American views of mil-service improve

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think a mandatory service of 2 years of service (military or peace corp) for all high school graduates would be a good idea.

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

There are constant clashes in the Bay Area between military recruiters and anti-war protesters. In Santa Cruz, SF, and Berkeley, namely.

I thought so. Not surprising at all.

isn't there always a clash between some protesters and someone around the bay area?

I think a mandatory service of 2 years of service (military or peace corp) for all high school graduates would be a good idea.

you're sounding republican.

[alienlovechild 75]

Doesn't refute the fact that people get bothered.

A lot of people got bothered during the election but it did serve public policy.

At least they can opt out of that and find a better job. No PTSD there.

They can opt out for another deadend job you mean.

"Nationally, veterans make about 40 percent more than non-veterans." Must be all that PTSD.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwexa/news/archive/2...0522-gavets.htm

Junior Reserve Officer Training Corp (JROTC), touted as an educational

program by schools and the military alike, serves as little more than an

intensive recruiting tool through which largely low-income children are

enticed by a sense of exceptionalism, comradeship and patriotic zeal.

∙ Often acting in consort with JROTC programs, recruiters make their

presence known at school and district-wide sporting events where

conversations about physical prowess can be easily turned toward options for

military service.

∙ Military "Adventure Vans" and other specially outfitted vehicles tour the

country with weapons simulators, high tech video presentations, and cadres

of highly trained recruiters who present themselves as educators.

∙ With a strong presence at career fairs, recruiters are able to attract

students who lack direction or academic prowess, or may be intimidated by

the financial burden of a college education.

What's bad about giving students info on the military? You've anti-recruiter types (in some areas) and a thing called the Internet if people want more unbiased info- even in the poorest areas.

WASHINGTON - Most military recruits in the United States come from areas in which household income is lower than the national median, a non-profit group says.

Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. The group looked at Department of Defense data for 2004.

According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.

The U.S. military has long been considered a step away from economic hardship, a trend that is apparently continuing.

Military recruiting officials contend money is not the only reason people join the military, since it also attracts those looking for an opportunity for public service, travel, and structure and discipline.

Your study only looked at 20 counties- lame stat compared to zip codes.

Of course not. These people are quite respectable, care about their community, and actually care about their country. Some believe that blindly serving is honorable. I think that it's disgraceful. I think actually finding out relevant information, like on Stop-Loss, would certainly be advisable, so someone gets the idea that once they're in the service, they better be ready for as many deployments and involuntary contract extensions as the government sees fit.

I'm not for anybody "blindly serving", getting useless college degrees, getting a deadend job. . .whatever. If your waiting for somebody to give you all the big answers in life you're gambling anyway. I tell people looking at the military to do their own research.

CBS News has reported that from asking teens to lie to their parents to guiding them through duping the drug-test system and forging documents, recruiters will go to many lengths to get young people to enlist. One Houston-area recruiter was caught on tape threatening jail time if an applicant didn't keep his appointment.

Each Army recruiter must enlist two people a month into the service. But the Army is 6,600 recruits behind where it wants to be at this point in the year, leaving questions whether the service will be able to fill every position needed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opinion surveys suggest that an increasing number of potential recruits and their parents are wary of the Army's recruiting pitch while soldiers are dying in Iraq.

Rochelle says recruiters taking shortcuts in recruiting "is simply not acceptable," CBS News reports. Almost 100 recruiters have been admonished and another eight have been relieved of their duties.

Rochelle said one problem has been with what the Army calls "influencers" — parents, coaches and others — recommending military service less often than they once did. After the Sept. 11 attacks, these influencers were likely to recommend military service 22 percent of the time, he said; now, Army studies show that figure has dropped to 14 percent.

Couldn't get that one by the filter but it looks like a 3 year-old source and some it is refuted by the OP itself. The recruiters aren't known for their honesty so again do some research instead of banning them outright.

"Point No. 1, while technically true, is also misleading. As the report states elsewhere, “The military requires at least 90 percent of enlisted recruits to have high-school diplomas” (not counting GED’s) and, furthermore, the Army itself requires a high-school diploma or equivalent, with a 2.5 G.P.A.

So high-school dropouts are, for the most part, not getting into the military. In fact, if you consider “low education” a proxy for “low income,” that would seem to explain most of the high-income effect we see in the graph above. This doesn’t make the graph any less true; it just makes the report’s language needlessly boastful.

Point No. 2 is particularly interesting, especially as you dig further into the report’s data. Whites and blacks make up almost exactly the same percent of the enlisted personnel as they do in the general population.

The recruit-to-population ratio for whites is 1.06, and for blacks it is 1.08. Hispanics, meanwhile, are significantly underrepresented among enlisted personnel, with a recruit-to-population ratio of just 0.65. (It should also be said that this entire report groups together personnel from all four service branches, which means that the aggregate numbers do not necessarily represent any one of the branches separately.)

It’s also interesting to note that blacks are overrepresented in R.O.T.C. commissions, with a 1.21 officer-to-population ratio, compared to 1.02 for whites. United States Military Academy graduates, however, are a different story entirely. Just over 80 percent of West Point graduates are white (a 1.12 officer-to-population ratio), while only 5.5 percent are black (a 0.5 ratio). Also, nearly 18 percent of West Point cadets come from a family with a household income of more than $100,000. Granted, West Point is an elite institution and is bound to attract elites.

There’s a further important point that can’t be found in this report but can be found in another one, which compiles race-specific U.S. military fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of March 1, 2008, there were 2,964 white fatalities in Iraq, representing 74.8 percent of the total; in the general population, meanwhile, whites in that age cohort make up about 62 percent of the population, so whites are overrepresented among Iraqi fatalities. Blacks and Hispanics, meanwhile, are both underrepresented; the same is true in Afghanistan.Point No. 3 is almost an ideological argument rather than a factual one. But still, this much is clear: when discussing the U.S. military in the aggregate, the common notion that the military is a stop of last resort, increasingly staffed by low-income desperadoes with slim future prospects, cannot be right."

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...military-today/

Edited November 10, 2008 by alienlovechild

[HAL 9000 96]

There are constant clashes in the Bay Area between military recruiters and anti-war protesters. In Santa Cruz, SF, and Berkeley, namely.

I thought so. Not surprising at all.

isn't there always a clash between some protesters and someone around the bay area?

I think a mandatory service of 2 years of service (military or peace corp) for all high school graduates would be a good idea.

you're sounding republican.

So many Republicans overseas with mandatory service...

National service is a great idea that will get plenty of Republican opposition for sounding like some Orwellian control device. All the while we ignore the Neo-con drive to deprive individuals of their ability to think independently.

[alienlovechild 75]

There are constant clashes in the Bay Area between military recruiters and anti-war protesters. In Santa Cruz, SF, and Berkeley, namely.

I thought so. Not surprising at all.

isn't there always a clash between some protesters and someone around the bay area?

I think a mandatory service of 2 years of service (military or peace corp) for all high school graduates would be a good idea.

you're sounding republican.

So many Republicans overseas with mandatory service...

National service is a great idea that will get plenty of Republican opposition for sounding like some Orwellian control device. All the while we ignore the Neo-con drive to deprive individuals of their ability to think independently.

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

[HAL 9000 96]

There are constant clashes in the Bay Area between military recruiters and anti-war protesters. In Santa Cruz, SF, and Berkeley, namely.

I thought so. Not surprising at all.

isn't there always a clash between some protesters and someone around the bay area?

I think a mandatory service of 2 years of service (military or peace corp) for all high school graduates would be a good idea.

you're sounding republican.

So many Republicans overseas with mandatory service...

National service is a great idea that will get plenty of Republican opposition for sounding like some Orwellian control device. All the while we ignore the Neo-con drive to deprive individuals of their ability to think independently.

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

ALC being prophetic again.

