Your thoughts on act 165

[sagefr0g]

Quite frankly your post proves that you weren't.
The fact is the group i'm talking about sit in the bottom classes and fail - they don't get A's or anything what-so-ever.
I'd also ask questions that i already know the answer to - so don't feel the need to answer. Were you the sort of kid that would beat someone unrecognisable? That enjoyed fighting one smaller boy with 3 mates? Needed only the most flimsy justification to enact violence on someone they didn't know (are you such and such? did you post on your Bebo page that <insert place> sucks? Smack)? Were you the kind of guy that used to go out drinking at the weekend and go round the streets with your mates looking for someone to attack? You weren't. You were disenfranchised with the education system and i can't blame you for that. Education by it's very nature will always fail some kids, i appreciate that, but there are other kids that have been failed long before they reach education and their home life has already done the damage.
While i feel sorry for this group of society, i'm not going to ignore the reality that they have grown up to be violent and nasty people and that they have a stonger tendancy than the general population to head towards military service after their school years. You just hope that they either learn from the experience and change or never get promoted, then you get new reports of the shameful behaviour (torturing, sexual abuse etc) of innocents in other country, by soldiers who are acting outside orders and realise that not all of them do change.

RJT.

well, thank you for that.
as far as being disenfranchised with the education system you are correct.
that was an error on my part, ya jus have ta make the best with what ya got ya know.
and i didn't do the best i could with what i had, much to my own detriment, but hey such is life, so it goes. then me thinking the grass was greener on the other side of the street sort of thing went into the military, heh, heh man was that ever a life lesson.

so but maybe things are different here in the states, because i believe now a days, the military over here wont even accept the types you mention. they don't want high school drop outs and they don't want people with police records, sorta thing. i believe the sort of types you describe would likely have police records that would likely preclude them from the military over here.
so but what ever, just my humble opinion but some of those types might very well learn some valuable lessons if they were constrained by the military life as it was back in my day.
but the American troops that acted out atrocities such as you described in the recent conflicts were likely not the sort of people you described since as i say those types are not allowed to enter military service in the states.

 

[QFIT]

well, thank you for that.
as far as being disenfranchised with the education system you are correct.
that was an error on my part, ya jus have ta make the best with what ya got ya know.
and i didn't do the best i could with what i had, much to my own detriment, but hey such is life, so it goes. then me thinking the grass was greener on the other side of the street sort of thing went into the military, heh, heh man was that ever a life lesson.

so but maybe things are different here in the states, because i believe now a days, the military over here wont even accept the types you mention. they don't want high school drop outs and they don't want people with police records, sorta thing. i believe the sort of types you describe would likely have police records that would likely preclude them from the military over here.
so but what ever, just my humble opinion but some of those types might very well learn some valuable lessons if they were constrained by the military life as it was back in my day.
but the American troops that acted out atrocities such as you described in the recent conflicts were likely not the sort of people you described since as i say those types are not allowed to enter military service in the states.

Over the last few years, because of recruitment shortfalls and two wars, the US military has accepted more people with criminal records including violent offenders. A waiver can be given if you have been convicted. In 2007, 12% of Army recruits entering basic training required a waiver for criminal records including burglary and aggravated assault.

 

[RJT]

Over the last few years, because of recruitment shortfalls and two wars, the US military has accepted more people with criminal records including violent offenders. A waiver can be given if you have been convicted. In 2007, 12% of Army recruits entering basic training required a waiver for criminal records including burglary and aggravated assault.

I'd also hasten to add that over here the majority of crimes commited before you are 16 are wipe off when you turn 16.

RJT.

 

[shadroch]

Over the last few years, because of recruitment shortfalls and two wars, the US military has accepted more people with criminal records including violent offenders. A waiver can be given if you have been convicted. In 2007, 12% of Army recruits entering basic training required a waiver for criminal records including burglary and aggravated assault.

To put this in a better perspective, what percent of recruits needed waivers in 1998?
The military accepting people who need waivers is nothing new. I won an ROTC Scholarship in 1978, but needed such a waiver because I was caught in possesion of 6/10s of a gram of pot. BTW-At this time,pot sold for about thirty dollars and ounce, so the street value of what I had was less than a dollar but Nassau County still did a full prosecution on it.

