Here comes the draft

[SleeperZ]

Now the war supporters will get their chance to contribute:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

[doctorstupid]

what happened to rumsfield and bush both saying a draft was unreasonable and not a probability like a month ago?

[Jackrabbit]

Just because a bill is proposed, doesn't mean it will become law. Christ, ever look at some of the monstrosities that don't make it? There are some scary legislators out there.

If you oppose it write your congress critter.

[foxxof]

im surprised the us doesnt already have it in place...

just because it will be running doesnt mean people will be getting drafted. i doubt they will start drafting unless we also end up going to war with korea or china or something.

were lucky... in other countries everyone already does have to join the service for some period of time.

[Jackrabbit]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.163&congress=108 &
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108

Democrat sponsored. Not quite a draft these ones are akin to what S. Africa used to do.

Handy website there, thanks!

*Edit* First post made no sense

[ricewizard]

can any of you guys talking politic's even vote? jesus get a life and dont make a democrat shit pile into a mountain ...all a bunch of B.S.

[doctorstupid]

if i weren't lazy i would be able to vote, but registering requires i get off my ass and that's not about to happen any time soon :)

maybe i'll send an email to my "congress critter" :rofl:

[newt2]

can any of you guys talking politic's even vote?

Most of us are probably older than you are and have been voting for the last 15-20 years.

[ricewizard]

Most of us are probably older than you are and have been voting for the last 15-20 years.
um yea......

[myshtern]

ok, this is stupid

Lets start a draft after a majority of the troops have left iraq.

I'll believe when I see it

Especially since this is democrat sponsored

[Jackrabbit]

um yea......

I'm 30 :fu:

[stu]

I think Ricewizard is the same age as Wade, Pat, and Tobi; and if he's not, his kids probably are. ;)

[Weston]

Yeah, I don't see the need for more troops, unless we're planning on taking over other countries as well. Bush and his people will hopefully be out of office soon anyway.

[Dustin]

Most of us are probably older than you are and have been voting for the last 15-20 years.

Ricewizard is an oldie...maybe a runner up to john as far as oldest on the board.

OK...maybe 3rd or 4th oldest.

[newt2]

Ricewizard is an oldie...maybe a runner up to john as far as oldest on the board.

OK...maybe 3rd or 4th oldest.

Fair enough. My assumption about his age is the same as his assumption about the age of the rest of us then. He's one of the only ones in these threads that I've not met yet.

Just goes to show we're both guilty of making shit assed assumptions. :)

[Dustin]

Fair enough. My assumption about his age is the same as his assumption about the age of the rest of us then. He's one of the only ones in these threads that I've not met yet.

Just goes to show we're both guilty of making shit assed assumptions. :)

Let me describe him, He is like 6'5" and weighs at least 300 LBS, and has to work on CRX's and civics, He can bearly fit in there to road test them...He is a honda engineers worst nightmare...Japanese are so refined, and detail oriented, he is brash and works hap-hazardly. :)

[foxxof]

sweet... ill be able to use that quote against ya in our political debates newt! jk

[newt2]

he is brash and works hap-hazardly.

Sounds like my kind of guy. :)

[SleeperZ]

ok, this is stupid

Lets start a draft after a majority of the troops have left iraq.

I'll believe when I see it

Especially since this is democrat sponsored

I'll believe a majority of troops leave Iraq when I see it.

[monicle]

its going to take a shitload more than 700 dead us soldiers to get the draft going.

[newt2]

its going to take a shitload more than 700 dead us soldiers to get the draft going.

You're probably right.

Personally I don't think we should fight wars without it though. It's just not right to send a bunch of people off to fight a war that nobody else is interested in participating in.

Of course I think that anyone 25 and under who supports this war should be down at the recruiters office signing up. If you support risking someone else's life you ought to put your money where your mouth is IMNSHO.

[stu]

I'm all in favor of Alan Greenspan changing the interest rates to control the economy, but I'm not going to try to do his job for him. Some people just aren't made for the armed forces, they would be more benifcial as citizens than soldiers.

[newt2]

Some people just aren't made for the armed forces, they would be more benifcial as citizens than soldiers.

I could see that if they have some physical disability (one extreme) or are so smart that they're needed to develop new weapons and tactics here at home (other extreme).

I don't even think that everyone should have to go fight that supports the war. I do think that they should be in the military doing something though. If not carrying an M-16 in Iraq, maybe fixing planes, cooking meals, packing supplies or filling in at other posts outside the war zone so we can free up more of the pros to go fight.

