Our Military...

Bijou said:
CITE the post where I say the military "wants" racists, liar.
Click to expand...

I have already done so. That you don't like what you said means little to me. In other words, "Tough shit".


Unless you would like to claim that they lowered the standards specifically to include racists they didn't want? lol
 
WinterBorn said:
I have already done so. That you don't like what you said means little to me. In other words, "Tough shit".


Unless you would like to claim that they lowered the standards specifically to include racists they didn't want? lol
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You cited your own warped interpretation. You said I posted that the military "wants" racists. Cite the post where I said that.

The fact that you're too stupid to understand how lowered standards that allow for KNOWN scum to be recruited and accepted with KNOWN scumbag track records doesn't equate to the military "wanting" racists, but simply "accepting" racists because they're so desperate to meet quotas that they give a pass to scumbags, is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.
 
WinterBorn said:
Stick to the topic and spare me the self-righteous attempts at insults.

I am not, as I said, condoning anything these idiots do. But I am asking how far we go to populate the military with politically-correct individuals. If it is, as the video said, a common thing in the military, how long do you think it would take for them to learn to simply be quiet about it during induction?

And unless these recruit has actually committed a racist crime, you are wanting to convict them based on what they think? Is that what sort of nation you really want? And how far do you carry it? Will it be acceptable to ban someone for thinking the military is bad? Or what about someone who thinks gays shouldn't serve? This "thought police" nonsense is not an example of what a free society does.
Click to expand...

The "thought police" aren't alive and well in the military but clear examples of racism and even political inclination are strictly taboo and forbidden by the UCMJ. You're welcome to think anything you like, even very insane things for which you might want to talk to the base psyche doc about, but the moment you open your mouth or display in any way behavior unbecoming of a service member you can and should be handled with all the dignity you intended for someone else. Snark, snark. In 1969 and as an E-4 I made the mistake of hanging a confederate flag on my wall in my room. It really looked good hanging there above my red croco Trixon drum set. My commander felt much differently. As a fellow southerner and even a possible future father-in-law, that scared the shit out of him, he simply called me to his office and told me in no uncertain terms that the flag would come down and if he ever saw or even heard of it again I would be lucky to see E-2 again for a very long time. The armed forces has tremendous power in setting and enforcing standards acceptable to the unit and/or the commander. Don't even believe they have to put up with any shit from anybody at any time. If they do, as they obviously did in Abu Ghraib and others, then they are in great danger of losing their own status and what little respect they may still have with the troops.
 
Bijou said:
No you didn't. You cited your own warped interpretation. You said I posted that the military "wants" racists. Cite the post where I said that.

The fact that you're too stupid to understand how lowered standards that allow for KNOWN scum to be recruited and accepted with KNOWN scumbag track records doesn't equate to the military "wanting" racists, but simply "accepting" racists because they're so desperate to meet quotas that they give a pass to scumbags, is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.
Click to expand...

More attempts at insults do not change the facts. And the crap above might have some meaning, except that is not what you said.

You said, "So, to connect some very obvious dots, an organization that cultivates racism, gives a pass to racists in recruitment, and then even lowers the standards specifically to INCLUDE racists would obviously not even bother to be bothered if a background check turned up evidence of racism."

You made the claim that the reason they lowered the standards was to include racists. Your words, not mine.
 
WinterBorn said:
More attempts at insults do not change the facts. And the crap above might have some meaning, except that is not what you said.

You said, "So, to connect some very obvious dots, an organization that cultivates racism, gives a pass to racists in recruitment, and then even lowers the standards specifically to INCLUDE racists would obviously not even bother to be bothered if a background check turned up evidence of racism."

You made the claim that the reason they lowered the standards was to include racists. Your words, not mine.
Click to expand...

YOU said I posted that the military "wants" racists. Your words, not mine.

Have the standards been lowered specifically in ways that would allow for scumbags? Yes. Does that mean the military "wants" racists? No. Does it mean they'll take whatever they can get, which includes racists? Yes. And is that in fact what they're accepting? Yes. Do they know that their low standards ensure that racists will make the grade? Yes.

What part of this obviousness is still not penetrating your thick skull?
 
Bijou said:
Have the standards been lowered specifically in ways that would allow for scumbags? Yes. Does that mean the military "wants" racists? No. Does it mean they'll take whatever they can get, which includes racists? Yes. And is that in fact what they're accepting? Yes. Do they know that their low standards ensure that racists will make the grade? Yes.

