Bill O'Reilly IS right! The majority in S.F. ARE BAD AMERICANS!
The Farleft Sucks
You DUMBASSES will never get it. Not even worth explaining in ANY form
of common sense to the San Franciscio people because they are "loony
liberals" STILL stuck in thier "hippy" days & ways. Don't you people
understand by now what "loony" kids came from this kind of thinking and
your dope smoking? Mostly from single parent homes, where "free love"
and "anything goes" is the motto. No wonder the `majority of San Fran
people end up in divorce or "confused" about their sexual orientations.
Anarchy & Anti-American retoric IS THE SAN FRANCISCO WAY!
HYPOCRITS IS SAN FRANCISCO PEOPLE!
Not all of you. Just your voting majority. Just you loony far-left
MORONS that are destroying America without any RATIONAL thinking.
I agree with O'Reilly, San Francisco should be allowed to become it's
own country and DEFEND themselves without ANY of America's tax payer
money going to that IRRESPOSIBLE city.
Freggin' far-left liberal loons that can't do their own thinking and are
influenced by the leftest media and far-left CRAP like the ACLU people,
Ted Kennedy, George Sorous, Micheal MooreON, Fienstein, Al Franken,
etc... You `know,,,,DUMBASSES!!
P.S. - GO ahead and bring THE HATE on. I don't care. That's all far-left
loons in San Fran can do or say, mock people, complain about stuff
without offering up ANY solutions. Besides, you far-left loons and your
rants are comical even though POINTLESS.
San Fran people this time proved themselves as BAD AMERICANS. Shame on
you "DUMBASSES" that voted that way.
Your not looking out for America's best intrest, certainly not your
childrens future or safety, and you SHAMED all those TRUE American
soldiers that have died and are over there now fighting, and shamed
their families.
The MAJORITY of San Franciso ARE LOONS and should be really proud of
their voting actions.
In a way I'm glad San Fran did what they did.
I certainly would not want the next generation of "PUSSY MEN" (scarred
chickens) from San Francisco going off to fight any battles for America.
If we had an Army or service men 20 years from now strickly from San
Francisco, that would be a war even the French wouldn't be affraid to
fight.
San Fran people....."Get off the dope! Please!
Your hurting America and our soldiers.
"The Peace sign IS a sign of THE CHICKEN`!"
Bill Z.
> Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
good decisions on their own.
Think of it as a "family values" thing. :-) Oh, and don't you think it
is odd how the "right-to-life" "anti-abortion" conservatives have no
problem with kids being encourage to sign up to learn how to kill?
Sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Does the "right to life"
really stop at birth? :-)
> I agree with O'Reilly, San Francisco should be allowed to become it's
> own country and DEFEND themselves without ANY of America's tax payer
> money going to that IRRESPOSIBLE city.
No worries. If they let SF and some of the surrounding communities
go, we can start the new country I've joked about - "The People's
Archipelago of San Francisco" (liberal communities reachable from San
Francisco by boat). Our national motto will be "We like our Latte."
We'd make Willie Brown our U.N. ambassador and in about 2 years, he'll
be running the place! We won't make it a "People's Republic" because,
while we may be "lefty liberals", we are stylish "lefty liberals" and
your North Korean or Cuban style people's republic is so dull and
dreary that it just won't do. :-) And we *must* have freedom of
speach, particularly the freedom to protest in support of any cause we
can think of. You know, like the vegans who joined an anti-war
protest with signs that said, "peace begins with what's on your
plate." Bet you won't see that in your little redneck burg. :-)
Besides, both the Christian and the Muslim terrorist think San
Francisco is doomed for its sinful ways, so they'd obviously use their
scarce resources somewhere else. :-)
> "The Peace sign IS a sign of THE CHICKEN`!"
Nonsense. Lashing out at whatever moves due to fear without regard to
whether there is a real threat or not (as Bush has done) is the real
sign of cowardice.
The Farleft Sucks
Just like I thought. Comedy at it's finest.
Willie Brown would fit in just fine with the U.N.
Him and the rest of them could find all sorts of ways to make money from
the hands of evil dictators and such.
I know what San Fran people passed. They passed another dumb law as
usual that will get overturned. You think the Federal government gives
a crap what stupid laws you guys pass? Don't tell me you do actually
believe in your government? Just like that lame crap law that allows
ILLEGALS to use the cities as "sanctuaries".
Maybe the FEDS will wise up and stop giving cities like San Fran (and
other sanctuary cities) FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS. Then see how, as you
far-left liberals would say, "DIVERSE" your own city becomes when it has
to live on its own means. Only then maybe these coolaid drinkers will
change their minds.
I say when San Fran becomes it's own country, we TRUE AMERICANS charge
them also $15 a gal. for gas. Besides, those people SAY they want to
help the enviornment. SO maybe THEN they will really start thinking
(instead of talking) of buying electric cars.
If the Muslums hate San Fran so much why wouldn't they stike there
first? Perfect breeding ground for them. Maybe even moreso than Iraq
would have been had your buddy Bush decided not to invade.
Another response with another "Bush" bash also. Can't pass that up
either huh? GO FIGURE.
`
Got to admit your post was humorous and I enjoyed it.
No hard feelings though.
I truely feel sad for those who voted against our military. BAD
AMERICANS! But then again, far-left liberals don't know any better, nor
do they know about actually "rooting for their country TO WIN or backing
it up..REGARDLESS OF POLITICS.
Shame on the people that root for America to lose. It's a shame SAN
Fran people OBVIOUSLY THINK & VOTE that way.
BAD AMERICANS! Shame on you!
When your children give in to terrorist threats and are lead by
dictatorship, you'll only have yourselves to blame.
Also, is it against the so-called rules of these new freaks call VEGANS,
to eat Animal crackers? Just wondering.
The Farleft Sucks
(b) where they may be too young and too immature to make good decisions
on their own.
Think of it as a "family values" thing. :-) Oh, and don't you think it
is odd how the "right-to-life" "anti-abortion" conservatives have no
problem with kids being encourage to sign up to learn how to kill?
Sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Does the "right to life"
really stop at birth? :-)
Re: Your statements DO sound hypocritical. Especially according to San
Fran's recent voting results.
Let me get this straight:
"Family values" in San Fran means that the kids may be too young to make
good decisions when it comes to the "options" of military service, but
yet your "Right to Choose" crowd out there seems to think that the
children should be allowed to make decisions about Aborting a baby
without parental knowledge?
Talk about being REAL hypocritical.
Just goes to show you how corrupt San Fran people's thinking and IDEALS
about what they call "family values" or morals really are.
Also, there use to be a time in this country when boys (at 18, remember,
the time you become an ADULT) turn into MEN. THAT is what the military
helped alot of REAL MEN become. Especailly the go-nowhere types.
But, in San Francisco, I wonder if they care anymore about making sure
their boys grow up to become MEN. Sometimes I think the San Francisco's
way is to turn men into "SISSY-MEN" with no GLORY or PRIDE IN THEIR
COUNTRY anymore. The only GLORY or Pride they want is public
GLORY-holes and gay-PRIDE. You know, what San Fran people call a
"family values" thing.
You know, "SISSY MEN". Boys remaining boys way into their adulthood.
You know, the types that use to live in the city but retired in the
foothills of Santa Cruz and live daily at their biker bars while still
smoking dope in their rustic "hippie" cabin. Whats that place they use
to live in? Height Ashbury? Now it's called Scotts Valley...haven for
the now OLD retired Flower Children of San Fran.
Look at the new generation of children SISSY MEN voters they have left
behind in San Fran. Thats a shame. The actual "sight" of the Military
scares and threatens them. 2nd generation CHICKEN PARENTS!
I feel sad for the ones that will be returning from Iraq. God help them
if they live in San Francisco. They will truley get no respect from the
majority of people in San Fran for their duty or service they payed to
their country.
Maybe Bush should get some real guts and institute the draft ONLY in San
Francisco before it's really too late and the entire city of their young
male population turns "pussified". It's a shame the majority of male
voters out there voted that way. Then again, maybe the women of San
Francisco are the only ones with the balls to actually go out & vote.
No pun intended to the "gay thing" happening out there.
Please, you far-left people need to stop smoking the dope and wake up to
how your helping the decline of anything moral and how your truely
WEAKENING America.
Atleast I said it even though they probably will never get it.
Michael Wise
STEWAR...@webtv.net (The Farleft Sucks) wrote:
> Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
Prop I does not ban the military. It is an _advisory_ measure only. It
urges, but not demands, that schools not allow military recruiters.
Should any school be dumb enough to actually carry it out; they will be
at extreme risking of losing Federal funding...and rightfully so.
> In a way I'm glad San Fran did what they did.
