- #106
Townsend
- 232
- 0
edward said:
What did I say that you would like verified?
edward said:Townsend
Stop with all the rhetoric please and post something that can be supported or verified in any way other than your own opinion.
edward said:Thats right 7
BobG said:Maybe a better option would be to target specific benefits as requiring some type of community service. Education benefits would be the perfect fit if the community service were performed after graduation instead of before. ROTC already performs this role for the military, except they require 4 years instead of 2, so the new programs should be targeted towards some other government areas.
edward said:Townsend
come on now swabby , do you still say this link is crap.
You seem to have yourself convinced about 'what liberals want'.Townsend said:What problem are you talking about? Liberals tend to believe that the government owe things like welfare and health care and jobs. The government does not owe the people these things. And to get those things what is wrong with requiring people to earn them?
The libs want to get a good job working at a company that has a GOV contract, they want free health care,free education and they don't think that anyone should have to do a dame thing to get it. Sorry, that's not the way things work nor should they work.
You are entitled to make your own fortune. I encourage you to by all means acquire as much wealth for you and your family as you possibly can. What does that have to do with getting handouts? You want government aid, pay for it with some service. Whats the big deal?
Townsend said:Well I find that extremely hard to believe. Let's see...about 4 year per station times 7 stations is about 28 years of service plus training time puts you at about 29 years of service...I don't think so buddy..nice try.
I asked you if the government is responsible to the will of the majority in a democracy and you responded that they do not have to answer to the will of 'faction'.Townsend said:The government does not have to act for the will of faction, not now and not ever!
Again?...this is the first time you have asked me that. I can answer that with any kind of opinion at all. The constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the individual. Its goal is diffuse the voice of the people through a complex system of republican representation and checks and balances. I believe James Madison and the Federalist got most of it right when they drafted the constitution.
Really dumb! Only leftist politicians want a draft.The Smoking Man said:…
Do you believe that all us citizens should now, if they are of service age, go down to the registration office and sign up for service to put in their two years in Iraq?
And dumber! Majority means “a greater number” if the term confuses you.The Smoking Man said:And if they refuse to do so and they are the majority of the population and the majority of the population refuses the draft, do you think the government is correct in acting against the majority of the people by deliberately acting against the will of the democracy by penalizing them for 'not paying'?
Ours does, does yours?The Smoking Man said:Again, do you believe the government reflects the will of the people …?
edward said:what makes you think I spent 4 years per station. I was with the SR71 program and was all over the world including foreign installions in six years.
quit thinking that you know everything kid
So are you saying that just because all the children of senators and congressmen who can afford to pay for their education out of their pockets should be exempt from this service because of an accident of birth?Townsend said:Good point...some kind of service would be nice though.
GENIERE said:Really dumb! Only leftist politicians want a draft.
And dumber! Majority means “a greater number” if the term confuses you.
Irrelevant. This is a discussion about the United States. China is not relevant, at least not in the way you suggest.Ours does, does yours?
Sorry, who mentioned a draft? I was talking about Townsend's theory that all people should put in 2 years.GENIERE said:Really dumb! Only leftist politicians want a draft.
And dumber! Majority means “a greater number” if the term confuses you.
What government would that be? Where do I live and where am I from? Who IS my government?GENIERE said:Ours does, does yours?..
The Smoking Man said:What of the incidents several years ago of soldiers having to collect food stamps to feed their families? Does this support your theory that military families are relatively 'well off'? And if they are, why didn't they turn to their families instead?
The Smoking Man said:So are you saying that just because all the children of senators and congressmen who can afford to pay for their education out of their pockets should be exempt from this service because of an accident of birth?
AMERICANS COULD BE PRESSED INTO MANDATORY COMMUNITY SERVICE
NewsWithViews.com June 30, 2004
The Universal National Service Act of 2003 sitting in this 108th Congress In the Senate, S89 (Senate Bill), ) reads: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.
(D-The House of Representatives has a 'sister' bill, HR 163 (House Resolution), which contains the same language. Both bills will make it mandatory for women to serve in the military as well as men; the age window for induction is 18-26.
(DMilly Sundquist of Houston Texas is spitting mad. "How dare this government continue with further attempts to destroy the family unit by pressing women into mandatory military service! My daughter will turn 23 next year and is engaged to be married. She's extremely upset that this government could force her into the military and send her to someplace like the Middle East to be raped or beheaded by people who care nothing for human life or dignity."
Lauren Beecham, a paralegal studying for her law degree in NY, majored in world history and says Community service - especially forced community service - is rooted in communist doctrine." Section 1 in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.
I would be the first to fight to defend our country (e.g., when attacked), and I suspect most if not all Americans would do likewise. The problem is this is an unpopular war that lacks the support of the majority of Americans and most of the world. It is illegal, instigated with lies, and has resulted in less security for our nation. Yet you say we should all be sheep and stampede of a cliff behind a bunch of idiots yelling the charge? And if one doesn't blindly follow they are unpatriotic, ungrateful liberal bastards? Hmm...Have you heard of representation before taxation?Townsend said:So what, people shouldn't have to pay for all the benefits the government gives them. You liberals are like kids...always biting the hand that feeds.
Deal with reality and stop crying because you have to actually pay for something instead of getting it for free from the government you cheap bastards. In the real world if you want something from someone , tax payers money in this case, then you must give them something in exchange for it. Why should anyone get all the benefits of jobs and social welfare from this country and yet do nothing in exchange for it?
Actually, I believe that Harvard's admission is need-blind, so presumably, anyone can afford to go to Harvard.Townsend said:Yes I am...
If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?
So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.Townsend said:Yes I am...
If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?
2CentsWorth said:I would be the first to fight to defend our country (e.g., when attacked), and I suspect most if not all Americans would do likewise. The problem is this is an unpopular war that lacks the support of the majority of Americans and most of the world. It is illegal, instigated with lies, and has resulted in less security for our nation. Yet you say we should all be sheep and stampede of a cliff behind a bunch of idiots yelling the charge? And if one doesn't blindly follow they are unpatriotic, ungrateful liberal bastards?
Hmm...Have you heard of representation before taxation?
Archon said:Actually, I believe that Harvard's admission is need-blind, so presumably, anyone can afford to go to Harvard.
That aside, while I don't really disagree with what you're saying here, doesn't it seem even a little inconsistent if some children are given what is, in effect, free money from their parents when the same can't be true of people who are struggling to survive and could be saved by government money? In neither case have the recipients "earned" the money in any way.
And if each person is responsible for his or her own success, why is this not true of children who happen to be born into wealthy families?
The Smoking Man said:So then it strikes me that if the above is true then anyone who enlists should have a right to the same education at Harvard or Yale because 'daddy's money equates to risking your life.
The reason I mention Yale is because clearly, Bush didn't belong there and it was 'daddy's money that got him in.
The Smoking Man said:I asked you if the government is responsible to the will of the majority in a democracy and you responded that they do not have to answer to the will of 'faction'.
Can you explain the terms and how the 'Majority in a Democracy' is considered a 'Faction'?
It's certainly true that many people are born with a physical disadvantage, but this is not really comparable to an economic disadvantage: if someone is born without arms and legs, then there is nothing that can be done to ensure that this person has a normal life with the same opportunities supposedly available to all of us. If, on the other hand, someone is born into poverty, their chances of "finding riches" are obviously not statistically very high, or poverty would no longer exist. In this case, the disadvantage is an economic one: if you make only enough money to feed yourself and your family, then you can't very well use money to increase your living standard. Poor areas tend to have lower-quality schools, which correlates with lower achievment and income. Etc, etc, etc.Townsend said:You have the right to do as well as you can with whatever ever facilities you have at your disposal. That does not mean that you have a right to a rich daddy. Some people are born with no legs and are born with a physical disadvantage. Life is not fair and sometimes its even cruel to those who deserve to most from life. The rich people are rich and the poor people are poor and some rich people may not deserve it but that is not for you to decide for them. Some poor people may deserve a lot more but that does not make it my responsibility or the governments responsibility to make sure they get what they deserve.
If someones family cannot afford to give their child a good life then it is left to that child to go out into the cruel world and learn how to make it. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. But here they at least have the opportunity to make and rich or poor it really is up to them what they do with their life.
In the specific example given by The Smoking Man, the majority is not doing anything to harm or intrude upon the rights of the minority. Rather, they wish not to be forced to join the military, a purely personal choice, at least until true need arises. In this case, true need refers to such a thing as an attack on American soil, rather than the need to remedy the foreign errors of our leaders.Townsend said:I would but it has been done for me by much smarter people.
Read the Federalist papers number 10 and number 51 by James Madison.
Archon said:It's certainly true that many people are born with a physical disadvantage, but this is not really comparable to an economic disadvantage:
The question I have to ask is, why are they so poor? There is so much opportunity in this country I just don't understand it. When I was stationed in Lemoore CA I was renting from a Mexican family that came into the US not 15 years ago and now they are very rich. They came with no money and no education. They never needed a hand out because they were willing to work any kind of job and they saved up and well...you get the idea.if you make only enough money to feed yourself and your family, then you can't very well use money to increase your living standard. Poor areas tend to have lower-quality schools, which correlates with lower achievment and income. Etc, etc, etc.
