RkFast

Duble duh, my ass. Military recruiters have been fixtures on high school and college campuses for decades. So much so that student EXPECT to see them and recieve contact and materials from them. So answer the original question. Why is a banning based on ideology FINE in one case but WRONG in another?

Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. But back to the topic at hand..... So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why? Hypocrites? Yup.

Facts suck.

Not so much about "bias" as it is about the rush of the media to trip over itselves lately to make the U.S. look bad. And there, she has a point. What goes on around the world makes places like Abu Gharib and Gitmo look like they are owned and run by Starwood Hotels. Compared to what soliders and interrogators from other countries do, American interrogators are sheep. But somehow, THE US are the "terrible" ones committing atrocities. Yeah, yeah....we should know better and "not sink to their level". But how instead of US being challenged to "not sink to thir level" how about the rest of the world gets challenged to rise to OUR level for once? Taking this story, how did a Koran even GET into Gitmo in the first place. Oh yeah....the US GAVE IT to the prisoners, along with the prayer mats, the special food, the designated prayer times, on and on. THAT part doesnt get out does it? Of course not.

I dont see the word "EVERYONE" there. Or "all of you". Or "all of you are all the same". Or anything like that. Is the fact that I didnt mean EVERYONE on the left too SUBTLE to unnerstand? Lets move on............................................

Its a volunteer Army. And I pay my taxes. Im covered.

Right...because that was really my point. You show me where in this thread I specificially where I said my point applies to ALL people on the Left, and Ill show you how to get your real handle back, Mr. Genius. Funny...you scoffed at me becuase I didnt get your "sublety" a while back, but youre too dense to understand the basic idea that we're not talking in absolutes here. , indeed. Same goes for YOU, bluefire and Campy. Where did I exactly say "EVERYONE"? So many people here who love to pat themselves on the back about how "smart" they are, but still too stupid to undertsand the difference between "(some of) those on" and "all of them".

"But because I don't think the Iraq war as justified makes me not support the troops?" Obviously, you didnt read the article in the original post by Jim.

Whats funny is that the same people who look to ban military recruiters from high schools and COLLEGES will whine that the very same military "unfairly targets the poor and minorities". Its truly a shame that those who disagree with the war are now fighting the military itself, 1960's style. Its a shame that the U.S. Military is now "the bad guys" in the eyes of so many. But hey......those on the Left "support the troops", right? They can be "against the war but FOR the troops", right? Right.

But hey.....they "support the troops!"

Agreed. Not only that, if blowhards like Rush and the rest took time to "debate" every group or person they had a word to say about on the radio....they wouldnt have time to be on the radio!!!!! Again......just pick up the phone and call his ass. Not everyone who calls in is a "Dittohead". Havent listed to Rush in a while, but from what I recall, he WILL debate a caller to his show.

Pretty funny, coming from someone whose ideology wont even allow me to string a few Christmas lights across my desk at work. And on the issue at hand...if they want to "Debate" Limbaugh so bad, why dont they just pick up the telephone and call his show?

Thats the LIBERAL way of thinking, silly....that we can bury our head in the sand, sign Koombaya, click our heels and the world will be a better place. Status Quo...no need to take action...hope for the best...thats how YOU guys think. Nice try, though.

Im going back to work.......this is just too much.

Maybe Im just horrible at simple math.. Clinton "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight years. Bush "ignored" warnings about Osama for eight months. But somehow, 9/11 is all BUSH's fault, right?

Good stuff....but I prefer my cousin's interpretation of what went down in the 90s: "Man, did we !@#$ up" He is an FBI agent and was on the Anti-Terrorism task force during those wonderful 90s, in case youre wondering about his credentials to make such a statement.

Does it really take a nimrod like ME to interpret "accomplished? What are they trying to accomplish? All I see is radical self serving legislation." for youz? Come on...... HALLIBURTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im pretty shocked by the notion that forces will be moved WEST as the need for them on the East coast deteriorates. Excuse me, but the megaolopolis of NY/BOS/PHI doesnt have a single air base equipped with attack aircraft, does it? Id think that having one here wouldnt hurt, especially after 9/11. And they even have a site for it, in Calverton Long Island, where Grumman manufactured the F-14 and A-6 years ago.

What do you THINK would happen? We be strung up by our collective Buster Browns, that's what.

And I thought Tommy picked on ME.

Just read through the entire piece again. Know whats absolutely amazing? Nobody figured out an angle to blame the JEWS for this.

Youre so naive.

Not sure about the ratings, but after hearing Bob Scheafer (sp?) on Imus the other day, he seems to make Dan Rather look OBJECTIVE.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Al Sadr is now an ally. But the basic reason why he's stopped fighting is clear. BTW...attacks today were aimed at an Iraqi police station and in a small market. According to MSNBC, whom I trust a BIT more than Lefthook.com, the Insurgents are attempting to "block a key goal of U.S. forces: to one day be replaced by newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police." So.... If these Insurgents are fightings to end the U.S. occupation, as you claim, then why would they thwart efforts by the U.S. and Iraq to complete one of the key goals of a handover; i.e. transfer responsibility for security and policing back to the Iraqis? Your'e on the clock again.................

Do good job = get reward. Nice concept. More fun to watch the leftists rip the remaining hairs out of their heads over this, though.