News Will the US reintroduce the draft?

[Townsend]

You seem to have missed the point, which is that, though our government is not a direct democracy, it is still very much based on the desires and will of the people. As SOS is saying, the government has been blatantly ignoring the will of the people on many issues, a policy which I find more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a republic/democracy.

Before anyone panics, though, I'm not actually calling Bush a dictator: I'm merely saying that in many ways, he is not respecting at home the ideals he claims to spread abroad.

I did not miss the point at all. Even if an elected representative is not acting for the will of the majority our government is functioning like it was designed to function. Elected representatives do not always respond to the will of the majority but through time the will of the majority is eventually realized. The diffusion of the voice of the people is what the Federalist wanted and that is what they got. Of course there were some compromises made along the way and we see those today too.

Regards

 

[solutions in a box]

So now you say that you were not PCSed 7 times?

I asked you a straight forward question..don't get mad at me because you made a mistake. I am finding it very hard to believe you but that is besides the point. You may have been in the service...I could be wrong about that...what does that change? Nothing except that you would have seen the bases that you claimed. My point is why did you mention stuff that has been going on for years as if it was new? Thats the main reason why I am finding you hard to believe edward.

Townsend it appears that you have a hard time believing anthing anyone says. Either that or you are a mere neocon troll. You have refuted and disputed nearly every post without giving anything but your own obsessive opinions. What is old about the current illegals joining the military with only a fake green card?
All of the military bonuses were updated on "stand down day" So was the high school dropout situation.
Is no child left behind something old?
Put down your swagger stick and try to be more objective.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend it appears that you have a hard time believing anthing anyone says. Either that or you are a mere neocon troll. You have refuted and disputed nearly every post without giving anything but your own obsessive opinions. What is old about the current illegals joining the military with only a fake green card?
All of the military bonuses were updated on "stand down day" So was the high school dropout situation.
Is no child left behind something old?
Put down your swagger stick and try to be more objective.

I addressed everything you said already..I am not going to play the repeat myself till I am "blue in the face" game with you.

 

[Archon]

Archon

I agree that college is important but my point is that it is not a requirement needed to be successful. I think a big reason why people who have a degree make more than those who don't have a degree is not so much the degree but the person.

There are no "requirements" for success, at least not in the sense you mean. Obviously, one can be successful without a college degree. But one can also be successful without perseverence and the willingness to work hard. The truth is that people with college degrees earn more than people who are merely willing to work hard. This is the case regardless of whether one is a hard worker or not: those with degrees simply earn more.

What I mean is that the people who have college degrees are willing to work hard and they believe in themselves. While there are a lot of reasons why people may or may not be getting a college degree today, money should not be one of those reasons. If someone wants to go to school most schools will find a way for them to pay for it. And yet, not everyone has a college education...why do you suppose that is?

Money is not necessarily the problem: quality of education is. It is well known that poor areas have, in general, schools of a far lower quality than comparatively rich areas. Certainly, the degree itself is valuable in getting people higher-paying jobs, but without the skills that come from a good education, the degree is worth little.

In response to the question: college is not a very feasible (or even possible) option for many of the nation's poor. Many must start working at an early age in order to help support their families, and this often prevents them from going to high school, much less college. Furthermore, poor areas are much more susceptible to crime, drug use, and other such problems, which further reduce opportunities for the children of poor families to make it to college.

The people who have a degree are more often than not hard workers who are willing to make sacrifices to succeed. Obviously their degree helps but I think their success has more to do with intestinal fortitude than a piece of paper.

Unfortunatly, intestinal fortitude will not usually get you a job, nor will it feed your family. That "piece of paper" will do these things far more effectively.

 

[Archon]

I did not miss the point at all. Even if an elected representative is not acting for the will of the majority our government is functioning like it was designed to function. Elected representatives do not always respond to the will of the majority but through time the will of the majority is eventually realized. The diffusion of the voice of the people is what the Federalist wanted and that is what they got. Of course there were some compromises made along the way and we see those today too.

Regards

The purpose of the founding fathers was not to slow the process of the will of the majority manifesting itself in the government. They sought to prevent the will of the majority from intruding on the rights of others, a very valid concern. However, it seems that the opposite is happening here: the minority is imposing its desires for war, etc. on the majority, which is, for the moment, powerless to stop this from happening. This should be a grave concern to everyone, but you seem to be writing it off as the government's purpose in action, even though it seems to be quite the opposite.

 

[Townsend]

Archon

We could go on about this forever. I see your point and I understand where you are coming from. We both want people to be happy and successful in life. We just don't agree about how to accomplish this. So, I am afraid we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do however appreciate your point of view so don't think I am trying to be a prick or anything.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

The purpose of the founding fathers was not to slow the process of the will of the majority manifesting itself in the government. They sought to prevent the will of the majority from intruding on the rights of others, a very valid concern. However, it seems that the opposite is happening here: the minority is imposing its desires for war, etc. on the majority, which is, for the moment, powerless to stop this from happening. This should be a grave concern to everyone, but you seem to be writing it off as the government's purpose in action, even though it seems to be quite the opposite.

They acknowledged the fact that the system of government that would best protect the individual from the tyranny of faction was also a system of government that would be slow to respond to the will of the people it was to govern. That knew it and that is what they wanted it to do so that it could be what it is. In other words James Madison made a compromise when he designed the Virginia plan. Like it or not, the government is functioning exactly like it is suppose to be functioning.

Regards

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back at the topic

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

 

[Townsend]

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

Well giving out aid is their prerogative, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well giving out aid is their prerogative, wouldn’t you agree?

Nope. That's why the Universities told them to blow it out their butts.

 

[Townsend]

Nope. That's why the Universities told them to blow it out their butts.

What do you mean?

So if it is not the prerogative of the federal government to decide who they give aid to then whos prerogative is it?

 

[The Smoking Man]

What do you mean?

So if it is not the prerogative of the federal government to decide who they give aid to then whos prerogative is it?

Funding of education has nothing to do with selective service.

The us military has also been blocked because they have been consistently lying to students to achieve their goals.

It was upheld in court.

Again, you assume that the people serve the government and that the government does not serve the people.

 

[Townsend]

Funding of education has nothing to do with selective service.

The us military has also been blocked because they have been consistently lying to students to achieve their goals.

It was upheld in court.

Well, whos prerogative is it then? Please tell me what authority has the right to decide who can have aid and who cannot?

Again, you assume that the people serve the government and that the government does not serve the people.

The government does NOT have an obligation to give money out for people to goto college with. Do you understand that?

This is why Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the WORST American president of all time.

 

[Archon]

Archon

We could go on about this forever. I see your point and I understand where you are coming from. We both want people to be happy and successful in life. We just don't agree about how to accomplish this. So, I am afraid we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do however appreciate your point of view so don't think I am trying to be a prick or anything.

Regards

I see your point as well, and I certainly appreciate your civility.

They acknowledged the fact that the system of government that would best protect the individual from the tyranny of faction was also a system of government that would be slow to respond to the will of the people it was to govern. That knew it and that is what they wanted it to do so that it could be what it is. In other words James Madison made a compromise when he designed the Virginia plan. Like it or not, the government is functioning exactly like it is suppose to be functioning.

Regards

The only problem with this last sentance is that the same could have been said to the founding fathers themselves, in reference to the British Government. However, they disagreed with its tenets, and so created the United States based on their own image of government. Every revolution, political or otherwise, starts with some sort of disagreement. We cannot forget that, even if the system proposed by the founding fathers was perfect when first brought into being (an impossibility), 250 years of history has altered the world and made change necessary. From my perspective, there are still many more changes that need to be carried out. The reflection of the(rational) opinions of the people in their government is one such change.

 

[Townsend]

The only problem with this last sentance is that the same could have been said to the founding fathers themselves, in reference to the British Government. However, they disagreed with its tenets, and so created the United States based on their own image of government. Every revolution, political or otherwise, starts with some sort of disagreement. We cannot forget that, even if the system proposed by the founding fathers was perfect when first brought into being (an impossibility), 250 years of history has altered the world and made change necessary. From my perspective, there are still many more changes that need to be carried out. The reflection of the(rational) opinions of the people in their government is one such change.

I am totally cool with people who think that things need to be changed. Perhaps they do but I doubt they will because of path dependency.

Just so you know I like the way the Constitution works. Not that it wasn't rather clear from my post.

Regards,

 

[Archon]

The government does NOT have an obligation to give money out for people to goto college with. Do you understand that?

The government also does not have the obligation to invade other countries, for whatever purpose. However, it has the ability to do so when it perceives that this action will protect the lives of Americans. Similarly, while the government may not (from your perspective) have the obligation to give money to people so that they can go to college, it certainly has the ability to do so, and will do so as long as this appears to improve the state of Americans' eduction. After all, an educated populace is in the best interests of most governments.

 

[Townsend]

The government also does not have the obligation to invade other countries, for whatever purpose. However, it has the ability to do so when it perceives that this action will protect the lives of Americans. Similarly, while the government may not (from your perspective) have the obligation to give money to people so that they can go to college, it certainly has the ability to do so, and will do so as long as this appears to improve the state of Americans' eduction. After all, an educated populace is in the best interests of most governments.

