Saw a high official today say it is "on the table".

I have mixed feelings. I feel fortunate that I was born in a year where I never had to, and will never have to, deal with it.

But, consider this...could a military draft help re-focus those of the younger generation prioritize what is important and what isn't. I see so much apathy today, and a draft could do a couple of things...it might help young people today jump out of their comfort zones. It also might activate many younger people to take more of an interest in what is happening around the world.

My point is, I'm not really for or against, but could create some positives that spread out in a lot of different forms, regardless of your politics.

Not for this "Civil War", not this time. If the added troops are for border patrol between Canada and Mexico then by all means, strengthen our borders! TSA and all this airport security is a joke when you can just walk into this country or even drive into it carrying whatever you feel like. You'd be one hell of a dumb terrorist to try to get into the country by plane instead of walking!
Vent
Vent
Vent

Exhale
End 0f Line

More facts about consription (the draft) in the U.S. Imposed in the 20th century in 1917 in connection to WWI. Lasted, not evenly, until it was discontinued under guess who? Republican Richard Nixon in 1973. And this was AFTER he was re-elected.

""...create some positives..."

Send the Bush Twa...Twits...I mean Twins FIRST!

(Right after they flunk their virginity checks and urinalysis, of course!)

LMAO! Since daddy's nickname in college was sugarlips -- yes, for those reasons -- they might be *winkitty-wink-wink* virgins too.

It does sound mighty spooky, but this war would end in a handful of months if women were called equally with men in a draft.

No draft. Raise military pay and benefits and see what happens.

HOO-YAH that! While we are at it raise the pay for quality educators!

Darktemper,

Can't do that.
Need to make the Military the only viable economic alternative in order to raise cannon fodder.

Military pay and benefits are already highest in history, and there are very few civilian jobs that let you retire with only 20 years service, with half pay for the rest of your life, and medical benefits.

>>>No draft. Raise military pay and benefits and see what happens.

...AND... treat our military with respect by only sending them to do tough but do-able jobs.

In other words, fight the war on terror in ways that make strategic sense.

In other words, don't get our sons and daughters stuck in a civil war in Iraq ... fight terror at the source.

In other words we should only fight "easy" wars. Jefferson should have never sent warships to fight the barbery pirates, after all there were too many, and how do you find them? Lincold should never have sent forces agains the South, after it was a long hard war in the making. roosevelt should have just given in to the japanese, after all, if he had only did what they asked, there would never have been a Pearl harbor.

"Reinstating the Draft" was a Democratic scare tactic in the 2004 presidential campaign. It didn't work.

Reinstating the Draft requires the approval of both houses of Congress. It won't happen.

DD, I think we all know the draft would not be brought back, unless under dire circumstances. However, I'm not really opposed to the idea of the draft. I think it would certainly bring the specter of war home to the average family. As it is today, there are too many chicken hawks who would NEVER send their own kids to war, yet expect someone else to send their kids to do their dirty work. The threat of a draft and serving in war will certainly change alot of narrow minds out there, that's for sure.

Army Offering $20,000 Signing Bonus

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After failing to meet its recruiting goal for two consecutive months, the Army is expected to announce it met its target for July.

And officials are offering a new $20,000 bonus to recruits who sign up by the end of next month.

Actually, thats on top of the ordinary signing bonus, so a recruit could get 40,000.

Do you still get all of it if you're blown into smithereens by an IED? How about if it's friendly fire?

As long as your death is determined to be "In the line of duty", your next of kin get all of your benefits.

Statistically, a little ovet 10% of combat deaths are due to "friendly fire". Its a fact of life, and generally the military only report them as KIA, in the line of duty, and usually give a posthumous medal, bronze or silver star.

Like Pat Tillman, for instance, right?

Yeah, his family's real proud of those medals and our military aren't they, Okie?

They'd pay a lot more than $40,000 and they'd probably throw in the medals for free to get him back.

What a waste.

Nwokie says, "In other words we should only fight "easy" wars. "

No, we fight the ones that are in our strategic interest.

The general war on terror is in our interest. The Iraqi Civil War is not ultimately in our long-term interest.

There are terrorists in Iraq, the same way there is oil on your driveway when you have an oil leak in your car. Cleaning the oil off your driveway does not fix your car, and cleaning up terrorists in Iraq does not fix terrorism.

the 40K is an enlistment bonus, SGLI is about 250K.

Tillman made a mistake, he paid the price, in nearly all those cases, they send the family a medal, and tell them how bravely he died, which is usually the truth.

