PleaseBlitz Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 But that is not what you said before. You said: "I think that many, but not all, government jobs SHOULD be denied to people that attended this "rally." If they dont hire someone they arent HURTING that individual, they just arent HELPING them. Consequences.....sorry. Plenty of other jobs out there commie." That is a very different thing. If you are going to backtrack now, do so honestly. Don't try to pretend that Liberty is unreasonably making up an argument out of the blue and pinning it on you. He is just asking you about your own plain words from earlier posts. Holy crap. You just love spinning peoples words. Christ. Im not just talking about this particular thread either. Many government jobs SHOULD be denied to people with records of attending these rallys AND for the ones that arent out and out DENIED to them, their actions should be taken into account during the hiring process. You went to a rally and held up a sign comparing a sitting President to Adolf Hitler.......considered. You did cocaine a coupla times in college......considered. You have a DUI.....considered. You were a C student in college.....considered. You are a recovering alcoholic (just got your 5 year chip!).....considered. Hell, they asked me about the financial situation of my parents........considered. All of these things should be considered when applying for a job, especially a sensitive one. Not saying they rule you out, but they need to be considered. Im just talking about people taking responsibility for their actions and living with them. Choices in life have consequences, people should think about them. Protest all you want, protest until you lose your voice, protest until you are blue in the face, protest until your head falls off your shoulders. (For Hammer and Sickle up there, protest until you lose 25 lbs.) Its your right. Being in the KKK is protected too. But your choices and your affiliations may, and should, reflect on who you are as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 You'll find out in a few years that companies dont just hire the first person they find with the proper credentials. They hire the best person for the job that they can get. For a US government job, that person most likely isnt a communist and its not this guy: This guy is gonna be working the drive-thru window at McD's 20 years from now..... most of these momos constitue little or no threat simply because they are silly ass stupid children that will disappear without leaving a ripple. Now if we could stop them from breeding we could make some headway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Protesting is bad... -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Words words words. I twisted your words? All I did was quote you. All I was saying, all I am saying, is that what you are saying now is not really waht you said before. You have moderated your stance, which is fine. But you won't admit that you have moderated your stance, and are acting like everyone is twisting your words, which they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Geez, really people, how tired and old is it to pick and prod a few single protesters out of a big rally in order to label the rally after what you want to. THe bottomline is, the theme of this rally and many others going on that day were to protest the war in Iraq and in case you haven't been paying attention it is a war that the majority of America is against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 blah blah blah. No, you quoted one little portion of what Ive said throughout this thread, then made a statement about that one little portion, ignoring the rest. And again, with the twisting. (I cant believe you did it in the same post) I didnt say "everyone" was twisting my words, I said YOU were twisting my words. You do it so much, you dont even realize it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Many government jobs SHOULD be denied to people with records of attending these rallys AND for the ones that arent out and out DENIED to them, their actions should be taken into account during the hiring process. You went to a rally and held up a sign comparing a sitting President to Adolf Hitler.......considered. You did cocaine a coupla times in college......considered. You have a DUI.....considered. You were a C student in college.....considered. You are a recovering alcoholic (just got your 5 year chip!).....considered. Hell, they asked me about the financial situation of my parents........considered. All of these things should be considered when applying for a job, especially a sensitive one. Not saying they rule you out, but they need to be considered. Im just talking about people taking responsibility for their actions and living with them. Choices in life have consequences, people should think about them. 1 - "people with records of attending these rallys" - excuse me RECORDS? WTF??! Should the government sit around a snap images of people to document who attends protests? You think Uncle Sam should ask for ID's for Pro-Life marches and breast cancer walks or AIDS benefits or who gets to decide which events are bad and require documentation? Do the people being documented get to know in advance which ones not to attend? 