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

 

[Archon]

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Somehow, I managed to miss that part of your post. My error.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

I presume that people who believe that the government should give out money to those who need it do care. I certainly care about the nature of my government. And again, we can use the analogy of the founding fathers vs. the British government. How different would things today be if these men had said "That's not how the British are. Let's just forget about Democracy." Though the topic of our discussion perhaps isn't quite as important, it seems to work in much the same way.

 

[Townsend]

I presume that people who believe that the government should give out money to those who need it do care. I certainly care about the nature of my government. And again, we can use the analogy of the founding fathers vs. the British government. How different would things today be if these men had said "That's not how the British are. Let's just forget about Democracy." Though the topic of our discussion perhaps isn't quite as important, it seems to work in much the same way.

You can care about it...I am not saying that you can't at all, or at least that is not what I meant if I did say it.

All I am saying is that the law does not require our government to give handouts. Therefore, it is up to the government to do so how it sees fit. How the government should give out money is a topic for another thread.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

Right, my point is that it is the government’s prerogative to give out money to whomever they want. They are not required by law to do so and as such they should be able to decide who gets money and for what reasons. The schools don’t have a right to make up the rules about how they get the money. Either they play by the rules of Federal government or they don’t get any money.

Now if it were an obligation for the government to give out money things would be very different. However, that’s not how they are so who cares?

Following on with the point ... the money they 'give out' isn't theirs. It makes it into their hands by taxing the people.

Failing to give them their fair share when collected from them allows them to, in turn retain those portions of taxes or suffer the same fate as the British for Taxation without representation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Following on with the point ... the money they 'give out' isn't theirs. It makes it into their hands by taxing the people.

And continuing down the causality chain, the congresspeople and the president were elected by the people, and if the people don't like the way the Federal Government is spending the tax receipts they can always "throw the bums out". Every seat of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years so the voters can do a quick ouster if they really want to.

 

[solutions in a box]

I addressed everything you said already..I am not going to play the repeat myself till I am "blue in the face" game with you.

Why not you are playing it anyway by constantly repeating your own political flatulence with other posters to this thread.

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

The fact is that the Bush administration is playing a very dangerous game in trying to manipulate America's high school students into joining the military. And all of this is to fight a war based on lies.

The neocon Administration fully realizes that to bring back the draft would be political suicide, so they are using underhanded Karl Rove type tactics to try to save their own behinds.

 

[solutions in a box]

• More education news

A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/8273416/

Edward

The operative phrase here is " A little-noticed clause".

Until it recently made the news, because the schools and parents were complaining, no one but the politicians knew about it.

The real effect of the "clause" is that it will bring about an unbalanced number of enlistees from underpriviledged and rural schools. Since they cannot afford to lose that federal aid, recruiters will have full access to personal student information.

On the other hand schools in more affluent areas can afford to lose the federal funding.
And a number of those schools have already told the government to take the money and shove it.

 

[Townsend]

Why not you are playing it anyway by constantly repeating your own political flatulence with other posters to this thread.

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

Whats with all the scathing diatribe?

The fact is that the Bush administration is playing a very dangerous game in trying to manipulate America's high school students into joining the military. And all of this is to fight a war based on lies.

Recruiters were playing games when Clinton was in office too! It has nothing to do with the current Administration and you people cannot just make these kind of casual connections. The burden of proof is with you people, the ones making the sensational claims.

The neocon Administration fully realizes that to bring back the draft would be political suicide, so they are using underhanded Karl Rove type tactics to try to save their own behinds.

please...

 

[BobG]

And you have addressed nothing in any substantial factual manner.

I don't like to get involved in these kind of things very often, but, to be honest, you have a pretty high flame to substance ratio, yourself. One post with 6 sentences of flame and 2 stating your opinion about the subject. One post with 2 sentences of flame and 3 about the subject.

The last wasn't too bad. Not much support, but at least all the sentences addressed the subject.

 

[BobG]

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 can understand why people would be upset by both the House bill and the Senate bill. If they were passed, I'd be pretty upset with members of Congress that introduced this bill. For the House it was Representatives RANGEL (D-New York), McDERMOTT (D-Washington), CONYERS (D-Michigan), LEWIS (D-Georgia), STARK(D-California), and ABERCROMBIE (D-Hawaii). The Senate version was introduced by Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina).

Ironically, this bill was introduced by opponents of invading Iraq. Or, maybe not so ironically. The bills were written to ensure failure and were an attempt at creating a panic that would prevent Congressional approval for an invasion of Iraq. Obviously, it was unsuccessful in accomplishing its aims.

