Is there a double standard?

[pidgeball6]

I noticed this (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/210741_protest04.html) today, and I was thinking about the Churchill 'Eichman' response on CU's campus. Ward Churchill is the professor from the University of Colorado who made some inflammatory comments that got alot of people steamed at him. When he held a packed rally, on campus, lots of people who disagreed with him showed up to voice their outrage, but it didn't get out of hand.
The army sends a recruiter to a Seattle community college and he gets mobbed by protesters. Campus security had to give them an escort to leave.

Now, if Churchill represents a far left view, and the army recruiter represents the right, why is the reaction only violent in one case?

[shade]

The left is always more violent/aggresive nowadays. I see it every week at my campus too.

[Hermit]

Seattle is a very progressive "lefty" town. I wouldn't expect the same response in say, Nashville, TN. Righties are violent too, look at what goes on around abortion clinics. Now, an abortion clinic in Seattle might not have any problems, but what about the one in Nashville? Neither side is justified to use violence. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

[TFS]

"I'm not prepared to go on a witch hunt," she said. "We did the best we could do in this, and I believe the students have learned something and we're going to move forward."

Yeah, they learned they can get away with rioting. The fact is, they knew one group that was involved and they should be punished even if others don't get punished. All this does is send the message that they can dupe the university easily because they don't care enough to follow through.

I saw something on this on Hannity and Colmes tonight. They had to students in that SAW group. Asked them if they condone throwing bottles and other things. The kids refused to answer it saying it wasn't the issue, nothing was thrown, all they did was rip pamphlets, etc. They obviously threw stuff, and even if they did just rip pamphlets, that's still unacceptable behavior.

The military didn't choose the war, the administration did. That's how all US wars are. To protest/harass anyone in the military for a war is just stupid and ignorant. It's not like the guy was there to draft people, it's an all-volunteer military. He had a table set up for anyone interested to stop at and ask questions. He wasn't going door-to-door.

I find their behavior appalling and reprehensable. No wonder they go to a community college.

[vchampionl70]

And they are supposed to be the rational, learned ones. Just pitiful...

[Nocturnal]

The military didn't choose the war, the administration did. That's how all US wars are. To protest/harass anyone in the military for a war is just stupid and ignorant. It's not like the guy was there to draft people, it's an all-volunteer military. He had a table set up for anyone interested to stop at and ask questions. He wasn't going door-to-door.

I find their behavior appalling and reprehensable. No wonder they go to a community college.

I agree, and the community college thing might just be your answer.

there is a good chance that the numbers of people that disagreed with the message affected the reponse also, people are more willing to be violent in groups. It is human nature. I would like to see the responce that Eichman guy would get visiting a large group of young men from somewhere in the deep south. I fear it would be much the same.

Harassing a military recruiter is:
1. rude
2. stupid and pointless
3. unpatriotic
4. worthy of a good kick in the ass

[shade]

Righties are violent too, look at what goes on around abortion clinics. Now, an abortion clinic in Seattle might not have any problems, but what about the one in Nashville? Yeah, lets compare the violent reaction to the spreading of ideas to the violent reaction to perceived murder. :rolleyes:

[kevinsmith]

Yeah, lets compare the violent reaction to the spreading of ideas to the violent reaction to perceived murder. :rolleyes:

As much as I agree with the point, the killing of people at a clinic is still hypocrasy. Just like greenies complaining about development hurting the environment, so then they burn down an entire subdivision. (It's happened) Yeah, the smoke and debris and pollutants didn't hurt the environment at all did they. Or don't you dare cut down this tree, it hurts it. So I"m going to drive spikes into it hurt the logger. hmmm....good thinking Flower Child.
The people who protest the war saying violence is never the answer, will invariably fight over their beliefs. Very amusing.

[Nocturnal]

As much as I agree with the point, the killing of people at a clinic is still hypocrasy. Just like greenies complaining about development hurting the environment, so then they burn down an entire subdivision. (It's happened) Yeah, the smoke and debris and pollutants didn't hurt the environment at all did they. Or don't you dare cut down this tree, it hurts it. So I"m going to drive spikes into it hurt the logger. hmmm....good thinking Flower Child.
The people who protest the war saying violence is never the answer, will invariably fight over their beliefs. Very amusing.

don't forget the eco-terrorists that burn down lots full of SUV's (jeez, doesn't that mean more will be made) or bunny huggers that ruin people's fur coats (they will be replaced, by more dead animals)

[wataba]

Yeah, lets compare the violent reaction to the spreading of ideas to the violent reaction to perceived murder. :rolleyes:
Well, you could call what the protesters did merely a violent reaction to perceived murder also. If it's how they view the military. I don't agree with it, but you can easily find the parallels in any case.

And I don't notice the violence on those affiliated with the left, all my friends are typical 'peace loving hippies', but maybe it isn't like that elsewhere.

EDIT: and it's interesting someone brought up the double standard with the abortion clinic bombings, but the people who do or support that represent such an extreme minority. I figure most people who'd go to such extremes as to advocate domestic violence because of their political ideology are pretty small minorities, and it'd be pretty stupid to use them as a way to put the blame on a group of people with similar ideology, like the way many characterize even many moderate and peaceful muslims as terrorists.

[pidgeball6]

The 'official' reason behind the protests, and the reason they're allowed is because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military conflicting with the "non-discriminating based on sexual orientation" policy of the schools.

[mps]

I think it depends on what they were recruiting for. If it was for the Iraq war, then yeah, people are going to do anything possible to stop their friends or family from being persuaded into that mess, since it’s obvious it’s not about protecting America. But if it was for something like the National Guard, or just the military in general, doesn't that fall under the category of free speech? Sure the protesters have that right, but so do people that might not share their view. The 1st amendment, last time I checked, applied to everyone, so banning a group from speaking on campus is ridiculous.

What’s the difference between outlawing Army recruiters from speaking, and outlawing the Black Panthers? It’s strange that one is an acceptable form of discrimination. Just because they’re recruiting doesn’t mean you have to listen to them, or do what they say. But again, if it’s specifically for the Iraq war, what else did they expect?

[TFS]

I think it depends on what they were recruiting for. If it was for the Iraq war, then yeah, people are going to do anything possible to stop their friends or family from being persuaded into that mess, since it’s obvious it’s not about protecting America. But if it was for something like the National Guard, or just the military in general, doesn't that fall under the category of free speech? Sure the protesters have that right, but so do people that might not share their view. The 1st amendment, last time I checked, applied to everyone, so banning a group from speaking on campus is ridiculous.

