I just thought this thread was about more than herb and Wayne being gay or whatever they are saying or blah blah blah.

The label thing again. Jesus. Doesn't that get to be such a burden when it's always wrong? Fuck me in the goat-ass.

A
Author: Reinstatepete
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 10:50 am


Being gay is not against the law, it's only against the beliefs of your bigoted religion.

And as far as the Constitution goes, equal rights are guaranteed by it.

------
I never said it was. But you see marriage is not a guarenteed right in the constitution. I think you define bigotry as solely being against gay marrage, nothing else matters.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 11:04 am


I care that Wayne is homophobic about as much as I care that Herb is gay.

Big deal. Doesn't surprise me.

Although, yes, I understand why it is discussed. I do it too. I just thought this thread was about more than herb and Wayne being gay or whatever they are saying or blah blah blah.

The label thing again. Jesus. Doesn't that get to be such a burden when it's always wrong? Fuck me in the goat-ass.

------
I am homophobic because I don't believe in moral relativism. You see you and the libs think that homophobia and morality are two mutually exclusive things. The only cure for homophobia is to not believe in absloutes. Isn't that right? I notice nobody has answered that. It must be true.

The cure for homophobia is education and tolerance, two things you lack.

what you mean is for me to support moral relativism. Same thing, right Pete? Can't you admit that they are the same thing? Homophobia and moral absolutes are mutually exclusive, isn't that what you are telling me?

I guess what I meant to say was that one can't have moral absolutes and not be homophobic. One has to believe in moral relativism in order to cure homophobia, isn't that the argument you are making? I wish we could edit our posts after we post them!

I'm telling you that supporting discrimination is wrong, and that is what you are doing. You're free to think whatever you want about gay people, but when the law gets involved, that crosses the line.

I am telling that you only mean gay marriage when you mention discrimination. Can that mean anything else but that? Nobody is for discrimination but we need to define that word differently than the way you are defining it.

Wayne, "moral absolutes" are mutually exclusive with *REALITY*. There are always exceptions to the rule. There is no black and white, there are only extreme shades of grey.

Show me any "moral absolute", and I'll show you an exception.

And as for San Francisco, it's a beautiful, exciting, dirty, expensive, crime-ridden place. I love to visit (except when I get my car broken into), but I wouldn't want to live there.

Author: Tadc
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 2:00 pm


Wayne, "moral absolutes" are mutually exclusive with *REALITY*. There are always exceptions to the rule. There is no black and white, there are only extreme shades of grey.

Show me any "moral absolute", and I'll show you an exception.

----
No moral absolutes? How about thou shalt not kill? Or steal? You see moral absolutes and homophobia are one and the same thing according to San Francisco values. There is no difference.
If there are no absolutes then why do we go to jail at all if we commit a crime?

By the way I have been to the bay area and its a lovely area but I hear its expensive to live there. I bet that many don't share the extreme left values that the leaders have.

What I should think you liberals would be focusing on regarding San Fransisco is what happens when liberalism gains a major foothold.

True there are a number of normal humans in SF, but the liberals have gained the power and control the direction of the city.

Do you like the result you're seeing?

Wayner said>>>
I am considered homophobic because I oppose what is wrong.

Wrong to YOU....

dj sez: "True there are a number of normal humans in SF, but the liberals have gained the power and control the direction of the city."

I know, that's the problem with open elections.

"Do you like the result you're seeing?"

And what liberal agenda is in place and what, exactly, is it causing that we should be aware of? Specifically.

Help me focus.

>>>"Help me focus."

If you're that unaware of what's going on in SF, there's little I could do to help you understand.

Author: Trixter
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 2:51 pm


Wayner said>>>
I am considered homophobic because I oppose what is wrong.

Wrong to YOU....

----
Wrong period. Homophobia and moral values are one and the same thing, right Trix? The only cure for homophobia is moral relativism, isn't that right? Why hasn't anyone answered that question?

I don't see anything wrong with SF. Do you have a problem with a city that out earns just about any other city in the US besides New York? SF is filled with some of the best and brightest people in America.

>>>"I don't see anything wrong with SF."

Surprise, surprise.

what else can you expect from someone who believes that moral relativism is the solution to homophobia?

I believe I said education and tolerance were the solution to homophobia. If you find me to have said anything different, please post a link to my statement. OTHERWISE QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH YOU FUCKING JERK!!!

You say that but what you really mean is moral relativism. You define tolerance that way. You want to educate people about the joys of moral relativism. Absolute truth is the enemy of education and tolerance, isn't that right Pete?

CJ Said - "Help me focus."