> I certainly would not want the next generation of "PUSSY MEN" (scarred
> chickens) from San Francisco going off to fight any battles for America.
> If we had an Army or service men 20 years from now strickly from San
> Francisco, that would be a war even the French wouldn't be affraid to
> fight.
>
> San Fran people....."Get off the dope! Please!
> Your hurting America and our soldiers.
When did you ever serve your country??
--Mike
Michael Wise
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
>
> They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
> recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
> good decisions on their own.
If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
captive as well?
--Mike
Bill Z.
> LOL...LOL
Actually, the locals are all laughing at Bill O' Reilly. One joke
going around is that he wants Coit tower blown up because it is
kind of a phallic symbol and reminds him of a part of his anatomy
that is no longer working like it used to.
> Just like I thought. Comedy at it's finest.
... and carefully snipped because you were obviously not being taken
seriously!
> Willie Brown would fit in just fine with the U.N.
> Him and the rest of them could find all sorts of ways to make money from
> the hands of evil dictators and such.
>
> I know what San Fran people passed. They passed another dumb law as
> usual that will get overturned. You think the Federal government gives
> a crap what stupid laws you guys pass? Don't tell me you do actually
> believe in your government? Just like that lame crap law that allows
> ILLEGALS to use the cities as "sanctuaries".
New York City has or had a law banning guns called "The Sullivan Law"
which has been around for nearly a century. See
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/gun_control_8-31.html>
for a reference to it, although it is hard to get Google to turn up
anything useful because most of the web pages that mention it simply
rant about the law.
> Maybe the FEDS will wise up and stop giving cities like San Fran (and
> other sanctuary cities) FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.
How about not taxing these cities as well. :-)
> If the Muslums hate San Fran so much why wouldn't they stike there
> first? Perfect breeding ground for them. Maybe even moreso than Iraq
> would have been had your buddy Bush decided not to invade.
What makes you think they hate San Francisco (jokes about its "sinful
ways" notwithstanding)? Particularly given what so many people in
this area think of Bush. :-). A few days ago, I saw a t-shirt that
said "Meet the ______" followed by "____ing it up for another 4 years"
with pictures of Bush, Cheney, and Rice as the main culprits.
> I say when San Fran becomes it's own country, we TRUE AMERICANS charge
> them also $15 a gal. for gas.
Go head - you "true Americans" will be charge $40 a head per cable-car
ride and $50 to take an elevator to the top of Coit Tower, and quite a
bit for parking. :-)
Besides, you can get around SF quite well without a car. And what
would you do without having SF to complain about? :-)
Bill Z.
Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
jailed for desertion?
Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
Michael Wise
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
> > >
> > > They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
> > > recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> > > audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
> > > good decisions on their own.
> >
> > If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
> > own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
> > captive as well?
> Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> jailed for desertion?
Not that I know of, but you didn't answer my question.
> Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
> sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
I don't concern myself with ongoing NeoCon and uberleft hypocrisy.
I do however, don't agree with the premise of banning military
recruiters from high school campuses. Not that this is going to happen
in SF, as prop I is an advisory measure only.
Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Only 197
people from SF joined the military last year. For a city of 780,000,
that isn't much.
--Mike
Bill Z.
> Let me get this straight: "Family values" in San Fran means that the
> kids may be too young to make good decisions when it comes to the
> "options" of military service, but yet your "Right to Choose" crowd
> out there seems to think that the children should be allowed to make
> decisions about Aborting a baby without parental knowledge? Talk
> about being REAL hypocritical. Just goes to show you how corrupt
> San Fran people's thinking and IDEALS about what they call "family
> values" or morals really are.
Actually the citizens simply realized that there are some situations
where a kid has a really good reason to not tell the parents, such as
when the pregnancy was due to an assault by a family member. Yes, it
does happen - some kids are unfortunate enough to be in abusive
families, so you really do need to handle these situations on a case by
case basis.
> Also, there use to be a time in this country when boys (at 18, remember,
> the time you become an ADULT) turn into MEN.
If you need help in that department ...
> You know, "SISSY MEN".
I'm waiting for the "Arnold's a Girly Man" T-shirts. :-)
> I feel sad for the ones that will be returning from Iraq. God help them
> if they live in San Francisco. They will truley get no respect from the
> majority of people in San Fran for their duty or service they payed to
> their country.
Actually, individuals returning would be treated well and sympathetically.
People are merely mad at Bush.