What’s the difference between outlawing Army recruiters from speaking, and outlawing the Black Panthers? It’s strange that one is an acceptable form of discrimination. Just because they’re recruiting doesn’t mean you have to listen to them, or do what they say. But again, if it’s specifically for the Iraq war, what else did they expect?

All I had to read was your first sentence. That's bull. No one recruits for a war, that'd be a draft. The recruitor does not specifically recruit for Guard, Active Duty, or Reserve purposes, that's up to the recruitee to pick between. Besides, the Guard is getting called to go to Iraq these days too, just for your personal knowledge, and I think that's wrong, it's not what they were established for.

ONCE AGAIN: THERE IS NOT ANYONE RECRUITING FOR IRAQ.

Beyond that, this thread isn't about them protesting, it's about how they protested. They threw things at him and destroyed government property by ripping up the pamphlets (small price, I know, but still, it's excessive behavior). This wasn't a protest, it was a riot. And the college was not trying to ban their right to speak, they were trying to disassociate the group from the college, as in, the group can exist, but will not receive any funds or other aid from the college.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

We got tired of seeing conservatives having all the fun being violent, now we gotta step it up.

[kevinsmith]

All I had to read was your first sentence. That's bull. No one recruits for a war, that'd be a draft. The recruitor does not specifically recruit for Guard, Active Duty, or Reserve purposes, that's up to the recruitee to pick between. Besides, the Guard is getting called to go to Iraq these days too, just for your personal knowledge, and I think that's wrong, it's not what they were established for.

ONCE AGAIN: THERE IS NOT ANYONE RECRUITING FOR IRAQ.

Beyond that, this thread isn't about them protesting, it's about how they protested. They threw things at him and destroyed government property by ripping up the pamphlets (small price, I know, but still, it's excessive behavior). This wasn't a protest, it was a riot. And the college was not trying to ban their right to speak, they were trying to disassociate the group from the college, as in, the group can exist, but will not receive any funds or other aid from the college.


Dude, I hate to take MPS's side, and Lord knows its a rare occurence, but minus that sentence about which you are concerned, it's a pretty darn good post.

[bergshadow]

1) I don't think recruiting and making analytical speeches are comparable: what Churchill was doing is not at all the same thing as what this army guy was doing. The political stance and intellectual opinions of the Army guy are not even known, let alone relevant, and Churchill has done no recruiting for leftwing military groups at all, that anyone has mentioned, let alone at his speeches.

2) If the army guy had presented a rightwing analysis of US foreign policy in an auditorium, including a polemic against cowards who take liberties provided by others for granted, would he have been hounded from city to city by national news media calling for his persecution and dismissal?

3) The army guy was out in the public space with his pamphlets and such, accosting passersby. Leftwing people who have done stuff like that have had their pamphlets ripped up, been maced and spit on and beaten - public political activity carries risks for all, if that's what he was doing. It isn't right, but it isn't a danger to rightists in particular.

4) The army guy cannot be banned from campus without it costing the college a lot of money - his political views, if any, are forced on the community. If Churchill wants to speak, the college is free to say no. So protests against the mere presence of the army guy have more reason.

5) Speaking specifically of Seattle, leftists protesting against the WTO talks a few months ago, perfectly peaceful ones with little signs and cheers and pamphlets and all legalities observed, got the shit beaten out them by mobs of violent attackers. People sitting at little tables with pamphlets, accosting people in public areas with political opinions and information, got hit with water cannons and teargas, their eyes maced, their teeth broken, their heads cuncussed, their spines and feet beaten with clubs, their shoulders wrenched and fingers dislocated, and were dragged across cement to be thrown bodily into vans. Oh, and their pamphlets were ripped up and stepped on. Maybe this army guy got off easy, due to the double standard applied to the expression of rightwing political views in this country?

But I don't think so. I think he was abused by jerks, and deserves an apology.

[mps]

TFS, for your reading pleasure:

if
conj.

1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.

I don't know how the recruiting works in the States, that's why I said if. Here, in Canada, they have specific recuiters for specific parts of the military. Navy recruiters for the Navy, Army recruiters for the Army, etc. So again, if they were recruting specifically for Iraq, the response seems reasonable.

Or maybe if you'd read past the first point you disagree with, you'd see my point. But that's a big if.

[kevinsmith]

MPS,
We too have specific recruiters for each division of the military: Army, Airforce, Marines and Navy. Each recruiter does just that, recruits people to join their particular branch. Now, no one is recruited for any specific purpose. They get their assignment at the end of bootcamp. During a war, the majority of people will likely end up where ever that war is taking place. However, they may get assigned elsewhere, as we have other bases and other insterests around the rest of the world that need personnel as well.

[vchampionl70]

I think it depends on what they were recruiting for. If it was for the Iraq war, then yeah, people are going to do anything possible to stop their friends or family from being persuaded into that mess, since it’s obvious it’s not about protecting America. But if it was for something like the National Guard, or just the military in general, doesn't that fall under the category of free speech? Sure the protesters have that right, but so do people that might not share their view. The 1st amendment, last time I checked, applied to everyone, so banning a group from speaking on campus is ridiculous.

What’s the difference between outlawing Army recruiters from speaking, and outlawing the Black Panthers? It’s strange that one is an acceptable form of discrimination. Just because they’re recruiting doesn’t mean you have to listen to them, or do what they say. But again, if it’s specifically for the Iraq war, what else did they expect?

Unless I misread the article, the protest happened at a community college. That's governmentally funded in large part, and part of the agreement that the government has with the college in return for money is that they be allowed to recruit at the school. The kids there are just being stupid - if they chase away the recruiters, the government - run by Bush - has the authority to withdraw funding. Is that really what they want? This is a fine example of why stupid people should not be allowed to rule.

TFS, for your reading pleasure:

if
conj.

1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.

I don't know how the recruiting works in the States, that's why I said if. Here, in Canada, they have specific recuiters for specific parts of the military. Navy recruiters for the Navy, Army recruiters for the Army, etc. So again, if they were recruting specifically for Iraq, the response seems reasonable.

Or maybe if you'd read past the first point you disagree with, you'd see my point. But that's a big if.

Maybe if you weren't so haughty, people would agree with you more often. Honestly, you're way too critical... no mean. You're just a cold, cold person.

[mps]

What’s the difference between outlawing Army recruiters from speaking, and outlawing the Black Panthers? It’s strange that one is an acceptable form of discrimination. Just because they’re recruiting doesn’t mean you have to listen to them, or do what they say.

Yeah, I'm cold.

People seem to agree with me quite a bit actually. Just few voice their opinion in public here.

[TFS]

TFS, for your reading pleasure:

if
conj.

1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.

I don't know how the recruiting works in the States, that's why I said if. Here, in Canada, they have specific recuiters for specific parts of the military. Navy recruiters for the Navy, Army recruiters for the Army, etc. So again, if they were recruting specifically for Iraq, the response seems reasonable.

Or maybe if you'd read past the first point you disagree with, you'd see my point. But that's a big if.

If you don't know, shut up or ask, don't set up hypothetical situations that'll cause other people to think something is going on that really isn't. This isn't a thread about hypothetical situations. Recruiters are on all gov.-funded schools all the time. They're in public high schools all the time. They don't recruit for wars, because that's stupid and no one who wants to join just to fight should be allowed to join because they have a screw loose, and the military knows that. The military's main purpose is to win wars, but it serves other purposes too, none of which you even know, so shut up about something you're obviously oblivious about. The fact is recruiters set up a table and say "hey, we're here as an option, so if you're interested, ask away, no strings attatched." It's not like they had nets and were dragging people out of dorms and shipping them off to Iraq.

And don't try to give me an education on the word "if." How about IF I ram your head into a wall, you condescending piece of crap?

[mps]

And don't try to give me an education on the word "if." How about IF I ram your head into a wall, you condescending piece of crap?

:icon_rofl The only thing sillier than an empty-threat is an empty-threat over the internet.

I wonder what the selling point is used by recruiters now? What percentage of people would actually see time in Iraq, or some other country to be named later? 10%? 5%? Lower/Higher? Even if there's a small possibility of involvement, a lot of people aren't even going to take the risk if they believe the Iraq war is a joke. So while they don't recruit specifically for war - some of the recruits might likely see action at some point, right?

No shit though that the military serves other purposes; keep talking away like you know me, or better yet try your hand again with another one your oh-so-scary threats. I have no doubts you'll make a fine soldier.

[TFS]

:icon_rofl The only thing sillier than an empty-threat is an empty-threat over the internet.

I wonder what the selling point is used by recruiters now? What percentage of people would actually see time in Iraq, or some other country to be named later? 10%? 5%? Lower/Higher? Even if there's a small possibility of involvement, a lot of people aren't even going to take the risk if they believe the Iraq war is a joke. So while they don't recruit specifically for war - some of the recruits might likely see action at some point, right?

No shit though that the military serves other purposes; keep talking away like you know me, or better yet try your hand again with another one your oh-so-scary threats. I have no doubts you'll make a fine soldier.

Got ya, it wasn't a threat, it was a hypothetical situation because I used the word "if." :D Thanks for playing, and please, don't call us, we'll call you. Not sure what yet, but we'll think of something.

And you're right, many recruits do see time in Iraq. That's why, like you said, if they don't want to risk it, they don't sign up.

The selling point is job security, and financial aid with college and grad school. Or "hey, did you know if you sign up and pick this job, you can enjoy these great experiences that few other people get?" Join the Navy, see the world...

What these "protestors" did is wrong because they obstructed other students' ability to learn about an option they have. They limited the knowledge that there's another way to go about school for someone who might need it. Don't try to defend it. Anytime a protest gives way to violence, whoever committed the first act is definitely wrong, and in this case, it's the protestors.

If they don't want to risk it, they can walk on by and not look back. Once again, you're treating it like they were hunting for people when all they did was make themselves available.

[mps]

I guess you don't know what the phrase empty-threat means. It's suppositional, as in hypothetical. Anyways...

What the protestors did wrong was resort to violence, but they did accomplish their goal, did they not? I wouldn't have done it that way; I'd just have walked past and maybe laughed a little bit, but I wouldn't have thrown anything at them. But like I said before, freedom of speech applies to everyone, so an attempt to stop people from speaking because someone doesn't agree with it is a little curious. If protestors had tried to stop the Black Panthers from speaking, or thrown water-bottle at them, wouldn't there be an uproar about it? Probably, so this is some form of "acceptable discrimination".

But in their defense, setting up a military recruitment table at a community college is kind of like setting up a desert table at a fat camp. The students there are more susceptable to the lure of job security, or financial aid, so I can see why some wouldn't even want them there at all. Everyone knows the military exists, and everyone knows it can be a viable option - so why even bother with such things? If he was warned about the protests beforehand, did he think some people were going to cross the picketline and pick up a pamphlet?

[TFS]

I guess you don't know what the phrase empty-threat means. It's suppositional, as in hypothetical. Anyways...

Grow up, accept the fact that you suck. You keep saying how you don't appreciate the insults you get and how no one here likes you. I'll give you a subtle hint: it's YOU, not us. You keep trying to act as if you're smarter than everyone, and all you do is suck even more because you get caught in your own web and refuse to admit you suck.

What the protestors did wrong was resort to violence, but they did accomplish their goal, did they not? I wouldn't have done it that way; I'd just have walked past and maybe laughed a little bit, but I wouldn't have thrown anything at them. But like I said before, freedom of speech applies to everyone, so an attempt to stop people from speaking because someone doesn't agree with it is a little curious. If protestors had tried to stop the Black Panthers from speaking, or thrown water-bottle at them, wouldn't there be an uproar about it? Probably, so this is some form of "acceptable discrimination".

Freedom of speech ends where violence begins. A recruiter is very different from a Black Panther. No one's saying they can't voice their opinions, anyways, they're just saying they should be getting support from the school, who has to allow the recruiter to be there as part of the agreement for government funding. The students don't like it, let them speak, but don't let them throw stuff.

But in their defense, setting up a military recruitment table at a community college is kind of like setting up a desert table at a fat camp. The students there are more susceptable to the lure of job security, or financial aid, so I can see why some wouldn't even want them there at all. Everyone knows the military exists, and everyone knows it can be a viable option - so why even bother with such things? If he was warned about the protests beforehand, did he think some people were going to cross the picketline and pick up a pamphlet?

If they're so susceptable to it, why are they so against it for those same reasons? You contradicted yourself. If anything, they'll be more likely to actively avoid something being protested like that because they don't want to draw the ire of the crowd.

