Video of run-down barracks

[Cancel7]

You'll get nowhere with this Good Luck....I have discussed recruiters with these ladies before. I think that most of them are fairly honest and forthright. But be warned, LadyT and Darla won't give an inch. So all I can say is, "Good luck, Good Luck,"

Neither you nor he have any idea what her experinece is, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.

I do know. And I think it's pretty nervy for him to say "I seriously doubt your experience" since he is talking out his ass.

 

[leaningright]

Neither you nor he have any idea what her experinece is, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.

I do know. And I think it's pretty nervy for him to say "I seriously doubt your experience" since he is talking out his ass.

Darla I wasn't addressing the "I seriously doubt your experience" thing. I agree that you (as well as LadyT) must have had or seen bad experiences with recruiters. You make the claim and I do not dispute it. My point is that from my experiences with several recruiters, the incidents you describe don't appear, at least to me, to be the norm. We have two very different perspectives on this.

 

[Cancel7]

Darla I wasn't addressing the "I seriously doubt your experience" thing. I agree that you (as well as LadyT) must have had or seen bad experiences with recruiters. You make the claim and I do not dispute it. My point is that from my experiences with several recruiters, the incidents you describe don't appear, at least to me, to be the norm. We have two very different perspectives on this.

Alright.

 

[Good Luck]

Neither you nor he have any idea what her experinece is, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.

I do know. And I think it's pretty nervy for him to say "I seriously doubt your experience" since he is talking out his ass.

Are you a politician? Or did you just learn to use their dishonest tactics of cutting off phrases that add significant meaning to a sentence? What is "nervy" is to deliberately alter a quote to change its meaning.

What I said was "I seriously doubt your experience extends beyond meeting first contact recruiters. That is MUCH different than challenging she has any experience with recruiters.

I can say that with confidence since it is quite obvious she has never been in a MEPS station. I would be willing to bet she has never even been inside an actual recruiting office, where more in depth and less rosy descriptions of military service take place while disccussing a potential recruit's options. From her description, I would stake anything that her experience with recruiters are those who come out into the public - such as high schools.

 

[leaningright]

Army National Guard was at our high school the other day.

 

[Cancel7]

Are you a politician? Or did you just learn to use their dishonest tactics of cutting off phrases that add significant meaning to a sentence? What is "nervy" is to deliberately alter a quote to change its meaning.

What I said was "I seriously doubt your experience extends beyond meeting first contact recruiters. That is MUCH different than challenging she has any experience with recruiters.

I can say that with confidence since it is quite obvious she has never been in a MEPS station. I would be willing to bet she has never even been inside an actual recruiting office, where more in depth and less rosy descriptions of military service take place while disccussing a potential recruit's options. From her description, I would stake anything that her experience with recruiters are those who come out into the public - such as high schools.

It really doesn't matter what you're willing to bet. You dn't know anything about her or her situation. But I do, and that's why I know you dont' know what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[Good Luck]

Did you delete your post which Damo responded to, claiming that "not a single" solider has been stop-lossed past their 8 year enlistment?


This appears to indicate otherwise:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/stop-loss_2-24.html

Is it at all possible that you were wrong?

The information in that article is conflicting. First it says Santiago had completed his 8 year contract. Later it indicates that Santiago was in active reserve status when he was stop-lossed.

Only people who retire from active duty can go immediately from active duty status to discharge status. And even then they have to make special arrangements to serve their inactive reserve commitment under active duty. (That's what I did, and the paperwork involved almost made me give up on the idea.)

If Santiago was at the end of an 8 year contract, he would have been in inactive duty status, but the article clearly states he was active duty reserve.

In short, the article has its facts wrong.

 

[Cancel7]

The information in that article is conflicting. First it says Santiago had completed his 8 year contract. Later it indicates that Santiago was in active reserve status when he was stop-lossed.

Only people who retire from active duty can go immediately from active duty status to discharge status. And even then they have to make special arrangements to serve their inactive reserve commitment under active duty. (That's what I did, and the paperwork involved almost made me give up on the idea.)

If Santiago was at the end of an 8 year contract, he would have been in inactive duty status, but the article clearly states he was active duty reserve.

In short, the article has its facts wrong.

Of course. The pbs article has its facts wrong, and you are not mistaken in your blanket BS remark that "not one soldier has been held over their terms" because you were in the military for 40 years.

I have already spoken to not one, but two vets of THIS war, who say you are full of shit guy. Straight up.

 

[Battleborne]

LMAO@Darla...........

Of course. The pbs article has its facts wrong, and you are not mistaken in your blanket BS remark that "not one soldier has been held over their terms" because you were in the military for 40 years.

I have already spoken to not one, but two vets of THIS war, who say you are full of shit guy. Straight up.

Of course you did...akin to soco's 5 mysterious 4/1 cav dudes he met in a bar!...Like I told soco, have these mysterious witnesses log into JPP and give a first hand account of what you are claiming...so far soco has avoided the challenge...and most likely you also will...calling BS from the get go on you!

 

[Good Luck]

Of course you did...akin to soco's 5 mysterious 4/1 cav dudes he met in a bar!...Like I told soco, have these mysterious witnesses log into JPP and give a first hand account of what you are claiming...so far soco has avoided the challenge...and most likely you also will...calling BS from the get go on you!

It doesn't matter. I have no doubt that despite every effort otherwise, there will be those who claim they were hoodwinked by their service contract. Most of them are lying. They knew what it meant, but don't like the results.

I know how military contracts work. I know the way active duty vs inactive duty works. I know the way stop loss works. When someone (not at retirement) claims they are at the end of their 8 year contract, but are still active duty, they are in error about their contract. It is that simple.

We stop lossed all kinds of soldiers in peace time, though most of them for only a week or so. Biggest stop loss I was directly involved with was a first sgt of my battalion was held 8 weeks past ETS during Grenada. So his retirement was delayed 8 weeks. Didn't bother him at all.

 

[LadyT]

Darla I wasn't addressing the "I seriously doubt your experience" thing. I agree that you (as well as LadyT) must have had or seen bad experiences with recruiters. You make the claim and I do not dispute it. My point is that from my experiences with several recruiters, the incidents you describe don't appear, at least to me, to be the norm. We have two very different perspectives on this.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and based on the very very few people I've known to enlist in the last year or two, that's untrue. I find it hard to believe that teh people in my circle of acquaintences are that unique and rare. Now, I will say this, what's expected of the enlistees I know, was definitely stated in their contracts. But lucky for the recruiters, they didn't read the fine print before signing.

 

[leaningright]

Like I told Darla, LadyT, our experiences differ. Therefore we have two very different perspectives on the matter.

 

[Cancel7]

It doesn't matter. I have no doubt that despite every effort otherwise, there will be those who claim they were hoodwinked by their service contract. Most of them are lying. They knew what it meant, but don't like the results.

I know how military contracts work. I know the way active duty vs inactive duty works. I know the way stop loss works. When someone (not at retirement) claims they are at the end of their 8 year contract, but are still active duty, they are in error about their contract. It is that simple.

We stop lossed all kinds of soldiers in peace time, though most of them for only a week or so. Biggest stop loss I was directly involved with was a first sgt of my battalion was held 8 weeks past ETS during Grenada. So his retirement was delayed 8 weeks. Didn't bother him at all.

Uh-huh. I knew you were wrong right away, because I actually k now someone, and very well, who this happened to. But I knew that wouldn’t be accepted, so I found a reputable article for you.

But it (stop loss beyond 8 years) never happens anyway, because “you said so”.

Convincing.