Then DJ said - "If you're that unaware of what's going on in SF, there's little I could do to help you understand."

OK. I really didn't know anything about it. You made it sound as though there were specfic things going on there that I should know about. I mean things that are specific to San Francisco. But I can admit that I don't know something. That's fine.

I'll bow out of the San Francisco thread then.

CJ, I thought you were being a wise apple. Sorry, I get conditioned to expect the worst on this forum.

If you're serious, you can start by realizing the politics are radical liberal. Child molesters go free, the military is being kicked out (lots of lost jobs go with it), the Congresswomen from San Fransisco (soon to be speaker) marches in one of those near nude gay parades hand in hand with the head of NAMBLA, obviously endorsing adult male sex with little boys, and on and on.

It's no surprise to me that several of the liberals on this forum would have no problem with this atmosphere.

I'm offended by the term wise-apple. Johnny Appleseed was a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Johnny Appleseed.

Kidding.

But no, yeah. I just didn't have tons of reasons to follow that area so closely. Now I know.

Can I have some time to think about how I feel? Are they hurting? I mean economically ( we can start there and go to the social thing later ). I mean, are they crushing their economy because of these choices or anything?

I do tons of business in SF. But it's the kind of stuff that must not reflect in their choices you listed. Because from my angle, it's kinda hot there still. Business-wise

I doubt they are hurting. The SF area has a lot of diversity in business. Still, it's never good to drive good jobs away. And, those military payrolls are very stable.

The area is so beautiful and there is so much of interest there, I'm sure there are a lot of people who will put up with the liberal crap just to live there.

I lived there for a while as a kid. I really have no desire to live there again. But that's more of a reflection of California than SF specifically.

So it doesn't sound like the majority of poeple have much regret about where they are or where they are heading. That's fair. I make a choice not to live there for all kinds of reasons. I like wher I live. If I didn't like it, I'd move.

Just not there.

Earthquakes - it's whats for dinner. And I'm on a diet.

<troll>No moral absolutes? How about thou shalt not kill? Or steal? You see moral absolutes and homophobia are one and the same thing according to San Francisco values. There is no difference.
If there are no absolutes then why do we go to jail at all if we commit a crime? </troll>

<pointingouttheobvious>I think you'd agree that an exception to "thou shalt not kill" is made every time one of our soldiers, policemen or executioners takes a life. Or if you kill in self-defense. Or if you can prove it was enough of an accident. Or if you can afford to hire a good enough lawyer or buy a judge/jury/prosecutor. The list goes on.
"Thou shalt not steal" - hmmm, how about if you're starving and steal a loaf of bread, or trying to feed your hungry children, or you're just "taking a sample" from the bulk food bin, or the "take a penny" tray, or if "you deserve it" because "he owes you". Or WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD A SONG FROM LIMEWIRE??(sound familiar?) Or when you and your buddies make billions disappear that were supposed to help reconstruct the country we recently bombed flat?

People go to jail in this country because they can't afford to buy their way out of it, not because they've violated some moral absolute. Pull your head out of the sand.
</pointingouttheobvious>

Deane- Please cite your claim that Congresswoman whatshername ever held hands with the head of NAMBLA, or that child molesters go free any more often than in the rest of the nation.

Author: Tadc
Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 2:19 pm


<troll>No moral absolutes? How about thou shalt not kill? Or steal? You see moral absolutes and homophobia are one and the same thing according to San Francisco values. There is no difference.
If there are no absolutes then why do we go to jail at all if we commit a crime? </troll>

<pointingouttheobvious>I think you'd agree that an exception to "thou shalt not kill" is made every time one of our soldiers, policemen or executioners takes a life. Or if you kill in self-defense. Or if you can prove it was enough of an accident. Or if you can afford to hire a good enough lawyer or buy a judge/jury/prosecutor. The list goes on.
"Thou shalt not steal" - hmmm, how about if you're starving and steal a loaf of bread, or trying to feed your hungry children, or you're just "taking a sample" from the bulk food bin, or the "take a penny" tray, or if "you deserve it" because "he owes you". Or WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD A SONG FROM LIMEWIRE??(sound familiar?) Or when you and your buddies make billions disappear that were supposed to help reconstruct the country we recently bombed flat?

People go to jail in this country because they can't afford to buy their way out of it, not because they've violated some moral absolute. Pull your head out of the sand.
</pointingouttheobvious>

----
I get the feeling you want everyone who disagrees with you to go to jail. I think you have your own absolutes. Its just that you can't handle absolutes that are different from your own. Thats sad that you don't think I have the right to speak my mind.

>>>"Deane- Please cite your claim that Congresswoman whatshername ever held hands with the head of NAMBLA, or that child molesters go free any more often than in the rest of the nation."


Not worth the bother. You'll believe what you want to believe.

I agree. He isn't interested in any cite he won't agree with. It would be a waste of time.

I think it would be worth the bother. That's a pretty grand statement you made about Nancy Pelosi and the court system in SF...some substantiation would go along way in adding credibility to your claim.

Why? Nobody would buy it unless it agrees with the spin.

There is no proof to ANYTHING Deane posted about SF, which is typical of the right. Throw accusations out as if they are true, but don't bother to back up the rhetoric with facts. Only when someone shines a light on the rat, does the rat scurry.

That's a dodge.

I did a google search.

Pelosi was marching in a gay pride parade in close proximity to a known pedophile.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450

That's a smear.

That's a dodge.

Come on DD!

Walking close to someone like that is not exactly a crime! Maybe she didn't realize who he was, maybe she did and decided a scene would make things worse, who knows? Lotta reasons for that.

That's what makes something like this a smear.

It looks bad, but nobody can really pin down anything more precise.

I'll bet you've been seen in the grocery store next to a trannie, and molester on more than one occasion. --We all have!

(just didn't know it)

This is such a dumb thread. Walking next to a bad person? Gays running rampant? Sex changes for city employees?

Who cares (besides the obvious 3 people)?

moral relativism
That's an interesting term. Most of those people who call themselves "prolife" say that abortion is murder. Would these people put the women who have abortion to death or to live the remainder of their life in prison as other murders are? If not, why not? Would that be moral relativism?

I think one who believes in moral relativism would say that abortion is okay no matter when the pregnancy is because the end justifies the means. Moral relativism says there are no absolutes. How many people want to have an abortion? I bet in their heart of hearts there aren't very many. I would hope that at least we can find some reasons for an abortion other than depression. Do you know about a fellow in Kansas named Dr. Tiller who performs abortions for depression? Thats not a good reason I don't think. A good reason would be if a woman's life is in danger.

I think a woman should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason she deems necessary, as I don't believe in ever forcing a woman to give birth. But I do think that decision needs to be made as early as possible.

Fair enough. Don't most abortions happen after consulting a doctor?

Come on, everyone, move on ... nothing else to see here ... just some crazies who believe extreme stuff about the San Francisco Bay Area.

Now if you want to talk about San Francisco HOUSING values ... that's something REALLY scary.

I don't see how this is a dumb thread if National public radio considers "San Francisco Values" a worthy news story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6443117

San Francisco is thriving city. Other cities can only wish they had the values that guide SF to being one of the best cities in our country.

What values?

You and your conservative minions are attacking the "values" of SF. All I'm saying, is that whatever it is they are doing, values included, it must be working. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to sell a 1000 sq foot dump for $750K. People love SF so much, they are willing to pay those prices to live there. So, can it really be that bad? The demand for housing is a sign that people LOVE the values of SF.

I think San Francisco is a beautiful city. I don't blame anyone at all for wanting to live there. I bet most of the residents don't share in the extreme left liberal values that the leaders out there share. I mean they won't allow the military in their ports? How extreme is that! The price of a home is pretty expensive though, I bet.

Funny how that works isn't it Reinstate?

"What values?"

Hey Wayne - nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to move there, are they?

Sheesh.

Brianl, you haven't yet posted your opinion about "San Francisco Values." Because you're a Republican I would like to read your perspective and insight.

Well, O'Reilly is a bit too far to the right for my liking ... so I take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt.

-I personally have no problem with a ban on military recruiters in schools, at least in the classrooms. I was forced to take the ASVAB test when I was a sophomore in high school and scored in the 98th percentile, so as you can imagine I had every recruiter alive coming out of the woodwork. If they work through and with the guidance counselors like every other vocation that is one thing, but on the premises in the classroom promoting military serve I don't have a problem banning.

-As far as many other social issues, I am a moderate. I buy into the Bill Clinton philosophy of abortion being "safe, legal and rare".

As far as the gay population and that ... EVERY city has a gay population. San Francisco's is probably one of the most recognized in the world, yes, and they have freedoms and rights that I feel ALL people should have, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm not a Nancy Pelosi fan by any means, she is about as liberal as they get (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way in which Wayne likes to toss it around, I am just calling a spade a spade here). She DOES represent a majority of those in San Francisco though, because they elect her every time she's up for re-election. Again, nothing wrong with that. I lived in Seattle for a few years and voted against Jim McDermott every time he was up for re-election to Congress, but Seattle is a very left-leaning town and McDermott kept getting voted in.

Banning military recruiters in schools undermines America's all-voluntary military. Are you for another draft?