Yes, everyone knows it exists, but not everyone knows of all the options there are within it. Very few people do. I come from a military family, my dad's a colonel who went through a military high school, rotc in college, and both my sisters had rotc scholarships in college (both dropped them because the military turned out to be not right for them, but they tried it out), and when I stepped up we were told of all these other options available for students who want to be officers that no one in my family knew about before this last year. Heck, only a handful of people in rotc with me know about the program I'm in with the Guard. So, it's important for the recruiters to be there to get the info out so people know all their options, whether they use them or not, knowledge is power.

As far as crossing the picjet line, student protests aren't like union protests, anyone can cross the line anytime. Whether or not they do is up to them.

My point is people have the right to know their options, and this guy had info on some of them.

These morons were protesting the war by throwing stuff at a soldier, which is wrong and stupid.

Oh, BTW, you spelled "dessert" wrong. There's 2 s's. one s is the place with sand. Just wanted to add this to make you think, and I know what you're thinking: "ow, my ovaries!"

[kevinsmith]

Everyone knows the military exists, and everyone knows it can be a viable option - so why even bother with such things? If he was warned about the protests beforehand, did he think some people were going to cross the picketline and pick up a pamphlet?

Everyone knows about Budweiser Beer? So why do they spend millions on advertising? Everyone knows about Las Vegas, so why do THEY spend millions trying to get customers.
Because it's all about top of mind awareness. Yes, even when it comes to military recruiting. Sure, people know it's out there, but perhaps they never thought about it. Or thought about it and never acted. Either way, the recruiter just made a connection, and once that connection is made, then they are more likely to get that person recruited into the military.
Plus your argument is somewhat hipocritical in that you don't want to deny the protestors their right to free speech, and you said you don't want to deny the recruiter that either, however you then attack his being there since peopel at a community college are "more suceptible" to his message. Which way is it dude?

[mps]

TFS, I wonder how long it will take you to realize you're arguing with yourself.

Everyone knows about Budweiser Beer? So why do they spend millions on advertising? Everyone knows about Las Vegas, so why do THEY spend millions trying to get customers.

I don't know if that's an appropriate correlation, since TFS just told me that it's more about showing people their options, whereas advertising is about luring people to buy the product.

I'm not saying that the recruiter shouldn't be there though; I'm saying it seems to be a spark for protest. Most who go to a community college are either inner-city kids, or those who's income is low (not saying all, but most). So to set up a table that gives people a way out of that situation is kind of a trap. I can only imagine that to some students at community college, the military recruitment desk might look like a way out of their situation - and the protests might be a way of saying "don't pity us".

I'm going to try finding some numbers as to where most military recruitments take place. I'll do it tonight. If it can be shown that most recruitments come from lower-incomed famalies, the theory might hold water. We'll see...

[kevinsmith]

TFS, I wonder how long it will take you to realize you're arguing with yourself.



I don't know if that's an appropriate correlation, since TFS just told me that it's more about showing people their options, whereas advertising is about luring people to buy the product.

I'm not saying that the recruiter shouldn't be there though; I'm saying it seems to be a spark for protest. Most who go to a community college are either inner-city kids, or those who's income is low (not saying all, but most). So to set up a table that gives people a way out of that situation is kind of a trap. I can only imagine that to some students at community college, the military recruitment desk might look like a way out of their situation - and the protests might be a way of saying "don't pity us".

I'm going to try finding some numbers as to where most military recruitments take place. I'll do it tonight. If it can be shown that most recruitments come from lower-incomed famalies, the theory might hold water. We'll see...


Dude, don't give that crap that the protesting is because they feel the military is pitying them. They are protesting because they feel the military stands for everything they are against. (Note the word feel...most of the time their arguments are based around emotion, and rarely logic. They just don't see that until they get older.)
Now, when it comes to the majority of military people are from poor families, that may be the case. But why is that wrong? People see it as a chance to get ahead in life. They get a good college education that they might not otherwise have been able to afford, and after their hitch, they have the experience to get a better job than they otherwise would have. The military gets a soldeir out of the deal, and all those that are involved are happy. So where's the victim in this situation? (And don't say some Iraqi kid or some emotional BS like that...that is for a debate on the war itself.) It all boils down to the lefties that caused this problem hate the military. And that's fine, they have the right to express it. But the second their expression of that right prevents somebody from acting on their own free will to join the military, or even LEARN about it as an option in this case, they over extended their rights.

[shade]

Well, you could call what the protesters did merely a violent reaction to perceived murder also. If it's how they view the military. I don't agree with it, but you can easily find the parallels in any case. For this exact case, yes. However the kind of events that are done by conservatives at my school in now way could be perceived as murder, yet we receive pretty violent reactions at times. We were forced to leave once by the police because of "danger."

When we were promoting equal opportunity.

[Asbestos Crayon]

Hmm... maybe it's because they don't think they will get their ass kicked.

If some one starts crowding me, I ask nicely just once before I start pushing back. I don't like being confrentation and I don't like getting crowded by people. Especially people yelling something at me.

Here is another example of the left being a little weird. The week before the elections last year a latino group that backed a democratic candidate put up paper head stones of all the latino americans killed in Iraq on a large grassy area at The University of Texas as Dallas. This just happened to be right before that candidate had a ralley there on campus. Less than a week later all the markers came down.

This is discusting for the following reasons. It was a use of these soldiers death for political gain. A proper perminant memorial was not used. Finally, it is against Texas law for any state university to supply money to a group that may use that money for political purposes. Nothing was said about this in Dallas, which really pisses me off.

My point, be respectful to these soldiers, and give them a proper, honorable memorial; and do it with out basing it on politics and race.

[TexasAggie]

Here is another example of the left being a little weird. The week before the elections last year a latino group that backed a democratic candidate put up paper head stones of all the latino americans killed in Iraq on a large grassy area at The University of Texas as Dallas. This just happened to be right before that candidate had a ralley there on campus. Less than a week later all the markers came down.


I go to high school less than a mile away from UTD and heard nothing of the incident...

[mps]

Dude, don't give that crap that the protesting is because they feel the military is pitying them. They are protesting because they feel the military stands for everything they are against.

Note that I said “maybe”. While they probably oppose war in all forms, they might also follow the agenda put forth by the “Books not Bombs” movement. One of the points in their call-to-action is: In place of decent jobs and schools, young people have been given military recruiters, who get students' information without their permission. Low-income youth and youth of color have been extensively targeted by military recruiters just as they have been consistently denied access to higher education. I’m not saying I agree with the statement, just that it does appear to be a valid reason for protesting against recruitments on campus.