What part of this obviousness is still not penetrating your thick skull?
Click to expand...

Because you did not say they lowered the standards to allow for scumbags. You said they did so specifically to include racists. That is obviously a lie. But now you want to claim it didn't mean they wanted racists. lol
 
WinterBorn said:
Because you did not say they lowered the standards to allow for scumbags. You said they did so specifically to include racists. That is obviously a lie. But now you want to claim it didn't mean they wanted racists. lol
Click to expand...

Wrong again, WB. I use 'scumbags' and 'racists' interchangeably in this thread. Scumbags also include neo-nazis, gang bangers and criminals, all for whom the standards have been lowered.

You're welcome.
 
Bijou said:
Wrong again, WB. I use 'scumbags' and 'racists' interchangeably in this thread. Scumbags also include neo-nazis, gang bangers and criminals, all for whom the standards have been lowered.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you saying "racist" does not necessarily mean you meant racist? You could say "racist" when you mean gangbangers or criminals?

And, of course, the rest of us should see that you have changed the meaning of a word and respond accordingly?

LMAO!!! Your dancing is hilarious.
 
WinterBorn said:
Oh, so you saying "racist" does not necessarily mean you meant racist? You could say "racist" when you mean gangbangers or criminals?

And, of course, the rest of us should see that you have changed the meaning of a word and respond accordingly?

LMAO!!! Your dancing is hilarious.
Click to expand...

You're confused. No one's dancing. Racists aren't the only scumbags I've been talking about on this thread. The subject is our military and how lowered recruiting standards allow for admitting racists, neo-nazis, gang-bangers and criminals. Did you miss that? You haven't been paying attention. Again.
 
Bijou said:
You're confused. No one's dancing. Racists aren't the only scumbags I've been talking about on this thread. The subject is our military and how lowered recruiting standards allow for admitting racists, neo-nazis, gang-bangers and criminals. Did you miss that? You haven't been paying attention. Again.
Click to expand...

Had you said the lowered recruiting standards allowed for admitting racists, I wouldn't have said anything. But that is not what you said. You claimed they lowered the standards specifically to include racists.

Can you see a difference between these two claims?

1) The military lowered their recruiting standards, and this allows racists, neonazis, gangbangers and criminals to be admitted.

2) The military lowered their recruiting standards specifically to include racists.
 
Gee I'm sorry you're so bent on hair-splitting. By 'allowing' for racists, they had to specifically fashion the standards so that scumbags - racists, neo-nazis, gang-bangers and criminals - would fit the criteria for admission. And, behold - that's exactly who wound up making it into our military.

Do you see why your hair-splitting has no bearing on the actual issue here? Can you see how there is NO difference between 1) and 2) because the allowance resulted in 2)?

WB, if you still have a need to belabour the obvious in a feeble need to be right, talk to yourself for the rest of the evening. I've made my point. It's a shame that you're still struggling with what the point is after 170-plus posts, but that's your burden.
 
Howey said:
It's a shame Winterborn would rather argue semantics than read my enlightening post.
Click to expand...

Funny, but when I tried to address your post I was accused of dumbing down the thread. Then when I call someone on a lie, I am accused of arguing semantics. BTW, it is not arguing semantics to take people at what they post.
 
Bijou said:
Gee I'm sorry you're so bent on hair-splitting. By 'allowing' for racists, they had to specifically fashion the standards so that scumbags - racists, neo-nazis, gang-bangers and criminals - would fit the criteria for admission. And, behold - that's exactly who wound up making it into our military.

Do you see why your hair-splitting has no bearing on the actual issue here? Can you see how there is NO difference between 1) and 2) because the allowance resulted in 2)?

WB, if you still have a need to belabour the obvious in a feeble need to be right, talk to yourself for the rest of the evening. I've made my point. It's a shame that you're still struggling with what the point is after 170-plus posts, but that's your burden.
Click to expand...

It has a great deal of bearing. In the first sentence the standards were lowered. A side effect of that was that scumbags got in. In the second sentence the standards were lowered for the specific purpose of getting those scumbags in. That you claim there is no difference is laughable. Of course, if you admitted there was a difference you would have to admit I was right. I doubt you could do that.

Once again you quit talking. Funny, but this is the 2nd or 3rd time you have said that.
 
Bijou said:
Bull.Fucking.Shit. Cite the post where I said the military "wants" racists. Otherwise, take your melodrama bullshit up the street, whiner.
Click to expand...

OOPS, someone seems a little out of sorts.
Mabye this will help:
MIP05010.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top