 

[aslan]

To put this in a better perspective, what percent of recruits needed waivers in 1998?
The military accepting people who need waivers is nothing new. I won an ROTC Scholarship in 1978, but needed such a waiver because I was caught in possesion of 6/10s of a gram of pot. BTW-At this time,pot sold for about thirty dollars and ounce, so the street value of what I had was less than a dollar but Nassau County still did a full prosecution on it.

I'm surprised they didn't just drop the charge with a warning, especially if it was your first offense.

 

[QFIT]

To put this in a better perspective, what percent of recruits needed waivers in 1998?
The military accepting people who need waivers is nothing new. I won an ROTC Scholarship in 1978, but needed such a waiver because I was caught in possesion of 6/10s of a gram of pot. BTW-At this time,pot sold for about thirty dollars and ounce, so the street value of what I had was less than a dollar but Nassau County still did a full prosecution on it.

Don't have the exact numbers. The Army has has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test, loosened weight requirements and upped the max age from 35 to 40. "Moral waivers" now include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide. Drug violations were always on the list for possible waivers. This is the official list. Pressure on recruiters (and suicides) is extreme and I doubt they check closely. Overall, the Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003.

 

[Opinion]

Isn't it the Most Noble Act?

To give one's life for their country? If someone has served their jail time, then haven't they paid for their crime? Don't they then have the right to give back to society by serving? Shouldn't they be allowed back in society? It was once thought that the military can give direction and order to those who may feel lost and unconnected.

There is probably a big difference between the attitudes of those who are drafted vs those who volunteer no matter their past criminal record.

Now if someone wants to commit a crime in the military I belive military justice is harsher then civilian justice?

If we need troops in the field and the military feels they need to relax standards then so be it. I am sure they feel it is better to have the "potential" of a weakend diluted force then a force that is weakened due to lack of numbers.

 

[Katweezel]

Some thoughts on Act 165

If you win $XXXXX in an Australian casino, you pay no tax on your winnings, and there are no forms to fill out either. I saw a survey that said around just 5% of casino patrons are winners on any given day; leaving the casino with more cash than when they entered. 95% are losers!

The government makes plenty from casinos, which in turn make plenty from the 95% losers that turn up each day. My point is I believe the very few lucky winners should NOT have to pay any tax on their winnings. Why should they? They risked their cash on some games of chance. Why should the gummint profit from that transaction? As I said the gummint is already making heaps, and yet a few lucky winners are expected to cough up more tax. What should happen here is the casino should pay that particular winner's tax, not the sap. The 95% losers are not expected to pay any more tax on their losses and they took the same risk. Why should winners be penalized?

I suggest everyone swamp their congressman/woman and keep driving them nuts until a better law is passed... Where winners are not taxed and nobody needs fill out any damn gummint forms. :joker:

 

[shadroch]

If you win $XXXXX in an Australian casino, you pay no tax on your winnings, and there are no forms to fill out either. I saw a survey that said around just 5% of casino patrons are winners on any given day; leaving the casino with more cash than when they entered. 95% are losers!

The government makes plenty from casinos, which in turn make plenty from the 95% losers that turn up each day. My point is I believe the very few lucky winners should NOT have to pay any tax on their winnings. Why should they? They risked their cash on some games of chance. Why should the gummint profit from that transaction? As I said the gummint is already making heaps, and yet a few lucky winners are expected to cough up more tax. What should happen here is the casino should pay that particular winner's tax, not the sap. The 95% losers are not expected to pay any more tax on their losses and they took the same risk. Why should winners be penalized?

I suggest everyone swamp their congressman/woman and keep driving them nuts until a better law is passed... Where winners are not taxed and nobody needs fill out any damn gummint forms. :joker:

You guys can't even tip properly and you want to lecture us on taxes?

 

[Katweezel]

You guys can't even tip properly and you want to lecture us on taxes?

Right. Another point. Tipping casino staff is banned here, so you'll have to show us how to tip in the most effective manner when we get over there. As we are pretty much quick learners, that should only take a month or two of intense Shad lectures... You seem to have some connection with the IRS, is it? Here I am trying to get the ball rolling on changing tax on winnings laws so as to put thousands more in your pocket rather than in Big Brother's wallet and this is the thanks I get?

Obviously, I'll have to find someone with a bit more enthusiasm to act as the Leader of the US Anti-Tax Revolutionary Army; if this unfair, unjust and totally unnecessary tax on winnings is ever to be repealed in favor of us casino winners. Where is your self-interest? :eyepatch:

 

[shadroch]

I'll always put my country above my self-interest.

 

[Katweezel]

I'll always put my country above my self-interest.

Yeah, me too. (With only the odd exception here and there, of course.) One of which could be tax reform, in particular tax reform regarding casino winnings. You're happy reporting and filling out paperwork every time you go into a casino and win more than $1200 is it? and paying more tax on that?... Remarkable. But good for you. I'm not that patriotic.

 

[shadroch]

Yeah, me too. (With only the odd exception here and there, of course.) One of which could be tax reform, in particular tax reform regarding casino winnings. You're happy reporting and filling out paperwork every time you go into a casino and win more than $1200 is it? and paying more tax on that?... Remarkable. But good for you. I'm not that patriotic.

Thats not how our tax laws work, whatsoever. Theres no paperwork for table game wins and if you hit a machine win for $1200, the casino does all the paperwork, all you do is sign a reciept. You only pay taxes on your net winnings at the end of the year. If Hawaii does it differently, thats no sweat off my ass. It's the price you pay for living in Paradise, i guess.

 

[RJT]

To give one's life for their country? If someone has served their jail time, then haven't they paid for their crime? Don't they then have the right to give back to society by serving? Shouldn't they be allowed back in society? It was once thought that the military can give direction and order to those who may feel lost and unconnected.

My personal opinion is that a noble act is one consciously decided i.e. if someone runs back into a burning building to save another, pushes someone out of the way of a moving vehicle only to get hit themselves, stays to hold the line in a battle to allows others to retreat and so on.
To end up stepping on a landmine while walking around in some other country that really doesn't want you their i really don't feel is all that noble. Firstly it's an accident, so it's not like the person actually decided to sacrifice themselves (or even likely sacrifice themselves - when you look at the number of troops place on hostile foreign soil in the last decade and ratio it to the number killed, i'm confident that there are many less recognised more dangerous jobs available) they just stumbled into it. Secondly they are there it not because of a particularly direct threat to any of us - at best the threat that we (the combined US and UK forces) offer to the countries we currently occupy far exceeds that which they offer to our populations. Living in a country that has been occupied historically due to the potential threat that you may possibly have represented to a larger and more powerful nation, it tends to leave you feeling that the occupiers for the most part are the bad guys. That being the case i feel that it is likely that our occupation of these countries, rather than making us safer will radicalize more of their inhabitants - their military forces are essentially inconsequential to us, stopping one radical that decided they are going to blow themselves up in a busy area is a far bigger problem.
As to jail time wiping the slate clean - statistically prison has been proven a very poor rehabilitator of antisocial behaviour so as to whether i feel that the slate should be wiped clean after jail time, the answer is a resounding no. If you lacked the moral compass to know that beating someone unrecognisable was wrong before you went in to jail, i seriously doubt that post sentence you are likely to have gained that perspective. Much like using grades to assess the quality of learn, prison is used simple because we haven't yet found a solution to the problem that actually works.
All of this is moot anyway - each and every point i've made above is personal and many are vast generalisation. While there are many in the military for the wrong reasons, i'm confident that there are also many there for the right reasons. While jail serves as only a delay before the next criminal act for a lot of inmates, i'm sure there are people who never re-offend after conviction. Despite whatever statistics either side of the argument can quote, everyone is always going to hold to their belief. On topics that are so emotionally volatile, you are rarely going to get consensus.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...All of this is moot anyway - each and every point i've made above is personal and many are vast generalisation. While there are many in the military for the wrong reasons, i'm confident that there are also many there for the right reasons. While jail serves as only a delay before the next criminal act for a lot of inmates, i'm sure there are people who never re-offend after conviction. Despite whatever statistics either side of the argument can quote, everyone is always going to hold to their belief. On topics that are so emotionally volatile, you are rarely going to get consensus.

RJT.

The reasons for joining the military aren't very relevant, due to what happens next. I don't think there is any wrong reason. It's perfectly normal for an 18-year old male to like the idea of traveling around the world fighting and blowing things up. Boys play at war as soon as they are old enough to walk. The 22-year old man who is honorably discharged from the service is someone different, and the patriotism, responsibility and discipline are what are developed within, rather than what is expected from teenage recruits.

 

[RJT]

The reasons for joining the military aren't very relevant, due to what happens next. I don't think there is any wrong reason. It's perfectly normal for an 18-year old male to like the idea of traveling around the world fighting and blowing things up. Boys play at war as soon as they are old enough to walk. The 22-year old man who is honorably discharged from the service is someone different, and the patriotism, responsibility and discipline are what are developed within, rather than what is expected from teenage recruits.

I could disagree with you more on this issue - the reason for taking an action is what defines whether it was right or wrong, not the consequence.
If i'm trying to steal someone's handbag and end up knocking them out of the way a falling object that would have killed them - that doesn't make my actions moral or ethical. It was a negative action that by chance had a positive consequence.
Because some little thug end up doing something good out of a desire to hurt other people doesn't make their desire any less base or deplorable. If they end up learning from their experiences and becoming a better person, great - that still won't make me consider them a hero for aspiring to blow someone's head off.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I could disagree with you more on this issue - the reason for taking an action is what defines whether it was right or wrong, not the consequence.
If i'm trying to steal someone's handbag and end up knocking them out of the way a falling object that would have killed them - that doesn't make my actions moral or ethical. It was a negative action that by chance had a positive consequence.
Because some little thug end up doing something good out of a desire to hurt other people doesn't make their desire any less base or deplorable. If they end up learning from their experiences and becoming a better person, great - that still won't make me consider them a hero for aspiring to blow someone's head off.

RJT.

"Desire to hurt other people" isn't the best way to put it. Anyone who has practiced any martial art or sport knows there is a time and place to desire to hurt someone. Those urges are a natural part of humans and all other apes, and a young man who chooses to channel them into something worthwhile like joining the Marines, instead of joining a gang, has my admiration. The only reason you and I are safe in our homelands is that any potential aggressor knows that some of our countrymen wouldn't be revolted by blowing their heads off.

 

[Deathclutch]

I could disagree with you more on this issue - the reason for taking an action is what defines whether it was right or wrong, not the consequence.
If i'm trying to steal someone's handbag and end up knocking them out of the way a falling object that would have killed them - that doesn't make my actions moral or ethical. It was a negative action that by chance had a positive consequence.
Because some little thug end up doing something good out of a desire to hurt other people doesn't make their desire any less base or deplorable. If they end up learning from their experiences and becoming a better person, great - that still won't make me consider them a hero for aspiring to blow someone's head off.

RJT.

The people I met during my time in the Marines were some of the most honest, disciplied people I've ever seen. Sure they had their shitbags, but who doesn't? I didn't join to kill people, I joined because I enjoy being active, fighting, certain economic conditions, and I wanted to earn the respect people give Marines. I think you may be out of touch with the average military person. Not all are ex convicts with nowhere to go.

 

[RJT]

The people I met during my time in the Marines were some of the most honest, disciplied people I've ever seen. Sure they had their shitbags, but who doesn't? I didn't join to kill people, I joined because I enjoy being active, fighting, certain economic conditions, and I wanted to earn the respect people give Marines. I think you may be out of touch with the average military person. Not all are ex convicts with nowhere to go.

Actually i never said all the military - this conversation started with a discussion about people joining the military after leaving school - or around that time. So far i've been discussing my personal contact with the students i've taught over the last few years who have gone on to join the military. But if you read a couple of posts above i also tip my hat to the fact that all points i've made so far are generalisations.

RJT.

 

[Deathclutch]

Actually i never said all the military - this conversation started with a discussion about people joining the military after leaving school - or around that time. So far i've been discussing my personal contact with the students i've taught over the last few years who have gone on to join the military. But if you read a couple of posts above i also tip my hat to the fact that all points i've made so far are generalisations.

RJT.

That's my fault then, I may not have read closely enough.