> Maybe Bush should get some real guts and institute the draft ONLY in San
> Francisco before it's really too late and the entire city of their young
> male population turns "pussified".
But then he'd have to eliminate "Don't ask, don't tell" and George would
have a fit if he had to do taht! :-)
> Please, you far-left people need to stop smoking the dope and wake
> up to how your helping the decline of anything moral and how your
> truely WEAKENING America.
You need to grow up.
Bill Z.
> In article <m31x1h5...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
> > > If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
> > > own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
> > > captive as well?
>
> > Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> > jailed for desertion?
>
> Not that I know of, but you didn't answer my question.
I did answer it. When they see a college recruiter, they are not
going to be cajoled into signing up for a 2 to 4 year *mandatory*
stay, enforced by the "military justice" system. As Marx said,
(Groucho, not Karl), "Military justice is to justice as military
music is to music."
> > Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
> > sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
>
> I don't concern myself with ongoing NeoCon and uberleft hypocrisy.
Well, I was pointing out the neocon hypocrisy, which is a far more
serious problem given what we have in Washington these days.
> I do however, don't agree with the premise of banning military
> recruiters from high school campuses. Not that this is going to happen
> in SF, as prop I is an advisory measure only.
That's your decision, but it looks like the majority of the electorate
didn't agree with you.
The Farleft Sucks
The one about Bush having a problrm with "The don't ask don't tell" in
regards to recruiting San Fran people.
LOL!!!
Also, GO FIGURE "ONLY" 69 or whatever SMALL amount of people joined the
military from Frisco. That town is LOADED with the GUTLESS.
LOL...
Great replys everyone!! Regarless of any bashing or diffrences.
Michael Wise
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
> > > > own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
> > > > captive as well?
> >
> > > Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> > > jailed for desertion?
> >
> > Not that I know of, but you didn't answer my question.
>
> I did answer it. When they see a college recruiter, they are not
> going to be cajoled into signing up for a 2 to 4 year *mandatory*
> stay, enforced by the "military justice" system.
I see so. So you have no problem with them being too immature to make
decisions on their own when those decisions don't come with legal
obligations? I guess that means you don't thin 18 year olds should
qualify for loans or credit cards as well? Hey, we wouldn't want them to
be legally required to fulfill their contract right? I mean, given that
they are too immature to make decisions on their own...right?
> > > Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
> > > sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
> >
> > I don't concern myself with ongoing NeoCon and uberleft hypocrisy.
>
> Well, I was pointing out the neocon hypocrisy, which is a far more
> serious problem given what we have in Washington these days.
>
> > I do however, don't agree with the premise of banning military
> > recruiters from high school campuses. Not that this is going to happen
> > in SF, as prop I is an advisory measure only.
>
> That's your decision, but it looks like the majority of the electorate
> didn't agree with you.
The majority of the 39% of electorate which bothered to get off its ass
an vote (as usual). Was it Thoreau who once opined that Americans would
cross an ocean to fight a war for democracy but won't cross the street
to vote?
Doesn't matter anyway, as is was an advisory measure. Any attempt to
enact it will result in a swift denial of Federal funds (and rightly so)
to the school foolish enough to try it.
--Mike
Michael Wise
STEWAR...@webtv.net (The Farleft Sucks) wrote:
>...
> Also, GO FIGURE "ONLY" 69 or whatever SMALL amount of people joined the
> military from Frisco. That town is LOADED with the GUTLESS.
> LOL...
> Great replys everyone!! Regarless of any bashing or diffrences.
You still haven't said when, where, and in what branch of service you
ever served. Are you going to keep avoiding the question?
--Mike
Bill Z.
> In article <m3sltx2...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > > > > If they are a captive audience too immature to make
> > > > > decisions on their own, then perhaps college recruiters
> > > > > shouldn't be allowed to hold them captive as well?
> > >
> > > > Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> > > > jailed for desertion?
> > >
> > > Not that I know of, but you didn't answer my question.
> >
> > I did answer it. When they see a college recruiter, they are not
> > going to be cajoled into signing up for a 2 to 4 year *mandatory*
> > stay, enforced by the "military justice" system.
>
> I see so. So you have no problem with them being too immature to make
> decisions on their own when those decisions don't come with legal
> obligations? I guess that means you don't thin 18 year olds should
> qualify for loans or credit cards as well?
Do you *really* not see the difference between manipulating a 17 or 18
year old into signing up for a 2 to 4 year stint versus getting a
credit card (which they can always cancel at will)? And no, I don't
think credit card companies should be able to use the schools to
market their cards to a captive audience.
> Hey, we wouldn't want them to be legally required to fulfill their
> contract right? I mean, given that they are too immature to make
> decisions on their own...right?
Do you think a business should be allowed to use the school system to
obtain a captive audience and trick the kids into some contract not in
their interest? That would be a rough analogy.
If someone is marketing something to a group of 18 year olds on a city
street, and one of them blurts out, this is a really bad deal because
of XYZ, expressed in crude terms, he'd be perfectly within his rights
to say that. What do you think would happen if the same kid made a
similar statement regarding a military recruiter during some school
assembly?
That's the difference - a captive audience where a kid could get in
trouble for "questioning authority" a bit too vigorously.
> > > > Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
> > > > sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
> > >
> > > I don't concern myself with ongoing NeoCon and uberleft hypocrisy.
> >
> > Well, I was pointing out the neocon hypocrisy, which is a far more
> > serious problem given what we have in Washington these days.
> >
> > > I do however, don't agree with the premise of banning military
> > > recruiters from high school campuses. Not that this is going to happen
> > > in SF, as prop I is an advisory measure only.
> >
> > That's your decision, but it looks like the majority of the electorate
> > didn't agree with you.
>
> The majority of the 39% of electorate which bothered to get off its ass
> an vote (as usual). Was it Thoreau who once opined that Americans would
> cross an ocean to fight a war for democracy but won't cross the street
> to vote?
Is it your conjecture that the people who didn't vote would have voted
completely differently than the people who did? Do you have any
evidence of this or is it just sour grapes because you didn't like the
outcome?
Bill Z.
> Now I'm really LOL..!!
> The one about Bush having a problrm with "The don't ask don't tell" in
> regards to recruiting San Fran people.
> LOL!!!
Yeah, Bush's hangups are pretty ridiculous. When he was running for
his first term - the court appointed one - they showed a picture of
him after a meeting with "The Log Cabin Republicans", some sort of gay
Republican group, just as the meeting was breaking up, and he had that
classic "deer in the headlights" expression. He looked scared out of
his wits! And all he had to do was to sit around a table with a bunch
of people wearing suits and ties. :-)
> Also, GO FIGURE "ONLY" 69 or whatever SMALL amount of people joined the
> military from Frisco. That town is LOADED with the GUTLESS.
I know one San Fransisco resident who climbed K2 and others who did
some very impressive technical climbs, where they really stuck their
necks out. What have you done?
Michael Wise
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
Why do you keep throwing around the term "captive audience"? Prop I is
about urging schools not to allow military recruiters on campus.
Military recruiters don't need "captive audiences." They can set up a
booth in the gym on career day or in a hallway or something...just like
colleges do. And just like the college booths and recruiters, nobody is
forced to see them or held "captive" before them.
Why deny students a right to know their options? Why assume they are all
naive. I knew I would be joining the military when I was in HS. I spoke
with recruiters and was not held captive by them.
>
> > > > > Don't you think it is odd that the conservatives are in a tither about
> > > > > sex education but have no problem with military recruiting?
> > > >
> > > > I don't concern myself with ongoing NeoCon and uberleft hypocrisy.
> > >
> > > Well, I was pointing out the neocon hypocrisy, which is a far more
> > > serious problem given what we have in Washington these days.
> > >
> > > > I do however, don't agree with the premise of banning military
> > > > recruiters from high school campuses. Not that this is going to happen
> > > > in SF, as prop I is an advisory measure only.
> > >
> > > That's your decision, but it looks like the majority of the electorate
> > > didn't agree with you.
> >
> > The majority of the 39% of electorate which bothered to get off its ass
> > an vote (as usual). Was it Thoreau who once opined that Americans would
> > cross an ocean to fight a war for democracy but won't cross the street
> > to vote?
>
> Is it your conjecture that the people who didn't vote would have voted
> completely differently than the people who did?
Nope, its just an aside notation directed at your "majority of the
electorate" comment. Who knows how they would have voted. We'll never
know...and I don't particularly care. Again, prop I is advisory only.
> Do you have any
> evidence of this or is it just sour grapes because you didn't like the
> outcome?
Its not my conjecture and sour grapes aren't needed, since this is an
advisory-only proposition.
--Mike
Bill Z.
> In article <m3fypxk...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
> > That's the difference - a captive audience where a kid could get in
> > trouble for "questioning authority" a bit too vigorously.
>
>
> Why do you keep throwing around the term "captive audience"? Prop I is
> about urging schools not to allow military recruiters on campus.
Because the parents were probably worried about their kids being more
or less forced to listen. Also, you might look at
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/military_recruiters_pursue_target_schools_carefully?mode=PF>.
Or you could try <http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs03052005.html> or
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec04/recruit_12-13.html>
or <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html>, which stated,
"Reports say recruitment pressure is translating into
inappropriate tactics by recruiters to the extent that the
Army halted recruiting for one day in May to refresh staff
with proper protocol in dealing with prospective soldiers."
Sounds to me like there could be a problem here. :-)
> Why deny students a right to know their options? Why assume they are all
> naive. I knew I would be joining the military when I was in HS. I spoke
> with recruiters and was not held captive by them.
Did it occur to you that they might be more desperate for warm bodies
right now?
> > Is it your conjecture that the people who didn't vote would have voted
> > completely differently than the people who did?
>
> Nope, its just an aside notation directed at your "majority of the
> electorate" comment. Who knows how they would have voted. We'll never
> know...and I don't particularly care. Again, prop I is advisory only.
>
> > Do you have any
> > evidence of this or is it just sour grapes because you didn't like the
> > outcome?
>
>
> Its not my conjecture and sour grapes aren't needed, since this is
> an advisory-only proposition.
The conjecture was about whether the people who did vote are or are not
a representative sample of all voters. You are now trying to wiggle out
of that.
Michael Wise
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Michael Wise <mi...@okean.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <m3fypxk...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > That's the difference - a captive audience where a kid could get in
> > > trouble for "questioning authority" a bit too vigorously.
> >
> >
> > Why do you keep throwing around the term "captive audience"? Prop I is
> > about urging schools not to allow military recruiters on campus.
>
> Because the parents were probably worried about their kids being more
> or less forced to listen.
Why would they think that unless somebody deliberately fed them that
disinformation?
> Also, you might look at
> <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/military_recruiters_pur
> sue_target_schools_carefully?mode=PF>.
>
> Or you could try <http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs03052005.html> or
> <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec04/recruit_12-13.html>
> or <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html>, which stated,
>
> "Reports say recruitment pressure is translating into
> inappropriate tactics by recruiters to the extent that the
> Army halted recruiting for one day in May to refresh staff
> with proper protocol in dealing with prospective soldiers."
>
> Sounds to me like there could be a problem here. :-)
Indeed...although it has zip with the premise of allowing recruiters in
schools.
> > Why deny students a right to know their options? Why assume they are all
> > naive. I knew I would be joining the military when I was in HS. I spoke
> > with recruiters and was not held captive by them.
>
> Did it occur to you that they might be more desperate for warm bodies
> right now?
Did it occur to you that holding people as a "captive audience" is not
an effective recruiting technique. It does not happen, so your continued
use of the term is a red herring.
>
> > > Is it your conjecture that the people who didn't vote would have voted
> > > completely differently than the people who did?
> >
> > Nope, its just an aside notation directed at your "majority of the
> > electorate" comment. Who knows how they would have voted. We'll never
> > know...and I don't particularly care. Again, prop I is advisory only.
> >
> > > Do you have any
> > > evidence of this or is it just sour grapes because you didn't like the
> > > outcome?
> >
> >
> > Its not my conjecture and sour grapes aren't needed, since this is
> > an advisory-only proposition.
>
> The conjecture was about whether the people who did vote are or are not
> a representative sample of all voters. You are now trying to wiggle out
> of that.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I told you it was an aside.
Since the measure is advisory-only, there would be no point of even
debating the numbers of who did and didn't vote for it.
--Mike
Bill Z.
> In article <m33blxk...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Michael Wise <mi...@okean.invalid> writes:
> >
> > Because the parents were probably worried about their kids being more
> > or less forced to listen.
>
> Why would they think that unless somebody deliberately fed them that
> disinformation?
See the URL below about "inappropriate" recruiting tactics. You can
quibble if the parents got the details right, but whatever was going
on had to be pretty bad if the army had to stop recruiting for a day
to deal with the problem - you don't do that for isolated incidents.