But if the government provides people with enough resources (not necessarily money) to survive, then the people will have the ability to use the money they earn to advance their living standard and perhaps rise out of poverty.
If the government has the ability to save people from abject poverty, what exactly do you find disagreeable in actually doing so?
Even if this is not the government's "responsibility," surely a (more or less) civilized society can agree to spend money on preventing the suffering of those who are often without recourse in a world which increasingly requires skills which are difficult to acquire from a position of poverty.
Not if you're in the military and under fire in the gulf.Townsend said:No...I don't believe that you have to support a war that you disagree with. However, serving in the military does not mean that you support the war, it only means that you are serving in the military. You have a right to vote and a right to speak out against this war. You have a right to form organized protest and I encourge you to do so if that's your perspective.
Tell me I have the right to pick up my plackard instead of my gun and say, "NO" and not get shot for treason.The Code of Conduct
I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies.
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Archon said:In the specific example given by The Smoking Man, the majority is not doing anything to harm or intrude upon the rights of the minority. Rather, they wish not to be forced to join the military, a purely personal choice, at least until true need arises.
In this case, true need refers to such a thing as an attack on American soil, rather than the need to remedy the foreign errors of our leaders.
In contrast, if the minority wished to force the majority into military service on the end of an economic sword, I would consider this the imposition of the will of a "faction" on the rest of the American people: precisely what Madison wished to prevent.
The Smoking Man said:Not if you're in the military and under fire in the gulf.
These articles specifically strip you of that right:
Tell me I have the right to pick up my plackard instead of my gun and say, "NO" and not get shot for treason.
Which, by the way, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on illegal orders.
You didn't answer the question.Townsend said:Yes I am...
If I work hard to become successful don't I have the right to pay for my kids education the best way I see fit? Most people cannot afford to send their kids to Harvard, does that mean that the rich who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to send their kids there?
Townsend said:They don't PCS people for such short periods...sorry to break it to you dude.
I would expect that someone with any service at all would know the difference between temporary assignments and a PCS.
The Smoking Man said:You didn't answer the question.
I asked if the children of rich parents should be allowed to avoid service if their parents had money.
edward said:Oh so now you claim to know how the the Airforce deployed personnel in the Blackbird program in 1968. It was called TDY. And I was most probably doing all of this before you were born.
You are the epitome of one who hoists oneself up on one's own petard.
LOL.Townsend said:If you have a conscientious objection to the war then you let your command know how you feel. You can be assigned a position as a non combatant as I understand it.
Only a small percentage of people who apply receive a CO discharge. But military statistics lag about one year behind, and the decisions on CO applications take on average six months to one year - sometimes as long as two years - so the exact number of COs in the present war will not be known for some time.
The military granted 111 COs from the army in the first Gulf War before putting a stop to the practice, resulting in 2,500 soldiers being sent to prison, says Bill Gavlin from the Center on Conscience and War, quoting a report from the 'Boston Globe' newspaper.
During that war, a number of U.S. COs in Camp LeJeune in North Carolina state were ”beaten, harassed and treated horribly”, Gavlin says. In some cases, COs were put on planes bound for Kuwait, told that they could not apply for CO status or that they could only apply after they'd already gone to war.
As far as Gavlin knows, that type of treatment has not happened this time. But he has counselled service members who were harassed. For example, one woman was told that if she applied for CO status she would be court marshalled. It is not an offence to apply, and her superiors did it, Gavlin says, ”to intimidate her.”
The first group contains ”those who go into the military understanding war and are willing to accept it”, she says. ”But then something happens during their service and they are no longer OK with war.”
The second group contains people who have ”sought out spiritual growth and have come to believe that God doesn't want them to participate in war.”
The third, and biggest, group, she says, is made up of young, often naive, people who join the military in their late teens. They are often poor whites, blacks or Hispanics, who either have limited employment opportunities, or are looking for a way to fund their college education.
Because military recruiters target poor youth in urban centres - the so-called ”poverty draft” - this is probably the fastest-growing group of COs as well as the biggest, added McNeil.
You just contradicted yourself.Townsend said:If their is mandatory service then everyone should be required to participate. If it is voluntary then they should not required to join. If you don't join the military you don't get a lot of the benefits that I currently enjoy. I just want to extend this policy out to more benefits, the ones that people seem to be taking as rights instead of privileges.
Does that answer your question?