The bottom line to me is that if you're for the war you should back up your opinions with action. People are dying over there and they're doing it both for you and because of you. The least a person can do is take on some of the hardship themselves.

This is probably going to be offensive to some, but IMO staying at home while others are fighting a war you support is cowardice.

[stu]

Hmmmm, just out of curiosity, were you under 25 when Desert Storm was going on? And if so, did you have the same opinion then? (It's okay if you didn't). I'm going to assume that you did feel the same, but you just didn't support the war at the time, or would do things differently if you had the chance.

[David]

why would have have a draft a month before we leave iraq?

why has the draft even been brought up during this war? we won with flying colors

[SleeperZ]

its going to take a shitload more than 700 dead us soldiers to get the draft going.

But what about when we invade Syria? And Iran? And Saudi Arabia, once the royal family gets thrown out on it's ass by the Islamic fundamentalists? We are going to need at least a million troops then...

[Shakespeare]

I'll support the draft. Doesn't matter who sponsors it. Plenty of other countries have mandatory service for everyone. Maybe some discipline and responsibility would help this country.

In case anyone asks, I have voted in every election I was eligible for. The first was the 2000 Presidential primary...I voted for Alan Keyes.

If you're too lazy to vote, you give up your right to whine about politics.

[Skaterkid]

I don't think I really care. I'll vote against Bush, but I won't mind being drafted. I've always wanted to fly Air Force jets.

[myshtern]

But what about when we invade Syria? And Iran? And Saudi Arabia, once the royal family gets thrown out on it's ass by the Islamic fundamentalists? We are going to need at least a million troops then...

Oh common

None of those countries will be invaded. If any it would be Syria, but that will never happen.

This is part of the reason Iraq is such a focus. Once it becomes a free country, the surrounding countries will follow. I know 100% Bush has been saying that since the beginning.

It will be like the domino effect, except for democracy.

I believe once Iraq stablizes as a free country, about a year after, you will see the Iraqi economy soar. The Iraqi borders will be full of immigrants fleeing from neighboring countries. It will be just like south and north korea. Except this is palestine and consider Iraq center palestine. Center Palistine will be a flourishing area compared to the poverty that surrounds it.

Eventually, the others will realize that the free world is just better and will come along. If there arent any major incidents such as an atomic bomb going off or something, all the surrounding countries will revolutionize withing the next decade. The only country that may stay Islamic fundamentalist is Iran. They do a good job at it.

[myshtern]

Newt2,

By doing what you say with the military, would that make it a partisan military?

Wouldnt that have a few problems to it?
Im sure you can think of them

[SleeperZ]

Oh common

None of those countries will be invaded. If any it would be Syria, but that will never happen.

This is part of the reason Iraq is such a focus. Once it becomes a free country, the surrounding countries will follow. I know 100% Bush has been saying that since the beginning.

It will be like the domino effect, except for democracy.

I believe once Iraq stablizes as a free country, about a year after, you will see the Iraqi economy soar. The Iraqi borders will be full of immigrants fleeing from neighboring countries. It will be just like south and north korea. Except this is palestine and consider Iraq center palestine. Center Palistine will be a flourishing area compared to the poverty that surrounds it.

Eventually, the others will realize that the free world is just better and will come along. If there arent any major incidents such as an atomic bomb going off or something, all the surrounding countries will revolutionize withing the next decade. The only country that may stay Islamic fundamentalist is Iran. They do a good job at it.

Wow, with that sunny attitude you need to join bushy's brown shirts. You're good at painting fantasy.

[myshtern]

Explain

[DrJones]

OMG DRAFT!!! This proves that Bush is teh LIAR!!!!

There is also talk in congress (comming from morons I might add) that we need to open up the oil reserves, but guess what? Those reserves are for emergencies... just as the draft is. Dumb ass people believe every little piece of activity in the political world is to be taken and blown out of context.

I really wish people would stop over reacting. I know you want to believe that the country is being run by idiots. I'm not sure why, but I guess you must have your reasons. But, sorry to break it to you but it's not. It might appear that way, but you can be assured that they know what they are doing and they are making the right decisions. That is their job, they spend every day collecting and processing information in order to make decisions, the rest of america (and the world) just get's the little tidbits that some reporter things benefits their personal political motives and decides to write about.