The above is my thinking, not anyone else's.

Now as for what's been proposed- which is where we're at at this point of the game... makes money for school contingent upon one kind or another of national service. Hardly something forced upon anyone.

[IAMX 3,055]

A lot of people got bothered during the election but it did serve public policy.

I'm fairly sure a politician sending recorded messages to people's house or campaigning at people's houses over the phone would piss people off, much akin to telemarketing. Because you're a military ###### of course you spin it with a positive light.

They can opt out for another deadend job you mean.

"Nationally, veterans make about 40 percent more than non-veterans." Must be all that PTSD.

Must be.

What's bad about giving students info on the military? You've anti-recruiter types (in some areas) and a thing called the Internet if people want more unbiased info- even in the poorest areas.

Evidently you must have been absent from the country when the major stings were done 3 and 4 years ago on military recruitment and their tactics, which most logical people, or those in high school in recent years, knew about. Evidently you're not young, and you're sure as hell not logical. Some were caught on video (too lazy to get the Youtube videos of the news briefs, but you seem to be a person who can find a source), others had it reported. Of course, military buffs had their panties twisted because of some retarded view that the military should be pressuring civilians, namely teenage students, into serving.

I'm not for anybody "blindly serving", getting useless college degrees, getting a deadend job. . .whatever. If your waiting for somebody to give you all the big answers in life you're gambling anyway. I tell people looking at the military to do their own research.

I do too, and those people I told to do the research, and even bothered giving them a helping hand to counter the recruiter spin, they more often than not opted out. I'd like to think I did some serving of my own in these regards.

Couldn't get that one by the filter but it looks like a 3 year-old source and some it is refuted by the OP itself. The recruiters aren't known for their honesty so again do some research instead of banning them outright.

.. 3 years ago when the stings were done, yes. Duh.

"Point No. 1, while technically true, is also misleading. As the report states elsewhere, “The military requires at least 90 percent of enlisted recruits to have high-school diplomas†(not counting GED’s) and, furthermore, the Army itself requires a high-school diploma or equivalent, with a 2.5 G.P.A.

So high-school dropouts are, for the most part, not getting into the military. In fact, if you consider “low education†a proxy for “low income,†that would seem to explain most of the high-income effect we see in the graph above. This doesn’t make the graph any less true; it just makes the report’s language needlessly boastful.

Point No. 2 is particularly interesting, especially as you dig further into the report’s data. Whites and blacks make up almost exactly the same percent of the enlisted personnel as they do in the general population.

The recruit-to-population ratio for whites is 1.06, and for blacks it is 1.08. Hispanics, meanwhile, are significantly underrepresented among enlisted personnel, with a recruit-to-population ratio of just 0.65. (It should also be said that this entire report groups together personnel from all four service branches, which means that the aggregate numbers do not necessarily represent any one of the branches separately.)

It’s also interesting to note that blacks are overrepresented in R.O.T.C. commissions, with a 1.21 officer-to-population ratio, compared to 1.02 for whites. United States Military Academy graduates, however, are a different story entirely. Just over 80 percent of West Point graduates are white (a 1.12 officer-to-population ratio), while only 5.5 percent are black (a 0.5 ratio). Also, nearly 18 percent of West Point cadets come from a family with a household income of more than $100,000. Granted, West Point is an elite institution and is bound to attract elites.

There’s a further important point that can’t be found in this report but can be found in another one, which compiles race-specific U.S. military fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of March 1, 2008, there were 2,964 white fatalities in Iraq, representing 74.8 percent of the total; in the general population, meanwhile, whites in that age cohort make up about 62 percent of the population, so whites are overrepresented among Iraqi fatalities. Blacks and Hispanics, meanwhile, are both underrepresented; the same is true in Afghanistan.Point No. 3 is almost an ideological argument rather than a factual one. But still, this much is clear: when discussing the U.S. military in the aggregate, the common notion that the military is a stop of last resort, increasingly staffed by low-income desperadoes with slim future prospects, cannot be right."

Question -- did you spend any time in a high school in recent years? Bother going to a career center? No? I didn't think so. I spent quite a bit of time there as I cared about my career. In there was also military recruiters boasting about recruitment targets, and looking at their targets, they were spot on toward people with the lowest GPA, as those with the higher GPA is (and this is only logical, including backed up by my sources) being recruited because scholarship funds tend not to give money to people with ####### grades. They also went toward minorities and poor students who more often than not fit in this catgory. So military is the obvious choice. Is this something you're in denial about? Maybe trying to spin it for the people here, or maybe just want to delude yourself?

This is likely why, despite the numerous reports about it, you're doing everything you can to dig up useless #### "statistics" about what's already widely known about recruitment tactics. If you're still in denial, it's simply obvious you have your head up the military's ###. Simple as that.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...refully?pg=full

Military recruiters target schools strategically

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | November 29, 2004

POMFRET, Md. -- Military recruiting saturates life at McDonough High, a working-class public school where recruiters chaperon dances, students in a junior ROTC class learn drills from a retired sergeant major in uniform, and every prospect gets called at least six times by the Army alone.

Recruiters distribute key chains, mugs, and military brochures at McDonough's cafeteria. They are trained to target students at schools like McDonough across the country, using techniques such as identifying a popular student -- whom they call a "center of influence" -- and conspicuously talking to that student in front of others.

Meanwhile, at McLean High, a more affluent public school 37 miles away in Virginia, there is no military chaperoning and no ROTC class. Recruiters adhere to a strict quota of visits, lining up behind dozens of colleges. In the guidance office, military brochures are dwarfed by college pennants. Posters promote life amid ivy-covered walls, not in the cockpits of fighter jets.

Students from McDonough are as much as six times more likely than those from McLean to join the military, a disparity that is replicated elsewhere. A survey of the military's recruitment system found that the Defense Department zeroes in on schools where students are perceived to be more likely to join up, while making far less effort at schools where students are steered toward college. (<--- duh)

Now, as pressure mounts on recruiters to find 180,000 volunteers amid casualty counts from Iraq and Afghanistan that have surpassed 1,300 dead and 10,000 wounded, the fairness of the system by which the nation persuades young people to take on the burden of national defense is coming under increasing scrutiny.

The Globe inquiry found that recruiters target certain schools and students for heavy recruitment, and then won't give up easily: Officers call the chosen students repeatedly, tracking their responses in a computer program the Army calls "the Blueprint." Eligible students are hit with a blitz of mailings and home visits. Recruiters go hunting wherever teens from a targeted area hang out, following them to sporting events, shopping malls, and convenience stores.

Officers are trained to analyze students and make a pitch according to what will strike a motivational chord -- job training, college scholarships, adventure, signing bonuses, or service to country. A high-school recruiting manual describes the Army as "a product which can be sold."

The manual offers tips for recruiters to make themselves "indispensable" to schools; suggests tactics such as reading yearbooks to "mysteriously" know something about a prospect to spark the student's curiosity; notes that "it is only natural for people to resist" and suggests ways to turn aside objections; and lists techniques for closing the deal, such as the "challenge close":

"This closing method works best with younger men," the manual reads. "You must be careful how you use this one. You must be on friendly terms with your prospect, or this may backfire. It works like this: When you find difficulty in closing, particularly when your prospect's interest seems to be waning, challenge his ego by suggesting that basic training may be too difficult for him and he might not be able to pass it. Then, if he accepts your challenge, you will be a giant step closer to getting him to enlist."

Varying targets

The Defense Department spends $2.6 billion each year on recruiting, including signing bonuses, college funds, advertising, recruiter pay, and administering the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The military pitches the test to schools as a free career exploration program, but which its manual notes is also "specifically designed" to "provide the recruiter with concrete and personal information about the student."

Nearly all efforts are aimed at impending or recent high school graduates. But the marketing message is not targeted equally, acknowledged Kurt Gilroy, who directs recruiting policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Although the military strives to maintain a presence everywhere "to give everyone an opportunity to enlist if they so choose," he said, it concentrates on places most likely to "maximize return on the recruiting dollar [because] the advertising and marketing research people tell us to go where the low-hanging fruit is. In other words, we fish where the fish are."

But targeting some schools more than others raises questions about fairness. While some students at targeted schools are eager to join, others may be unduly manipulated into signing up.

David Walsh, a psychologist who has written a book about the impact of media on the adolescent brain, says teenage brains are not yet fully developed. Studies have shown that teens' brain structures make them less independent of group opinion and less likely to consider long-term consequences than adults a few years older.

For the masses of teenagers who are not peer group leaders, Walsh said, an aggressive sales pitch can sway their decisions -- especially if the recruiter knows how to get coaches, counselors, and popular students to endorse enlisting.

Indeed, the Army trains its recruiters to do exactly that.

"Some influential students such as the student president or the captain of the football team may not enlist; however, they can and will provide you with referrals who will enlist," the Army's school recruiting handbook says. "More important is the fact that an informed student leader will respect the choice of enlistment."

Walsh says an approach like this is certain to persuade some teens at targeted schools to join up, while essentially identical teens at other schools will make other choices.

"What we end up doing is maintaining the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because they are the ones who are targeted to put their lives on the line and make sacrifices for the rest of us," Walsh said. "The kids with more options, we don't bother with them."

Keep up the denial.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

I am sure with as much fervor as with ACORN's alleged mass-fraud.

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

I am sure with as much fervor as with ACORN's alleged mass-fraud.

apparently you missed it when i posted it in ot. not surprising

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159583

[alienlovechild 75]

Evidently you must have been absent from the country when the major stings were done 3 and 4 years ago on military recruitment and their tactics, which most logical people, or those in high school in recent years, knew about. Evidently you're not young, and you're sure as hell not logical. Some were caught on video (too lazy to get the Youtube videos of the news briefs, but you seem to be a person who can find a source), others had it reported. Of course, military buffs had their panties twisted because of some retarded view that the military should be pressuring civilians, namely teenage students, into serving.

I was in the country at the time and it's small potatoes compared to 2 wars going on at the time. Your priorities stand on their head as usual.

I do too, and those people I told to do the research, and even bothered giving them a helping hand to counter the recruiter spin, they more often than not opted out. I'd like to think I did some serving of my own in these regards.

What kind of students today are so dumb they can't use a search engine and need some counter-recruiter to hold their hand. You think should also have anti-abortion groups trying to get young girls to avoid abortion? Different issue but same age groups.

Question -- did you spend any time in a high school in recent years? Bother going to a career center? No? I didn't think so. I spent quite a bit of time there as I cared about my career. In there was also military recruiters boasting about recruitment targets, and looking at their targets, they were spot on toward people with the lowest GPA, as those with the higher GPA is (and this is only logical, including backed up by my sources) being recruited because scholarship funds tend not to give money to people with ####### grades. So military is the obvious choice. Is this something you're in denial about? Maybe trying to spin it for the people here, or maybe just want to delude yourself?

I taught some in a high school in 2001. I doubt you spent anytime in uniform yourself so your uninformed on this one. Dude, I've been through more worthless career centers than you'll hopefully ever see complete with moronic career counselors paid to take up space. If you had read what I wrote you'd see the folks with the lowest GPAs aren't anywhere close to being in the majority. Oh, and your point about GPA types there solely for the G.I. Bill is ok but wrong knowing that only 1% of vets use all their benefits. I expected you'd ignore anything I looked up because facts like those are banned in your part of the country (at least from recruiters). What happened to your points on the poor and minorities. Certainly irrelevant when you look who's in the military and not finding a huge imbalance of minorities or the poor.