"There are terrorists in Iraq, the same way there is oil on your driveway when you have an oil leak in your car. Cleaning the oil off your driveway does not fix your car, and cleaning up terrorists in Iraq does not fix terrorism."

This is a really great way to frame the matter. I love this simple analogy.

We've a lot of ways to combat terror. Killing terrorists is one way. One does wonder about this one however. If the killing is not just, does that really combat terror, or is it a simple revenge thing?

(Iraq is not just, so we may well be adding to the terror problem overall.)

We can fight terror with dollars too. In this case, we use economic incentives to significantly impact the overall worth an act of terror might have.

The law can fight terror.

We have lots of law that can address an already realized act of terror. Clearly that's not enough as people will suicide to complete the act, thus denying the rest of us justice. That's does limit the law and does justify new law.

This is loosely what is driving King George to claim additional powers. I actually agree with the core idea, but the implementation is clearly political as much as it may be about terror in general.

We can make new laws that can do a lot of good, and we can make them without diminishing our freedom. If we fail to do this, the terrorists get the change they were looking for and we all lose. (hoping the next real President groks this)

Social norms can address terror as well. This one combined with economics is highly likely to be very potent. If enabling terror is bad form, and comes with significant economic pressure, diplomacy has some teeth! (and we don't have to have engagements like the Iraq mess either)

Dollars spent on education efforts, lobbying, tied to anti-terror means and methods, could unite a significant majority of the world. We then divide people into pro-and anti terror camps. The pro-terror camps are going to be a small minority. That changes the game from a military standpoint as well.

(this being done in a just fashion would see more nations working together on terror, not exploiting it for their gain, which is where we are right now)

Finally, there are physical means to fight terror. That's technology. Without the law and social norms acting in harmony, these things are mere boondoggles. (we are there too, right now)

Nwokie says, "In other words we should only fight "easy" wars."

Man, you've forgotten "Shock and Awe" and "Mission Accomplished". Iraq was supposed to be an easy war. Are you saying Bush would invade Iraq again knowing what he knows now?

I cant think of many wars, where the head guy, couldn't, after a few years, say , you know "I wish i'd done something different". Unfortunatly, we cant see into the future, so we have to make battle plans on what we know, or think we know. And in nearly every war, the senior military leaders are ready to fight the last war, only better.

Your Lee's, Grants, Eisenhowers and Pattons usually come from what was the middle grade officer corp at the start of the war.

Ahhh, but we can look to the past, think things through, and work for a solid outcome.

Remember the monkey trap post? That's the dilemma.

Had we thought it through, there is an excellent chance we would have:

-not done it

-done it, but achieved something

-been able to get better help doing it.

It's less than honest to just say stuff happens in wars. It does, but what stuff happens and how we feel about it afterward changes significantly, depending on the forethought put in.

Let's say the war goes bad, but we did our due diligence. We can still claim the high ground and accept what happened far easier than we can right now.

K sez: "Let's say the war goes bad, but we did our due diligence. We can still claim the high ground and accept what happened far easier than we can right now."

Exactly. Had there been actual WMDs, the Iraq civil war would always be 2nd page news and troop withdraw may be acceptable to Bush because there really was a "MIssion Accomplished".

At West Point and Annapolis and other military colleges, you can take courses in strategy, where you study Clausewitz and Sun Tzu and others who have written about the best way to execute plans for war.

If only W had listened to military strategists like his dad did.

He did, listen to his top military advisors.

Obviously there's a difference. The strategists quit or were fired. The advisors just say "yes,sir, whatever you want".

Actually I think he did listen to his advisors. He just didn't act on the information provided.

"At West Point and Annapolis and other military colleges, you can take courses in strategy, where you study Clausewitz and Sun Tzu and others who have written about the best way to execute plans for war."

It wouldn't have mattered.

The left would still have vilified Mr. Bush. Only then, he would have been called too ham-fisted, or unfeeling, whilst the hand-wringing press and other radical leftists performed the daily body count, except in that case it would have been for the enemy. And Mr. Bush would be a meanie because he wouldn't have been gentle enough on the terrorists.

You can't try to make friends with socialists. They are at war with themselves.

Herb

"The left might have villified Mr. Bush." So what?

This is not about politics, it's about a sensible strategy to deal with Islamic fundamentalist hatred and violence.

We're still lacking that sensible strategy.

Plus the terrorists were not from Iraq. But, as a result of Bush's terrible decision making, they are there now.

"...it's about a sensible strategy to deal with Islamic fundamentalist hatred and violence."

Agreed. I'm all ears.

Herb

3 words to start: Iraq Study Group.

>>>"Plus the terrorists were not from Iraq. But, as a result of Bush's terrible decision making, they are there now."

What color paper are your liberal talking points written on?

Talking points? Those are facts buddy.

Right.

Herb sez: "The left would still have vilified Mr. Bush."

That is absolutely not true. After 9/11, most of the world was unified behind the clown. At that moment, he was handed a golden opportunity to change the world for the better.

A near infinite amount of political capital.

Many left leaning people don't like Bush. However, nobody questioned what needed to be done, but for a few extremists, and that always happens no matter what. No big deal.

We then went on the hunt to start dealing with terror. Everybody supported this effort, and looked to the clown with unity and support. We are Americans first, and this was an American thing. The people actually acted like Americans. Their leadership really didn't.

I felt pretty good about that time actually, before I became aware of what was really happening.

It looked like we would see some real good come from this (P)resident. Honestly, had that been followed through in a just and true manner, you would hear me today expressing support for the GOP for having accomplished something great.

Also honestly, had they done that, there would be zero discussion over needing more Democratic leadership. No sea change would have happened in the senate, and Bush would have made a big impact on all our minds on the overall merits of compassionate conservatism.

There are lots of things happening in the world. Sometimes one must set aside the "nothing else matters bit" and go with what actually does matter. The vast majority of humans supported us in doing just that.

Terror was the focus and finally, the leaders of the free world had a vested interest in getting something solid done about it.

There is absolutely no reason to vilify any of that.

Now, there are lots of reasons. Why?

Because our (P)resident didn't rise to the challenge. Instead of uniting most of the world to address terror, the whole affair was exploited.

I remember the exact place I was standing, time of day, who was there, etc... when I became aware of the exploitation. I've not felt such anger and betrayal ever!

It goes way downhill from there.

Today Bush is hammered on nearly every front. The fucker deserves every last bit of it too.

Wasting that is unforgivable. Criminal, in my view.

This clown has just completely destroyed our reputation for leadership and just behavior. In many respects we had the higher ground. This is a big part of our nations success and is very important going forward for our security and viability. For me, this is a source of great pride --or it was anyway. I like most of our history --what the founders did, and what it all means to everyone, not just us Americans.

This matters more than getting my way on some issue. Always has, always will.

Getting some in the white house is laughable by comparison. True, it's a betrayal, but it's not even in the same realm as the events unfolding now. Looking back, that was magnified so that the plan to engage in this massive exploitation and corruption could come to fruition. Good grief, these guys are just rat bastards from hell!

I actually don't understand what state one must be in to even begin to hose that all up. That is scary to me, in that one in such a state just does not share much in common with the rest of his race.

Having that discord, and lots of power is just not something I live easily with.

And the depth of self-serving corruption just keeps growing! I ask, "Is there nothing that remains even remotely American, reasonable, just?"

Yeah, Herb. It's that bad.

Your partisan hatred of the guy is borderline pathological.

Save your venom for the terrorists.

Herb

Coupla more things:

I don't want to know all that has happened. It's uglier than I care to deal with.

I just want it fixed, us back on track, being Americans. If that is accomplished, we then are back to ordinary politics and share the common interest of improving our lot here.

When I say no GOP vote, it's out of raw fear and loathing for what they appear to do, no matter what is put before them, not for any one, or even combination of other matters.

We need statesmen period. I'll support statesmen --of any political bent. Get enough of them and things move along and generally improve nicely. Won't always go my way, but that's minor really.

How minor? When can one say nothing else matters, or that some issue just has to get resolved one way or the other?

Just look at this crap!

This is what we get when we fail to be Americans first! It's really easy to get sucked into all sorts of things. It's tough to step back and keep the foundations of this nation in view, abide by them, reinforce them --even when doing so contradicts one's personal preferences.

So it's the culture change that really impacts me more than anything else does.

This tit for tat, it's only illegal if you get caught, parsing the law not abiding by it's spirit or intent, non ethical behavior, ends justify means kind of winner takes all crap, is wrong on basically all levels.

We remain divided today, on nearly every issue, because of this change. We grow intolerant and unable to reason because of it too. Nationally, we fail to compete as our change influences other nations. Conflict grows, stability diminishes and we are generally just losing ground.

Not cool. Not cool at all.

Not a single specific.

Why not try looking at it from the other side to see if you're missing something.

Simply put: Many don't see it your way at all.

That's because you rail against a president who was elected TWICE and continue to swear at the lame duck, but you're fine with so-called statesmen who support putting scissors in the head of a child. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT supports abortion rights.

I'll take someone who understands the difference between putting it to terrorists and not supporting the "right" to wanton slaughter of innocent little kids.

And lest you attempt to say that's one issue, you're right. But there is no more important issue than the right to life. Try to dress it up and spin it all you want, but the plain truth is that a majority of Americans value life more than your party appears to.

Besides, if your team was so much smarter, why couldn't you beat such a dim-witted loser?

Herb

Herb, nowhere did I express hate toward Bush. When I express this, you always go bat shit nuts!

Granted, it's a strong emotional argument. Hits home doesn't it? Marginalize me internally if you want to. It's not my self-lie to deal with.

I expressed fear, inability to relate, worry and considerable anger.

I HATE the result. I fear, loathe and am angry at the person, who is enabling it. This is a rational and human response to the influence of one needing some serious help, who happens to be in charge.

I'm also angry at the many enablers, looking to feed their own self-interest at any cost. They are just as much a part of the problem. Again, look at our divisive politics. We've gone way astray of our founding principles. We are gonna pay for it huge too.

There is a difference.

From his perspective, he is highly likely to believe he is doing good things --that others don't understand. I believe this.

The problem is one of character and development. He's a product of others, like the blind leading the blind. I actually feel sorry for him. Born to fail. The layers of crap are so deep, it's a wonder he can reason at all. I know I couldn't given the same circumstances.

Been somewhere near there too. Took a lot of humility, anger and introspection to climb out of it. I do not envy him having that burden. It's big enough I'm not sure I can even properly relate, other than to know it hurts and that healing it will take a lot of time, pain and work.

Perhaps denial is easier. I won't blame him for that either, just as I don't the substance abuse escape.

Ever wonder why he has had trouble with substance abuse? Just look at the mess! Any sane person would suffer, given the same conditions, pressure and contradictory experiences. No thanks! I don't blame him for that actually.

Healthy people do not do these things period. Unhealthy people do; therefore, he is sick, and like I said, needs serious help. Might actually be beyond help. I remain absolutely convinced it is not all his fault.

That is what justifies my stand on not hating him. That is where I draw the line on hate, BTW.

There is no other side to this Herb.

It's a human thing --one side, just us.

Fine.

But seriously. Look at your post. No specifics. If I did that about Mr. Clinton, you'd jump all over it.

All I can determine is that you have an extreme dislike of the guy and it appears highly partisan.

Realize that and we're on to something.

Herb

Sorry, it's not a partisan thing, see above.

Clinton, BTW suffered from a weakness of character too. The difference was scope.

He acted in self-serving ways lots of times, including his white house sex games.

However, he rarely circumvented the process to anywhere close to the degree we see today.

(This is really hosed up. It's not even clear where the boundaries are right now and that's dangerous on many levels. It's a significant source of concern for me, no matter who is running the show.)

In fact, he engaged it as given, not doing any of the things we are seeing today. When called to testify, he did! Lied about it, got hammered, then owned up to it.

He's got his issues too. They are not as profound as the ones Bush has to live with.

If any of us actually hates either President, we've got our own self issues to deal with, period.

Yeah, it's a rough post. I make no apologies for that. It is however rational.

There is discussion, on this level, that completely applies to Clinton. No worries.

I think if you asked a bunch of people about these things, you would hear quite a few of them say Bill Clinton really needed some help in that area. You would also hear them say he remained a solid President as well.

The difference is scope. With Clinton it was sex and power and gratification. I know lots of guys, who would consider the same kinds of things. Maybe they would get caught, maybe they wouldn't. As a guy, I would absolutely be tempted by those things! That's not the point, however.

...or maybe it is. At the end of the day, he separated his issues from those demands made of a President. He was successful in this, or he would have been removed from office.

That speaks to scope. The scope of problems he has, were not so large as to put us at greater risk. It's just embarrassing and in poor form.

With Bush, the scope is far greater. We suffer because of it.

Again, that's rational, not partisan.

If Bush were a more healthy person, he would have seen greater overall success, period. The same goes for Clinton, BTW.

Other than an accusation about 'circumventing the system,' whatever that is, your posts remain little more than venting at a guy who beat your team.

If Mr. Bush did something illegal, then throw him in jail. You won't because he hasn't.

And while you may not like Mr. Bush's tactics, it can be easily argued that he has kept us far safer than his predecessor who declassified secrets for sale to the communists.

That's a fact.

Herb

Whatever...

(retracted)

Know what? I just don't feel safer.

That's a fact.

Were we less safe on 9/11 as a result of the Bush Adminstration not taking terrorism seriously? Worst attack on our soil, and George W. Bush was at the helm. And, they were even warned about it, but chose to focus on cold war restarts like missile defense systems instead, in an effort to reward all those defense sector contributors.

And, we are now less safe as a result of Bush's post-9/11 handling of our foriegn policy. If this was not a truth, then we would not still be in Iraq wasting life and money, and the world would be experiencing less terrorism, not more. This too is a fact the right likes to disregard.

The bottom line, and this came from one of my more conservative friends who is a former supporter of Bush, is this: George W. Bush blew an opportunity of epic proportions with his post 9/11 mistakes. I truly believe he dropped the ball big time, and we are all less secure, both physically and financially, as a result.

History will judge George W Bush very harshly. I almost feel sorry for him in a way, but when I see him on TV continuing the lies and dividing our country, I simply say to myslef "fuck him, he deserves it."

Thought I would respond to partisan here as well.

This is not about not getting what I want. That's all the issues. (you know the drill, health care, taxes, abortion, civil liberties, etc...)

If the process were functioning as it should, boundaries intact, etc... and let's say something big happens. Complete ban on abortion.

That's an advocacy problem --or perhaps it's just how things need to be.

Standing on that kind of thing is partisan.

Now, let's say that big thing happens, but there is a poor process, lacking boundaries, etc... as detailed above.

That's not partisan, though the result may well be partisan.

I want that process fixed so that we have the boundaries we should have. The result of it's deliberations then is something easily lived with and checked at the ballot box, through advocacy, etc...

So, my desire to not help anymore of these kinds of leaders get elected has two components:

1. As an American, I have a vested interest in seeing the American process run in a robust way. Currently, this is not happening and a very large percentage of the problem happens to be the GOP.

2. Within that process I then get to support things I think are good and just.

On the second point, I may be in the majority, I may not. No big deal really. Again, that's an advocacy problem. All of that kind of stuff is partisan and should be.

Wanting to address process issues, does not mean I automatically support this and that. What it does mean is that I support those voices looking to put the American process first.

This happens to be why I like to watch Ron Paul. I have serious reservations about his views on things, but I've zero reservations about his support for the process itself.

He's all American in that regard.

Going forward, I've seen enough. The lesson on process has been learned. Anyone getting my support will need to demonstrate they will engage it, do the fixing required to prevent it from such abuse in the future, and be willing to abide by the results, despite having person disagreements with said results.

That is what statesmen have to do sometimes. They are there as representative government, not dictators. And we are all human too, so there is some slush in that. No big deal. But on a coarse level, this has got to be the way it must be, or we continue to devolve into petty squabbling and below the belt power grabs.

If that means yielding on an issue, perhaps it's in the greater good, or I'm wrong somewhere, or maybe we just need more deliberations. I don't care, so long as the process is serving us and those responsible for said process are doing their due diligence with it.

Every last one of us Americans, have this shared interest, no matter where we happen to fall on the issues otherwise.

Again, that's just non-partisan period.

So, let's say something big happens and I'm in a position of power and I really don't agree. So I turn a blind eye toward some unethical election advocacy. Say it's those robo calls Thom Hartman was talking about this morning.

That's a pure partisan move. It's wrong and really should be checked.

Another example. The civil liberties are now all hosed up. They need to be fixed, so that's up to the people to decide how they should be fixed. It's highly likely we could use some of what has been done. So I want people in office that will do that, not just use their position to then swing things the other way because they can.

That too is partisan BS, and is not what I'm posting about here.

Herb, you've said you support these guys because you want a specific result on Abortion. You've claimed some authority on the matter as well. What you don't have is agreement from your fellow Americans. That's why we have the process we do.

Maybe it should go your way, for example.

But having it go your way, while ignoring process corruption is partisan. And that's where we differ on this matter.

Clearly we can live with it the way it is. And we lived with it the way it was too. We can and will live with how it changes going forward, meaning process corruption should not be tolerated.

We cannot so easily live with that, no matter what issues get settled which way.

That is what I'm posting about.

"...having it go your way, while ignoring process corruption is partisan.."

I agree that working within the law is important. Otherwise, we could be seen to have a lawless or at least a rigged society.

Even so, as an example-there are few things more important than to save the innocent from being killed. But when some in the 'pro-choice' business make money off of it, and they buy off politicians to support their view, does that make it right?

