Canceled.2014.1
New member
Right, because its ok to discriminate based on what people think.
And I see you refuse to answer my question about my "despicable standards". Typical.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Our Military...
- Thread starter Haiku
- Start date
Right, because its ok to discriminate based on what people think.
And I see you refuse to answer my question about my "despicable standards". Typical.
Which is the entire purpose. Minimize, deflect and then complain, insult, dismiss. These same few do it all the time. None of the points made about the topic and it's consequences matter to them.Calling it PC is minimizing the realty of what it is, and its effects. Wake up.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Which is the entire purpose. Minimize, deflect and then complain, insult, dismiss. These same few do it all the time. None of the points made about the topic and it's consequences matter to them.
Oh, so because I ask questions about how to implement programs designed to weed out recruits based on what they think, I am defending the racists?
A more thorough background check?? If they have committed no crime, then all that is left is to have military personnel contact family, friends, teachers, ect and ask about them. Unless these recruits were some sort of radical racists, making demonstrations and the like, the more thorough background checks will not show anything more. Exactly who is it that you think will tell the military that the kid is a racist?
Now you're pretending that a thorough background check will be ineffective, by assigning to it the limitations you assume a thorough background check involves, and hoping to convince me and anyone reading that 'only radicals who've demonstrated' will be caught in that net.
What you're doing is dumbing down the discussion, WB. You're trying (and failing) to *prove* that a more thorough background check won't work. You have absolutely zero evidence on which to base it, but you just know that it won't. Surely you're capable of understanding why your argument is thoroughly uncompelling.
Which is the entire purpose. Minimize, deflect and then complain, insult, dismiss. These same few do it all the time. None of the points made about the topic and it's consequences matter to them.
Abundantly clear.
From the interview..
I mean, this is across the United States. Every base has its problem with white supremacists because they are allowed to operate freely. It’s the natural reaction to a military brass which is just not concerned about this issue unless they’re presented with a national scandal like the Oak Creek massacre. And, I mean, Page is not alone, this is what must be emphasized. During my investigations, I went down to Tampa, Florida, to interview a neo-Nazi veteran of Iraq, Forrest Fogarty. And his resume reads basically exactly the same as Page. He’s the lead singer of a neo-Nazi rock band, he’s a veteran, he’s also a member of the Hammerskin Nation, which is the most violent skinhead group in the country, much like Page. And what he told me about his experience in Iraq was instructive.
He said, basically, the command knew about my radicalism. Of course they knew, they can see my tattoos. Fogarty was also — is also covered in tattoos. So, this is not a problem that’s specific to certain bases, although Fort Bragg has a very serious problem. It’s all over the United States. It was all over Iraq and it was all over Afghanistan.
A point that must be made, too, is gangs is another huge issue, especially at the bases along the border with Mexico, because they’re involved in trafficking drugs, trafficking weapons, etc. And this is an issue, as well, which has got wide coverage. The Southern Poverty Law Center did important work in 2006 on this. Other groups have been doing it, active duty personnel. But, every time this issue has been raised, the U.S. military has targeted the person raising it. So, soldiers who have said, Look, my unit is riven with white supremacists or gang members, the military has demoted them, has kicked them out of the military. I mean I came across countless examples of that. So this is not something that the military missed by accident. This is something that the military has actively ignored and persecuted the people that are raising the issue. In fact, later on, I think you’re going to have Daryl Johnson on who is the DHS analyst who authored the report about the threat of far right-wing extremism. He was targeted by the DHS as soon as that report came out and right-wing politicians for raising the issue.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
A more thorough background check?? If they have committed no crime, then all that is left is to have military personnel contact family, friends, teachers, ect and ask about them. Unless these recruits were some sort of radical racists, making demonstrations and the like, the more thorough background checks will not show anything more. Exactly who is it that you think will tell the military that the kid is a racist?
Isn't it true that many go into the lower ranks of the military with very little education or chances of a decent job and they subsequently get an education. Would they prefer that they stay ignorant all their lives?
Oh, so because I ask questions about how to implement programs designed to weed out recruits based on what they think, I am defending the racists?
No - because you're pretending that a thorough background check will be ineffective, by assigning to it the limitations you assume a thorough background check involves, you're diminishing the problem, and dismissing any notion of a solution.
Poor white racist christianist haters are being discriminated against when they hate everything about America. LOLRight, because its ok to discriminate based on what people think.
And I see you refuse to answer my question about my "despicable standards". Typical.
Right, because its ok to discriminate based on what people think.
And I see you refuse to answer my question about my "despicable standards". Typical.
I already answered that. Your minimization of racist hate as mere 'political incorrectness' reveals your despicable standards. Pay attention.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Now you're pretending that a thorough background check will be ineffective, by assigning to it the limitations you assume a thorough background check involves, and hoping to convince me and anyone reading that 'only radicals who've demonstrated' will be caught in that net.
What you're doing is dumbing down the discussion, WB. You're trying (and failing) to *prove* that a more thorough background check won't work. You have absolutely zero evidence on which to base it, but you just know that it won't. Surely you're capable of understanding why your argument is thoroughly uncompelling.
Andyou could prove me wrong by answering the question I asked in the last line. Exactly who is it that you think will tell the military that the kid is a racist?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
I already answered that. Your minimization of racist hate as mere 'political incorrectness' reveals your despicable standards. Pay attention.
I am paying attention. If you want me to rephrase it in different terms I would be happy to do so. But my questions remain and they are largely unanswered.
Andyou could prove me wrong by answering the question I asked in the last line. Exactly who is it that you think will tell the military that the kid is a racist?
A thorough background check involves more than friends, family and teachers. It includes neighbors, former neighbors, former co-workers, former boy/girlfriends and spouses, and those NOT considered 'friends'. Nice try.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Poor white racist christianist haters are being discriminated against when they hate everything about America. LOL
Interesting interpretation of what I said. You have to add a lot of fantasy to my words to get that. I have intentionally stayed away from discussing white supremists, because the rules would have to include all racist groups. And yet you, by virtue of that interpretation, want to show me as a defender of the neo-nazis.
I am paying attention. If you want me to rephrase it in different terms I would be happy to do so. But my questions remain and they are largely unanswered.
'Not liking' the answer doesn't mean one wasn't provided. Tough shit.
Watch the video, read the interview...lazy! You've been answered.Andyou could prove me wrong by answering the question I asked in the last line. Exactly who is it that you think will tell the military that the kid is a racist?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
A thorough background check involves more than friends, family and teachers. It includes neighbors, co-workers and those NOT considered 'friends'. Nice try.
And you think these would present some valid evidence of the recruits racist beliefs? I was in the military and around some people with serious security clearances. Those background investigations didn't show that they were drug users or had mental problems. But it came out later because of their actions (and continued drug use).
I would also wonder how through these checks would when they are done on the 200,000 or so recruits per year.
I would think that monitoring web sites concerning racist organizations for participation by active duty military would be more effective. I would also think a stricter policy concerning racist acts would be more effective. Both of those involve something the person actually did.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
'Not liking' the answer doesn't mean one wasn't provided. Tough shit.
So none of my questions were valid because I used the phrase "politically correct"? lol Too funny.
You aren't paying attention, at all. You do this and I think you just like to hear yourself talk because you go in circles. Can't you extrapolate? Isn't it clear to you that if someone does get into the military that their views become known very quickly? We used to have a culture of inclusiveness in the military but that changed during the Bush years...could it be because of privatization? I think that's part of it...but also our culture has been fractured with culture wars etc. The Fox entertainment calling itself news has a lot to do with it, along with the other talking head haters that spew hate and fear 24/7...yet you seem to think we're powerless to do anything about it due to what, constitutional issues, only with a Roberts court.Interesting interpretation of what I said. You have to add a lot of fantasy to my words to get that. I have intentionally stayed away from discussing white supremists, because the rules would have to include all racist groups. And yet you, by virtue of that interpretation, want to show me as a defender of the neo-nazis.
When? What years were you in the military?And you think these would present some valid evidence of the recruits racist beliefs? I was in the military and around some people with serious security clearances. Those background investigations didn't show that they were drug users or had mental problems. But it came out later because of their actions (and continued drug use).
I would also wonder how through these checks would when they are done on the 200,000 or so recruits per year.
I would think that monitoring web sites concerning racist organizations for participation by active duty military would be more effective. I would also think a stricter policy concerning racist acts would be more effective. Both of those involve something the person actually did.