This is likely why, despite the numerous reports about it, you're doing everything you can to dig up useless #### "statistics" about what's already widely known about recruitment tactics. If you're still in denial, it's simply obvious you have your head up the military's ###. Simple as that.

The stats hold a lot more weight than old stories sobbing about tricky recruiters pretending to be original- sound like no dinosaurs in the Bible bit- you need new material. Denial is your middle name, SR Denial VT. I expected you'd ignore everything I looked up because facts like those are banned in your part of the country (at least from recruiters). Don't you have martial law to fight or something this week?

Edited November 10, 2008 by alienlovechild

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

I am sure with as much fervor as with ACORN's alleged mass-fraud.

apparently you missed it when i posted it in ot. not surprising

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159583

Oh the horror. Or selectively not considering HAL 9000 doesn't read every single post of every single thread.

As a matter of fact it appears everyone else ignored that thread too.

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

I am sure with as much fervor as with ACORN's alleged mass-fraud.

apparently you missed it when i posted it in ot. not surprising

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159583

Oh the horror. Or selectively not considering HAL 9000 doesn't read every single post of every single thread.

As a matter of fact it appears everyone else ignored that thread too.

it's not surprising, it shows that some dirty tricks were being played by the dems.

[IAMX 3,055]

I was in the country at the time and it's small potatoes compared to 2 wars going on at the time. Your priorities stand on their head as usual.

Yeah, I guess I should just focus on the war and nothing else. Can't possibly be anything else going on in this country, even though the war isn't even in this country.

What kind of students today are so dumb they can't use a search engine and need some counter-recruiter to hold their hand. You think should also have anti-abortion groups trying to get young girls to avoid abortion? Different issue but same age groups.

I taught some in a high school in 2001. I doubt you spent anytime in uniform yourself so your uninformed on this one. Dude, I've been through more worthless career centers than you'll hopefully ever see complete with moronic career counselors paid to take up space. If you had read what I wrote you'd see the folks with the lowest GPAs aren't anywhere close to being in the majority. Oh, and your point about GPA types there solely for the G.I. Bill is ok but wrong knowing that only 1% of vets use all their benefits. I expected you'd ignore anything I looked up because facts like those are banned in your part of the country (at least from recruiters). What happened to your points on the poor and minorities. Certainly irrelevant when you look who's in the military and not finding a huge imbalance of minorities or the poor.

I read what you wrote, and it's clearly a bunch of pro-military ####### that blatantly ignores every single article from a reputable source I've given. I guess all of those stings done on the military recruiters was just a big fat lie, huh? All faked. Military recruiters go after the rich and middle class, the poor just sit at home and just collect welfare, right? And with your attitude about students and career centers, it's hard to believe you were ever a teacher, and if you were, I sure as #### am thankful you're not -- and I bet plenty of others are too. People with your attitude don't belong in education, or anywhere around teenagers. Maybe you were fired, maybe you simply couldn't handle kids criticizing your views. The latter seems to be your biggest problem.

The stats hold a lot more weight than old stories sobbing about tricky recruiters pretending to be original- sound like no dinosaurs in the Bible bit- you need new material. Denial is your middle name, SR Denial VT. I expected you'd ignore everything I looked up because facts like those are banned in your part of the country (at least from recruiters). Don't you have martial law to fight or something this week?

Yeah, the Boston Globe and military.com are straight outta Frisco. I'm so in denial.

Shamelessly looking stupid as usual.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah right. That's why the Dems wanted military ballots thrown out in 2000. The main reason national service is pushed is so anti-military types can get college money for sweeping the streets. Most won't even sign up for the Peace Corps.

and 2008 too.

I am sure with as much fervor as with ACORN's alleged mass-fraud.

apparently you missed it when i posted it in ot. not surprising

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159583

Oh the horror. Or selectively not considering HAL 9000 doesn't read every single post of every single thread.

As a matter of fact it appears everyone else ignored that thread too.

it's not surprising, it shows that some dirty tricks were being played by the some dems.

Sure why not? However, I did make it more accurate for you.