2 - "You went to a rally and..." What if you went to a rally because you really are against the war for reasons like the cost of the whole thing? Should you be treated like a communist because communists happened to be at the same event? What if you just went to take pictures of the freak show (something I've done several times). Do the government agents documenting attendees distinguish this when compiling their Uncle Sam black list? 3 - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". If the government tells you that doing so will be held against you when seeking employment they are clearly sending out the message to NOT attend certain events. Private employers are free to do this but you want the federal government to tell people what political stance is ok to have if they want to work? That's what communists do - and I'm not making that up that IS EXACTLY what communists do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Holy crap. Hell, they asked me about the financial situation of my parents........considered. My question is why the hell did they ask you about your parents situation? what the hell does that have to do with you?...I think thats a little unreasonable... -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 So people protesting a war are idiots? Sorry, I fail to see the connection. Protesting is what formed the US and separated us from Britain. Anyone ever stop to think some of these "idiot protesters" could have lost a friend or family member in the war?Anyone stop to think some people feel betrayed b/c they have a reasonable belief the war was started on lies? nyone stop to think some of the "idiot protestors" have family over in Iraq right now, and only want them home? Anyone ever stop to think the "idiot protestors" are upset that the gov't is spending trillions of dollars on Iraq while New Orleans lies in shambles. Bottom line,it is the right of every American to protest against what they feel is wrong. To be ashamed of someone expressing their rights, no matter how idiotic you might think it is, is unamerican. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 1 - "people with records of attending these rallys" - excuse me RECORDS? WTF??! Should the government sit around a snap images of people to document who attends protests? You think Uncle Sam should ask for ID's for Pro-Life marches and breast cancer walks or AIDS benefits or who gets to decide which events are bad and require documentation? Do the people being documented get to know in advance which ones not to attend? 2 - "You went to a rally and..." What if you went to a rally because you really are against the war for reasons like the cost of the whole thing? Should you be treated like a communist because communists happened to be at the same event? What if you just went to take pictures of the freak show (something I've done several times). Do the government agents documenting attendees distinguish this when compiling their Uncle Sam black list? 3 - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". If the government tells you that doing so will be held against you when seeking employment they are clearly sending out the message to NOT attend certain events. Private employers are free to do this but you want the federal government to tell people what political stance is ok to have if they want to work? That's what communists do - and I'm not making that up that IS EXACTLY what communists do. Fine, we disagree. Im ok with that. People should be held accountable for their actions, and their beliefs SHOULD play a role in any governments selection process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 My question is why the hell did they ask you about your parents situation? what the hell does that have to do with you?...I think thats a little unreasonable...-Grant I thought it was kind of unreasonable too, it threw me for a loop. Best I came up with was they didnt want someone to get the clearance i wanted to get, then get recruited to a private firm very quickly to help out parents strapped financially. Im not sure, they may have just wanted to dig at random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I thought it was kind of unreasonable too, it threw me for a loop.Best I came up with was they didnt want someone to get the clearance i wanted to get, then get recruited to a private firm very quickly to help out parents strapped financially. Im not sure, they may have just wanted to dig at random. Actually now that I think about it, thats not the first I've heard that.. I talked to former SS recruiter at a Criminal Justice meeting at UMD and said the same thing about your parents situation..I should have pressed him hard on the issue, is to what you have to do with yor parenst situation...He did say however they dont discrimminate based on party affiliation, in some respect I have a hard time believing that....what do you think? -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Actually now that I think about it, thats not the first I've heard that.. I talked to former SS recruiter at a Criminal Justice meeting at UMD and said the same thing about your parents situation..I should have pressed him hard on the issue, is to what you have to do with yor parenst situation...He did say however they dont discrimminate based on party affiliation, in some respect I have a hard time believing that....what do you think?-Grant :whoknows: I didnt get it anyways, so I'll never know. Probably lost it to this guy: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Look what we got from clinton protesting in Moscow. You want a repeat of THAT? I know all you libs think actions have no consequence Welcome to the real world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I know all you libs think actions have no consequence I wished you would apply this type of thinking when it comes to our government's foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The war protesters are not idiots. In my opinion, they mostly hit the nail right on the head.This current war is based on lies, and many soldiers have died because of it. The U.S. should have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. But what does incompetent Bush do? He orders an invasion of Iraq, which didn't have a role in 9/11. It's a shame that our soldiers are dying just so our country can increase our oil supply! The Bush administration doesn't care about people's rights, they just care about big business. And worse, it's an Orwellian administration that wants to invade our privacy (i.e. the Patroit Act, wiretapping). Shoot, I wouldn't be surprised if I were on a list somewhere because of my punk rock CDs and Michael Moore books! When I think about the Bush administration, the following three words cross my mind: lies, corruption and incompetence. What's more is that Bush shouldn't even be our President right now because he and his cronies stole that 2000 election! Our country is in major need of changes. And my message to the war protesters: Keep on fighting the good fight! Actually we did invade afghanistan after 9-11 and as a matter of fact we are still there. Things are rolling a lot more smoothly in afghanistan right now but that is not to say things are bad in Iraq as the media would have us percieve. Why would we go to Iraq and get there oil? as a matter of fact all the oil produced there goes back into Iraqs economy thats why they are paying about 5 cents a gallon for the cheap stuff in Iraq If we were to invade a country for its oil production Venezuala is a lot closer and is the 5th largest oil producing country in the world. Also if we were over there for the oil would our oil and gas prices be a lot cheaper? As a matter of fact speaking of Wire taps 2 other presidents have been known to use them one carter juist admitted to one of the presidents using them. Havew any more Lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I agree with most of what you said but the Clinton administration was not incompetent, especialy when compared with the Bush administration. Everyone knows Bill Clinton lied, but he lied about a BJ. Bush lies about important issues of national security like 911 and the connection to Saddam/Iraq, his connection and energy policy meetings with big oil in 2001, wiretapping (just like Nixon only nobody seems to care this time) he lied about the planning after Katrina, illegally ousting CIA agents, and most importantly Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and now 2300 of our bravest have paid for it with their lives. If you are a Republican, comparing Bush to Clinton isn't going to bode well for you. I dont buy the He didnt know about Katrina stuff he sent money and disaster relief teams near the area before Katrina hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I dont buy the He didnt know about Katrina stuff he sent money and disaster relief teams near the area before Katrina hit Bush did not do any of that. The recent releases of the communications between Brown and Bush show he was given advanced knowledge the storm was going to be horrific (which Bush denied) and Bush did not act. FEMA wasn't in New Orleans for a week. Bush didn't say a word about the situation for nearly a week. If he had acted before, or even right after, New Orleans wouldn't be the debacle that it currently is. The simple fact that the Bush administration and FEMA did not have plans on how to evacuate a major city in the post-9/11 era is more than absurd. The government was given advance warnings, and sat on it. If that isn't criminal negligence, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Bush did not do any of that. The recent releases of the communications between Brown and Bush show he was given advanced knowledge the storm was going to be horrific (which Bush denied) and Bush did not act. FEMA wasn't in New Orleans for a week. Bush didn't say a word about the situation for nearly a week. If he had acted before, or even right after, New Orleans wouldn't be the debacle that it currently is. The simple fact that the Bush administration and FEMA did not have plans on how to evacuate a major city in the post-9/11 era is more than absurd. The government was given advance warnings, and sat on it. If that isn't criminal negligence, I don't know what is. ANd ummm, just how do you propose that the aid get to the area during a hurricane? OR afterward with the roads out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuposse87 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 meaningless, pointless war accompanied with meaningless, pointless protests. "I know all you libs think actions have no consequence Welcome to the real world"-sarge Who the **** do you think you are kidding? You think the Bush administration has took into account all the potential consequences when engaging in this war? Right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 meaningless, pointless war accompanied with meaningless, pointless protests. "I know all you libs think actions have no consequence Welcome to the real world"-sarge Who the **** do you think you are kidding? You think the Bush administration has took into account all the potential consequences when engaging in this war? Right... Thanks for proving my point, actions do in fact have consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 "consequences" If you go to an anti-bush protest - you should face consequences according to Sarge. I'd bet however, that if he was drummed out the second a democrat took office and blacklisted because of the wingnut statements he's posted on the internet that he would be all kinds of pissed off. Because his crazy statements are ok - but the other guys.... yeah that crap can't be tolerated. This looks like a simple case of partison people wanting the other side punished to me. A bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 "consequences"If you go to an anti-bush protest - you should face consequences according to Sarge. I'd bet however, that if he was drummed out the second a democrat took office and blacklisted because of the wingnut statements he's posted on the internet that he would be all kinds of pissed off. Because his crazy statements are ok - but the other guys.... yeah that crap can't be tolerated. This looks like a simple case of partison people wanting the other side punished to me. A bad idea. When did he say anything anti-American? If sarge said anything anti-American I would want him drummed out now! Or are you saying what is American is dependant on what party is in power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Can someone define anti-American for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Is anyone scoring this battle??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.