[JoninNH]

:up_yours:

They're complaining because they don't want to take the time or effort to sacrafice a bit of themselves for the Nation. I think it's the fairest "bonus points" on the test. People with Veteran status have sacraficed a lot for this country; Disabled Vets even more. So, if in return the powers that be decide to give additional few points on the test to those who gave for this county, then so be it. They EARNED it. They all volunteered to join the Armed Forces, and they all served honorably; they earned it.

I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

 

[smd6169]

One of the many reasons I joined the Army is to get Vet status. All the people complaining have the oppurtunity to join and get the points. It is not unfair at all.

Get the point's (2 like state police) is one thing, TOTAL preferential treatment is another.

 

[Macop]

Civilian slime, not for long i'm gonna enlist my ass, why, I have no dam idea, hahahahahah

 

[Guest]

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?

 

[ProudAmerican]

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?

Regarding being gay, there's the don't ask don't tell policy. As for being disabled...well...you'll just have to suck it up buttercup and cowboy up!

 

[JoninNH]

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?

:-({|=

Maybe, if your "disability" disquallifies you from military service, it should disquallify you from police service as well.:moon:

Being gay doens't disquallify you from being a Vet. They never, ever, EVER ask your sexual orientation in the enlistment process or there after. I personally know two people, one male, and one female, who served with honor in the US Army and US Marine Corps respectfully who were and are homosexuals, but whose strong desire to serve thier country enabled them to keep thier personal lives to themselves during thier period of service. :wow:

 

[smd6169]

How do you figgure TOTAL? The preferance only helps a resident...... Case in point, I lived in a non-CS town for the last test(02) and even with my VET status, I'm still below some mental midget with residency. If it were TOTAL preference as your post implies, then Non resident Vet's would be on top of their 4 choices...... :sb:

I am reffering to the total preferantial treatment between all RESIDENTS of a city/town. Take 2 people with Boston residancy. A VET who scores an 85 and non-vet who scores 99. The vet with an 85 is above the none-vet with a 99. That's bull. Give the vet 2 -5 points and tell him/her to score better next time!

 

[DVET1979]

SMD- A paramedic's training is much higher than an emt's, but the course is a lot longer and much more expensive, EMT's do receive a preference with civil circus as well if you want to get your foot in the door. As for your second language being Hebrew, I am sure any department would like to have a bilinguial qualified candidate reguardless of what the language is. However, Departments usually only hire those with a foreign language based on the needs of the non-English speaking foreigners in the community.

 

[JoninNH]

I am referring to the total preferential treatment between all RESIDENTS of a city/town. Take 2 people with Boston residency. A VET who scores an 85 and non-vet who scores 99. The vet with an 85 is above the none-vet with a 99. That's bull. Give the vet 2 -5 points and tell him/her to score better next time!

Having most recently been employed as a senior manager in a private company, I personally take and make several piles of applications on my desks. First pile is "Doesn't meet the minimums for the job" I send them a postcard saying we've hired someone else. I take the remaining applications and sort them in to two more piles, Vets and Non-Vets. Guess from which pile I hire from first? The Veterans. To have endured the hardships of combat, and to be physically separated from their family, and friends. To wake up each morning knowing that they might not make it back to their bunk that night and still give it 110%, that's dedication, that's service, that's commitment, and that's the kind of person I want working for me. I don't care if you have two master's degrees in the field, I'll hire a Vet with three years in the military and an AA degree any-day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

As it applys to policing...

Veterans have already attended Basic Training and an advanced training school. They've gone through a training program as rigorous and disciplined if not more so then the Police Academy. A civilian... hasn't. Advantage: Vet. If I were the Chief, I'd hire someone who has a better chance of passing the academy then someone unproven.

Veterans have endured hardships while living at the point of the spear, serving, protecting and defending under the constant threat of death or serious injury. A civilian, well, he may have had to skip out on his latte last week because the buses were late. Advantage: Veteran. I'd rather hire somoene who has lived the phrase "protect and serve" and who has faced danger and fear, then a civilian who might decide it's not worth it.

A 21-year old veteran is, often times, 100 times more mature then his fresh out of college civilian counterpart. He's grown up, he's been handed responsiblity and he's shown that he's able to function under extream stress. His civilian counterpart has a lot of growing up to do, had the responsibility of working a part time job for beer money, and has earned a piece of paper.

:sb:

 

[kwflatbed]

Well Put Jon !!!!!

 

[Skidaddy]

DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT...:L:

FINALLY SOMEONE BROKE IT DOWN BARNEY STYLE FOR YOU SMD.....

DO YOU FINALLY AGREE THAT WE DESERVE ALITTLE BIT MORE THAN 2-5 POINTS.
DOESN'T MATTER IF WE GET A 85 AND A NON-VET GETS A 95. YOU CAN'T REPLACE EXPERIENCE.

 

[KozmoKramer]

Well done Jon.
Excellent Post. :thumbup:

 

[TheKid]

smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.

:-({|=...Woah wait just a minute...I wasn't about to respond but this is crazy...When I was in the reserves and took the test as a non vet I too had the same "this system is bullshit" attitude...But after serving for two years in Iraq, on patrols, in combat..not some desk jockey, eating MRE's 3 times a day and getting mail once a month in 140 degree weather, I THINK that in this era and day in age, giving us preference is the least they can do. I'm not trying to get up on a soapbox here, but like I tell my friends that give me crap about the same subject....Sign up and go over there, because the first thing you'll do when you get back is tell me your sorry...I'm sorry but the only good thing that I got out of that war was vet status...
Pete

 

[smd6169]

If you served in War/Combat, yes, you should be considered a for VET status (whether VETS should get TOTAL PREFERENTIAL treatment is another issue]. If you served on Active Duty but never got deployed, you are no more a VET the a reserviit who was in for 8 years with out being deployed. That's where I think it's bullshit!