[Robie]

This is probably going to be offensive to some, but IMO staying at home while others are fighting a war you support is cowardice.

Spoken like a true Socialist. . .
That is the exact same propaganda I heard many years ago in countries without voluntary armies. . .

So, with your 'cowardice' logic, are you a coward IYO for enjoying the freedom that so many others have sacrificed to allow you not be required to join? You are enjoying this freedom, why haven't you joined up?

Which is more cowardice, Supporting your country through thick and thin, or complaining about everything just because your guy lost the election? yea yea, it is your right to complaign. . .don't forget that. . . .

Draft? hahaha, bring it on. If needed, I will be there, will you? My Wife and 3 kids understand...




One other thing, look who started this topic. . . anybody supprised? Lots of credibility with this post. . . :rolleyes:

Once again. . . :cry: :cry: :cry:
Robie

[hoffman]

I actually hope there is no draft.

True we have a hard time retaining an all volunteer force. But, its just that. You raise your and and say "I will support and defend". Alot of people find out they aren't made for this life, but they are the only ones to blame.

So you throw in a bunch of drafties, who probably don't want to be there. Morale and discipline would fall. Sometimes its hard enough to get a volunteer to do what needs to be done. It could be close to impossible to get someone, who's already forced to serve, to do anything.

The Armed Forces are ever changing. Only a few times in the last 229 years has the draft been needed. With today's technology we can do more with less. Bodies isn't always the answer, usually funding is.

[monicle]

If you're too lazy to vote, you give up your right to whine about politics.

Its not that Im lazy... Its that I just dont care. I kind of wonder if votes (REAL votes) have elected presidents in the last few elections anyways.

[rmcdaniels]

Wow, with that sunny attitude you need to join bushy's brown shirts. You're good at painting fantasy.

Visit some of the countries and see for yourself. I've been to Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Dubai, Bahrain, and Oman. They were all stable, peaceful, secure, prosperous countries with advanced national infrastructures and an excellent standard of living. I never had any problems in any of them. I've heard from friends that Jordan is very nice too. My uncles lived in Saudi Arabia for a few years, and once they got the cultural differences down, had no problems.

I think that most of the oil producing countries that the US has a significant national interest in are primarily interested in progress and prosperity. There are a few bad apples, but if you look at what is currently going on politically in Iran, I believe that you will see that even some of the worst are coming around due to internal pressure from their citizens to share in the progress and prosperity that their neighbors are enjoying.

I think Iraq was an exceptional case, and if left unchecked would have contributed significantly to the destabilization of the entire region, which in our current oil-dependent state couldn't be tolerated. As far as invading a bunch of other countries, I don't think it will be necessary if we can get Iraq on its feet.

[newt2]

Hmmmm, just out of curiosity, were you under 25 when Desert Storm was going on? And if so, did you have the same opinion then? (It's okay if you didn't). I'm going to assume that you did feel the same, but you just didn't support the war at the time, or would do things differently if you had the chance.

I didn't support version 1.0 either. I don't think that the problems of the Middle East are any of our business or concern.

[rmcdaniels]

the rest of america (and the world) just get's the little tidbits that some reporter thinks benefits their personal political motives and decides to write about.


I second that.

[newt2]

Newt2,

By doing what you say with the military, would that make it a partisan military?

Wouldnt that have a few problems to it?
Im sure you can think of them

No, actually I think it should be mandatory that everyone serves the country for at least two years. It would teach responsibility and would provide an opportunity for everyone to pay back a little of what this country has made possible for them.

It wouldn't have to be all military serive. People who have objections to serving in the military could do civilian work like service in the National Parks or even highway contruction and cleanup.

I don't think people take enough pride in America anymore. Service would instill that pride back into our culture.

[newt2]

Spoken like a true Socialist. . .

You obviously have no idea what a socialist is.

So, with your 'cowardice' logic, are you a coward IYO for enjoying the freedom that so many others have sacrificed to allow you not be required to join? You are enjoying this freedom, why haven't you joined up?

I serve my country every single day when I get up to go to work. Can you say the same?

Which is more cowardice, Supporting your country through thick and thin, or complaining about everything just because your guy lost the election? yea yea, it is your right to complaign. . .don't forget that. . . .

My guy never had a chance in the election. He got .27% of the vote.

As for supportig my country, I always do that. You're just confused because you don't see that people who think differently than you do do it because they're concerned and care for their country. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans aren't the only Patriots in America.

