Posted on 03/16/2006 5:19:05 PM PST by Libloather
Does that also include juvenile records? It'll be hard to convince me that a 17 year old festooned with tatoos doesn't have gang tendencies even though he hasn't been convicted.
I know I shouldn't but I still do. If I see a gold toothed 17 year old festooned with tatoos, my first inclination is not to think what a fine display of body art.
WTF? Do they have them on their FACES or something? If they are the traditional military tatoos on the upper arms, shoulder, or torso, then they are not "excluded by current regulations."
On the other hand, if they look like this guy, then frankly they deserve to be excluded.
Have you served?
Never heard of what is called a "Jail House Tattoo" have you?
Yes, six years in the U.S. Navy... and if you don't have a tatoo, you're not a sailor.
In 1943 while just out of bootcamp San Diego USNTS I had a tattoo of a pair of crossed Prep Flags tattooed on my right, middle, top side of my right arm signifying I was a Signalman Striker, I was proud of being chosen to attend the Navy's class "A" school and qualify to be a Signalman on a ship of the U.S.Navy which I did and was on board this ship for two years and three invasions(Asiatic Pacific Fleet)as what was considered at the time as being a member of an elite group known as the "Eyes of the Fleet" that really inpressed a 17 year old West Texas kid who had only been on one train and that was to get to California to get in the Navy.
Anyway twenty-four years later I applied for duty with the U.S. Border patrol(the second time I was allowed to be interviewed)due to the fact I had passed the entrance exam the second time after almost three years of waiting(red tape)and during the interview I was told I would be required to have this tattoo removed if I was accepted as I could be identified by illegals and could not do any undercover work.
Now here is this old station chief(who had been in the Patrol for 45 years)with an eagle emblazoned on his right upper arm in very bold art in a beautiful dark blue with all the attendant trimmings that go with eagle tattooes.
He noticed I was looking at his tattoo and he remarked to his interview helper as an aside(another old grizzled chief)that he was planning to have it removed after 45 years as he was told to do by his superiors, I just smiled and was rejected anyhow because I was too old although that was not allowed to be used to reject an applicant.
Their reason for my rejection was I just wasn't what they were looking for!
Now that reason was not on the table for argument and was plain enough so I never tried the third time!
You know after awhile even the hard-headed ones finally get the message and give up don't they?
Just think of what might have been the outcome of WW2 if the Navy had been that picky when I tried to join up(of course I am only kidding, it might even have been over sooner).
Never heard of what is called a causal fallacy, have you?
"WTF? Do they have them on their FACES or something? If they are the traditional military tatoos on the upper arms, shoulder, or torso, then they are not "excluded by current regulations.""
Nope the family tattoos (at least the ones I've seen) like a Navy symbol or "mother."
The article, though, made it sound like a tattoo was enough for rejection.
Well, that's a very logical reason.
False. Johniegrad, , USN 1979-1987, no 'toos. NRMC PortsVA 1979-1983, USNH RoosRds PR 1983-86, NRMC PortsVa 1986-7.
It certainly made sense to me and I had already made up my mind to have it removed but not before final acceptance which would be allowed such as if you were told to lose a specific amount of body weight, this happened to a DPS trooper who was told he had to lose 45lbs. then he would meet their weight criteria!
He told them to shove it he wasn't going to diet and exercise that much for any job opportunity and that he already had a good job!
If the tattoo can be covered by an ordinary long-sleeve shirt, then it is OK. The new change is that they are allowing tattoos on the back of the neck which show when wearing a shirt as well. Anchors, the Marine Insignia, or "Mother" on the upper arm are still allowed (and always have been).
Aha, thank you.
My husband (a boomer) also has the belief that a tatoo is a warning sign and often flags people who have been in jail at some time in their lives.
This may no longer be true of the new generation, but a lot of older men still go use old truths to judge younger people.
For myself, it is against my religion to desecrate the body given to you by God. Even pierced ears are considered pagan and a rejection of God.
I don't think I know any young people who still believe that. But then a lot of them have been raised to be pagans.
OK. Have you taken your medication today?
That was a stupid comment to make. She was calmly explaining her point of view, and you had to get personal.
Well, my reservist (IRR) brother worked very hard to get into shape for deployment to Iraq, worried he wouldn't make the cut, only to find he was in the upper portion of his group--and one of the younger ones, in his mid-30s. He said they were taking just about anyone.
There's the story of the 70-year-old retired Army colonel called-up and sent to Afghanistan, plus the other septuagenarian who was nearly arrested for ignoring the recall notices, figuring they must be a mistake since they were sent to his current residence--an assisted-living facility! Well, they were serious, though he was allowed to go home after the physical. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.