Now, when it comes to the majority of military people are from poor families, that may be the case. But why is that wrong? People see it as a chance to get ahead in life. They get a good college education that they might not otherwise have been able to afford, and after their hitch, they have the experience to get a better job than they otherwise would have. The military gets a soldeir out of the deal, and all those that are involved are happy. So where's the victim in this situation?

How about the recruits that wind up dying in combat, and their family and friends? How about the anxiety placed on them associated with overseas deployment?

Aside from that small percentage though, the victims are those who are led to believe their only way out of the situation is with the militaries help. Point of fact: you don’t need money to go to college, just brains. If you work hard enough you can get and sustain a scholarship – or, you can be led to believe that the only way you’ll get anywhere is with someone else’s help. Personally, I would find that demeaning and offensive. No one should be made to feel like they have no other options. The situation seems incongruous: at an institution of higher learning, there are recruitments for those who might not be able to make it on their own. Strange.

But the second their expression of that right prevents somebody from acting on their own free will to join the military, or even LEARN about it as an option in this case, they over extended their rights.

If such people exist, why haven’t they made themselves heard?

[Maverick]

If such people exist, why haven’t they made themselves heard?
He is right your rights end when they infringe on someone else’s rights.

On a side note: Had the students been gay and the recruiter been a Christian with a megaphone he would be facing charges and up to 47 years in prison. No, what I meant was if he were gay and, oh never mind, I’m so stupid. Why did I say that? :thud:

[mps]

I know he's right, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this situation.

[TFS]

Note that I said “maybe”. While they probably oppose war in all forms, they might also follow the agenda put forth by the “Books not Bombs” movement. One of the points in their call-to-action is: In place of decent jobs and schools, young people have been given military recruiters, who get students' information without their permission. Low-income youth and youth of color have been extensively targeted by military recruiters just as they have been consistently denied access to higher education. I’m not saying I agree with the statement, just that it does appear to be a valid reason for protesting against recruitments on campus.



How about the recruits that wind up dying in combat, and their family and friends? How about the anxiety placed on them associated with overseas deployment?

Aside from that small percentage though, the victims are those who are led to believe their only way out of the situation is with the militaries help. Point of fact: you don’t need money to go to college, just brains. If you work hard enough you can get and sustain a scholarship – or, you can be led to believe that the only way you’ll get anywhere is with someone else’s help. Personally, I would find that demeaning and offensive. No one should be made to feel like they have no other options. The situation seems incongruous: at an institution of higher learning, there are recruitments for those who might not be able to make it on their own. Strange.



If such people exist, why haven’t they made themselves heard?

No one ever said they portray it as the only way out. I was well aware of my options coming to school, and from a well-off family, and I still joined because I liked this deal above others. Any good recruiter will tell you to explore all your options and make sure the military is right for you before signing on. They don't want to bring people in who won't work well in the system.

Show us where it says they target low-income families like that with those tactics. The people who say that have been known to use inderhanded tactics to further their agendas, as many modern activist-type groups do.

How can you sit there and claim anyone was made to feel they had no other choice, they're at college, aren't they?

This discussion is about whether they blocked a man from making information of options available to people. You have yet to prove he was hounding people or using underhanded tactics to sucker anyone into a bad situation. All he did was set up a table and lay out pamphlets.

Those kids attacked him, mobbed him, destroyed those pamphlets for reasons that are unacceptable. Their behavior was not becoming responsible, mature, young adults.

I'll tell you, every recruiter I've worked with has never used any of those lame tactics.

And, isn't earning and sustaining a scholarship getting somewhere with someone's help?

Oh, how are those ovaries healing up?

[Asbestos Crayon]

I go to high school less than a mile away from UTD and heard nothing of the incident...


http://www.utdmercury.com/news/788069.html

Click on snap shots. Its the first picture.

http://www.utdmercury.com/news/787261.html

It was in corispondence to this ralley by Martin Frost. By the way, he was defeated.

The tomb stones had martin frost signs around them by the way. That is why I am saying it was because of him.

[mps]

No one ever said they portray it as the only way out. I was well aware of my options coming to school, and from a well-off family, and I still joined because I liked this deal above others. Any good recruiter will tell you to explore all your options and make sure the military is right for you before signing on. They don't want to bring people in who won't work well in the system.

You told me that some of the selling points are job security and financial aid for schooling. So how is there Job Security if you can be shipped overseas? If they're telling you to explore all your options, why don't they leave you be and let you explore all that college has to offer? But if you want job security, join the PostOffice - equal chance of getting shot at, but the Uniform is not quite as cool.

They don't want to bring people in who won't work well in the system? yeah right. What are the exlcusion parametres? Would I be able to get in, even though I would obviously not work well within the system?

Show us where it says they target low-income families like that with those tactics. The people who say that have been known to use inderhanded tactics to further their agendas, as many modern activist-type groups do.

You said it yourself: job security and financial aid. You can't tell me that's not more appealing to some who is in the low-income bracket. Their financial aid comes at the expense of a few years of your life and personal thought process. Their job security means you have a job with them, but you might have to die doing something you don't agree with. Seems like a trap door to me. You live in America, the land of opputunity, why not take advantage of that? And don't give me that shit about "protecting the motherland" - there's no threat to America right now.

How can you sit there and claim anyone was made to feel they had no other choice, they're at college, aren't they?

It was a community college - not exactly where knowledge hungry people aspire to attend.

This discussion is about whether they blocked a man from making information of options available to people. You have yet to prove he was hounding people or using underhanded tactics to sucker anyone into a bad situation. All he did was set up a table and lay out pamphlets.

Nor did I say he was. I said that the "Bombs not Books" movement claims that the military recruitment officers target low-income students and minorities.

Those kids attacked him, mobbed him, destroyed those pamphlets for reasons that are unacceptable. Their behavior was not becoming responsible, mature, young adults.

They've learned from the best. :rolleyes:

I'll tell you, every recruiter I've worked with has never used any of those lame tactics.

I guess its a good thing I didn't ask then.

And, isn't earning and sustaining a scholarship getting somewhere with someone's help?

Earning a scholarship isn't as easy as signing your name to a piece of paper. Sustaining a scholarship isn't the same as undergoing bootcamp.

Oh, how are those ovaries healing up?

Won't your dad get angry with you for conversing with me?

[Sketcher]

It was a community college - not exactly where knowledge hungry people aspire to attend.

Although that does make sense, it's not necessarily true. I go to a private University and I just saw a couple of Marine recruiters a few days ago in fact. They don't just target the "dumbed down" college students.

[TFS]

You told me that some of the selling points are job security and financial aid for schooling. So how is there Job Security if you can be shipped overseas? If they're telling you to explore all your options, why don't they leave you be and let you explore all that college has to offer? But if you want job security, join the PostOffice - equal chance of getting shot at, but the Uniform is not quite as cool.

They don't want to bring people in who won't work well in the system? yeah right. What are the exlcusion parametres? Would I be able to get in, even though I would obviously not work well within the system?

How can they explore the options if they're not made aware of them. The presence of the recruiter reminds them, "hey, what's the military got to offer?"

How is getting shipped over seas not job security if you keep getting paid for your military service? Honestly, think before you post on this topic again. They don't fire people who are deployed.

You said it yourself: job security and financial aid. You can't tell me that's not more appealing to some who is in the low-income bracket. Their financial aid comes at the expense of a few years of your life and personal thought process. Their job security means you have a job with them, but you might have to die doing something you don't agree with. Seems like a trap door to me. You live in America, the land of opputunity, why not take advantage of that? And don't give me that shit about "protecting the motherland" - there's no threat to America right now.

While that's attractive, so is this $7,000 scholarship I was offered today. It's an option I didn't know I had last year, and pays more than the army. I might have taken it instead if I ahd known about it. It's an example of an option I had I didn't know about, so I went with one I did know about, and I can't say I'm disappointed with my choice, but it would have been nice to know this other one existed. And no, the military didn't block it from reaching me.

Talk to any NCO out there. Talk to any officer. They all have their individual thought processes well intact.

As far as the few years and dying in combat, you know it's a possibility going into it, so if it aint worth it, you aint right for the military. Something you need to think about before you sign.

From what you've posted, no you wouldn't be accepted. I'm guessing a consciencious objector, and you question authority too much. Not saying it's always a bad trait, but there are times when you need to trust it to survive in the military.

No threat to America, eh? What about Korea, Iran, and Syria? They're threatening everyone with nukes now.

It was a community college - not exactly where knowledge hungry people aspire to attend.

Doesn't matter, they're young adults, and need to grow up and recognize what is and isn't acceptable behavior. You can't excuse that because it's a community college. If anything, it's all the more reason to punish so they get the message.

Nor did I say he was. I said that the "Bombs not Books" movement claims that the military recruitment officers target low-income students and minorities.

And I said "Bombs not books" is full of crap with that statement. They're spreading lies, and should not be used to make a point in a debate because they obviously have a biased agenda if they say something like that. The military is interested in any and everyone of all walks of life.

They've learned from the best. :rolleyes:

Cute. Cracks like that reveal how much of a pissant you are.

I guess its a good thing I didn't ask then.

You said some BS organization said that recruiters use underhanded tactics, and I pulled an example from my personal experiences to refute it.

I never asked for you to bring up that crap organization, but you still did.

Earning a scholarship isn't as easy as signing your name to a piece of paper. Sustaining a scholarship isn't the same as undergoing bootcamp.

ROTC scholarships. That's all I'll say about the signing-your-name part.

Dude, you obviously have not experienced the military's training. Don't even try to compare it to keeping your grades up. It's designed to rip you apart mentally and then build you up bigger and better than you were. It's 10 weeks of legal torture. Ask anyone who's been.

You obviously didn't explore the military as an option, and therefore don't kn ow much about it. Why do you insist on comparing it to something like school?

My monthly training I'm in right now is only one weekend a month, and it's tougher than 2 weeks of school. They say this training is only 1/1000 of what basic is like.

Won't your dad get angry with you for conversing with me?

Yeah, he'd probably be mad that I haven't started that paper that's due tomorrow in geography yet. But as soon as I hop off of here, he'd hop on and then you'd get a new one ripped by "The Colonel" since he can turn you inside-out explaining all this better than I can, so I think you'd rather deal with me.

[aeNeo]

you two guys are dancing around in circles. and this is why debates are timed. both of you are smart guys. you made valid points, and you covered a lot of ground.

mps' idea that maybe the students protested out of rejecting pity doesn't seem very realistic, but it's still valid. riots stem from emotion (like the recruit symbolizing their opposition to the war in iraq which may have stirred up their anger); riots don't stem from a group of people who feel they don't need someone's pity. but hypothetically speaking, it's a possibility.

TFS' argument of free knowledge is sound, and the students' reaction to the recruit's presence was unacceptable; it doesn't matter what the root cause for their actions was, they're still wrong for acting like they did. everyone is entitled to learn about all options that are available to them. and the riot kept that from happening. and i'm willing to bet the recruit will be back some day. so the chance to learn will come again.

i came in here to say this, and to maybe get you guys to realize that you're not going to convince the other guy to adopt your views. this is an internet forum, and if someone's got something to say, chances are it's their convictions that lead them to do so. and you two clearly have a dislike for one another. so leave it at that.

now let's have a group hug.

[mps]

I'll pass on the homoerotic love-in. You guys go ahead ;)

How can they explore the options if they're not made aware of them. The presence of the recruiter reminds them, "hey, what's the military got to offer?"

Like it was already pointed out, everyone knows that Budweiser sells beer - but they still continue with their advertising and try to lure people in. It's not enough to be a point in people's minds, they have to be at the forefront to make an effect. The military doesn't seem much different. Everyone knows they exist, and are an option, but recruitment officers still lure people in. Budweiser offers lower prices during summer months; the military might pay for you education.

How is getting shipped over seas not job security if you keep getting paid for your military service? Honestly, think before you post on this topic again. They don't fire people who are deployed.

Keyword there being "security". How secure are you if you're sent into a warzone? My guess is not so secure . You're getting paid, but you also might have to give up your life for your job.

While that's attractive, so is this $7,000 scholarship I was offered today. It's an option I didn't know I had last year, and pays more than the army. I might have taken it instead if I ahd known about it. It's an example of an option I had I didn't know about, so I went with one I did know about, and I can't say I'm disappointed with my choice, but it would have been nice to know this other one existed. And no, the military didn't block it from reaching me.

Did you know the military existed as an option? Yeah. Did you know that scholarship applied to you? I guess not. How's this relate to the issue?