Draft? hahaha, bring it on. If needed, I will be there, will you? My Wife and 3 kids understand...

Yes I would as a matter of fact. I don't support this war or this President but if they drafted me to go to Iraq I would go and do the job to the best of my ability even if it cost me my life. Dodging the draft is wrong no matter what.

[rmcdaniels]

No, actually I think it should be mandatory that everyone serves the country for at least two years.

That is such a great idea IMO. If people don't volunteer for federal service, they shouldn't be eligible for public office. Did you ever read "Starship Troopers"?

[rmcdaniels]

I didn't support version 1.0 either. I don't think that the problems of the Middle East are any of our business or concern.

Would you agree that maintaining the stability of the region that provides a significant portion of our oil supply is a legitimate national interest?

[SleeperZ]

Explain


It will be like the domino effect, except for democracy.

I believe once Iraq stablizes as a free country, about a year after, you will see the Iraqi economy soar. The Iraqi borders will be full of immigrants fleeing from neighboring countries. It will be just like south and north korea. Except this is palestine and consider Iraq center palestine. Center Palistine will be a flourishing area compared to the poverty that surrounds it.

Eventually, the others will realize that the free world is just better and will come along. If there arent any major incidents such as an atomic bomb going off or something, all the surrounding countries will revolutionize withing the next decade. The only country that may stay Islamic fundamentalist is Iran. They do a good job at it.

The "domino" effect is a gross over-simplification; that term was last used to describe the spread of communism.

We are not on a path to a "free" Iraq. There is no semblance of a government there, let alone an autonomous one with power. Any and all attempts for a sovereign and self-asserting Iraqi government will be put down harshly by us, as they most likely will be critical of our motives, especially following our loss of moral leadership.

The only thing we have acomplished by intervening over there is increase terrorism. In the eight years prior to 9-11, there were 5 major al-Quada terroist attacks. In the 3 years following 9-11, there have been 19 major al-Queda attacks.

So by assuming all the unstable arabic governments will automatically stabilize following a stable Iraq is a fallacy following a fantasy that we will actually get a stable Iraq.

[newt2]

Would you agree that maintaining the stability of the region that provides a significant portion of our oil supply is a legitimate national interest?

Not really because we don't get much of our oil from the Middle East. The largest portion of our oil comes from Canada, Peru, Brazil and right here at home.

When we get involved in Middle Eastern wars, we're fighting to defend Europe's oil supply. The way I look at it is that if they're not willing to go to war for their own national interests why should we do it for them?

[SleeperZ]

That is such a great idea IMO. If people don't volunteer for federal service, they shouldn't be eligible for public office. Did you ever read "Starship Troopers"?

I think that's an excellent idea, whether it's military or civilian. I do not oppose the draft as well - if our public officials serve in the military they might be more reluctant to ship them off to die for worthless causes.

[thebetterhalf]

You guys. Isn't this a repost where everyone decided this is a bunch of BS? http://highaltitudeimports.com/showthread.php?t=17724&highlight=draft

[rmcdaniels]

Not really because we don't get much of our oil from the Middle East. The largest portion of our oil comes from Canada, Peru, Brazil and right here at home.

When we get involved in Middle Eastern wars, we're fighting to defend Europe's oil supply. The way I look at it is that if they're not willing to go to war for their own national interests why should we do it for them?

I believe Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela are the top 4, each with >10% of our imports, and we're importing a little over half of our consumption. We also get a significant percentage from Iraq and Africa. I'd say our middle eastern imports are fairly important to our national interests.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/pdf/stable3.pdf

[myshtern]

Visit some of the countries and see for yourself. I've been to Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Dubai, Bahrain, and Oman. They were all stable, peaceful, secure, prosperous countries with advanced national infrastructures and an excellent standard of living. I never had any problems in any of them. I've heard from friends that Jordan is very nice too. My uncles lived in Saudi Arabia for a few years, and once they got the cultural differences down, had no problems.


Most of the countries you named with the exception of kuwait, arent really the middle east with problems. Kuwait is a very rich country because it is tiny and has nothing to do with anything.

The problem countries are syria, jordan, iran, saudi arabia, and sometimes egypt. None of those countries have good inrastructures, economies, or militaries. All of those countries are led by extreme illigitimate muslims.
They are in no way a good country for the people.

The "domino" effect is a gross over-simplification; that term was last used to describe the spread of communism.



The domino effect just says communism is an exportable commodity.
I am saying the same thing for democracy in that area.


We are not on a path to a "free" Iraq. There is no semblance of a government there, let alone an autonomous one with power. Any and all attempts for a sovereign and self-asserting Iraqi government will be put down harshly by us, as they most likely will be critical of our motives, especially following our loss of moral leadership.


There is a resemblance of an autonomous gov't. After the governing council takes over, there will be elections something like 9 months later. That has been very clear.

Why would 'we' put down a sovereign gov't?
Though the american government will have a very heavy influence in their government, they will still govern.

Who is this 'us' you speak about? You, me, bush?
And what are our motives. There are no hidden agendas. We will have cheaper oil, that is the only non-security benefit to America.

Why do we have a loss in moral leadership?
Because there were 10 soldiers hazing some terrorists as seniors would to freshman? You think Bush and Rumsfeld want to see some dirty Iraqi man get fucked in the ass or something? Bush is all about morality and being a true man. Why would you even get into that?


The only thing we have acomplished by intervening over there is increase terrorism. In the eight years prior to 9-11, there were 5 major al-Quada terroist attacks. In the 3 years following 9-11, there have been 19 major al-Queda attacks.


Where were these attacks? NOT AMERICA
PRIOR TO 9/11 there were al-quada attacks EVERYDAY.
Try reading something not made by your liberal publications. Go to Israel or Turkey. These just didnt make headlines.


So by assuming all the unstable arabic governments will automatically stabilize following a stable Iraq is a fallacy following a fantasy that we will actually get a stable Iraq.


There will be a stable government whether you like it or not. The job will be finished. The governemnt serves the people, not vice versa. If the people want a new form of government it will happen. Every dictator ruled country from the past has eventually become a free country. Read a history book, history repeats itself. Exactly what will happen prior to the collapse of the soviet union except a little different. Consider Iraq the rebelling czechoslavakia. This has happened so many times, I cannot believe you are even arguing this if you have read any sort of history book.

And Finally
SleeperZ, why do you make everything a fuckin partisan issue.
Instead of the good of your political beliefs, why dont you run for the good of America. You are not doing anything good in or out of America.
Forget republicans democrats, think what would help america right now no matter what other countries or people say.

[rmcdaniels]

You guys. Isn't this a repost where everyone decided this is a bunch of BS? http://highaltitudeimports.com/showthread.php?t=17724&highlight=draft

I believe that was before the thread was highjacked. Now we're on to much bigger and better things!

[myshtern]

lol, yeah

[thebetterhalf]

okay, yeah, I really haven't been reading and keeping up with the thread. :) Sorry for the interruption - continue.

[SleeperZ]

You guys. Isn't this a repost where everyone decided this is a bunch of BS? http://highaltitudeimports.com/showthread.php?t=17724&highlight=draft

Oops! :o Oh well, we are OT enough anyway...

[SleeperZ]

myshtern, I am not going to repeat myself from other threads, and re-hash the same crap. But to address some of your frothing:

The US has NEVER been about installing democracies. Look at our history in Central America - as soon as a representative government asserts itself, and goes against US policy, we depose them. It has happened time and time again. Our lip service to exporting democracy is hypocracy.

The prison abuse thing is now called torture, and the evidence is obvious that the directions and policy go clear to the top. You saying it was 10 guys is ludicrous, and I will not entertain this fantasy any more.

And lastly, you are the bush fanboi. I am not making these issues partisan - you perceive them as such because it reflects badly on your hero. Take off your blinders and pay attention.

[rmcdaniels]

Funny story, before I head over for Desert Storm, I'm out drinking with some friends from college, one of whom is really rich and from Abu Dhabi. He tells me he should write down his home address, phone number, and a letter of introduction because his dad is a wealthy Sheik and his family will put me and my buddies up at the palace if I'm there and I can party with his sister and her friends who are really hot. So I say, "No need to do that dude, why the fuck would I be in Abu Dhabi?" We all have a good laugh and continue drinking. A few months later I'm stuck in Abu Dhabi for a few weeks, living out of a small compartment with a bunch of sailors, drinking cheap beer and thinking how much more fun I could be having if I only had an ounce of sense.

[rmcdaniels]

And lastly, you are the bush fanboi. I am not making these issues partisan - you perceive them as such because it reflects badly on your hero. Take off your blinders and pay attention.

And can you perhaps admit that you are also biased, just in the other direction (blinders are on the opposite side)? Do you really think you are any where near objective on these issues? Just because someone doesn't agree with me doesn't mean they are wrong, although I like to think they are :)

[myshtern]

I know I am biased but overall I am pro-America

Just another anti-America statement.
The stuff you post now isnt just anti-Bush, it is anti-America.
If you hate it so much, move to san fran or canada.

Listen to yourself, you sound like Castro

The US has NEVER been about installing democracies. Look at our history in Central America - as soon as a representative government asserts itself, and goes against US policy, we depose them. It has happened time and time again. Our lip service to exporting democracy is hypocracy.

[SleeperZ]

I know I am biased but overall I am pro-America

Just another anti-America statement.
The stuff you post now isnt just anti-Bush, it is anti-America.
If you hate it so much, move to san fran or canada.

Listen to yourself, you sound like Castro

FWIW, I feel I'm a bit closer to the truth than the propaganda monkeys. I pay close attention to international news and the local papers, as well as several news radio programs. They are much more in depth and explore some context and history surrounding the issues, unlike television news.

And I'm only quoting you, myshtern, because you are just acting idiotically with your "love it or leave it" crap. I'm sounding like a broken record with you, but the United States was founded on dissent, mistrust of and questioning the government (ostensibly by, of, and for the people) is the highest form of patriotism. So STFU. :fu:

[LeonZ]

I know I am biased but overall I am pro-America

Just another anti-America statement.
The stuff you post now isnt just anti-Bush, it is anti-America.
If you hate it so much, move to san fran or canada.

Listen to yourself, you sound like Castro


You can be pro-America and not pro-Bush or pro-republicrat. I am personally not supporting someone that says "You are either with us or with the terrorists.."

[myshtern]

Im not saying that. Just that when you say so many things like that, it goes beyond terrorism. These things affect American politics, American economy, everything.

SleeperZ - lets be friends :)

[SleeperZ]

SleeperZ - lets be friends :)

I have nothing against you personally. I've never met you. I also happen to ascribe to some of the Christian values such as non-judgement and loving one's enemies, although I'm not Christian. I'm more interested in provoking other points of view and opening discussions up to many viewpoints. By attacking my patriotism you are essentially closing the dialog. IMHO, that is not an American value, but it seems all too common these days.

[rmcdaniels]

I think that it's statements like this that close the dialogue:

"And lastly, you are the bush fanboi. I am not making these issues partisan - you perceive them as such because it reflects badly on your hero. Take off your blinders and pay attention."

Stuff like this is not constructive. I wouldn't expect it from anyone who is seriously interested in an open exchange of ideas. If you're going to start threads and then talk down to people who disagree with you (I believe you started this with the "Bush's brown shirts" reference), then I think you are more interested in inflicting your opinions on everyone than in any meaningful dialogue.

[SleeperZ]

I think that it's statements like this that close the dialogue:

"And lastly, you are the bush fanboi. I am not making these issues partisan - you perceive them as such because it reflects badly on your hero. Take off your blinders and pay attention."

Stuff like this is not constructive. I wouldn't expect it from anyone who is seriously interested in an open exchange of ideas. If you're going to start threads and then talk down to people who disagree with you (I believe you started this with the "Bush's brown shirts" reference), then I think you are more interested in inflicting your opinions on everyone than in any meaningful dialogue.

You are entitled to your opinions. I made those remarks in response to statements that didn't seem to have any bearing on the subject at hand, and in fact were already personal attacks. You tell me where I make partisan statements - I have no party allegiance whatsoever - I want the truth to be told.

[rmcdaniels]

You tell me where I make partisan statements - I have no party allegiance whatsoever - I want the truth to be told.

"bushy's brown shirts"

You really believe that Bush has a force in any way similar to the brown shirts? That sounds like partisan rhetoric to me.

[DrJones]

Since some people here seem to prefer not to do their own thinking, and just take for granted the stuff that is given to them, I present this

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Also rather than getting information from a biased comercial site (congress.org) why not get your information from the group in charge of this kind of thing.

from www.sss.gov

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25. "

As far as I'm concerned that puts this topic to a close.

[HondasTrail]

Since some people here seem to prefer not to do their own thinking, and just take for granted the stuff that is given to them, I present this

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Also rather than getting information from a biased comercial site (congress.org) why not get your information from the group in charge of this kind of thing.

from www.sss.gov

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25. "

As far as I'm concerned that puts this topic to a close.

Your my hero.

0wn3d ;NutKick;

[rmcdaniels]

Pretty much wraps that up.

[myshtern]

good job on wrapping that up

BTW, before any wars or 9/11

During Y2k the military was at its lowest numbers since the civil war or something. I remember watching some things saying there will need to be a draft in the 21st century to raise numbers.

[exciv2000]

What the fuck is going on in here?

[DrJones]

What the fuck is going on in here?

Not much... just the typical "OMG TEH CURRENT ADMINIZTRATION IS TEH LIARZ & THREAT!!!" thead was started only to be discussed for a few pages and end up just another chicken little scenario.

[Bedlam]

Not much... just the typical "OMG TEH CURRENT ADMINIZTRATION IS TEH LIARZ & THREAT!!!" thead was started only to be discussed for a few pages and end up just another chicken little scenario.

OMG..I almost fell over laughing at that.!! :cheers:

-Bedlam

[myshtern]

bedlam, i have been staring at your avatar for the last 10 minutes

that thing is pretty wacky

[Robie]

I'm sounding like a broken record
Yes, you are. . .I'll bet that you just can't help but inform us of all the big bad things that Bush is responsible for.

Where would we be if it weren't for you informing of this impending Draft? I am so glad you take the time to read every unbiased news article and interpret them for us, after all, we can't think for ourselves. We are just a bunch of Bushy brown shirts with our blinders on if we disagree with you.

Good thing you have no real ulterior motives, it is so obvious that you are non-partisan; especially with ALL of those politically based threads you have started. It is SO obvious that Bush is SOOOO Evil, I would have never known without you, especially since I don't have access to the same multitude of newsgathering resources that you do. . .

They say that repetition is good for the growing mind! I'll bet we can look forward to you posting more invaluable information like the impending Draft, Torture, and evil Bushisms.

Golly, I think the blinders are almost off!
:)


Ok, that is about as sarcastic as I can get. . .Anybody else want to try?

OHH Ohhh. . .I got an Idea, next time another one of these threads pops up, Lets play a game. We'll call it Partisan Bingo!
"B" for Bush related threads
"I" for Iraq related
"N" for Cheney related
"G" for Global Warming or anything Environmental
"O" for Oil , or Ohhh shit. . .another political thread that doesn't fit into one of the above.

You can claim multiple letters if the thread goes something like this: "Bush and Cheney just invaded Iraq for Oil, which will lead to Global warming."
You must have the first line in your post "Bingo!" followed by the Letters that you have spotted in the post. If the thread goes off topic, just keep playing, by the end of the thread, someone should win. No cheating!! :cheers:

In this thread alone, we have a bingo!

Robie

[SleeperZ]

Thank you all for your participation. See you next time, and in the meantime, try to limit your propaganda intake to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh only once a week. :)

[myshtern]

OMG WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST FOX!
They dont say ONLY anti-bush news?

[newt2]

Fox Sucks. Redneck news.

Even the local affiliates are crap. You ever watch Ron Zappolo at 9 PM? It's like watching an opinion show hosted by the guy from Sling Blade.

[Dustin]

Is there a good news organization that isn't slanted..??

Sure as hell not the BBC, NPR, Al-jazeera, CNN, MSNBC...etc...

[newt2]

No, ytou're right. They're all slanted to some degree or another. You've got Fox and Clear Channel for the GOP and NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN that lean left.

I can handle Clear Channel except for when Rush is on. With Fox though it's like watching the NASCAR announcers read the news. It's not just thier opinions, it's that I fell like I should be watching from a trailer park eastern Kentucky with a bag of pork rinds in my lap, a beer in my hand and a fat toothless woman on the couch next to me.

[Dustin]

No, ytou're right. They're all slanted to some degree or another. You've got Fox and Clear Channel for the GOP and NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN that lean left.

I can handle Clear Channel except for when Rush is on. With Fox though it's like watching the NASCAR announcers read the news. It's not just thier opinions, it's that I fell like I should be watching from a trailer park eastern Kentucky with a bag of pork rinds in my lap, a beer in my hand and a fat toothless woman on the couch next to me.

People will watch the station that they fell a connection with. Just like liberals will listen to Al franken, and conservs listen to Rush.

News without a slant would be boring and nobody would watch. imo

[newt2]

News without a slant would be boring and nobody would watch. imo

Like I said, it's not the slant. It's the attitude. Fox is news for beer bellied redneck NASCAR fans.

I can deal with other opinions, in fact I enjoy listening to them sometimes if for no other reason than a good laugh. I listen to Jimmy Leyke and Doug Shallot on 1150 every day. They're about as Pro-Bush as you can get. They're just not redneck idiots like the people on FOX.

[Robie]

Like I said, it's not the slant. It's the attitude. Fox is news for beer bellied redneck NASCAR fans.

Sounds like you don’t have any intellectual based opinion on it so you attack it at a personal level. . .
I watch FOX, I don't have a beer belly, not a redneck, and am not a fan of NASCAR. . .
Pretty much negates your rhetoric right there. . .

Let me guess, anybody that doesn’t share your view is a Beer Bellied Redneck fan of NASCAR?
:rolleyes:
Robie

[rmcdaniels]

newt2 has it right, all news is biased, it makes it more interesting.

I think the thing to watch out for is getting too excited about anything reported in the news. I'm pretty conservative and I enjoy Fox news, but I can see that they like to report about the things they like and they don't like to report about the things they don't like, and I think I can figure out the difference. If you get overly excited about a news story, you're just playing their game.

IMO most big-time "journalists" are just media whores. If you want to find out about anything, get multiple sources and make sure some of them are eyewitnesses. Otherwise you are just being manupulated by whatever ideology controls the news outlet you favor.

G. Gordon Liddy's hourly review and commentary on the news is pretty entertaining and sometimes insightful, but he is a crazy conservative gun nut convicted felon. That disclaimer aside, he has a really good radio show and some great guests and is not a pompous pedagogue. He even lets liberals call in and is respectful and polite to them! I can't listen to Al or Rush, they are obnoxious assholes, and that goes double for Bill Maher, but at least Bill sometimes let a couple of rational people onto his show. There's nothing like getting your political commentary from Carrot Top.

Ross Perot's books are pretty interesting too. Ross is a bit wacky, but he tells it like it is, ripping up the first President Bush and painting a pretty good picture of how Washington DC really works, Democrat or Republican, they're all playing exactly the same game.

P.S. - I don't enjoy NASCAR, F1 is real racing, and I really enjoyed Camel GTP racing when it was around, I rarely drink beer or anything else, my wife has great teeth (much better than mine), my neck is not red, and my belly is BIG!

[newt2]

Awwwww, did I hurt your feelings again Robie? You sure do have a hard on for me.

[myshtern]

no, I think the fox news commentators are logical and informed. In many situations the GOP wins the common sense of people.

All their commentators obviously swing one way or another on a topic but they always bring out someone opposing their belief. Bill Oreily always gives people a fair chance to bring up their evidence and he shows his.

Look at Hannity and Colmes, That is designed to be equal. One liberal, one conservative.

Nearly all of their shows are like that. I would say 75% of the time, conservatives win in the debates on FOX only because liberals lose the common sense of people.

Just yesterday I was watching hannity and colmes. They were interviewing some liberal lady and she applauds John Kerry for how good he will do with security. Then the conservative (i think hannity) tells her John Kerry in 1993 after the first world trade center bombing voted for a bill that would cut intelligence by somelike the 200 billion. Her defense to that was that it was political strategy. Common, who would believe that. You can say that argument for everything.

That argument also goes to show that congressmen/senators who do that are trying to make their party succeed rather than America.

But anyway, it seems to me they pretty much always give both sides a chance.

[Robie]

Awwwww, did I hurt your feelings again Robie? You sure do have a hard on for me.

hurt my feelings? BBBUUWWhhahahahaaa....yea. . .right. . .

And a hard on for you? uhhhh. . .is that all you can come up with? :rolleyes:
With that logic, would it be fair to say you have a hard on for Bush(G.W., that is... :) ) because of all your posts about him?


Robie

[SleeperZ]

I thought this thread was dead. But I suppose I stirred up another topic mutation with my loose comments about Fox news.

In case you weren't aware - the "News" director for Fox News is Roger Ailes, a top Republican party strategist, who was the media/campaign director for Bush Sr., Reagan, and Nixon. Yes, that's right - the guy who was in charge of creating the attack ads for the Republican party for three Republican administrations is Fox's "News" director. That's why it's essentially a 24 hour Republican party campaign commercial. What's truly sad though is that the viewers of the news channel seem entirely unaware they're being deceived.

And I'm sure Colmes is some sort of "liberal", but (IMHO) he's just a punching bag.