Bill O'Reilly vs. San Francisco

[Superman]

Originally posted by jkarolyi
Lefties, please respond to this statement, true or false:

By banning military recruiting in high schools (where most military recruits come from), San Francisco is telling the US that it doesn't want US military protection, or that it wants recruits from other states to protect them instead.

False.

[Nathans_Dad]

I would assume, though, that you draw the line SOMEWHERE don't you Supe? What about adverts for beastiality or kiddie porn? Is the child molester "free" to expose himself in the middle of a playground? What if it's just a rack of free newspapers across the street from a playground? At what point does common decency enter into your equation?

[mikester]

Originally posted by jkarolyi
Lefties, please respond to this statement, true or false:

By banning military recruiting in high schools (where most military recruits come from), San Francisco is telling the US that it doesn't want US military protection, or that it wants recruits from other states to protect them instead.

How ****** arrogant is that!?!?!

Reilly's a sensationalistic attention hound, and I don't care for him or his style. But that doesn't mean his point isn't right. If SF doesn't want military protection, I say pull out all defense installations there and let Al Queda have their way.

No, that's false - High Schools are not the only opportunity for Recruiters to do their job. The fact that you think so (or so you've implied) is disturbing in that your only target for recruitment are people who haven't even graduated high school yet.

[addictionMS]

funny world, you can't recruit them because they are not old enough to decide, but you can teach them sex, and allow them to have an abortion without telling the parents because they are old enough.......

funny

Jim

[vash]

there are "gay-er" cities. san fran is just more open about it. or maybe it is the safety in numbers thing. life is just too hard living somewhere with a bunch of straight guys thinking it is an abonimation because it is different. besides, God just said so. whatever, as far as picking up free porno, who cares? dont you parents explain schit to your kids? my dad explained prostitutes to me when we were roaming around on vacation. maybe miami. we walked by some local talent. he broke it down for me, nothing held back, and told me what he thought, his opinion. strangly enough, now that i am all grown up, i feel the same way. oR is a pompous a$$.

[jkarolyi]

>No, that's false - High Schools are not the only opportunity for Recruiters to do their job. The fact that you think so (or so you've implied) is disturbing in that your only target for recruitment are people who haven't even graduated high school yet.

In lefty utopia, all high schoolers should enroll in college or get a good blue collar union job. In reality, these opportunites aren't available to a lot of students, and the military provides a tremendous opportunity for them.

High schoolers have to make life decisions, whether you feel they are old enough to or not. Old enough to vote, old enough to get married, old enough to make lasting life decisions, IMHO.

Military is a very good option for those who aren't intellectually equipped for college or have enough connections to score a union job. In other words, those people on the outside of lefty utopia.

>oR is a pompous a$$

Yes, he is. This is how you argue against him? It doesn't make his point any less true.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by vash
whatever, as far as picking up free porno, who cares? dont you parents explain schit to your kids?

So anything goes huh, parents should just explain "schit"? At what age should I start talking to my son about this kind of "schit"? He's three right now.

Apparently you want to live in a country where "free porno" is all over the place. Certainly not the place I want to live. Try Amsterdam.

[pbs911]

High schoolers have to make life decisions, and military is a very good option for those who aren't intellectually equipped for college or have enough connections to score a union job.

I agree. In addition, left of right, who should really care.

If we are going to ban recruites, ban everyone. Even the guidance counsels.

The simpel fact is the schools provide other types of recruiting. The military recruiter is just another option. I had a military recruiter come to my high school campus. I sat in on the lecture, film, movbie, whatever. It was nice to see a option. I really wish I would have enlisted at this point. Would have been a great experience.

I also had a recruiter from UPS show up at a college campus. I bit on the UPS. Having to wake up at 3:00 a.m. resulted in not being motivated to go to classes, so I dropped out. Spent three years there. In the end the UPS rectruiter damage by prolongng my college education. IME this was far more damaging that a 2-3 year military stint.

So to say one type of recruiting is good and othe other bad really misses the point. It's about giving the kids a chance. Not everyone can afford community college, has the grades to make it into college or has an interest in book learning.