I had the same ASVAB experience. Was recruited to no end!

Ended up enlisting and it was not for me. None of my kids will take that test, nor any of the Oregon CIM / CAM tests. Actually, I'll allow the ASVAB, but they have to tell me why first.

I suspect the military might be a good fit for my youngest, but I'm gonna let him explore that on his terms.

MORAL RELATIVISM

I've a question. How can one claim absolutes in this when ones position is derived from a book that is proven to be arbitrary?

So you're for banning military recruiters from schools? Students should be aware of military service as a career option. It's about choice.

Yes! It is about choice. And that is an informed choice, not the 'do what it takes to get the kid to sign' kind of choice.

Once the kids have come of age, they are fair game. As a parent, one needs to help build their kids up so they are not an easy mark. Nothing to be done about that, if not done while the cloak of childhood protects them.

However, being kids they need a measure of safety kept about them. This means limiting some of their rights, but also limiting their responsibility. They do not yet have brains that are fully capable.

Some do, but many just don't.

A huge percentage of the population just does not fully awaken as the people they are to be, until sometime in their 20's.

This is why age 21 is adult age.

Recruiters, working the crowd at age 16 and above is essentially a turkey shoot. That's not really a fair choice, all things considered.

IMHO, the military is a viable career choice. There is nothing wrong with being willing and able to serve this country. We need those folks, I support those who do this to the fullest.

However, we need them enlisting with eyes wide open. This way, those enlisted are really supposed to be there. It's a great fit, they will perform to their fullest, and their sacrifice will be just and true.

When I enlisted many years ago, the difference between what my perception of the military was and the reality was stark. Ended up doing a lot of growing up in the span of a coupla years.

The reality came to me then. I would not have signed, being more fully informed and more aware of the greater implications. Also, my ideology begin to be more fully realized to me. It clashed with many aspects of the military.

Frankly, I could not have known this at 17. I had a shot at 19 and really learned who I was sometime in the 20's.

Sitting here today in my late 30's, I still am forming, but that's my deal. I'm well past the point where my choices are my own deal.

This was not true at the time I was recruited.

To be fair, the military did me a whole lotta good. For the right people, I think it's an excellent choice that should carry respect from their peers.

The majority of recruiters today do not fully inform the young people they get to sign. Sorry, but I know that's how it is from both personal experience, and knowing recruiters today.

My nephew wanted to sign because he had problems with everyday responsibility. Was easier for him to just get told what to do.

We encouraged him not to do this, because his reasons did not align with what the military was all about. Had he signed then, he would have been just another grunt.

After taking some time to reconsider his own self, strengths, and other things, he decided to sign. However, he was able to push back and get admitted to a program that really made good overall sense for him.

That's a solid choice. He currently is top-notch in the special search, rescue and domestic response team he is a member of. He will have a stellar career.

Why?

Because we made him actually choose instead of getting recruited.

That's why I'm opposed to recruiters in the schools. Had they nabbed him at 18, it would have been a mess. At 20, with some education on his side, he enlisted and found the career promised in the posters.

Why not let recuiters in schools? We have a voluntary army not a draft. One doesn't have to serve if he doesn't want to. Isn't the objection to that and the military being allowed in the ports in SF based on that "don't ask don't tell" policy? I think its a good policy.

I'm torn on banning recruiters. I agree with a lot of what KSKD stated. I was hounded quite a bit too, almost to the point of harassment, although I never took any tests or anything (I'm sure they knew my GPA was 3.8 though). But, I also see the need for the military to recruit, because after all, we need a military to defend ourselves.

I think I fall more on the side of opting out. I believe the way it works in Portland is that you can opt your kid out if you don't want them contacted by the military? When we have kids, my kids will be opted out. I believe that the military is a good option for some kids, but not an option I'd like my kids to take.

Once a student is 18, fine, let them talk to the recruiter ... though through the guidance counselor or at the recruiting office, NOT in the classroom.

The recruiter has no business being in the classroom, especially talking to kids under 18.

He doesn't have to be in the classroom but what would be wrong with him being in the cafeteria?

Same deal.

The recruiter being permitted access to the school in this way, permits him a level of access not granted to just everyone.

We don't let the pastor in the cafeteria, nor the enviromentalist, etc...

Young minds are not yet fully formed. Parents are the primary ones to do this, not interested others.

Kids are not a resource to be pilfered as needed for our greater consideration. They are future people, whose life choices can be sharply diminished by this kind of meddling.

Better to keep their doors open as much as is possible, so they may choose with a greater awareness later on. Doing otherwise is essentially oppressing them and that does not honor the core American value of freedom.

Truth is, we need people to enlist. There are plenty of takers after school. Let them make their choices as informed people.

This does limit the military being able to get the best of the best. So what to do? How about making it worth it for them to enlist then?

That's the process we helped our nephew to engage in and it worked well. He has made a very solid life choice. Had greater access been allowed, he may well be a grunt, thus wasting his potential in general.

As a follow on, we will see greater enlistment when our use of the armed forces makes good sense. Look at the mess we are in right now! Lots of good people, giving for their country --spinning their wheels because our policy is poorly conceived.

That's gonna cut the numbers down.

Our military response has been to increase recruting efforts and to lower standards. This is a cycle that will diminish our forces as a whole.

Far better to engage our forces properly, thus making the idea of enlistment more compelling in that ones sacrifice would be actually worthwhile.

I mean that in the sense that it will actually matter. The efforts of our troops are always worthwhile --I'm not slamming them in any way. It's the guy at the top that's largely responsible for the numbers being down.

It hurts no one to let the recruiter on campus at all. we have a voluntary army. I don't see how keeping the military off of school helps the war at all. Our nation needs the support of its people. We don't need to apply political correctness here. As long as the army is voluntary I say let the recruiters enter!

The Army is voluntary TO PERSONS 18 AND OLDER.

I don't want a recruiter in my kid's classroom trying to recruit them when they are under age. *I* have a say in that, and I say hell no. If I find out that it happens with my daughter or youngest son (the oldest is already 19), there will be hell to pay at that school. If I have to explain to my youngest why he can't join the military due to his health conditions when he is promised the moon and stars by Sgt. Slaughter, you better damn well believe the school and his commander will hear it.

A sixteen year old is told about the military as a career option. Yet he can't make that decision until he is eighteen. What is wrong with that?

Everything.

So DD, let's hear your reasons in support of this.

What's the upside?

I have no problem with the military contacting 16 year olds, as long as the parent's permission has been granted first.

Yep. I've no problem with that either.

But, I'm really looking for that upside.

I think its fair to get the parents permission first if they are under 18.

I bet there are a LOT of parents like me that would never agree to that though ... and they KNOW this.

You know it.

Upside - positive side: the most favorable or positive aspect of a situation or event.

1. Students are aware of the military as a career option.

2. Students who have the aptitude to be in the military are aware of it as a career.

3. It helps the military maintain its recruiting goals. That's important for the all-voluntary military.

Students usually don't make the decision to join the military on their own. They get input from their family and friends. Missing kskd, mentioned that in his post. This offsets the sales pitch from the recruiter.

Sales pitch? What I dealt with when I was that age was way more than a sales pitch. It was damn near the level of harassment. I can only imagine how much more persuasive the recruiters are these days with the pressure to get numbers.

Sales Pitch! Solicitation! What will be next...a teamster's union rep in there talking' PRO-Union....(not that there is anything wrong with the teamster's.....gulp)(saying that with great humility) but you get my point. Parental permission to attend any recruiting or informational assembly for subject's outside of the approved' educational curriculum!

Sales Pitch??

Commisions???

Like selling used cars....

Hey kid! Thanks to DUHbya and Co. I've got $40,000 for ya if you'll just take enemy fire for a couple years.....

Sorry DD, but that's really my point. We should not be selling to people that are net yet complete.

Given the current enlistment contracts, we are asking these young people to make very substantial life decisions, that will affect them to probably age 40, if not beyond, when they are 16!!

This is the same justification we use sometimes to limit punishment to kids. They are kids! Not fully capable, so not fully responsible.

Author: Brianl
Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 6:49 am


I bet there are a LOT of parents like me that would never agree to that though ... and they KNOW this.

-----
Once you reach 18 the decision is on your own. Under 18 might be too young to be in the service anyway.

"Once you reach 18 the decision is on your own. Under 18 might be too young to be in the service anyway."

My point exactly Wayne.

These recruiters are slick. They won't mention the possibility (probability) of going overseas to a place like Iraq or Afghanistan. They also give the run-around on rank and how fast you will advance.

I had recruiters calling me left right and center right out of high school ... I humored them and listened. I was very much into music, so they said, "Hey, join the band!" The Marine recruiter told me that after boot camp and six months of music school, I would come out an E-6. I KNEW he was full of doo-doo so I asked the army guy in the room next door, and he agreed with my assessment. They will say damn near anything to get you in and once you sign, your ass is theirs.

I have no problem with recruiters in general, they are there to do their job of getting an all-volunteer military to sign up. Pushing flat-out lies in a sales pitch to someone two years before they can even join, and their tactics at times, are unacceptable however.