> > or <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html>, which stated,
> >
> > "Reports say recruitment pressure is translating into
> > inappropriate tactics by recruiters to the extent that the
> > Army halted recruiting for one day in May to refresh staff
> > with proper protocol in dealing with prospective soldiers."
> >
> > Sounds to me like there could be a problem here. :-)
>
> Indeed...although it has zip with the premise of allowing recruiters in
> schools.
A problem with recruitment "pressure" has nothing to do with allowing
the recruiters exerting said pressure into the schools?
Sounds to me like someone got out of lines, parents locked into that,
and did something about it, and weren't going to take a chance that
the recruiters actually managed to clean up their acts.
> >
> > Did it occur to you that they might be more desperate for warm bodies
> > right now?
>
> Did it occur to you that holding people as a "captive audience" is not
> an effective recruiting technique. It does not happen, so your continued
> use of the term is a red herring.
If you start running some sort of ROTC class in the schools, that sounds
like a lot more than simply setting up a booth on some "career day".
> > > > Is it your conjecture that the people who didn't vote would have voted
> > > > completely differently than the people who did?
> > >
> > > Nope, its just an aside notation directed at your "majority of the
> > > electorate" comment. Who knows how they would have voted. We'll never
> > > know...and I don't particularly care. Again, prop I is advisory only.
> > >
> > > > Do you have any evidence of this or is it just sour grapes
> > > > because you didn't like the outcome?
> > >
> > >
> > > Its not my conjecture and sour grapes aren't needed, since this is
> > > an advisory-only proposition.
> >
> > The conjecture was about whether the people who did vote are or are not
> > a representative sample of all voters. You are now trying to wiggle out
> > of that.
>
>
> I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I told you it was an
> aside. Since the measure is advisory-only, there would be no point
> of even debating the numbers of who did and didn't vote for it.
Didn't you just carp about alleged "red herrings?" :-) Yep, you are
trying to weasel out of it.
The Farleft Sucks
I know one San Fransisco resident who climbed K2 and others who did some
very impressive technical climbs, where they really stuck their necks
out.
One San Fran person who climbed a Mountain.
Wow! Good for him.
What about accomplishing something for others or his own country?
Something that actually matters besides some dumb stuntman sport?
I do like watching Mt. climbers though on tv. It's cool when they pass
by frozen dead bodies (or even leave people still alive to die on the
mt.) so they can reach the summit.
Makes for great TV or IMAX films but thats about it.
It makes me also wonder why so many of these Mt. Climbers usually have
young kids they leave behind so they can accomplish their own selfish
goals. It's a entertaining form of stupidity IMHO. I feel sorry for
their kids but NOT one ounce of respect, sorrow or pity for the dumbass
dead guy on the mountain.
Actually I like the watching those dumbass surfers that ride te 60ft.
waves more than I do a mt. climber.
P.S.-- To the dumbass DISgrunteld UNAmerican guy.....
Who the HELL said I ever served in any forces? That was your ASSumtion.
Get off of it and go wonder about someone elses life & accomplishments.
Bill Z.
> In reply to Bill Z.:
> I know one San Fransisco resident who climbed K2 and others who did some
> very impressive technical climbs, where they really stuck their necks
> out.
> ------------------------
> One San Fran person who climbed a Mountain.
> Wow! Good for him.
Actually, it was the first American ascent, and K2 (nearly as high
as Mt. Everest) has no easy route up it and a very high fatality
rate - I knew several people who tried and didn't come back.
> What about accomplishing something for others or his own country?
He's now a medical researcher.
> Something that actually matters besides some dumb stuntman sport?
You ranted about "guts" and now you are changing your tune? Do you
do anything but whine?
The Farleft Sucks
I do like some cheese with my wine now & again.
Duly Appointed Bitchslapper
"Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k6fax...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> STEWAR...@webtv.net (The Farleft Sucks) writes:
>
> > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
>
> They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
> recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
> good decisions on their own.
Yeah, the only thing young, immature teenagers are qualified to do is to
abort fetuses w/o parental consent. How dare they do something as heinous
as talk to a military recruiter.
> Think of it as a "family values" thing.
No, it's more of an idiot liberal thing.
Duly Appointed Bitchslapper
> Michael Wise <mi...@okean.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <m3k6fax...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > > > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
> > >
> > > They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
> > > recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> > > audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
> > > good decisions on their own.
> >
> > If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
> > own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
> > captive as well?
>
> Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> jailed for desertion?
