http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr4752.html
The fact that someone even suggested this is very bad.
HmmFollow
I personally see nothing wrong with a mandatory civil service of 2 years.
Another throwaway bill.
I think I'll pass.
requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service
Aren't we past the point where we must add "including women" for this stuff? I mean, isn't it obvious enough by now that they are persons too?
This doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing. But even if it did, the pussies could always fall back on this:
Aren't we past the point where we must add "including women" for this stuff? I mean, isn't it obvious enough by now that they are persons too?
This doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing. But even if it did, the pussies could always fall back on this:
Quote:
SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 3(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 3(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
Rangel is the same ninnyhammer who tried to reinstate the draft back in 2003. You can see how far it went that time as well.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If I'm not mistaken isn't that an active law in Israel? I vaguely remember reading something along those lines.
There's a lot of countries that have a similar law set up. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. It would do a lot of people good, and teach them a few things.
Of course it'll never pass because all the rich people don't want to have their kids "serve" anyone.
Of course it'll never pass because all the rich people don't want to have their kids "serve" anyone.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
I wouldn't have to go nya nya...
Well. We've had this discussion a zillion times it seems.
The problem is the motive of those who propose it. The idea itself is sound, but only if it's free of agenda. If we decide as a nation that government service is valuable and worthwhile for all citizens, then we should do that for those reasons alone. But for the most part, those who propose such service restrict it specificaly to military service, and bring it up only during a war, and only because they want to force "those evil rich people" to have to send their children as well.
It's not a bad idea, but that's totally the wrong reason to do it.
The problem is the motive of those who propose it. The idea itself is sound, but only if it's free of agenda. If we decide as a nation that government service is valuable and worthwhile for all citizens, then we should do that for those reasons alone. But for the most part, those who propose such service restrict it specificaly to military service, and bring it up only during a war, and only because they want to force "those evil rich people" to have to send their children as well.
It's not a bad idea, but that's totally the wrong reason to do it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's not a bad idea, but that's totally the wrong reason to do it.
It's actually the whole point of doing it.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Gbaji haven't you ever seen Red Dawn?
That's the second time in a week that Red Dawn has been referenced on these forums.
Which is a little bit worrisome.
WOLVERINES!!!
Which is a little bit worrisome.
WOLVERINES!!!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but that's totally the wrong reason to do it.
It's actually the whole point of doing it.
It's the whole point of bringing it up now. It's about using it as an arguing point against the current conflict.
But it's a *horrible* reason for actually having mandatory service. For exactly the same reason someone normally opposed to the death penalty supporting it because someone they personally dislike is on trial for murder is a really bad reason too.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But it's a *horrible* reason for actually having mandatory service. For exactly the same reason someone normally opposed to the death penalty supporting it because someone they personally dislike is on trial for murder is a really bad reason too.
Yeah and oranges don't eat hamburgers, too.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
How about if you don't:
a) make it into a college/university/trades school
b) have documentation that you will be travelling a broad for a year
c) have a notarized letter from your parents that you can live above their garage playing xbox and eating KD, for the term of one year
If you cannot provide any one of these then you must serve 2 years civil service.
a) make it into a college/university/trades school
b) have documentation that you will be travelling a broad for a year
c) have a notarized letter from your parents that you can live above their garage playing xbox and eating KD, for the term of one year
If you cannot provide any one of these then you must serve 2 years civil service.
Just to be clear Smash. When you say "that's the whole point to do it, are you specifically saying that the reason(s) listed below are why we should have mandatory service?
Since you avoided actually saying what "it" was, I figured I'd make sure you commit to a statement before I respond to it more.
Quote:
...those who propose such service restrict it specificaly to military service, and bring it up only during a war, and only because they want to force "those evil rich people" to have to send their children as well.
Since you avoided actually saying what "it" was, I figured I'd make sure you commit to a statement before I respond to it more.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Since you avoided actually saying what "it" was, I figured I'd make sure you commit to a statement before I respond to it more.
Sure. The primary reason to do it is that people of all social classes share realtively euqally in their burden to protect the nation.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Though it's not like we have a current law saying that people below a certain financial level must serve in the army, or anything.
Edited, Tue Jun 6 10:53:13 2006 by Eske
Edited, Tue Jun 6 10:53:13 2006 by Eske
O Fortuna, velut Luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis;
vita detestabilis
nunc obdurat et tunc curat ludomentis aciem,
egestatem, potestatem dissolvit ut glaciem.
Sors immanis et inanis, rotatu volubilis,
status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis,
obumbrata et velata michi quoque niteris;
nunc per ludum dorsum nudum ferotui sceleris.
Sors salutis et virtutis michi nunc contraria
est affectus et defectus semper in angaria.
Hoc in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite;
quod per sortem sternit fortem, mecum omnes plangite !!
semper crescis aut decrescis;
vita detestabilis
nunc obdurat et tunc curat ludomentis aciem,
egestatem, potestatem dissolvit ut glaciem.
Sors immanis et inanis, rotatu volubilis,
status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis,
obumbrata et velata michi quoque niteris;
nunc per ludum dorsum nudum ferotui sceleris.
Sors salutis et virtutis michi nunc contraria
est affectus et defectus semper in angaria.
Hoc in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite;
quod per sortem sternit fortem, mecum omnes plangite !!
I'd be a conscientious objector for sure. I can't think that I'd shoot someone in self-defense, much less for a nebulous ideal. Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier, much like not everyone is cut out to be a cop or a firefighter. It takes a special kind, and I don't think you're doing the nation any favors by putting someone in a war situation that is intrinsically opposed to the concept.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
and I'm all for sacrificing my life in defense of hearth and home. NOT in defense of the pride of ********* and their personal hubbub and all other future rulers like them.
They have ruined MY trust in their causes.
and I'm all for sacrificing my life in defense of hearth and home. NOT in defense of the pride of ********* and their personal hubbub and all other future rulers like them.
They have ruined MY trust in their causes.
Though it's not like we have a current law saying that people below a certain financial level must serve in the army, or anything.
Not a de jure one anyway.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
and they are certainly sure to ONLY provide enough information about Selective Service for young Americans to register.. they conveiniently leave out anything about consciencious objector status and other such things.
Oh I'm not suggesting that it isn't absurdly skewed. Just that the idea that they would be forcing the rich to join the army in order to "be fair" is kind of off base.
Recent Visitors: 379
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (379)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC