Very good points Dave. Also, Israel is a nation of around 7 million (approx. 1 million are arabs).

Israeli's fight for their survival everyday, it just isn't mentioned in the Democratic Mainstream Media.

 

I don't believe anyone should be for this sort of thing.

Frank S nailed it, if your reason is valid, then you'll have the willing and able lining up to help. Why should a government be allowed to force people into combat who don't believe in the cause or aren't prepared to be there?

In business, you don't purposely employ someone who doesn't want to be there, because that's how mistakes are made and money is lost. In this situation, mistakes are made and lives are lost.

 

The reason that there is such ludicrous legislation going on right now is because we as a people have forgotten that the morons in DC work for us- we don't work for them. They'll spend millions to get elected to what is supposed to be a temporary job and lie like a dog to get that. Then they want to stay on the job forever. Remember this in the up coming election. Anybody in Washington DC today needs to be fired, regardless of party. You have the power- it's called your VOTE- use it.

 

It is amazing that,during the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50, 60's, and part of the 70's, that this logic wasn't used at all to get rid of the draft---hey---they had the draft during non-wartime, too...

Using the "Hell, no, I won't go" response didn't work too well during Vietnam, did it...but yet many of you would be PO'd at the draft-dodgers who went up north to escape the draft, right? Again, using this "logic" if you do not want to go, then don't. If the gov't forces you to serve, get out of Dodge, so to speak (pun intended.) But when they were pardoned and allowed to return, I bet many of you would be indignant, wouldn't you? "COWARDS!" "SHIRKERS!" "SLACKERS!"

TSC

 

Double standards. Conservatives love to say Liberals use double standards, but are too naive to notice their own double standards. Double standarding the double standards if you will.

 

I am totally for our Nation's protection. I would serve... and have been thinking of serving. But I've already got a good paying government job. Won't ever leave it either, unless I saw more opportunity in the armed forces or they implemented something like this. But not quite sure if my job would exempt me from it either if they implemented this act.

In fact, I wouldn't do anything but work in gov't jobs. It's secure, safe, and has potential.

I've worked big business before, and I laugh at people that do, because of the way the job market is.

 

Secure my *** - I had a government job and got laid off in 1995. It's called RIF - reduction in force.

 

This thing really stinks. O-BLAME-A said he wanter a civilian "brown shirt" group that was just as large, just as well funded as the military. It's his dream come true!

Way too much power for the Government. If you want to see where this could lead check out what the city of Bell, California is going through. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

 

Damn, I guess post #13 escaped everybody.

This same Bill came to the House floor in 2004, it failed with a vote of 2-404.

Neither of the two who voted 'YEA' were the sponsor.
Let me break that down Barney style...
Rangle wrote it, then voted against it.

It is political theater, never meant for the light of day.

 

Instead of making a law to require people to do something, why don't they offer lucrative inducements, or benefits, for those who do volunteer? Here's a thought instead of making those who fail to volunteer for something criminals, how about allowing them to write off the value of their volunteer hours on their taxes as a credit. If I could get my taxes lowered by volunteerism, I'd be a volunteering fool. Or how about who are employed in one of the golden government approved agencies don't have taxes due on income from those sources. Or go a step farther, only those who have volunteered or served may vote in elections. It's ALWAYS better to lure with honey than beat with a stick.

The military isn't set up for the draft anymore, and it would be bad to introduce one. If you remember back when we had a draft, the military leaders were allowed to beat their troops. Now they are not. For those who think that was not an effective tool think about it this way. If little Johnny doesn't want to be in the military he simply doesn't do anything. What is the current recourse for not doing anything? Go to jail or be discharged. Either way little Johnny got what he wanted and suffers little recourse. I agree that sending someone to a war zone who does not want to be there is very bad. It greatly lowers the effectiveness of the military and kills morale.

 

You call it political theater, I call it a trial balloon. Rangel dipping his toe in the water one last time, taking the temp for his team (and jury). When Congress eventually passes a similar bill 20 years from now, they can name it after him.

As to people missing the point and content of your posts, don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

Persons in this thread routinely compare this bill to 'the draft', even though it has been pointed out that, if passed, this bill reaches farther than any past draft.

 

Maybe it means we all have to join an organization like ACORN

 

I call it Rangel setting off a smoke grenade because there are no friendlies to be found.

To ignore the intent and continue debate is the equivalent of arguing, 'Who would win, Batman or Spiderman?'

 

So you are saying we should just 'ignore' someone who has been in Congress 40 years, and is Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, a war hero who has become one of the most influential members in his party and in our government, because he is basically a political hack out to preserve his own ***?

Sorry, these people are way too dangerous to ignore, even when they have painted themselves into an ethics corner (He'll skate on all that, BTW. Appearance of a slap on the wrist. Maybe). Giving sleazy power hungry politicians the keys and ignoring them has got us to where we are today.

 

No I'm saying 40 years in Congress is the problem, how does somebody get re-elected 20 times when congressional approval has never been over 50%?

A far better thread would be tracking the Ethics committee handling of Rangel rather than stopping to smell this herring he dropped along the trail to throw people off.

This only shows how well the ploy works.