stockingfull wrote:You cavemen just don't get it: you can't invoke Stalin, Hitler or the Klan and expect the debate to remain respectful, any more than with the much less subtle personal stuff you've been slinging lately.
But no matter, your points are all lame anyway.
The first time you'll find Hitler and Stalin and others used in this thread as an insult to an individual/individuals is back on page 15. You're right...using those names in an insulting manner were lame back then too. As for "respectful", this debate never started out as respectful...see page 1.
Other than that, while looking over the past I ran into some other things. One I want to point out in order to defend my military. I don't know why I didn't respond back then, maybe I missed it, or wasn't in the mood, or hey...could've been ....."drunk...or on another planet...maybe I was shaving my neanderthal Christian back???
Back on page 16 a discussion was had about felons getting waivers to join. I didn't get to read the news report about it but judging by some questions asked about what type of felonies these people committed and were found guilty of, I assume the report didn't give the whole picture. Did the news report mention if anyone of those waivers was given to a person that was actively serving time and got out of jail just because he joined the military? Because that I am against and also I have never heard of.
As for allowing waivers for convicted felons...that's nothing new.
If you never joined or attempted to join the military you wouldn't know about how waivers may be needed or work for the good.
I support felons being given waivers in order to recieve the chance to serve in the military. Reading those posts back on page 16 a picture of "Mass Murderers" and convicted "serial Rapists" is painted. The seriously "BAD" convicted felons will probably be too old to join the military when they get out of the Big House or be UN-waivable (that's not a word...I just made it up...sounds funny though..."unwaivable"
I have reason to support it because I have the experience behind me to support it and I am damn proud today of my experiences in supporting it. One shipmate tried to get into a few Police Academies after his first enlistment but was denied because of his past...felonies. So he stayed smart and stayed in. I'll say this much, I'm happy he was turned down by those academies because 2 years ago he made Chief Petty Officer (E-7). I just wish I was there to see him have his Anchors pinned on.
Even if the military didn't allow felons in, the military would still have it's criminals. Proof...there are reasons why specific spaces on warships are labelled "Brig". Bigger the ship...bigger the Brig...not fun to be in. Also, looking at the whole situation, if Joe Felon decides he wants to continue his Felon-ish ways in the military, they normally learn that they would have been better off staying in the civilian criminal world where they have the "right" to have lawyers willing and ready to defend them.[/quoteIn re the felons portion of this thread Mike, I will just restate my main point in bringing it up in this thread:
......."I agree with you (in re the non-violent crimes) if put forth by an administration who's intent was to help young, redeemable felons regain their lives. This is hardly the intent of this crew who are only interested in being able to publicly claim that they are meeting their recruitment goals. In this case, they are merely "using" these young felons for their own morally corrupt political purposes with no regard whatsoever to trying to help these young felons or the possible damage this policy may do to our military. Indefensible in my view!"
Edit: Bold type used to show the response, not for emphasis
To prove my point, I offer these two photos: