[RenegadeRick]

HR 4752 provides for a 2 year mandatory service period for ALL men and women aged 18 to 42 in the US. I am guessing that includes pretty much EVERY US citizen here.

On yesterday's ride, the conversation turned to Iraq, and the murder of Iraqi women and children in Hadditha. I mentioned that the new Military Ethics Training program might help, and my buddy told me, "It's real easy to criticize what others are doing while you are here safe and secure, enjoying the freedom of mountain biking."

We were huffing up a long climb at the time, so I suggested we delay our conversation until a later time when we could accompany it with alcohol and firearms.

The point of this is with this new bill, you and I could enjoy our freedoms in Iraq (or Iran) too. It might be a good opportunity to see just how sensitive we really are.

If this does not, however, sound like your idea of a dream vacation, you might want to contact your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill, HR 4752. You can find out who they are on VoteSmart.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think you should have to serve to be able to vote personally. Not necessarily in a military capacity. Peace Corps or something could work too.

More community service, more character individuals, better education on govt initiatives = a better voting populace and smarter choices IMO. Starship troopers style.

 

[MMike]

I think you should have to serve to be able to vote personally. Not necessarily in a military capacity. Peace Corps or something could work too.

.

Or the Salavation/Kiss army

 

[BurlyShirley]

Or the Salavation/Kiss army

Mini-Kiss Army would be better.

 

[DirtyDog]

Starship troopers style.

Would we get to share locker rooms with hot chicks?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Would we get to share locker rooms with hot chicks?

hot 40+ chicks? :nonono:

since this is mandatory service, this covers everyone, and of course, the US has the fattest population on the planet...

 

[Slugman]

I think you should have to serve to be able to vote personally. Not necessarily in a military capacity. Peace Corps or something could work too.

Forced into service to save freedom... right.

I'll sign up after the president, vice president, and all elected officials send their children to war.

I actually don't disagree completely with this concept, but to introduce it during a time of war negates the benefits that I did see of it.

 

[RenegadeRick]

<snip> I'll sign up after the president, vice president, and all elected officials send their children to war. <snip>

The bill states that the President could make up any exemptions he sees fit. Hmmm... I wonder what those might be?

<snip> I actually don't disagree completely with this concept, but to introduce it during a time of war negates the benefits that I did see of it.

I feel the same way, but forcing it upon people doesn't make them free. It makes them slaves.

What about the financial repercussions of taking a highly-paid established member of society (lawyer, entepreneur, etc.) and paying them "whatever:"

Such regulations shall include specification of the fol-
lowing:
<snip>
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits
for persons performing their national service obliga-
tion under this Act through civilian service.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I think you should have to serve to be able to vote personally. Not necessarily in a military capacity. Peace Corps or something could work too.

More community service, more character individuals, better education on govt initiatives = a better voting populace and smarter choices IMO. Starship troopers style.

The bill states that civilian service is really just a backup for those that don't qualify for military service. It's not a choice:

Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President
shall--
(1) determine the number of persons covered by
subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a
member of an active or reserve component of the
uniformed services; and
(2) select the individuals among those persons
who are to be inducted for military service under
this Act.
(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE.--Persons covered by sub-
section (a) who are not selected for military service under
subsection (d) shall perform their national service obliga-
tion under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to sub-
section (b)(2).

 

[narlus]

42, eh? looks like i've got a couple of years for the bickering and implementation to get in place before i can opt out.

 

[Da Peach]

They do/did it in Europe. Switzerland for sure... I asked the same question about compensation for crappy salary VS. what you would normally make. Don't know the answer to that one.

Just the price you pay for lliving in that country? Sounds better than paying 45% tax and driving on ****ty roads...grumble grumble..

 

[MudGrrl]

I already did my time.

 

[Silver]

Imagine all the Republicans coming out of the closet if that pipe dream ever passes...

 

[RenegadeRick]

42, eh? looks like i've got a couple of years for the bickering and implementation to get in place before i can opt out.

There is no opt-out. Only military or civilian service. I've read the bill a few times, there does not seem to be an out, save whatever exemptions the President may come up with.

Would you all please contact your representatives already? My rep Mark Stephen Kirk is a Republican and current Naval Reserve Officer. I don't think he will oppose this bill.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I already did my time.

I think you are clear. This describes you, right?

No person shall be
liable for induction under this Act who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at
least six months, in any component of the uniformed
services on active duty;

 

[jimmydean]

I have to agree with BS on the service=voting rights. I think it would do a lot for our country if everyone had to do a service of one form or another. It would be a lot easier to get people to serve if the National Guard went back to the "old guard" like it was when W served.

Or at least did away with overseas deployments for Guard units.

 

[Ciaran]

I have to agree with BS on the service=voting rights. I think it would do a lot for our country if everyone had to do a service of one form or another. It would be a lot easier to get people to serve if the National Guard went back to the "old guard" like it was when W served.

Or at least did away with overseas deployments for Guard units.

Personally I have always felt that if you are going to put restrictions on who gets to vote (Aside from the fact that it's an asinine idea) that it should be based on ones level of education.

 

[ChrisRobin]

Serving in order to be eligible to vote would cause more segregation within a society that already has enough of it: class, race...etc.

Not that I'm totally disagreeing with this concept since I believe if you don't participate somehow within your community/society, you have no right to complain about anything. The most you can do is be thankful you weren't born in Ethiopia.

You could do a stint in the military, be a police officer, volunteer at your local YMCA, volunteer with homeless people even...doing this would put things back into perspective for you. THEN you could start expressing your thoughts on how things are ****ed up here in N.America.

 

[jimmydean]

Personally I have always felt that if you are going to put restrictions on who gets to vote (Aside from the fact that it's an asinine idea) that it should be based on ones level of education.

That makes sense as well. Have a pre-vote test to see who paid attention to what issues. If you don't know the issue or a candidates stand, you can't vote for that issue or candidate.

Just because a person has an education doesn't mean they paid any attention to what is on the ballot though. I mean, if you have a degree in Womens Studies it doesn't make you an expert on environmental issues, right?

But it would be a good way to weed out some of the jackasses.

 

[ChrisRobin]

That makes sense as well. Have a pre-vote test to see who paid attention to what issues. If you don't know the issue or a candidates stand, you can't vote for that issue or candidate.

Just because a person has an education doesn't mean they paid any attention to what is on the ballot though. I mean, if you have a degree in Womens Studies it doesn't make you an expert on environmental issues, right?

But it would be a good way to weed out some of the jackasses.

But at the same time, what about the people that vote based on religion? They don't give a **** about the issues and never pay attention, all they care about is voting for a guy like Bush. Should it be allowed to filter out people like this too?

(disclaimer: I'm just making an argument and in no way support Bush and I don't believe religion should have anything to do with politics)

 

[Ian F]

At least 1/2 of the US population wouldn't pass the physical...

Unfortunately, most people on this site are probably screwed...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

At least 1/2 of the US population wouldn't pass the physical...

Unfortunately, most people on this site are probably screwed...

You don't think a bunch of bikers could pass the physical?

 

[DRB]

Rangel created this bill with no intent of it ever being voted on, let alone passed.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That makes sense as well. Have a pre-vote test to see who paid attention to what issues. If you don't know the issue or a candidates stand, you can't vote for that issue or candidate.

If this were the thread on the 2004 election, I'd be tempted to make a joke about what that test might look like. For instance, it could consist of one (1) question:

Did you come here to vote for Republicans?
If yes, go and vote.
If no, go home, get out your dictionary, and look up "Disenfranchisement."

 

[Slugman]

That makes sense as well. Have a pre-vote test to see who paid attention to what issues. If you don't know the issue or a candidates stand, you can't vote for that issue or candidate.

This is going to come off a little “tinfoil hat” sounding, but: I don't think you understand - the government doesn't WANT people to pay attention to what is going on.

People today are too busy with their lives to pay attention to what the government is doing, and that is by design. There are several books about the methods and purpose to creating the 'nuclear family' and how it has been used to distract the citizens …

You don't think a bunch of bikers could pass the physical?

No, he thinks that we would and therefore would have to serve...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, he thinks that we would and therefore would have to serve...

Whoops. I thought we were talking about the physical portion of the exam to vote.

My bad.

 

[sanjuro]

Everytime I watch Viva La Bam, I think they should reinstitute the draft.

 

[jimmydean]

But at the same time, what about the people that vote based on religion? They don't give a **** about the issues and never pay attention, all they care about is voting for a guy like Bush. Should it be allowed to filter out people like this too?

The point of the filter would be to weed out people who are not informed. If you know the issues/candidate and religion decided your vote, then it's a non-issue.

Just because your informed doesn't mean that everyone will agree, it means that votes would be cast with intent rather than SAT style guessing. Doesn't mean that jackasses won't get into office.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Rangel created this bill with no intent of it ever being voted on, let alone passed.

Then why create a bill? Can you provide some evidence to support your claims?

 

[DRB]

Then why create a bill? Can you provide some evidence to support your claims?

Because Rangel's done it before. In January of 2003 he created a similar bill

Rangel has stated that his intention is not to bring back the draft. Rather, by using an issue that holds a deep emotional resonance for many Americans, he is addressing the class disparity between the Americans who serve in the military and the civilians responsible for leading them. Rangel's draft proposal has one key difference from its Vietnam War predecessor: in order to equitably spread the cost of military service, it carries no exemptions for students in college or graduate school.

Two developments during the Vietnam War are at the root of Rangel's symbolic protest. The inherently unfair exemptions in the Vietnam draft allowed the college-bound young men of the privileged classes to foist their military duties onto underprivileged Americans. But that wasn't enough. Students at many prestigious universities such as Columbia were so insistent on removing even the specter of military service that they succeeded in causing the removal of long-standing Reserves Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses.

Republicans said the bill was introduced to undermine the president's foreign policy. In the House, House Majority Leader (at the time)Tom DeLay (R-TX) said, "This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democratic party. It has one purpose--to spread fear."

And when the House eventually voted on it, it was defeated by the close vote of 402-2. One of the 402, Rangel himself.

Not every bill is crafted with the intent of eventually becoming law. Quite a bit of the time they are done to make a point or bring debate on a subject. The constitutional amendment on gay marriage for example.

 

[Da Peach]

Everytime I watch Viva La Bam, I think they should reinstitute the draft.

I hope that idot burns. Bam has got to be the most vile stain on the media I have ever seen. He's like the spoiled brat that had all the cool clothes and hung out with the cool kids (read: Jackass gang) but never actually did anything but rip off Tom Green.

Only Bam's family is more embarassing. Congrats.

I'm sure the military could find a use for a skateboarder. Mine sweeper?

Just the mention of his name make me wretch.

 

[Ciaran]

That makes sense as well. Have a pre-vote test to see who paid attention to what issues. If you don't know the issue or a candidates stand, you can't vote for that issue or candidate.

Just because a person has an education doesn't mean they paid any attention to what is on the ballot though. I mean, if you have a degree in Womens Studies it doesn't make you an expert on environmental issues, right?

But it would be a good way to weed out some of the jackasses.

Well, I also feel that we should have extremely high educational standards, that everyone should have to go to school a lot longer than 12 years. But that's just me. Most people are more interested in bright shiny objects than wisdom, knowledge and truth.

 

[jimmydean]

Well, I also feel that we should have extremely high educational standards, that everyone should have to go to school a lot longer than 12 years. But that's just me. Most people are more interested in bright shiny objects than wisdom, knowledge and truth.

I agree 100% on the level, but there is nothing wrong with doing it in 12 years. I had a conversation with a guy at Intel years ago from India. He wanted to understand American culture, so we swapped stories. He told me about his version of high school and the how competitive every kid in his class was when it came to grades and studies. When he finished with 12th grade, he had a higher education than I did with my AS degree.

I had to tell him about how much I slacked at that age and didn't care about grades or studies until much later in life. I failed to see the value in education and how I missed out on a lot because of it.

I still like shiny objects though.

Sorry to have derailed this thread.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Because Rangel's done it before. In January of 2003 he created a similar bill

And when the House eventually voted on it, it was defeated by the close vote of 402-2. One of the 402, Rangel himself.

Not every bill is crafted with the intent of eventually becoming law. Quite a bit of the time they are done to make a point or bring debate on a subject.

Interesting.