Has anyone who signed up for college been issued highly destructive
multi-million dollar weapon systems? Being a member of the US Armed Forces
carries a lot more responsibility that being a college student.
Duly Appointed Bitchslapper
"Michael Wise" <mi...@okean.invalid> wrote in message
news:mike-3BF2F1.1...@news.easynews.com...
> In article <m31x1h5...@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
> > > >
> > > > They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow
military
> > > > recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> > > > audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to
make
> > > > good decisions on their own.
> > >
> > > If they are a captive audience too immature to make decisions on their
> > > own, then perhaps college recruiters shouldn't be allowed to hold them
> > > captive as well?
>
> > Has anyone who signed up for college and then changed his mind been
> > jailed for desertion?
>
>
> Not that I know of, but you didn't answer my question.
Bill has a reputation of avoiding questions that he prefer not to answer.
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m3k6fax...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > STEWAR...@webtv.net (The Farleft Sucks) writes:
> >
> > > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
> >
> > They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
> > recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
> > audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
> > good decisions on their own.
>
> Yeah, the only thing young, immature teenagers are qualified to do is to
> abort fetuses w/o parental consent. How dare they do something as heinous
> as talk to a military recruiter.
Another non-sequitur from this "Duly Appointed" moron.
Either he didn't think (no surprise) or he apparently wants a young,
immature teenager living in an abusive home and who got pregnant due
to sexual abuse by an older family member to have the situtation
automatically reported to her parents, which could well be before
anything could be done to get the kid out of a bad situation or take
other steps that might be necessary for protecting the kid's physical
safety.
Yes, working out the details and covering such corner cases is dull,
boring, and tedious. That's why we hire legislatures to take care of
those things for us.
> > Think of it as a "family values" thing.
>
> No, it's more of an idiot liberal thing.
No, you are simply an ill-bred, ill-tempered, worthless loon.
Bill Z.
You have a reputation for being a complete and utter idiot, and you
are lying as well, but what else is new.
Nick Byram
"Duly Appointed Bitchslapper" <da...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1a157$438163b4$45035f0b$25...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m3k6fax...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> STEWAR...@webtv.net (The Farleft Sucks) writes:
>>
>> > Shame on you IDIOTS that banned the military!
>>
>> They did not ban the military. They simply voted to not allow military
>> recruiting in public schools, where (a) the kids are a captive
>> audience, and (b) where they may be too young and too immature to make
>> good decisions on their own.
>
> Yeah, the only thing young, immature teenagers are qualified to do is to
> abort fetuses w/o parental consent. How dare they do something as heinous
> as talk to a military recruiter.
It's telling how Bill Zaumen and the other leftist dupes are happy to
encourage the minors to mess around behind their parents' backs and risk
getting knocked up way too soon, but not to think about their futures.
Unless of course, their futures are to be wards of Bill's left wing
socialist nanny state.
>> Think of it as a "family values" thing.
>
> No, it's more of an idiot liberal thing.
In the sense that Bill Zaumen and the other leftist dupes are idiots for
always backing the enemies of America, yes. However, don't assume they know
not what they do. They know exactly what they are doing.
Bill Z.
> "Duly Appointed Bitchslapper" <da...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1a157$438163b4$45035f0b$25...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> >
> > Yeah, the only thing young, immature teenagers are qualified to do is to
> > abort fetuses w/o parental consent. How dare they do something as heinous
> > as talk to a military recruiter.
>
> It's telling how Bill Zaumen and the other leftist dupes are happy to
> encourage the minors to mess around behind their parents' backs and risk
> getting knocked up way too soon, but not to think about their futures.
> Unless of course, their futures are to be wards of Bill's left wing
> socialist nanny state.
Byram is, of course, a bald-faced lying piece of human slime. His
post is yet another example of the rantings of the right-wing loons,
who are apparently too stupid (or dishonest) to admit the real issue -
that some kids are unfortunately caught in very bad situations at
home. I guess Bryam "thinks" that when "daddy" rapes his daughter
(unfortunately such things do happen), daddy should be the first to
know that she talked to someone so he can reinforce any threaten of
bodily injury if the kid spills the beans. Of course, the real
problem is more likely that Bryam didn't think at all.
The proposition in question deserved to fail for a very simple reason:
it was poorly drafted. You need public hearings and the sort of
discussions that are part of the legislative process to have a chance
of getting it right - otherwise you miss all the corner cases. And
the bozos who drafted this particular proposition missed some important
ones.