Sundquist's and Beecham's reactions were either an over reaction to a bill that had no chance of passage or an attempt to jump start the reaction to the possibility of a draft.

I'm certainly not excited to find out that every reason given for invasion was inaccurate, since a loss of trust in the office of the President impacts the nation's reaction to any crisis that may occur in the future, but the bill is what it is - BS.

 

[BobG]

Following on with the point ... the money they 'give out' isn't theirs. It makes it into their hands by taxing the people.

Failing to give them their fair share when collected from them allows them to, in turn retain those portions of taxes or suffer the same fate as the British for Taxation without representation.

Technically, the money isn't given back to the taxpayers that paid it. It's given to people too poor to pay taxes. That's more a redistribution of money than giving the taxpayers' back their fair share.

That said:

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.

This is a good point and a reason mandatory community service to receive education benefits couldn't be absolute. There would have to be exceptions.

I think revisions to welfare policy in the 90's that gave education assistance and required progress to continue receiving welfare benefits were a good change. One important part of this is accountability. It didn't guarantee the person's economic status would be elevated to the point they were permanently removed from the welfare rolls, but at least they couldn't just give up.

Obviously, the degree of success varies even when it does remove people from the welfare rolls. A single parent barely elevated above welfare status might have some trouble coming up with the time to perform community service.

Ensuring a payback for government assistance might be the best option, but reducing the amount of government assistance required is better than supporting a family on welfare for life. You take what you can get.

By the way, there's no reason community service would have to be military service. Heck, it could even be the Peace Corps. Improving the world somewhere and improving the US's image abroad isn't a bad payback.

 

[edward]

I don't like to get involved in these kind of things very often, but, to be honest, you have a pretty high flame to substance ratio, yourself. One post with 6 sentences of flame and 2 stating your opinion about the subject. One post with 2 sentences of flame and 3 about the subject.

The last wasn't too bad. Not much support, but at least all the sentences addressed the subject.

Bob G At least you are reading the posts

It is hard not to get caught up in the flames when ones personal integrity has been challenged. It even sucked me in for awhile. But that is what trolling is all about isn't it? Perhaps "solutions was trying to fight fire with fire.
There have been several credible links posted on this thread. On page six I posted from A DOD web site:

"Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military."

It seems to me that this supports "solutions" last reply. And bear in mind that the link was referred to as crap and B. S. and not from the DOD.

 

[Townsend]

Bob G At least you are reading the posts

It is hard not to get caught up in the flames when ones personal integrity has been challenged. It even sucked me in for awhile. But that is what trolling is all about isn't it? Perhaps "solutions was trying to fight fire with fire.
There have been several credible links posted on this thread. On page six I posted from A DOD web site:

"Joiners. Demographically, Joiners are predominantly from less well-to-do working or lower middle-class homes. They tend, as well, to reside in smaller towns or rural environments. Most of the youth in this category have a familial tradition of military service and/or extensive contact with people serving in the military. Their familiarity with military life, also, is generally greater than that for youth in any of the other propensity groups, although this familiarity does not always prove a positive influence. Some of the descriptions of military life lead to ambivalence about enlisting in the military."

It seems to me that this supports "solutions" last reply. And bear in mind that the link was referred to as crap and B. S. and not from the DOD.

I am entitled to express my opinion, which happens to be based on direct experience with what the passage you posted is discussing. I explained what I think and why I think it. More often than not I am not making any claims but I am merely expressing my opinion. Can you not tolerate that or what?

Sorry if you feel like your integrity is being called into question but that list you posted earlier is a list of things that with a couple of exceptions has been happening for years. The military is always trying to find new ways of getting people to enlist and if Kerry was in office they would still be trying to get people to enlist. It is naive to assume that just because of the current administration is in office the military is suddenly trying to recruit more people. The fact that you are trying to assert such a thing and tell me that you have prior service does give me reason to question your integrity. I have never met, and I know a lot of service people, a single prior service person who would say something so sensational knowing full well how ridiculous it really is.

Take my opinion for what its worth and stop getting so irate because I challenge your position.

I cannot understand you people...its like you expect everyone to just agree with whatever you say or something.

edward...I asked you previously what facts I stated that you would like me to provide evidence for. If you don't believe something I am saying is true then please explain to me why and what you would like to see. OK?

One last note to solutions in a box...Asking me to be more objective is pointless because I think I am being objective and I view your post as being subjective. Get it?

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

And bear in mind that the link was referred to as crap and B. S. and not from the DOD.

How about you bear in mind the fact I changed my position with new information. Is that a crime around here? Are you going to hold on to the only thing you have and try to work it in at every possible opportunity? Get over it..you made your point already.