This article: GlobalResearch.ca says:

History of the Bill
This is the second time Rep. Charles Rangel introduces his controversial bill.
In January 2003, HR 163 was submitted in the House.
It was voted upon and defeated in the House in October 2003, on the grounds that it had not been sent for committee hearings. However, it was suggested at the time that the Republican-controlled House wanted to defeat the bill, to squash rumors that Bush would reintroduce the draft if reelected.

"In spite of adamant denial of draft rumors, Internet and campus campaigners had trumpeted the bill as evidence of a "secret plan" to reinstate the draft in case President Bush is re-elected."

But in the Washington Times we read:

Mr. Rangel said that his bill deserved "serious consideration"

His statement on house.gov backs you up:

"I don't expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. As the President speaks of a national response involving the military option, military service should be a shared sacrifice. Right now the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who with limited options chose military service and now find themselves in harm's way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people's children do the fighting.

"It is shameful for high ranking government officials who have never placed themselves in harm's way to promote military solutions as a substitute for diplomacy. It's disheartening to hear the most strident champions of war in Iraq or anywhere else who have never thought or voted in Congress to send their own children to war.

<snip>

The Republican Leadership responded to my first bill by procedurally preventing debate on the issues it raised; let us see how they try to avoid facing the question of shared sacrifice this time.

I don't know how I feel about all this. Many of you have stated that some kind of mandatory service could be beneficial. It seems that the intention of this bill is to make military service more fairly distributed, but I believe this is at best a dangerous game to play.

If you wish to volunteer to be shot at, or IED'd, that is your business. Maybe you have no other choice, no other opportunities...

But, there is always a chance that a bill like this COULD get voted into law. It might just take the right "incentives."

I know I wouldn't want to be compelled into service, and I wouldn't want my son to be either. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't want ANYONE to be.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

If service was manditory, the public would be less gung ho about frivolous wars. I say do it. The sheeple have been spoiled long enough with out of sight, out of mind. Time to make it personal.

 

[DRB]

But in the Washington Times we read:

Mr. Rangel said that his bill deserved "serious consideration"

He meant that the reasons he brought the bill up need to be given serious consideration, not the bill itself.

And to hammer the point home, in the very next paragraph:

The bill, which Mr. Rangel said he introduced to make a political point that the military is being stretched too thin under Mr. Bush, would have required everyone, including women, between the ages of 18 to 26, to serve a period of military service.

I believe that he did it for the right reasons, but in many ways he is pandering to his district with his rhetoric surrounding his "attempts" at this bill.

As for tying national service or education or intelligence to suffrage, no way. In fairly land it might be nice but there is simply no way it could be fairly instituted. And in reality it goes against everything that this country was founded upon. The fact is that any reduction of suffrage directly affects the legitimacy any democratically elected government.

 

[manimal]

i'm all for it, even though i've done my time as well. hell, look at Israel, mandatory service and they're friggin badass.

some form of structured service could solve a lot of our national and community problems. my job would be a lot different if the average 21 yr old had some respect and self worth obtained from service.

 

[ChrisRobin]

hell, look at Israel, mandatory service and they're friggin badass.

But look where they're located and look at their history. They have no choice but to be 'badass'. They have their enemies in range and throughout history they've been beaten on.

 

[RenegadeRick]

i'm all for it, even though i've done my time as well. hell, look at Israel, mandatory service and they're friggin badass. <snip>

Is this really desirable?
Badass on the bike, sure, but with other people?
It's no wonder we are killing civlilians in Iraq when there is Rah Rah "kill 'em all" stuff like this that people take seriously:

It makes killing people seem cool.

<snip> some form of structured service could solve a lot of our national and community problems. my job would be a lot different if the average 21 yr old had some respect and self worth obtained from service.

But military service or community service?
Helping feed the poor, sure, but I don't know how killing people improves one's self worth.

 

[jimmydean]

But military service or community service?
Helping feed the poor, sure, but I don't know how killing people improves one's self worth.

That's a bit silly to say. I have done a total of 12 years in the service and I have killed nobody. I have never even carried a loaded weapon. In New Orleans, I had 32 rounds that never left my LBV.

But the work I did in New Orleans was tough and gave me a sense of what I have and what it means to help people. I also evacuated 900 people from the Philippines after Mt. Pinatubo decided to loose it's cool in 1991 on my way to the UAE.