[vash]

yes, as far as discussions with kids, i think there should be ZERO boundaries. right now you should be discussing why donald duck doesnt have pants on but when he comes out of a shower he will still wrap himself up with a towel. just kidding. hey your kid is three, the questions will get tougher. and you will have to stick him into a cave if you expect him not to run across some sort of porn. and watch out, there are gay men in texas too.

recruiting in high school? i dont have a solid opinion yet.

[mikester]

Originally posted by jkarolyi
>No, that's false - High Schools are not the only opportunity for Recruiters to do their job. The fact that you think so (or so you've implied) is disturbing in that your only target for recruitment are people who haven't even graduated high school yet.

In lefty utopia, all high schoolers should enroll in college or get a good blue collar union job. In reality, these opportunites aren't available to a lot of students, and the military provides a tremendous opportunity for them.

This is just false; the opportunities are there for everyone if you work hard enough regardless of grades - ask me how I know.

High schoolers have to make life decisions, whether you feel they are old enough to or not. Old enough to vote, old enough to get married, old enough to make lasting life decisions, IMHO.

Military is a very good option for those who aren't intellectually equipped for college or have enough connections to score a union job. In other words, those people on the outside of lefty utopia.

This is why people do not want recruiters in high schools - it is viewed as taking advantage of those who are not "smart" and getting them into the military. Granted it isn't bad for them unless they die in combat or training. Please to no take my comments out of context, I support the military, I support the right of individuals to join the military and I support recruiting efforts that are reasonable. What I do not think is reasonable is that recruiters target the economocially and socially challenged, minorities and they tell guys and gals with poor prospects that the military is their best bet. It might not be far off the mark but it is not their only option. There are other options but recruiters make those other options look very poor. I was one of those kids targeted, economically challenged (dad in the military) and my grades were just plain bad. Instead I ended up in community college were I improved things and went from there - it's turned out well.

Barring my own personal experiences the I believe that military has the potential to be a good experience for anyone and everyone.

[B[

>oR is a pompous a$$

Yes, he is. This is how you argue against him? It doesn't make his point any less true. [/B]

I actually didn't say he was wrong, maybe we should schedule a recruiter to visit your office.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
At what age should I start talking to my son about this kind of "schit"?

When kids are old enough to ask reasonable questions, they deserve reasonable answers. There are two exceptions; sex and drugs. With these topics, you do not have the luxury of waiting for the questions. Start the discussion as soon as you think you'll be understood.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I would assume, though, that you draw the line SOMEWHERE don't you Supe? What about adverts for beastiality or kiddie porn? Is the child molester "free" to expose himself in the middle of a playground? What if it's just a rack of free newspapers across the street from a playground? At what point does common decency enter into your equation?

True. You've got to draw the line somewhere, and I'm all for restricting minors' access to this stuff. And that used to be easier than it is now. Again, the Internet is redefining "freedom of expression." Genital nudity is not officially permitted in any public area in America, I believe, and there's good reason for that.

The hippie fair I work each summer, while it has a reputation for occasional toplessness and relative freedom of expression.....we don't allow genital nudity there either. Even we libs have our vision of propriety. And finally, it so happens I am a practicing Catholic with a fairly clear vision of what's okay and what's not okay. In fact, I'm fairly narrow in terms of my belief in what is okay. More conservative than most folks would guess. But I also see the difference between how humans SHOULD behave versus how they in fact DO behave.

So yeah, we're not very far apart. And your question is the momentous one. Where do you draw the line? Our society is permissive, and do we want to turn that around now?

[Superman]

Okay, I read some more posts, and I'd like to reiterate my observation that many countries have much more open attitudes about sex than mine. And instead of leading to sin and debauchery, the children in those countries think (correctly so) that sex is a normal activity. The more you push something under the rug, the more exciting it is to lift the rug and look. European countries have less problem with teen pregnancy and overall alcoholism than mine. Funny thing is, there's boobs and glasses of wine everywhere over there.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by Superman
False.

Good answer.

First off, they knew that the handgun law was unconstitutional(State, and Federal) when they wrote it. That means the city council was willing to flaunt another law they did not think was "good". This sort of goes with the Mayor facilitating same sex marriages not long after the state of California said, by a rather large margin, "NO! They can live together as domestic partners, and have every right of a married couple, but they are domestic partners."


Second, it was not just at HS, it was any school in SF, colleges too. If they are willing to forfeit their federal dollars at these schools, who's interests do they have in mind, obviously not the children who will short-changed in their education secondary to this lost money. Really, if the City Council of SF wants to make a hollow statement about their anti-war sentiments, they should pass a referendum saying they are against the war, just like the City of Davis did. That way, they get to make a statement, and don't hurt the schools financially.

This is just another case of SF being the left wing mecca that it is. BTW, Mr. O'Reilly has an opinion and analysis show. Just because y'all don't agree with him, does not make him wrong.

I loved SF when I lived there for 4 years. It is not the best city in the world, or even the country. He may be a pompous ass, but I would rather listen to him be a pompous ass than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy.

[jyl]

Whether O'Reilly's comments make sense or not is besides the point, to the man who made them. His job is to say things that will inflame and excite his audience and get him publicity. Pat Robertson has essentially the same job, as does Jesse Jackson, Al Frankel, Howard Stern, etc etc. That so much attention is paid to these folks is unfortunate. I'll bet Californians are spending more time talking about O'Reilly's rant than they spent thinking about the propositions that they just voted on.

[fintstone]

I used to go to high schools to recruit for the Air Force. Although I could not make it to every one in my region every year, I went to about 300. Most people in my position, and my predecessor only visited the top 20-40 schools with the highest number of qualified students with the top SAT/ACT scores (usually middle class suburbs) with the best history of yielding recruits. I made it a point to either visit every school or to visit a college fair nearby just to ensure that anyone who wanted information...had information. Whenever I visited a school or area that had not been visited in several years, both parents and teachers approached me upset that we were depriving children in their community the opportunity to compete for scholarships (ROTC or AF Academy) or enlisted jobs/GI Bill which were much better than local jobs. Some parents were sure that it was pure racism that kept us from recruiting their kids harder.
I certainly wish that I knew more about the military and military opportunities in high school. The lack of knowledge pretty much condemns anyone entering from these overlooked schools to enlisting instead of entering a commissioning program with additional opportunity and benefits. This is a typical liberal move to assume that they know what is other folk's best interests than the other folks know themselves. It is pretty funny that they want children exposed to porn, propaganda, etc....at school, but not their nation's military.
I can only hope that federal law is followed and all federal funds are kept from SF schools. After the schools fail (even worse than other CA schools),the families with kids will leave and the locals will have to go to other CA neighborhoods to look for children.

[CamB]

Being fair (not that I see any reason to cut the funds at all, but that aside):

Shouldn't the most that is kept from the schools be proportional to the amount of federal spending on military. It's no fair arguing it should all be taken away.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
Being fair (not that I see any reason to cut the funds at all, but that aside):

Shouldn't the most that is kept from the schools be proportional to the amount of federal spending on military. It's no fair arguing it should all be taken away.

It is an easy argument...it definitely should all be taken away...why? Because it is federal law.

[CamB]

If its legal - no problem. If its illegal, force them to allow recruiting.

I keep thinking of that Barry McGuire (sp?) song, Eve of Destruction. "Old enough to kill, too young for votin'"

For the record - I'm not against military recruiting in schools. It should be treated like any other profession/trade/etc.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
If its legal - no problem. If its illegal, force them to allow recruiting.

I keep thinking of that Barry McGuire (sp?) song, Eve of Destruction. "Old enough to kill, too young for votin'"

For the record - I'm not against military recruiting in schools. It should be treated like any other profession/trade/etc.

Agreed..and that is exactly what is required. If they do not allow equal access...they lose federal funds. It is their choice to be scum bags...but they must pay.