Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    If you read the artice I posted you'll see: "More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds."
    Interesting. So is that first time enlistees? Or just an overall average of the entire military. You can have fun with statistics all you want to. I'll go by where the recruitment offices focus they're efforts and it ain't the OC.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Actually, when a larger cross section of your society has skin in the game they're less likely to invade another country.
    That's a bit of a loaded argument, wouldn't you say? By using the term "invade another country" instead of, say, "defend their own country" you're already positioning that the war effort it wrong or, at best, unecessary.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Interesting. So is that first time enlistees? Or just an overall average of the entire military. You can have fun with statistics all you want to. I'll go by where the recruitment offices focus they're efforts and it ain't the OC.
    Those aren't my stats, they're the DoD's. And since you're not bringing any stats of your own to the table then you're just going on personal experience and/or prejudice.

    More than 60 percent of the recruits came from the top half of mental aptitude categories. More than 90 percent have a high school diploma, which is the best indicator that recruits will stay through their first enlistment, officials said.

    Chu said he is not disturbed by the increase in the number of "category 4" personnel joining the Army. These recruits score in the lowest category of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery of tests (Guide Note: "Category 4" are those who score 30 or less on the AFQT, or overall ASVAB score).

    The Army recruits no more than 4 percent of its force from this category, meeting the DoD benchmark, explained Doug Smith, public affairs officer for U.S. Army Recruiting Command. For many years, the Army had a self-imposed 2-percent limit, he said, but raised it to 4 percent in 2005.

    This stands in sharp contrast to the late 1970s, when as many as 45 percent of Army recruits could be drawn from category 4. Congress imposed a cap of 25 percent of new recruits in that category in fiscal 1981, then lowered the ceiling to 20 percent in fiscal 1983, according to Bob Clark, DoD's assistant director for accessions policy.
    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...uitquality.htm

    I guess you're right. We don't have a military that draws equally from all segments of the society. Less intelligent people are, in fact, under-represented.
    Last edited by hoovs; 02/26/2007 at 04:55 PM.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    That's a bit of a loaded argument, wouldn't you say? By using the term "invade another country" instead of, say, "defend their own country" you're already positioning that the war effort it wrong or, at best, unecessary.
    Sorry. Just going with recent history.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Those aren't my stats, they're the DoD's. And since you're not bringing any stats of your own to the table then you're just going on personal experience and/or prejudice.



    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...uitquality.htm

    I guess you're right. We don't have a military that draws equally from all segments of the society. Less intelligent people are, in fact, under-represented.
    Not equating intelligence with bank acct. If you want to site there and pretend recruits in an all volunteer army accurately reflect the population in general, you're welcome to that.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Not equating intelligence with bank acct. If you want to site there and pretend recruits in an all volunteer army accurately reflect the population in general, you're welcome to that.
    Wait, before you seemed to be saying that you weren't talking about income now you are. So I'm really not sure what your argument is.

    As for me, I never said that the demographics of our troops did, nor that they should, reflect the population in general.
  7.    #47  
    In my 4 year USAF experience the demographics did not reflect the general population on the economic side of demo IMO.
    at&t iPhone3G
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    In my 4 year USAF experience the demographics did not reflect the general population on the economic side of demo IMO.
    If it did, by conscription, do you think it would have been better or worse for the force?
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    If it did, by conscription, do you think it would have been better or worse for the force?
    I think it may be worse depending on age and rank. They give you enough to live by or enough for what you need and a little more but enough to stay humble which helps maintain the discipline and the focus. If the average military Joe could make contemperary money in the same "career field" as a civilian less cost for training and education then joining would defeat the purpose. It is easier to be ready to die for your country when you are living the discipline without too much luster or bling or economic destraction. Keeping them a little down keeps them in the right mind set. The limitation to living to the fullest beyond "drinking and partying" helps maintain the right military mind set and allows brothers to band when they are all they got as a family away from home, especially when a good number of military personnel are running away from something at home for one reason or another. This pertains mainly to the enlisted side of the military. I went to college during my time and finished afterwords. If I coud of did it again, I would have finished college first and became an officer. They never seem to advertise being an officer on television...its mostly aimed at the young comming out of high school. They don't say...hey you could become a pilot or a general one day...lol.
    at&t iPhone3G
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    Because I didn't have it on the SuperBowl, Grammy's, NBA finals, sweet 16( everygam) etc etc! aprasad...don't look to deep into things. I don't hate Hollywood, I just don't worship them. The way you shot up in Hollywoods defense like this thread is so wrong, I wonder about you...probably eating popcorn glued to the couch fantasizing and watching the awards. There was a time in this world where being a soldier, knight, gladiator, etc was like celebrity and loved by their people so books even though war is wrong, fairy tales and other passages have been recorded in hystory to make these individuals timeless and remembered. Today, we love watching actors play the roles of these hystorical characters and the actors are quite wealthy because of it and their star shines so bright in our culture, and the real soldiers today are kept in our thoughts and prayers but they don't shine nearly as bright...and are stars on the flag should be allowed to come home and not waste anymore lives.
    We should definitely support our troops. But we can do that without putting down anyone else. Your title "The real stars on Oscar night" implies that the actors etc are not real or not stars. Why dis them to honor the troops?

    Besides, the real way to honor the troops is by funding the needs for equipment, and taking care of the veterans. Not by bankrupting the government with tax cuts to the wealthy in the middle of a war.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #51  
    Because they're really only good for make-believe, not much else. I see lots of little kids that can do that, and more.
  12. #52  
    I stand by my statement that the troops should be honored and respected for their actions and sacrifice without the need to put down any other.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  13. #53  
    That's fine. I just don't understand why we have such a high regard for these clowns in the first place.
  14. #54  
    It's the power of numbers, I guess. My contribution to their wealth is pennies per year, at the most. But add that over millions of people and the performing artists/entertainers get compensated enormously (beyond proportion to their contributions to the society, IMO).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    We should definitely support our troops. But we can do that without putting down anyone else. Your title "The real stars on Oscar night" implies that the actors etc are not real or not stars. Why dis them to honor the troops?

    Besides, the real way to honor the troops is by funding the needs for equipment, and taking care of the veterans. Not by bankrupting the government with tax cuts to the wealthy in the middle of a war.
    I agree with you but your wealthy Hollywood pretenders would be benefiting from these tax cuts also...I don't hate hollywood, I am just burned out with them. I am sick of shopping at the local supermarket and having the Enquirer, Star, etc sitting there trying to be slammed down your throat while awaiting the purchase of goods with my legal tender. I don't care about Brad Pit, Angelina and Jenifers threesome problems. I am a generation Xer and I am partial old school. I like Merilyn Monroe but she is considered a pig at todays standards. I liked Madonna when she had curves during her "Like a Virgin" days and now she is a crazy freak that is shaped like a ten year old boy. Tom Cruise is proof of what money and fame over a long period of time does to ya. I am starting to sound like my parents...I never thought it would happen, but I love my old Sci Fi, Original Star Wars, Flash Gorden, Blade Runner, Alien, Tron, etc and other flics during my era, so I don't hate Hollywood. I just find Hollywood getting worse as the world turns. Video may have killed the radio star, but I feel Hollywood is killing cinema.
    at&t iPhone3G
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    That's fine. I just don't understand why we have such a high regard for these clowns in the first place.
    I don't either...
    at&t iPhone3G
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    I agree with you but your wealthy Hollywood pretenders would be benefiting from these tax cuts also...I don't hate hollywood, I am just burned out with them. I am sick of shopping at the local supermarket and having the Enquirer, Star, etc sitting there trying to be slammed down your throat while awaiting the purchase of goods with my legal tender. I don't care about Brad Pit, Angelina and Jenifers threesome problems. I am a generation Xer and I am partial old school. I like Merilyn Monroe but she is considered a pig at todays standards. I liked Madonna when she had curves during her "Like a Virgin" days and now she is a crazy freak that is shaped like a ten year old boy. Tom Cruise is proof of what money and fame over a long period of time does to ya. I am starting to sound like my parents...I never thought it would happen, but I love my old Sci Fi, Original Star Wars, Flash Gorden, Blade Runner, Alien, Tron, etc and other flics during my era, so I don't hate Hollywood. I just find Hollywood getting worse as the world turns. Video may have killed the radio star, but I feel Hollywood is killing cinema.
    I agree. They don't make them like they used to. Think David Lean, Sam Peckinpah, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick and even early Scorsese. I think the 1060's and 70's were the golden age for movies.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I agree. Stanley Kubrick and even early Scorsese. I think the 1060's and 70's were the golden age for movies.
    Now we are talking.
    at&t iPhone3G
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    That's fine. I just don't understand why we have such a high regard for these clowns in the first place.
    A Clown to you might be a role-model for others, such as Mr. Whitaker who grew up poor and worked very hard to earn money and to be appreciated for his hard work. Surly some actors/actresses/directors/producers, if not many -- from Hollywood or any other place -- represent money, greed or just hallow playgrounds, but some also have brains and values to share.
    "High regards" for professional in sports, music or stage aren't necessarily a bad thing if taken in strides and under some scrutiny. After all, scum-bags can be found in any place: Greed isn't blind-coded.
    I watched the Oscars and enjoyed it for what it is: Entertainment. Some speeches I didn't care for and some people said silly stuff. But hey, there's always that little button on the remote called "Off." No one is forcing you to watch anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    We should definitely support our troops. But we can do that without putting down anyone else. Your title "The real stars on Oscar night" implies that the actors etc are not real or not stars. Why dis them to honor the troops?
    Last edited by impish; 02/27/2007 at 11:59 AM.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I agree. They don't make them like they used to. Think David Lean, Sam Peckinpah, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick and even early Scorsese. I think the 1060's and 70's were the golden age for movies.
    Don't forget Capra, Wilder, Frankenheimer. Too many to mention. I'd even add Coppola despite the tragedy that was GF III.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions