A service obligation for young adults

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

surrender before I make you cry.

Since Clinton, the Democrats put up Gore and Kerry, both Vietnam vets. Go to the other side - after the former WWII navy pilot/parachutist and head of the CIA, you have Qualye, Shrub, and Chaney. 3 draft dodgers that did Clinton proud.

Denigrate it all you want, he *did* serve.

The difference is that you hold it as a badge of pride that Clinton dodged his responsibility...I hold it as a badge of shame.

BTW...did you know that Kerry was in Vietnam?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

surrender before I make you cry.

Since Clinton, the Democrats put up Gore and Kerry, both Vietnam vets. Go to the other side - after the former WWII navy pilot/parachutist and head of the CIA, you have Qualye, Shrub, and Chaney. 3 draft dodgers that did Clinton proud.

Denigrate it all you want, he *did* serve.

The difference is that you hold it as a badge of pride that Clinton dodged his responsibility...I hold it as a badge of shame.

I did that where?

"He" (Whichever you're referring to) did no such thing. Esp Chaney. 5 deferrals. He didn't even not show up for in state duty.

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed - you did not hold Clinton up for praise in your post. My apologies.

I'm sure both of us could come up with long lists of politicians on both sides of the aisle that could have served but didn't for whatever reason.

Regardless... did you have a point to make with your lie in the prior post, or was is just an opportunity to get a bash in?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA.

And that is that until the Constitution is amended.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

A service obligation *COULD* be interpreted as involuntary servitude by the right panel of judges...

From the Department of Justice website:

Quote

Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a term of ten years, depending upon the circumstances of the crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA.

And that is that until the Constitution is amended.

Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident.

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Amendment XIII, US Constitution.

Explain how this proposal does not constitute involuntary servitude.

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery

What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA.

And that is that until the Constitution is amended.

Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident.

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

You Americans are so IGNORANT of your own laws:

US Constitution, Article I section 8 allows for a draft.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Involuntary servitude will never happen because it's unconstitutional. (Not that that seems to worry the Neo Cons)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Wrong. It will never happen because it's unconstitutional. (Not that that seems to worry the Neo Cons)

Doesn't seem to worry the Libs, either...to give credit where it's due.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident.

But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A.

You Americans are so IGNORANT of your own laws:

US Constitution, Article I section 8 allows for a draft.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Involuntary servitude will never happen because it's unconstitutional. (Not that that seems to worry the Neo Cons)

[mnealtx 0]

That's a very good point - if it was military service, and done as a draft, it would not be unconstitutional.

"Drafting" people for Peace Corp/Park Restoration Corp/Et Cetera Corp would result in the little darlings suing under the Involuntary Servitude Amendment and 18 USC as mentioned above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

That's a very good point - if it was military service, and done as a draft, it would not be unconstitutional.

"Drafting" people for Peace Corp/Park Restoration Corp/Et Cetera Corp would result in the little darlings suing under the Involuntary Servitude Amendment and 18 USC as mentioned above.

Yep, and don't forget, if Kerry had this as part of his platform, the Libs would have supported it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That's a very good point - if it was military service, and done as a draft, it would not be unconstitutional.

"Drafting" people for Peace Corp/Park Restoration Corp/Et Cetera Corp would result in the little darlings suing under the Involuntary Servitude Amendment and 18 USC as mentioned above.

Yep, and don't forget, if Kerry had this as part of his platform, the Libs would have supported it.

Didn't he have something similar at one point? I honestly don't recall.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Libs!! Libs!! Libs!!
Gag me with a fucking spoon.

You guys really think, no matter what the topic, that just by barfing out the "L-word" that that amounts to genuine thought, analysis and argument?
It's an idiotic approach to virtually any discussion.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's a very good point - if it was military service, and done as a draft, it would not be unconstitutional.

"Drafting" people for Peace Corp/Park Restoration Corp/Et Cetera Corp would result in the little darlings suing under the Involuntary Servitude Amendment and 18 USC as mentioned above.

Yep, and don't forget, if Kerry had this as part of his platform, the Libs would have supported it.

Didn't he have something similar at one point? I honestly don't recall.

I really don't remember, but if he did then according to Kallend he was proposing something unconstitutional.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Libs!! Libs!! Libs!!
Gag me with a fucking spoon.

You guys really think, no matter what the topic, that just by barfing out the "L-word" that that amounts to genuine thought, analysis and argument?
It's an idiotic approach to virtually any discussion.

A very small part of this discussion.. but hey anything to get a jab in, eh.

blah..blah..blah.

[wmw999 2,589]

Interesting, though, that when liberals think it's a good idea, it's unconstitutional; their children will whine about it. Does that mean it's only character-building for conservatives? Their kinds won't whine about it?

Obviously the unconstituionality of it isn't a problem, or you'd be jumping all over Kerry having proposed something unconstitutional.

Personally, no matter what people who disagree with me think, I think it's a good idea for a whole lot of reasons. But maybe it's the parents' job to make it happen.

Some kids aren't military material. But they can still learn that they have something to give, away from their parents. And that's a good thing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Interesting, though, that when liberals think it's a good idea, it's unconstitutional; their children will whine about it. Does that mean it's only character-building for conservatives? Their kinds won't whine about it?

I'm not the one making the case it's unconstitutional. I don't see it as a left right issue and I'm not implying all liberals will come up with reason why it isn't fair. I'm just saying that the most vocal opposition will come from the left.

Quote

Obviously the unconstituionality of it isn't a problem, or you'd be jumping all over Kerry having proposed something unconstitutional.

If Kerry proposed this, I would have supported it, but I still wouldn't have voted for him. It's Kallend making the unconstitutional argument, not me. I'm just saying that if you believe Kallends argument, then Kerry proposed something unconstitutional and nobody brought it up at that time.

Quote

Personally, no matter what people who disagree with me think, I think it's a good idea for a whole lot of reasons. But maybe it's the parents' job to make it happen.

Some kids aren't military material. But they can still learn that they have something to give, away from their parents. And that's a good thing.

Wendy W.

I agree. I'm not proposing the military as the only option. Service to ones country can come in many forms. Many High Schools already require community service to graduate. This would simply be an extention of that IMO.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But maybe it's the parents' job to make it happen. Some kids aren't military material. But they can still learn that they have something to give, away from their parents. And that's a good thing.

I learned a lot about responsibility from my brief experience in the military and I was forced into it by the step-father (I wasn't a criminal or anything like that, but I was no angel either). Anyway it armed me with some great knowledge and allowed me to leave home at a very young age and become independent as a young adult.

But there is a difference between my experience and my drill sergents yelling at me (helping myself learn how to be a responsible person) and the fact that this proposal is there to help fight the various wars that the US already sees themselves started and not knowing how to finish as well as the new wars they want to start (like the next war in Iran so many Americans seem interested in starting).

Go ask the dead German youths of WWII how they feel about their government telling them about their mandatory military service (I couldn't use the "ask the dead American youths" since I do think WWII was the right war to fight for those on the allies side). I'm sure they would tell you that it wasn't worth it. This proposal just gives the old and angry an excuse to sacrific someone else's life to achieve their power struggle goals. If America stopped starting all these wars, they wouldn't need to worry about why people don't want to join their volunteer military.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Civilian service was strongly emphasized as anequally viable alternative to military service in the article - hardly something that would be done if the "proposal is there to help fight the various wars, et cetera", don't you think?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Americans are big on their freedoms and don't get me wrong I think freedom is an awesome thing definitely worth fighting for. But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government. Is this America promoting this or have I entered the Twilight Zone.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government.

Government run, mandatory schooling. Compare/contrast.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Americans are big on their freedoms and don't get me wrong I think freedom is an awesome thing definitely worth fighting for. But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government. Is this America promoting this or have I entered the Twilight Zone.

How is serving your own country giving up freedoms? If I was forced to serve another country, I would consider it giving up freedoms. Freedom isn't free, it requires people to participate.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

But what some of you are advocating is to take the freedom of the your young people away and giving control of their lives to the government.

Government run, mandatory schooling. Compare/contrast.

Mandatory schooling is not involuntary servitude and is not unconstitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.