Smug Ivy League Losers

[Volunteer]

So, I'm watching this 9/11 forum on national service. McCain and Obama will both participate. It's being held at Columbia University. McCain was asked about the difficulty in recruiting and maintaining soldiers in the all volunteer military. First he mentioned that we need to improve incentives. He cited the example of the Air Force and Navy losing pilots. They raised the pay schedule and have been more successful with retention.

Then he mentioned that the military was effectively prohibited from recruiting in many areas. For example, he said Columbia wouldn't allow ROTC on campus and also didn't allow the armed services to recruit on campus. He said he thought military service was an honorable career and felt this prohibition should change. The camera panned the audience. There were several people applauding this statement, but many more were not applauding and were actually sitting there with a smug, defiant look on their face - how dare McCain think Columbia would stoop to allowing the US Military on campus to recruit. Frankly this pi$$es me off. What's wrong with a military career? I think it's a great career.

No one is asking these smug *****hats to lift a finger to serve their country - they wouldn't anyway. McCain simply suggested that Columbia, and other similar schools, could likely provide wonderful military recruits - if given the opportunity.

What naive worthless citizens these folks are.
They don't deserve the freedom they enjoy.

End of rant.

[Texas Golfer]

So, I'm watching this 9/11 forum on national service. McCain and Obama will both participate. It's being held at Columbia University. McCain was asked about the difficulty in recruiting and maintaining soldiers in the all volunteer military. First he mentioned that we need to improve incentives. He cited the example of the Air Force and Navy losing pilots. They raised the pay schedule and have been more successful with retention.

Then he mentioned that the military was effectively prohibited from recruiting in many areas. For example, he said Columbia wouldn't allow ROTC on campus and also didn't allow the armed services to recruit on campus. He said he thought military service was an honorable career and felt this prohibition should change. The camera panned the audience. There were several people applauding this statement, but many more were not applauding and were actually sitting there with a smug, defiant look on their face - how dare McCain think Columbia would stoop to allowing the US Military on campus to recruit. Frankly this pi$$es me off. What's wrong with a military career? I think it's a great career.

No one is asking these smug *****hats to lift a finger to serve their country - they wouldn't anyway. McCain simply suggested that Columbia, and other similar schools, could likely provide wonderful military recruits - if given the opportunity.

What naive worthless citizens these folks are.
They don't deserve the freedom they enjoy.

End of rant.

There is nothing wrong with a military career. Ivy League elitists!

[The Banterer]

It seems unlikely that Columbia students are going to be persuaded to join the military by a recruiter, since most of them probably have a pretty good idea of what they want to do with their lives, and whether or not that includes military service.

I can also understand why a school might not want recruiters on campus(not so much about ROTC unless there just isn't demand at Columbia). They are pushy, and have been known to misrepresent what those who enlist will face. I'm not saying that all, or even most, recruiters are like that, but at the end of the day their job is to sell the military.

[Texas Golfer]

It seems unlikely that Columbia students are going to be persuaded to join the military by a recruiter, since most of them probably have a pretty good idea of what they want to do with their lives, and whether or not that includes military service.

I can also understand why a school might not want recruiters on campus(not so much about ROTC unless there just isn't demand at Columbia). They are pushy, and have been known to misrepresent what those who enlist will face. I'm not saying that all, or even most, recruiters are like that, but at the end of the day their job is to sell the military.

Students from every college in America have some idea of what they want to do with their lives. The military should be allowed to be an option and not forbidden by the college.

Keep in mind that Columbia won't let ROTC on campus but invites Ahmadinajad to their campus.

[Volunteer]

It seems unlikely that Columbia students are going to be persuaded to join the military by a recruiter, since most of them probably have a pretty good idea of what they want to do with their lives, and whether or not that includes military service.

I can also understand why a school might not want recruiters on campus(not so much about ROTC unless there just isn't demand at Columbia). They are pushy, and have been known to misrepresent what those who enlist will face. I'm not saying that all, or even most, recruiters are like that, but at the end of the day their job is to sell the military.

Companies are allowed to recruit on campus. The military should be allowed to do so as well. IMO it is nothing short of traitorous to not allow the military to recruit.

[Limnos]

Students from every college in America have some idea of what they want to do with their lives. The military should be allowed to be an option and not forbidden by the college.
Many of the most successful people I know began their careers as a proud soldier in the service of their country. It is not an uncommon theme. I agree with you TG. Let recruits on campus and let them offer students an opportunity to expand their minds and experiences.

Keep in mind that Columbia won't let ROTC on campus but invites Ahrmadinijad to their campus.
Ugh. Shameful.

[Bexar Fan]

If a school is going to accept federal tuition assistance, they should be required to allow recruiters on campus.

[Texas Golfer]

I loved McCain's line about the 9% approval rating of Congress. Those 9% are "blood relatives and paid staffers". :lol:

[nein51]

I dont believe Columbia receives assistance because it is a private school. You should also recognize it for what it is, one of the most liberal schools in America. It is no shock that this is their position.

I think you all know where I stand on the military but they are a private institution and as such shouldnt be required to let ANYONE on campus.

If you disagree I wonder where you were when the militant gay/******* group wanted to host an event at Baylor.

[quash]

Companies are allowed to recruit on campus. The military should be allowed to do so as well. IMO it is nothing short of traitorous to not allow the military to recruit.
This may be a distinction without a difference, but the military can recruit Columbia students, they just can't do it on campus. Like Playboy taking pics of BU coeds, they had to go off campus.

[Texas Golfer]

This may be a distinction without a difference, but the military can recruit Columbia students, they just can't do it on campus. Like Playboy taking pics of BU coeds, they had to go off campus.

But Volunteer's point was that civilian companies can recruit on campas.

[quash]

But Volunteer's point was that civilian companies can recruit on campas.

Yes, I got that.

[Diehard]

If a school is going to accept federal tuition assistance, they should be required to allow recruiters on campus.

I agree with that.

I think Columbia and most all other universities get federal funds. The most notable one that doesn't is Bob Jones U. if I'm not mistaken.

[ChipOC]

I dont believe Columbia receives assistance because it is a private school. You should also recognize it for what it is, one of the most liberal schools in America. It is no shock that this is their position.

I think you all know where I stand on the military but they are a private institution and as such shouldnt be required to let ANYONE on campus.

If you disagree I wonder where you were when the militant gay/******* group wanted to host an event at Baylor.
Your last point is indeed valid, but I would add that Baylor's stance is because they are Christian, not because they are conservative.

[Diehard]

Baylor's receipt of federal funds does require that it not discriminate in at least certain respects. That's exactly what forced Chamber to open its doors to women a few years ago.

[nein51]

Your last point is indeed valid, but I would add that Baylor's stance is because they are Christian, not because they are conservative.
Hey Billy C..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman" "That depends on what "is" means."

I mean, come on, the two are really the same :D

[baylorles]

Since Baylor is a Christian institution the military and private companies that engage in war profiteering shouldn't be allowed on campus either.

[ChipOC]

Since Baylor is a Christian institution Catholics shouldn't be allowed on campus.

[baylorles]

Since Baylor is a Christian institution Catholics shouldn't be allowed on campus.
:D

[ChipOC]

Now go tell your priest what you've done.

[baylorles]

Now go tell your priest what you've done.I haven't found one with the spare time to listen to the whole story. I usually just post it on my BLOG.

[atxtraveler]

Isn't Columbia also the university that invited Mahmoud Azerbajian or whatever his name is that is running Iran to speak on campus?

[nein51]

Isn't Columbia also the university that invited Mahmoud Azerbajian or whatever his name is that is running Iran to speak on campus?

Yes.

[Volunteer]

This may be a distinction without a difference, but the military can recruit Columbia students, they just can't do it on campus. Like Playboy taking pics of BU coeds, they had to go off campus.

I think the difference is that the military is an entity of the U.S. government. Would be the same if they refused to allow the USDA, FFA or any other governmental agency to recruit. Don't know whether they do or don't.

[quash]

I think the difference is that the military is an entity of the U.S. government. Would be the same if they refused to allow the USDA, FFA or any other governmental agency to recruit. Don't know whether they do or don't.

On campus. You have to qualify that statement. And what it is most like is the way some universities don't allow the CIA to recruit, ON CAMPUS.

[Volunteer]

On campus. You have to qualify that statement. And what it is most like is the way some universities don't allow the CIA to recruit, ON CAMPUS.

CIA is no different, in terms of recruiting, than USDA, FFA or any other legitimate governmental agency. IMO any school that disallows recruiting on campus by the military, CIA or any particular governmenal agency should not receive any federal funding. That would include financial aid for any student wishing to attend said school. Additionally if one, or more, agency is refused permission to recruit, all governmental agencies should refuse to recruit on that campus. If the Army isn't good enough for this university then neither are the Justice, Commerce or Treasury departments.

[quash]

Lemme try a different tack: anyone denied the opportunity to recruit on campus can still recruit from a hotel lobby or tailgate off campus. The students are not denied access, it's just that recruiters from some places can't do their thing from a building on the campus.

[GigaBear]

Lemme try a different tack: anyone denied the opportunity to recruit on campus can still recruit from a hotel lobby or tailgate off campus. The students are not denied access, it's just that recruiters from some places can't do their thing from a building on the campus.



You're missing the point, it seems. The point of contention is that they CAN'T conduct their business from a building on campus.


Vol thinks it's a problem, and I do as well.

[quash]

You're missing the point, it seems. The point of contention is that they CAN'T conduct their business from a building on campus.


Vol thinks it's a problem, and I do as well.

I'm not missing the point, I'm trying to clarify it. These groups are not forbidden to recruit, they are inhibited by their being banished from the campus. As I said when I first pointed this out, this may be a distinction without a difference.

[Bexar Fan]

These groups are not forbidden to recruit, they are inhibited by their being banished from the campus. As I said when I first pointed this out, this may be a distinction without a difference.
Students are not denied the opportunity to be recruited. However unlike IBM, lawfirms and others, they have to go be interviewed off the campus.

Difference? Distinction? They are inherent to the motive behind the policy.

[quash]

Students are not denied the opportunity to be recruited. However unlike IBM, lawfirms and others, they have to go be interviewed off the campus.

Difference? Distinction? They are inherent to the motive behind the policy.
This is what I'm saying.

[Volunteer]

Lemme try a different tack: anyone denied the opportunity to recruit on campus can still recruit from a hotel lobby or tailgate off campus. The students are not denied access, it's just that recruiters from some places can't do their thing from a building on the campus.

I understand what you're trying to say, however, I still don't agree. If a campus lets private organizations recruit on campus it is unacceptable that they refuse access to the U.S. Military. IMO, it's absolutely a slap in the face to our country.

[quash]

I understand what you're trying to say, however, I still don't agree. If a campus lets private organizations recruit on campus it is unacceptable that they refuse access to the U.S. Military. IMO, it's absolutely a slap in the face to our country.

You don't agree with me or you don't agree with the policy? I don't understand why you guys keep after me on this point: I am agreeing with you, I don't like the policy either. ***?

[baylorles]

Now go tell your priest what you've done.Did you think I'm Catholic?

[ChipOC]

Did you think I'm Catholic?
I recall you saying that you went to a Catholic church for a while with your wife. No?

[Volunteer]

You don't agree with me or you don't agree with the policy? I don't understand why you guys keep after me on this point: I am agreeing with you, I don't like the policy either. ***?

I don't like the policy. If you don't like the policy then we are in agreement.

[baylorles]

I recall you saying that you went to a Catholic church for a while with your wife. No?
Yes, I went to a Catholic church for a while with my wife. My wife is Catholic. I am not. Baylor, as a Christian university, should not allow military recruiters or companies that profit from war to recruit on its campus.

[Volunteer]

Yes, I went to a Catholic church for a while with my wife. My wife is Catholic. I am not. Baylor, as a Christian university, should not allow military recruiters or companies that profit from war to recruit on its campus.

Baylor is a part of the United States. Nothing wrong with supporting the defense of our nation. Defense of one's country is not an un-Christian thing. Christians and all other citizens benefit from the freedoms we have as U.S. citizens. It is the obligation of each of us to be willing to defend these rights. As they say, "freedom isn't free". Maybe a statement that is a little overused but it is, in fact, very true.

I would think a little more about your last statement. How many companies, do you think, provide products and services to our armed forces? All the oil companies, most auto manufacturers, food companies, clothing manufacturers and etc.... just to name a few. IMO not only is would it be inappropriate to forbid recruitment on campus by these companies it would also be completely impractical.

[quash]

Baylor is a part of the United States. Nothing wrong with supporting the defense of our nation. Defense of one's country is not an un-Christian thing. Christians and all other citizens benefit from the freedoms we have as U.S. citizens. It is the obligation of each of us to be willing to defend these rights. As they say, "freedom isn't free". Maybe a statement that is a little overused but it is, in fact, very true.

I would think a little more about your last statement. How many companies, do you think, provide products and services to our armed forces? All the oil companies, most auto manufacturers, food companies, clothing manufacturers and etc.... just to name a few. IMO not only is would it be inappropriate to forbid recruitment on campus by these companies it would also be completely impractical.

What he said.

I can see a Quaker school refusing any part of the military-industrial complex, but that's about it. Not like Halliburton would recruit there anyway.

[Volunteer]

What he said.

I can see a Quaker school refusing any part of the military-industrial complex, but that's about it. Not like Halliburton would recruit there anyway.

Oh I don't know....... I think the Quakers could build really nice refineries.

[baylorles]

Baylor is a part of the United States. Nothing wrong with supporting the defense of our nation. Defense of one's country is not an un-Christian thing. Christians and all other citizens benefit from the freedoms we have as U.S. citizens. It is the obligation of each of us to be willing to defend these rights. As they say, "freedom isn't free". Maybe a statement that is a little overused but it is, in fact, very true.

I would think a little more about your last statement. How many companies, do you think, provide products and services to our armed forces? All the oil companies, most auto manufacturers, food companies, clothing manufacturers and etc.... just to name a few. IMO not only is would it be inappropriate to forbid recruitment on campus by these companies it would also be completely impractical.I've thought more than a little about not only that statement, but my other statements as well. Thanks.

I appreciate the lecture, but it is most assuredly not the obligation of any Christian to put the commands of any empire, be it the Roman or the United States or the British, above the commands given by Jesus Christ, the command to kill ones enemy included.

[Volunteer]

I've thought more than a little about not only that statement, but my other statements as well. Thanks.

I appreciate the lecture, but it is most assuredly not the obligation of any Christian to put the commands of any empire, be it the Roman or the United States or the British, above the commands given by Jesus Christ, the command to kill ones enemy included.

Seems like I recall something about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Christians are part of this nation just like everyone else. It appears that you're saying one can't be a Christian and support, or be a part of, our military at the same time. I strongly disagree with this notion and am unaware of any biblical foundation for such a belief.

[quash]

The whole notion of "just war" is a Christian concept. I understood it to give moral authority to state actions in war, so long as just war principles were met. At which point Christians could serve in any way, including ways that kill.

Rather than assert that Christians, all of 'em, can't obey a state order to fight, just say that Quakers and similar denominations differ with mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism on just war.

[Texas Golfer]

The whole notion of "just war" is a Christian concept. I understood it to give moral authority to state actions in war, so long as just war principles were met. At which point Christians could serve in any way, including ways that kill.

Rather than assert that Christians, all of 'em, can't obey a state order to fight, just say that Quakers and similar denominations differ with mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism on just war.

Don't different religions disagree on just about anything? That's why there's more than one religion. Even Protestants disagree on many issues. For example, Methodists and Baptists disagree on baptisms.

You will not get all religions to agree on any issue, including justification of war. That doesn't make any one or another any less "Christian".

[quash]

Don't different religions disagree on just about anything? That's why there's more than one religion. Even Protestants disagree on many issues. For example, Methodists and Baptists disagree on baptisms.

You will not get all religions to agree on any issue, including justification of war. That doesn't make any one or another any less "Christian".

Yeah. Thanks for making my point, except you use "religion" where I suspect you mean "denominations", since Judaism and Hinduism are religions whose beliefs won't meet your last sentence. Not sure what your post was attempting to do other than muddy the water.

Lemme try to clear the mud out of the water. Just war is a Christian principle. It gives cover to Christians such that they can obey the dictates of states at war. Even if those dictates require killing. Mainstream Christians follow the just war principle. Some denominations, such as Quakers, do not.

[Volunteer]

..... Just war is a Christian principle. It gives cover to Christians such that they can obey the dictates of states at war. Even if those dictates require killing. Mainstream Christians follow the just war principle. Some denominations, such as Quakers, do not.

Yes, just war is a Christian principle. Interestingly without Christians (and other religions) being willing to wage war it is likely that freedom of religion wouldn't exist. Seems that this basic freedom is generally earned via some sort of revolution.

There are multiple biblical examples of God's people waging war. I don't think this necessarily represents condoning of war but it appears to suggest that sometimes war is the only option. In other words, sometimes there is something that is worth fighting for.

The bottom line, at least for me, is that sometimes even Christians must be willing to fight for what is right. To be unwilling is, IMO, irresponsible and undeserving of the freedoms we enjoy.

[The Banterer]

Seems like I recall something about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Christians are part of this nation just like everyone else. It appears that you're saying one can't be a Christian and support, or be a part of, our military at the same time. I strongly disagree with this notion and am unaware of any biblical foundation for such a belief.

I think you're misusing your biblical quote there. There is nothing in the Bible which would lead someone to hold the law of man above God's law. That doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't follow the law of man, just that God's law would be supreme.

Whether Christians can kill, whether war or whatever, is another issue entirely. Jesus seemed to discourage the use of violence or retaliation at all, but a slew of other biblical texts contradict this teaching. I guess it depends to what extent you want to try and live like Jesus.

[Volunteer]

I think you're misusing your biblical quote there. There is nothing in the Bible which would lead someone to hold the law of man above God's law. That doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't follow the law of man, just that God's law would be supreme.

Whether Christians can kill, whether war or whatever, is another issue entirely. Jesus seemed to discourage the use of violence or retaliation at all, but a slew of other biblical texts contradict this teaching. I guess it depends to what extent you want to try and live like Jesus.

Actually I believe I am using the biblical quote exactly as it has been defined by countless biblical scholars and commentaries. I certainly am not implying (at least I didn't intend to imply) that man's law trumps God's law.

I am saying that God and our earthly governments operate in two different realms. Clearly God's authority is supreme but we must also recognize the authority of government. In an instance of conflict, God's law is supreme. However, in the instance of this particular discussion, I don't believe that God's law is opposed to military service. Opposition to evil is a well established biblical tenet - even when violence is involved.

[quash]

The bottom line, at least for me, is that sometimes even Christians must be willing to fight for what is right. To be unwilling is, IMO, irresponsible and undeserving of the freedoms we enjoy.

Glad we agree. To attempt a quote :"the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of martyrs". Could google it but I'm going to bed.

Also, I think Jesus among the money changers shows that violence was acceptable given the right conditions. And in contrast you have the rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane, but I think that was to allow circumstances to proceed.

What the heck: AUTHOR: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
QUOTATION: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

[Volunteer]

Glad we agree. To attempt a quote :"the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of martyrs". Could google it but I'm going to bed.

Also, I think Jesus among the money changers shows that violence was acceptable given the right conditions. And in contrast you have the rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane, but I think that was to allow circumstances to proceed.

What the heck: AUTHOR: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
QUOTATION: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

What a great quote! Being able to use the term "manure" in a quote is unbelievably creative. Bravo Thomas Jefferson!:thumbup1:

After a couple of hundred years, Jefferson is still right.

[ChipOC]

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

God said that he is the one who establishes the rulers. Just saying.

[Bexar Fan]

Glad we agree. To attempt a quote :"the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of martyrs". Could google it but I'm going to bed.

Also, I think Jesus among the money changers shows that violence was acceptable given the right conditions. And in contrast you have the rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane, but I think that was to allow circumstances to proceed.

What the heck: AUTHOR: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
QUOTATION: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
You may be surprised at the source of the following quote that supports yours:

“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” —William F. Buckley

[quash]

You may be surprised at the source of the following quote that supports yours:

“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” —William F. Buckley

Interesting quote. I think it expresses a conservative view towards political truths more than it says anything about being a conscientous objector. As an example, Buckley disagreed with drug laws regarding marijuana but would not violate the law; instead he sailed out into international waters to meet a dealer and try a toke. Sorta "Render unto Caesar while inside his jurisdiction." ;-)

[Bexar Fan]

Interesting quote. I think it expresses a conservative view towards political truths more than it says anything about being a conscientous objector. As an example, Buckley disagreed with drug laws regarding marijuana but would not violate the law; instead he sailed out into international waters to meet a dealer and try a toke. Sorta "Render unto Caesar while inside his jurisdiction." ;-)
Perhaps he was following the "subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors" part of his message. :D