Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Why does the left like to point out when recruiting is low?? >>> So is William part of "the left" now in your book? (note that I by no means mean to put words into his mouth) <<< What does that do for anyone?? >>> I brought this up not to point out the military recruiting issue, but to point out the irony in how the facts were mis-represented by Rush in a piece that was specifically designed to point out the bias in the "liberal media."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I brought this up not to point out the military recruiting issue, but to point out the irony in how the facts were mis-represented by Rush in a piece that was specifically designed to point out the bias in the "liberal media.">> Your crazy and really trying to make something out of mothing again. Rush gets this all the time and easily smacks the accusers down to size. In fact, Superdry, call his show next week and tell him what you think and see how well you do. He always puts liberals to the front of the line and always lets people talk and get their point out. William is hardly a liberal. Is he the happiest soldier in the world these days and thrilled with the President? Hard to say.
Originally Posted By itsme >>You sound like the biggest lib on here, what can I say? Be proud of it! ----- Alright, Im calling you out, Unless you want to be labeled the biggest fraud on here. Other then voting for Kerry tell/show me one time here where it shows im a "lib" like you claim. Like i said its put or shut up, show your not a fraud, otherwise you are a fraud. >>I heard the caller on Rush's show that came up with this idea. I heard the soldiers call in one after another who are excited about the promotion. ------ You mean the show that you never listen to like you have always said? I guess it was a luck chance that you heard it that day/time. >>Yet you bitch because he's not giving everything away for free? ----- Were talking the troops here, ya know the ones who are in harms way so you and your keyboard can happily spew the same old lines over and over. I would never charge any active military member for something they need from me. How about what Anheuser-Busch does, They let them and up to 3 memebers of the family in for FREE, Let me say again FREE! They will give away about $300 for them to have fun. Thats what REAL AMERICANS do, not the frauds who are in it for themselves. >>Are you complaining that Al Franken or Randi Rhodes from Air America are not giving their website pay feature away for free to the military? Oh I forgot.... the military wouldn't take Air America crap if it was given to them. ----- Dont know what Air America has to do with this but it did help make your post about nothing look better.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Or is it because they don't need as many people in the future because they have enough now? No, that's not it. How do you know? It's not like the news media has a record of giving us all the facts.>> Because if it were the case, the military wouldn't be lowering the standards for admission. The lowest since the Vietnam draft if I recall correctly.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo ^^^ Which also explains why recruiting a up a little from the doldrums it was a in recent months.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because if it were the case, the military wouldn't be lowering the standards for admission.> Have they lowered them recently? I know they lowered them a year or two ago, right after they raised the goals. Did they ever raise the eligibility age, like they were talking about?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Have they lowered them recently? I know they lowered them a year or two ago, right after they raised the goals. Did they ever raise the eligibility age, like they were talking about?>> I should have been more clear. My apologies. When I say lowering the standards, what I mean is: what recruiters can consider a recruit, not actual service. There is a delayed enlistment program which allows individuals who don’t quite have the necessary qualifications for military service to enlist under an agreement that they meet those requirements within a given time. Lately, recruiters have been lowering the bar regarding who they sign these agreements with, which include education, alcohol related issues, minor crimes, etc… Recruiting is tallied upon signing the commitment, not at the time of actually showing up to basic or even MEPS processing. So while not technically lowering the standards for military service, the recruiting numbers reflect those who don’t necessarily meet those requirements. This explains the boost in recruit this month. If I recall correctly, the delayed enlistment program is typically 5 or so percent of recruits. This month is was 12% I believe. With regard to the age limit, I hadn’t heard whether or not they had passed the proposed age changes. I believe they Congress has to approve it but it seems they are bit tied up at the moment. Why fix thing when you can play politics?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Thanks for not answering my question. <Why fix thing when you can play politics?> Because that's what Democrats do best.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Can you at least try to not be so abrasive Doug. I was giving you an honest answer here and not some politicized rant. Or is honesty a concept foreign to you? If it wasn't what you were looking for, try rephrasing. My answers should have been abundantly clear given the questions. Q1: Have they lowered them recently? A1: Recruiting officers have recently lowered the standard for whom they consider eligible for delayed enlistment (which is thereby reflected in the recruiting figures). This explains the increase in recruiting figures as signed commitments are tallied in these figures. So, yes, they have lowered the bar for recruits they consider with regard to several factors. Why would the military be seeking commitment from individuals whom the usually wouldn’t consider (Cat 4 recruits) if they "had enough" manpower? Q2: Did they ever raise the eligibility age, like they were talking about? A2: Not that I know of. But it is still being considered. <<Because that's what Democrats do best.>> Irrelevant to my statement. If you want to politicize the comment, at least be honest with yourself as Republicans ARE in power in all corners of the federal government. But I don't blame either party, as they are both caught up in political escapades instead of running the nation. So uhh… thanks again for the trivial observation. I’ll file it under “don’t give a…â€
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Can you at least try to not be so abrasive Doug.> Yes. And I'll probably be much more pleasant when others stop belittling my opinions. <If it wasn't what you were looking for, try rephrasing.> All right, I'll try again. When did they lower the standards?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Yes. And I'll probably be much more pleasant when others stop belittling my opinions.>> I don't think I've ever belittled your opinions, whether I agreed with them or not. <<All right, I'll try again. When did they lower the standards?>> I'm not sure exactly sure when the recrutiers were directed to do this, nor if it was an official directive. There are a couple guys at the flightline who just came off a recruiting TDY so I can ask them. But it would seem to have been fairly recently (within the last couple months) considering the spike seems to only have occurred in the most recent report. It most certainly helped the recruiting numbers for the month. But it might have simply been a short term fix to boost numbers. The only way to tell for sure is the track the figures for a few months. If it hovers around 12% for a while, it's probably a permanent thing. It may have been temporary fix and will fall back to the 5 or so percentile in couple months.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't think I've ever belittled your opinions, whether I agreed with them or not.> I don't think you have either. I apologize for letting my irritation with other posters influence my response to you. <But it would seem to have been fairly recently (within the last couple months) considering the spike seems to only have occurred in the most recent report.> I seem to remember hearing about the lowered standards much longer ago than that.
