The Bill to re-instate the draft now in Congress

Discussion in 'Politics' started by K.C., Apr 20, 2004.

  1. stu

    stu

    I agree with jasper6's sentiments also.

    Of course, there is abstention!. It seems in Europe as a whole, the younger generations are disillusioned by politicians and politics and choose generally not to vote.

    When turnout suffers like has in the European elections and in certain countries within Europe, the politicians get very worried.

    Holding office on small turnout and narrow majorities perhaps focuses their manipulative little minds a bit more.

    Maybe the youngsters have found a legitimate way to attract politicians’ attention

    Abstaining might catch on as an alternative pick against the two evils.
     
    #11     Apr 21, 2004
  2. Magna

    Magna Administrator

    It doesn't matter who it was introduced by, as both houses of Congress are thoroughly controlled by the Republicans. If it passes, and is signed into law by a Republican President, then even tho some will blame it on Clinton (why not...) it's a Republican shame.
     
    #12     Apr 21, 2004
  3. rgelite

    rgelite

    Oh, is that why all of the Republican picks for judges have just sailed through the advise and consent process? Because the Republicans (and I'm not one) thoroughly control both houses of Congress? :eek:

    This latest slavery bill was introduced by a Democrat (Ernest Hollings, D-SC, and the sole sponsor), an old member of the same party that actually did give us Vietnam (rather than what they're currently doing for their own power-lusting reasons in relentlessly trying to posture that Iraq seems like another Vietnam).

    That being said, the Republicans are just as bad with their push for compulsory national "service" (their mandatory volunteerism). They don't see a problem with that because their so called conservative views are poisoned by their altruistic religious influences, in which duty to others (or their adult version of Santa Claus) is more important than serving one's own self-interest in this lifetime. (Except when it's the politicians' interests, of course.)

    One might argue that being forced into battle is much worse than being forced to pick up trash by the highway (or feed the homeless in a soup kitchen) when a kid's interest may be more toward learning about computers in his spare time. And I'd agree with that; it makes this a Democrat abomination. But the bottom line is that both parties are abysmal in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and protect Individual Rights.

    If you truly like being cynical, then consider this: If the bill runs into too many brick walls, the "way out" for the Democrats will be to claim that it was only a pro-forma bill designed to raise the consciousness of the American People, as they fight to save the lives of our children, and bring home to dinner tables the real possibilities of war; that they didn't really want a draft.

    I suspect given the history of slavery in this country that both parties will hash out something so that individual rights will again be trashed and that some mandatory service for kids will be required. Go to war, go to a soup kitchen, as long as you go where we tell you, when we tell you, and learn early on that it is we who do the telling and you who do the doing. Under the altruistic guise of "giving back" to the community, of course, to provide the flimsy philosophical excuse for swallowing one's self-esteem instead of being killed for refusing to comply at all.
     
    #13     Apr 21, 2004
  4. TigerO

    TigerO

    Here's an idea to combat the despicable personal cowardice prevalent in the administration:

    "I move that there be a constitutional amendment that every president, before committing anyone else's sons and daughters to combat or a hostile situation, first pledge his own son and daughter to the war effort.

    Regardless of age or occupation, a president's offspring should be pulled from whatever they are doing, sent to basic training, measured for a uniform and shipped out with a combat unit to the front line.

    Yes, a tour of duty for the Bush twins.

    A war made real, fretful and personal for those in power might make decision-making more thoughtful, reflective and considerate of everyone's life - with a reduced tendency to say, ``Bring 'em on.""

    http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31562

    [​IMG]
     
    #14     Apr 21, 2004
  5. TigerO

    TigerO

    Very well said !!!
     
    #15     Apr 21, 2004
  6. rgelite

    rgelite

    Well put.
     
    #16     Apr 21, 2004
  7. Maybe if more people actually served their country in some capacity they would have a better appreciation for what it offers.

    Many men and women have died or sacrificed more than most could possibly understand so that people can express themselves on forums such as this. It is a shame that rumors, speculation, and deliberate misinformation by both sides has turned this great country onto itself. Furthermore the complete pacification of the left has weakened this country immeasurably. People laud the Europeans for their restraint. They just didn;t want to lse their oil from Iraq along with the millions of dollars skimmed from the UN food for oil program. so you see that the very people the left looks up too have the same motivations as our government. When will the people of the nation wake up and realize that the world is not a perfect place and in order to ensure our status in the world we sometimes have to act in our cest interests. Tansforming Iraq into a democracy has greater long term benefits for our shildren and grandchildren than can be measured.

    People may not like Bush but at least he does what he thinks is right and sticks to his guns. He is not afraid to make the tough decisions that need to be made and is willing to do what it takes to enusre the future prosperity of our nation.

    As far as sending our sons and daughters to the service. I think it would be an excellent idea. It would give them a different perspective than the sheltered, idealist, self centered outlook provided by the left.
     
    #17     Apr 21, 2004
  8. TigerO

    TigerO

    Uhh, right; forget starting counter productive wars based on nothing but lies and for nothing but corruption, and actually go ahead and graze a knee in defense of your country: problem is, to get there we need a regime change at home.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #18     Apr 21, 2004
  9. rgelite

    rgelite

    While the argument set out here has many valid historical points, and I myself shake my head in dismay (sometimes in disgust) when I consider how some take our freedoms for granted, sadly the inherent premise is that the only solution is to force others to do what some want for "their own good" because it has judged them to be "selfish" by its own standards.

    The hidden premise is that selfishness on principle is immoral.

    But in doing so, it evades the obvious contradiction that its proponents want what they want when they want it and thus, despite all the high-minded rhetoric about service and community values and giving back, it's really driven by their psychological impatience to get things done in their timeframe, in their way, by their methods.

    If selfishness is so bad in theory (according to these proponents), then what the heck is worse in practice?

    (a) Deciding for oneself to study the classics, study computers (or trading), play baseball, learn plumbing, join the military, volunteer at a hospital, or otherwise contribute to society by paying taxes, where enriching the community is a secondary consequence of insuring that you be the best you want to be at what interests you? And then by voluntary trade, providing value to others for what they are willing to provide you for your ability?

    (b) Or, through dint of 51% of the people joining hands in their vision of what they want, condemn the other 49% to do something abhorent to their own lives, but that the 51% see as good in their obvious, dare I say it, self-interest? After all, these 51% who would vote to enslave the other 49% are doing so because they think they are correct in what they want. So "correct" that they dismiss as unimportant in their values hierarchy the very principles and foundations of that which they allegedly state they are protecting: Freedom.

    The hypocrisy is staggering. The consequences are generationally cyclical and negative. And the results to real people's lives are vicious. Absolutely vicious.

    Why is that people in one camp are willing to leave each other alone? And people in the other camp are so sure that they know what's good for everybody else to do?
     
    #19     Apr 21, 2004
  10. Nordic

    Nordic

    Very well stated
    Dude cut and paste this and send it to every major newspapers ( voice of the people) I'll bet 80% of Americans would concur
     
    #20     Apr 21, 2004