Talk to any NCO out there. Talk to any officer. They all have their individual thought processes well intact.

Weird. I was told a few weeks back in a thread that soldiers aren't supposed to think, they're supposed to do as they're told. Was I lied to?

As far as the few years and dying in combat, you know it's a possibility going into it, so if it aint worth it, you aint right for the military. Something you need to think about before you sign.

Yup, and that's where the "no other option" stuff might come in. You can die in the ghetto, or you can die serving your country. Sounds catchy.

From what you've posted, no you wouldn't be accepted. I'm guessing a consciencious objector, and you question authority too much. Not saying it's always a bad trait, but there are times when you need to trust it to survive in the military.

Fiddlesticks; I was all geared up to enlist.

No threat to America, eh? What about Korea, Iran, and Syria? They're threatening everyone with nukes now.

Two words: deployment / purpose.

Doesn't matter, they're young adults, and need to grow up and recognize what is and isn't acceptable behavior. You can't excuse that because it's a community college. If anything, it's all the more reason to punish so they get the message.

Huh? What did that have to do with what you were responding to? You asked why I thought they didn't have any choices left, and I said it's because they're at a community college - which means they're not exactly going to cure cancer.

And I said "Bombs not books" is full of crap with that statement. They're spreading lies, and should not be used to make a point in a debate because they obviously have a biased agenda if they say something like that. The military is interested in any and everyone of all walks of life.

Yeah maybe, but NAACP has been saying the same thing - that blacks are being targetted for recruitment. If they're spreading lies, so is the NAACP - and surely, someone would have discredited them by now.

Cute. Cracks like that reveal how much of a pissant you are.

Oscar Wilde said that ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities. So thanks :)

You said some BS organization said that recruiters use underhanded tactics, and I pulled an example from my personal experiences to refute it.

Hmm, an organization sifting through various cases, or someone on a message board trying to stretch their opinion off as a generality? Tough call.

Dude, you obviously have not experienced the military's training. Don't even try to compare it to keeping your grades up. It's designed to rip you apart mentally and then build you up bigger and better than you were. It's 10 weeks of legal torture. Ask anyone who's been.

My grandfather (in Italy) and my uncle (here). My uncle actually suggested it a few years ago, but I told him I was going to University - he said "better choice". He told me about bootcamp when he was 19 - stuff about how if he smirked his officer dumped his personal belongings out of a window. He also told me it kills personality and builds you up into something you're not. Wow, where do I sign?

You obviously didn't explore the military as an option, and therefore don't kn ow much about it. Why do you insist on comparing it to something like school?

What I can I get in the military that I can't get by going through Univeristy and landing a high-paying job? Gulf war syndrome? I'll pass.

My monthly training I'm in right now is only one weekend a month, and it's tougher than 2 weeks of school. They say this training is only 1/1000 of what basic is like.

Does it challenge your mind? If yes, how so?

Yeah, he'd probably be mad that I haven't started that paper that's due tomorrow in geography yet. But as soon as I hop off of here, he'd hop on and then you'd get a new one ripped by "The Colonel" since he can turn you inside-out explaining all this better than I can, so I think you'd rather deal with me.

Actually I was referring to VEM. I thought he was your daddy. My bad.

[TFS]

I'll pass on the homoerotic love-in. You guys go ahead ;)



Like it was already pointed out, everyone knows that Budweiser sells beer - but they still continue with their advertising and try to lure people in. It's not enough to be a point in people's minds, they have to be at the forefront to make an effect. The military doesn't seem much different. Everyone knows they exist, and are an option, but recruitment officers still lure people in. Budweiser offers lower prices during summer months; the military might pay for you education.



Keyword there being "security". How secure are you if you're sent into a warzone? My guess is not so secure . You're getting paid, but you also might have to give up your life for your job.



Did you know the military existed as an option? Yeah. Did you know that scholarship applied to you? I guess not. How's this relate to the issue?



Weird. I was told a few weeks back in a thread that soldiers aren't supposed to think, they're supposed to do as they're told. Was I lied to?



Yup, and that's where the "no other option" stuff might come in. You can die in the ghetto, or you can die serving your country. Sounds catchy.



Fiddlesticks; I was all geared up to enlist.



Two words: deployment / purpose.



Huh? What did that have to do with what you were responding to? You asked why I thought they didn't have any choices left, and I said it's because they're at a community college - which means they're not exactly going to cure cancer.



Yeah maybe, but NAACP has been saying the same thing - that blacks are being targetted for recruitment. If they're spreading lies, so is the NAACP - and surely, someone would have discredited them by now.



Oscar Wilde said that ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities. So thanks :)



Hmm, an organization sifting through various cases, or someone on a message board trying to stretch their opinion off as a generality? Tough call.



My grandfather (in Italy) and my uncle (here). My uncle actually suggested it a few years ago, but I told him I was going to University - he said "better choice". He told me about bootcamp when he was 19 - stuff about how if he smirked his officer dumped his personal belongings out of a window. He also told me it kills personality and builds you up into something you're not. Wow, where do I sign?



What I can I get in the military that I can't get by going through Univeristy and landing a high-paying job? Gulf war syndrome? I'll pass.



Does it challenge your mind? If yes, how so?



Actually I was referring to VEM. I thought he was your daddy. My bad.

It's official, aeneo was right, this is worthless. I'm trying to explain to you how it is, and you won't listen. I accept all the arguments you made before, and I was just pointing out the holes in them so you'd have a better understanding.

I'll take the hug. At least I can walk away from this knowing I'm not a homophobe.

[pidgeball6]

Back on topic.
Here's why I see it as a double standard:
Churchill is extremely critical of the US's foreign policy. He's written a number of books on,and taught droves of students, his extremist view of confronting the policy. When he's come under fire, the crowd maintains a civil approach to opposing his views.

A military recruiter is an advocate of US foreign policy. Although many personally feel passionately about the US's role in various parts of the world, their official view, and the face presented publicly, is passive. Many people (apparently) feel that by being a member of the military, the recruiter represents the US foreign policy that they oppose, and worse, that the recruiter is pushing that policy on them. The result, in some cases, has been that the recruiter has been mobbed by a crowd of angry protesters hurling insults and bottles at him.


Now, that's a double standard, and it sucks and all, but it's not what gripes me the most. What gets me is that the reactions wouldn't be the same in different circumstances. I'm convinced that if Churchill were walking down the street he'd get opposing comments similar to the ones he received at his rallies. However, a recruiter walking down the street won't typically get mobbed by a crowd of angry students.So here's what confuses me. Is it that mobs get physically confrontational in most situations, or that anti-foreign policy students in general can only be physically confrontational in a mob?

[mps]

I'm trying to explain to you how it is, and you won't listen. I accept all the arguments you made before, and I was just pointing out the holes in them so you'd have a better understanding. I'll take the hug. At least I can walk away from this knowing I'm not a homophobe.

You trying to discredit the thoughts associated with "Books not Bombs" and NAACP by saying "that's just not how it is". Not too convincing.

And I'm not homophobic; I'm you-o-phobic.

Pidge, the main difference might be that no one will die subscribing to Churchill's personal philosophy, but some will (and you may, even yourself) subscribing to a military recruitment officers. Churchill spouts words, and just that, so they can be met with words. A military recruitment officer spouts a worldview, one with war, and it has clearly been met with equal vigor.

[pidgeball6]

Pidge, the main difference might be that no one will die subscribing to Churchill's personal philosophy, but some will (and you may, even yourself) subscribing to a military recruitment officers. Churchill spouts words, and just that, so they can be met with words. A military recruitment officer spouts a worldview, one with war, and it has clearly been met with equal vigor.
Churchill interview (http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html)
His philsophy is that protests, marches, and demonstrations aren't effective because they're sanctioned by the state and therefor the state is still controlling. The only way to bring about a positive change, or the possibility of positive change, is to destabilize the state in ways the state isn't equipped to handle. One of the reasons he applauds the terrorists actions is because they don't waste their time with protests and such, but direct their actions at "the beast" itself. Churchill defines the problem as the state itself, and progress can only be achieved when the state is eradicated.

The military offers alot of things, including the possibility of war. I have 3 older brothers that joined with 3 different intentions. Jim, the oldest, wanted to see Alaska before the wilderness was tamed (don't look at me, he was big on John Denver), and he did. He approached a recruiter with the idea and was stationed there for 3 years. My next brother, Mike, joined because of the experiences he heard from Jim. He traveled extensively, spent time in Kuwait in the Gulf war, and spent a year (I think) in Okinawa, Japan. Dave joined wanting the military experience. War wouldn't have bothered him, though he was never sent. He was interested in the physical training, the weapons experience, the organization, and the comradery. His goal was to use, and be used by, the military to get into law enforcement. He did, and he's been a cop for around 10 years now.
Anyways, enough family history. The point is that people choose the military because of the benefits it offers, and going into combat is an unfortunate possibility that every recruit will have to consider. Churchill is preaching revolution. If people subscribe to his beliefs, they'll see combat. They just don't get a GI bill out of the deal.

[mps]

A state is comprised of people, so a paradigm shift of state is essentially a mindset change of men. Sound familiar? His philosophy doesn't necessarily promote violence, so much as it seems to promote introspection of the state as an entity. Though any person's philosophy can be slanted to appear malicious, I fail to see where Churchil has specifically promoted violence.

But it seems you view revolution in a negative light - which is understandable if you're socially conservative. Some, however, view revolution as a means of bypassing unnecssary injustices - and ultimately, something that proves beneficial for societal creatures. Revolution has in fact worked wonders for humanity; take your own countires history as a shining example.

[pidgeball6]

Though any person's philosophy can be slanted to appear malicious, I fail to see where Churchil has specifically promoted violence.
Come on MPS,maybe he hasn't instructed anyone to aim their attacks at a specific target, but what's the impression people are supposed to get from this (http://www.satyamag.com/sat.site.images/churchill.jpg) . What is that his Che Guevara pose?

But it seems you view revolution in a negative light - which is understandable if you're socially conservative. Some, however, view revolution as a means of bypassing unnecssary injustices - and ultimately, something that proves beneficial for societal creatures. Revolution has in fact worked wonders for humanity; take your own countires history as a shining example.
The same can be said for military action. I'm not saying revolution is good or bad. I'm saying a call to arms is the same whether it's revolution or attacking Iraq. The difference is that Churchill's making the call in his case, while the military answers it in theirs.

[mps]

Yeah, military action and revolution are equals in terms of changing societies; though I don't agree that Churchill is promoting violence. If your belief in that is resting solely on a picture of him holding a gun in fatigues, that's weak. You might as well say that every person in the military who has ever been photgraphed is essentially promoting malicious acts; and that's just false. He has written extensively about his viewpoint, so pick something out of there instead of using a picture who's context is unknown.

[bergshadow]

A military recruiter is an advocate of US foreign policy. ? I don't see that. The political opinions of any given recruiter are unknown, usually, and many people join - and serve, lifetime - for reasons far removed from support for US foreign policy.

A few generals and such have written memoirs in which their personal lack of support - to the point of contempt - for US foreign policy has been very clear. Of the four Gulf War veterans I know personally, one is deeply opposed to current US foreign policy and the other three don't know or care much about it. A military recruiter is just not in the same line of work as the esteemed professor Churchill, IMHO.

[TFS]

? I don't see that. The political opinions of any given recruiter are unknown, usually, and many people join - and serve, lifetime - for reasons far removed from support for US foreign policy.

A few generals and such have written memoirs in which their personal lack of support - to the point of contempt - for US foreign policy has been very clear. Of the four Gulf War veterans I know personally, one is deeply opposed to current US foreign policy and the other three don't know or care much about it. A military recruiter is just not in the same line of work as the esteemed professor Churchill, IMHO.

Here's another example for you, (you're right, there's a difference between supporting/defending the country and supporting a policy): throughout American history, it's been customary at formal military functions for there to be a toast to the President of the United States. In 1992, Bill Clinton became that President. His policies he wanted to impose or change on the military did a lot to hurt it, and is a main reason they're suffering for numbers and equipment so much now (he basically gutted the military like a dead fish) (And I personally believe Rumsfeld isn't helping any, just so this doesn't turn into a party-vs-party thing. I've heard of instances where someone put in a request for more troops in an area and he tore it up upon reading it, so now he gets asked about why he doesn't send more troops in by the media, and responds that no one has asked for more troops or made him aware of a need, when really they know that asking him won't help).

So in 1992, after these changes started taking place and the military saw where it was leading to, many of those formals changed the toasts from being to the President of the United States to being to the Office of the President of the United States.

They love their country, and would do anything for it, but they don't have to like their boss or the policies he makes.