tenuredvulcan-

if you can answer two questions directly here....

if the goal was to prove a point about the military being dis-proportioned and not mandatory then why not make it simple and just say "military service" and make no option of "civilian service"?


why include all this to make a point about the war in iraq?


SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

It's pointless to argue with someone committed to a belief regardless of evidence presented. Obama is gonna draft us all. Forced labor is coming. And 9/11 was an inside job. And we'll be using Ameros soon thanks to NAFTA instead of dollars.

dajafi wrote:Bruce Bartlett and Paul Krugman wrote basically the same column today--about why, unlike last time, divided government is going to suck hard. Since nobody judges Krugman on what he actually writes anymore--it's either unarguable wisdom or an endless font of eeevil lies--let's go with Bartlett:

Another important difference between 1994 and today is that presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Democrats in Congress had already done the heavy lifting of getting the federal budget onto a sustainable path. In the 1990 and 1993 budget deals — both enacted against the strenuous opposition of congressional Republicans — taxes were raised and strong deficit controls put in place that led naturally to surpluses so long as the budget remained on auto-pilot, with no big new spending programs or tax cuts. Under these circumstances, gridlock was just what the doctor ordered.

It should be remembered also that Republicans had the very good fortune to take power right on the brink of the 1990s technology boom, which raised the real gross domestic product 4.7 percent in 1995, 5.7 percent in 1996 and 6.3 percent in 1997 — which sent tax revenues cascading into the Treasury.

But today the situation is quite different. The economy is in the tank and the budget is clearly on an unsustainable path, in large part due to actions taken by Republicans when they were in power. They completely dismantled the deficit controls put in place by the elder Bush and Clinton so that they could cut taxes willy-nilly without paying for them, and in the process thoroughly decimated the government’s capacity to raise adequate revenue to fund its essential functions. Adding insult to injury, Republicans enacted a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D, without paying for a penny of it on top of every pork barrel project any Republican ever imagined.

The point is that gridlock under today’s circumstances will not be benign, as it was in the late 1990s, but toxic, preventing our political system from grappling with problems that demand action and will only get worse the longer it is delayed.

Furthermore, in the 1990s there were still a few Republicans in Congress like Sens. Bob Dole and Pete Domenici who put the national interest above blind partisanship, and had long records of supporting politically painful policies to get deficits under control by both cutting spending and raising taxes. Today, I do not see a single Republican anywhere with their stature and sense of responsibility. Republicans now oppose deficits only in theory and care more about defeating Obama in 2012 than rescuing the nation from bankruptcy, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently admitted.

I hope I am wrong, but I don’t see any prospect of meaningful action by a Republican Congress that would reduce the deficit, and much reason to think it will get worse if they have their way by enacting massive new tax cuts while protecting Medicare from cuts. And as I have previously warned, I am very fearful that it will be impossible to raise the debt limit, which would bring about a default and real, honest-to-God bankruptcy — something many Tea Party-types have openly called for in an insane belief that this will somehow or other impose fiscal discipline on out-of-control government spending without forcing them to vote either for spending cuts or tax increases.

Courting the risk of bankruptcy is the sort of thing that happens when your politics gets too zero-sum. Meanwhile you've got Limbaugh calling for, you guessed it, exactly that: the most polarizing actions that won't pass over a Senate filibuster or presidential veto, but will "heighten the contradictions."

Today's far right is yesterday's far left--but to be fair, they're better at it; they've got more supporters, they're much better capitalized and organized, and they have their own very powerful media echo chamber.

When you see stuff like this:

Limbaugh will have infinitely more control over a Republican House than Boehner.

the whole article loses credibility.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acsvjfgtDyY&trbdc[/youtube]

I don't even know what to say really. George Bush won his district by 11 points.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's pointless to argue with someone committed to a belief regardless of evidence presented. Obama is gonna draft us all. Forced labor is coming. And 9/11 was an inside job. And we'll be using Ameros soon thanks to NAFTA instead of dollars.

was that a nice way of saying you couldn't answer those two questions?

Don't have time to look it up, but...

IIRC, the civilian service stuff has been in Rangel's conscription bills since he started doing them in 2003. Just as, IIRC, civilian service was a part of conscription when we had conscription. BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the US still has the Selective Service System.

I kinda find it amusing that many of the tea party folk like to embrace colonial principles and such as mantra (not saying anyone here is tea party folk or the like). Maybe someone should tell them conscription was one of the colonial principles...

azrider wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's pointless to argue with someone committed to a belief regardless of evidence presented. Obama is gonna draft us all. Forced labor is coming. And 9/11 was an inside job. And we'll be using Ameros soon thanks to NAFTA instead of dollars.

was that a nice way of saying you couldn't answer those two questions?

It's a nice way of saying none of this is worth my time.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Don't have time to look it up, but...

IIRC, the civilian service stuff has been in Rangel's conscription bills since he started doing them in 2003. Just as, IIRC, civilian service was a part of conscription when we had conscription. BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the US still has the Selective Service System.

I kinda find it amusing that many of the tea party folk like to embrace colonial principles and such as mantra (not saying anyone here is tea party folk or the like). Maybe someone should tell them conscription was one of the colonial principles...

ok... maybe you could answer this. if the goal of this bill that he keeps introducing is some sort of iraq war protest, why include any other civilian service options to it? I was under the assumption here that he wanted to bring the war to everyone and not just the poor. So why does he have these out clauses in it unless he is actually serious about this bill?

wasn't the purpose of this bill to make sure all those evil republican representatives and senators kids have to go on the front lines and die and not in some sort civilian force safely in the united states?

TenuredVulture wrote:Obama is gonna draft us all. Forced labor is coming.

Google H.R.5741 ... it's THE SLAVERY BILL! It's also to draft soldiers for THE IMPENDING ATTACK ON IRAN!

azrider wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Don't have time to look it up, but...

IIRC, the civilian service stuff has been in Rangel's conscription bills since he started doing them in 2003. Just as, IIRC, civilian service was a part of conscription when we had conscription. BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the US still has the Selective Service System.

I kinda find it amusing that many of the tea party folk like to embrace colonial principles and such as mantra (not saying anyone here is tea party folk or the like). Maybe someone should tell them conscription was one of the colonial principles...

ok... maybe you could answer this. if the goal of this bill that he keeps introducing is some sort of iraq war protest, why include any other civilian service options to it? I was under the assumption here that he wanted to bring the war to everyone and not just the poor. So why does he have these out clauses in it unless he is actually serious about this bill?

wasn't the purpose of this bill to make sure all those evil republican representatives and senators kids have to go on the front lines and die and not in some sort civilian force safely in the united states?

HR5741 is only in committee (last I heard, as it was introduced in July), and will most likely die in committee.

The "civilian services" stuff is for things like providing manpower for veterans hospitals and other at home stuff that gets stretched thin during wartime. The out clauses, civilian services stuff, etc. are essentially the same as when we had conscription. Rangel is basically just reinstating the draft.

"I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is H.R. 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 - whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay - to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened," Rangel said from the floor of the House.

IMO, it was stupid of Rangel to introduce this again this year, so close to an election cycle where dems are struggling to retain whatever few seats they have any hope of retaining, giving opposition ammunition. Frikkin' brilliant.

jerseyhoya wrote:Charlie Crist is a weird mother #$&!

Andrew Breitbart to be part of election night team on ABC News. That's the Liberal Media for you.

anyone going to the stewart/colbert rally tomorrow? i will be there. hit me up!

Having been in college before, I'll set the number of people who drunkenly make commitments to drive to DC for this at 500,000, and the number that show up, barring them turning this into some concert with JayZ and Eminem and whatnot, at 25,000.

You lose.

To think, when I wrote that I'd have been happy with only picking up 40 seats in the House.

Anyone actually watch it? Or, beyond our intrepid constable, actually go? Was it entertaining? Political?

jerseyhoya wrote:Anyone actually watch it? Or, beyond our intrepid constable, actually go? Was it entertaining? Political?

Yeah, I watched it. Not really an impressive TV event, though it was probably cool to be there. Comedy was a little more miss than hit, overall, same with the music. And while it did address politics, it wasn't necessarily political. Stewart's speech was the highlight -- well, that or Sam Waterston's poetry reading.

We drove down, ended up in a spot where we couldn't hear or see anything, I finally get to a spot where I can see the video screen, some long-haired douche stands directly in front of me, I get pissed off, and we left after Stewart and Colbert.

jerseyhoya wrote:Anyone actually watch it? Or, beyond our intrepid constable, actually go? Was it entertaining? Political?

being there was awesome.