Which raises the question: What should European Jews have done in the 1930's and 1940's when the laws and governments that sent them to death were unjust? Sometimes, as Martin Luther King Jr. showed us, unjust laws must be overcome. Same thing with partial birth abortion. It is now illegal. But as with the fight for civil rights, our current fight for life is still not over.

That's why to many in the pro-life movement, our current situation is still not that different. And if were discussing something less important, like simply talking about the right to a strip club, or the right to swear in public, that's one thing. But to deny life to the innocent, little could be seen as more important-It's life and death stuff.

And regarding your concern about the 'process,' I seriously doubt you'd be so concerned about the process if your guy had won.

That's why it sometimes seems like little more than sour grapes from the left.

Herb

Yet you support a war that just got 175 Iraqis killed today. Those people not only are innocent human beings, they're VIALBE LIVING PEOPLE who are no longer viable living people.

Vitalogy, using your 'logic' we should have allowed Hitler to take Europe. After all, some innocents were killed whilst we stopped the madman.

I only wish we would have followed General Patton's advice, continued east and finished the job. Stalin was the most evil and bloodthirsty blackheart of them all, the devil incarnate.

Herb

It's interesting the way the left wants to take things in little tiny pieces without any regard for the overall complexity of the issues.

The Iraqis, and our own military, are getting killed because of backing, funding and supplies from Iran. We can't get tough with Iran because they know full well the left in this country will never support anything against them. The leftie wimps in Europe add to the problem.

So, we can just fold up our tent and come home, put Vitalogy on a bicylce and forget about the importance of the Mid-East oil supply to our transportation and economy, build a big moat around America and hope for the best.

Never in history have the liberals been right and they aren't this time.

Let the BS begin.

Martin Luther took it to the people, period. That's part of the process that's good, and it works. He got the support he did because he was spot on right. Had the strength of character to get up and say it, from the heart, just and true.

He got shot for it.

Probably by those people, thinking "nothing else matters", we need to it done however you can. That crap works both ways, doesn't it?

Seriously, this is hosed up pretty huge. You might see a shot at getting your way, but the price is really high Herb. I suspect it's high enough to keep it out of reach for all but the 23 percenters going forward.

Me? I'm not willing to pay it period. Name your issue, it's just not worth it. Going forward I'm just not gonna engage the divisive crap anymore. Where we all have common ground we need to be adult enough to cherish it, leverage it and work hard to get more of it.

And I've got more than a few issues that are tempting --everybody does. That is exactly why doing what you support doing results in nothing but endless conflict. No thanks. Ideas do not die with men.

A solid balance is possible that will essentially remove abortion from the stats. Read my last post with you, me and Chris, again --that's a process post Herb. Engage it and in 10 years abortion won't even be on the map. If you took that post, polished it up and took it to the streets, a majority of Americans would support it, no question.

I'll sleep well, knowing I worked through the issue and will gladly extend my hand to anyone else wanting to do the same.

I can't sleep well if getting something I want costs this much.

I don't care who is in office. I do care that they honor and uphold their end of the deal. Without them, we've nothing but a piece of paper, just like the clown says we have.

Deane: Iran, Iraq and terror in general can and will be addressed without the need for corruption and exploitation. That goes for the other matters we have before us as well.

It's not a piecemeal view, but a systemic one.

Either we honor and uphold our law, or it's just paper to be used as a tool.

Just one of a million examples:

Bush wants to engage in faster, better wiretaps. He could have easily just asked for this. He would have gotten it too, given the request was sane.

If he's really looking at terrorists --or even potential terrorists, there is a lot of latitude for that to happen. Nobody wants to get in the way of terror.

Everybody is worried about being exploited.

The law demanded he do the asking, get a decision made, be accountable.

The reality is he just did it and is now using the law to post-facto justify his actions as being "legal" when they clearly were not.

Had he actually engaged the process (and yes, you are gonna hear a whole lot of that), he would not be having to justify and legalize post-facto, but would have been on his merry way monitoring potential terrorists, while somebody else was making sure they didn't go and just monitor anybody they wanted.

That failure is typical for this administration. It's systemic, and it's very dangerous. Ideally, it's about to end too.

Ahhh... the OIL!

Know what Deane?

I completely agree.

So how come we didn't just come out and sell that huh? How come we don't have our best and brightest working their asses off to marginalize the problem? When do we get to learn just how hosed up we are, oil wise?

Seems to me, we've got all those options. No need to lie about things is there?

If we are just about to collapse from lack of oil, or getting into trouble because somebody is trying to leverage our need for oil, that's not something we should be hiding now is it?

Should those things be true, it's an easy sell right?

Yeah, thought so.

Herb, to compare WWII and Hitler to the situation in Iraq is asinine. Our actions in WWII were justified by what was going on. Our actions in Iraq are not justified now, nor were they ever justified. BIG DIFF PAL.

"The Iraqis, and our own military, are getting killed because of backing, funding and supplies from Iran."

No Deane. Our military and the Iraqi's are getting killed as a result of the chaos we've created, which is all due to Bush's war. No invasion, no deaths, kapeesh?

"Never in history have the liberals been right and they aren't this time."

Well, if that's not the dumbest post of the day! Liberals were against the war, and no matter what happens moving forward, liberals were right about it being a policy blunder. This has already been determined to be a fact and is indisputable.

Missing, I wish I could post a clip from a movie for you. It would be Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. You, of course, know the clip would be "you can't handle the truth".

"You" of course, being the collective Disciples of Soros that dominate this forum.

Vitalogy, I love the profound way you have of being wrong.

But then you're the one playing lounge chair skipper on the Titanic.

Deane, you don't think Iraq has been a policy blunder?

And who the hell is this Soros guy you always talk about? You've been watching to much Hannity and O'Reilly. They're both infatuated by the guy. Maybe they both have a man crush or something.

"you can't handle the truth..."

Watched that one.

Didn't his character go to jail?

Edit: Sorry. I was off doing liberal stuff.

I can handle the truth. No biggie, though it has taken some time for it to really sink in. Given the noise level, I'm not worried. Getting there is half the battle.

Unlike you, I'm just not willing to accept it as some status quo. Again, our nation was founded by people, who thought the same way. The least I can do is follow their lead.




"collective Disciples of Soros"

Hahahahaha!

God I miss really getting into it here! Thanks for being there Deane. It just wouldn't be the same without your fatherly indignation.

Deane, I've been through quite the exercise over the last few years. The beauty of it happens to be that I really don't need Soros thinking for me. I've got plenty of other wide awake and aware Americans to share thoughts, ideas and plans with.

I'm an extremely proud liberal to boot. To think, I might have continued on as a registered Republican, living in some kind of quasi denial. I really do thank the GOP for that. Giving is really lean this year. Maybe I'll mail a phone book or two, full of people I think they might be interested in contacting.

Having seen the true movers and shakers, one wonders just what's left? I'm pretty sure, barring some martial law con, or wicked new election manupulation, the GOP is gonna shrink by another third this time around.

What's that leave? The other half still able to take it in the sack regularly and still sleep at night? In other words, the schlubs? What good are they without their wicked cold and brutal leaders?

Coupla thoughts for you all to ponder, straight from that vile Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/426/ONEPollNewHampshireAug07.doc

It's one great read. Coupla teasers:

Nearly all Democrats (97%) and 70% of Republicans agree that America’s standing has suffered in recent years.

Both Democrats (81%) and Republicans alike (70%) agree that reducing poverty, treating preventable diseases and improving education in poor countries around the world will help make the world safer and the United States more secure.

In short, members affiliated with both parties (73% Democrats / 62% Republicans) would be more likely to support a candidate who supports increased investments in foreign assistance programs and working with other countries to strengthen national security.

(that one hurts!)

Now these are New Hampshire primary voters. A particularly American bunch, but do the coarse math.

If the nation is roughly divided, then those break downs essentially leave 20 - 30 percent of us out of the picture, with a lot of common ground across everyone else.

Doesn't that sound familiar. Yeah, I thought so too. If I were you, that would be worrysome having my future tied to those wackos.

Do some digging and a little math. The majority of Americans see things my way, or at least share many elements in common. And to think, you were actually trying to hammer Vitalogy, on these things. Are you high?

(maybe?)

(Get real Deane, that's about as solid as you get, and I'm damn glad Vitalogy is here with us.)

I'm gonna go do some more Liberal stuff. That includes reading, sharing some time with my family, taking your suggestion and building some personal wealth --thanks for that. The timing is right, and it makes a lot of sense. Nice to have a little affirmation from others. Appreciated.

The few conservatives here on my block, spend most of their time with one another, and figuring out how to continue to support this shit without looking like complete asses. Everybody else talks more or less freely.

It's Oregon, so not quite the same low brow environment you are used to, but that's ok. If we liberal minded, free thinking, people can sway just a few more joe averages, nobody will give two shits about what people think in Nebraska right?

That's a win-win!

I have let those around me know I'm here to help. It's not hard after that first step. Make no mistake though. That first one is brutal --brutal enough to keep, say 23 percent of us from ever taking it.

Damn shame.

You've got your work cut out for you.

There's no such thing as an excited moderate.

By definition, the mushy middle has no solid core values.

Pander away.

Herb

Well, once again, this thread has completely evolved from the topic. Tonight, Bill Maher on Larry King came out FOR the draft. One of his arguments...something I mentioned in the first post...shake the younger generation out of their comfort zone.

(Herb, Deane --I'm done with that.)

@dark: Roger that! They are giving huge, they should get nice and solid pay, no hassles.

Yep. Back on topic.

Not a bad position to take actually. That would be a good result. Don't like the idea of the clown having access to a lot of new cannon fodder though.

What do we do about that?

Actually, I'm not inclined to disagree with Maher. That worry is exactly what we need. Perhaps a little more direct involvement will shake things up somewhat. Sure beats lowering the bar to keep the numbers up, like we currently are doing.

....

Yep. I'll support it. The advocacy potential is just too huge. If that worry were not there, the exercise would be pointless. IMHO, we are here partly because we are not taking ownership of our affairs. This would sure change that.

Maybe we can reintroduce the idea of mandatory public service while we are at it.

Do it right out of high-school. Two years and there are a lot of options. Maybe test people, interview, etc... to place the work with people where it will actually benefit both the nation and those working.

Who knows how many people that will actually benefit pretty huge? It's gonna cramp the style of a few, so have a deferment option of some kind, but no outs. Two years, before one is 30.

That way, not only do we have a draft, which will end the stupidity right quick, but we will also have a generation of more civic minded people coming through the ranks.

Might do us a lot of good.

Besides, there are outs for a draft. Those that really are not able, won't be drafted. Those with actual talent, might be drafted, but only if they are complete fools.

Make the draft mandatory, if one is drawn, unless:

-one is engaged in public service right now. Kick off both programs and get young people involved. Get older people involved too. They can manage the program, leaving the rest of us to work, run families, etc...

-one is in college with a 3.5 GPA or above, no exceptions. Make this not a one time dodge either. If ones name gets pulled, and the school option is invoked, quarterly GPA reports get sent. If it drops, they go serve and pick up when they get back, period.

From there, people can choose to train, enlist, or get cracking and prove their worth elsewhere, or leave...

If we do decide to do this, no simple political pandering. Let's get serious and get some stuff done, or don't bother. If we are really gonna get things done, I'm ok funding it.

The returns will be plenty good.

I can't wait until Real Time with Bill Maher comes back to HBO. My Friday nights just aren't the same.

Yep.

A draft is a bad idea, unless you need hundreds of thousands of new troops.

The all volunter military is working well, you have soldiers that for the most part want to be there, far less discipline problems, lower training costs, lower turnover of key personnel etc.

They'll talk about it. Won't get anywhere, both parties know it's another third rail just like social security.

Herb said>>>>
You can't try to make friends with socialists. They are at war with themselves.

LMFAO!
Sounds like MOST EXTREME RIGHTIES

We might need hundreds of thousands of new troops!

...or we can face our folly and reconsider our options.

Trixter. Why are you defending socialists?

Besides, socialists being at war with themselves explains so much. Why else would socialists like American democrats confess that if the US wins the war in Iraq that the left will suffer?

"Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC told them that a "generally positive" report on the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, would be "a real big problem" for Democrats."

Try spinning treason.

That our brave soldiers like General Petraeus have to put up with such rabid leftism is disgusting.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010448

Herb

It's been said the reason that there isn't more of a anti-war movement on college campuses like with Vietnam is because there is no draft (so far) - since they still have their cell phones, MP3 players, social engineering ("networking") websites, and such; the war doesn't directly affect them, and they don't care. If a draft was started or their crap was taken away from them, then they would start to care and the demonstrations would probably begin.

Herb IGNORANTLY said>>>
Why are you defending socialists?

If you think I'm defending socialists then Hillary will win next November. And your that dumb!

"We might need hundreds of thousands of new troops."

KSKD is RIGHT ON! We need Families to make MANY MORE BABIES. As many as You can for the War effort! Patriotic Americans will heed this call. MAKE BABIES for Your Country and YOUR FREEDOM!

Trixter, Mrs. Clinton's socialist health care plan went nowhere.

Just because you want her to win in '08 doesn't mean it will happen.

Herb

Socialist health care would be better than nothing at all. This is why the US is ranked something like 43rd for health care among industrialized nations, yet spends the MOST of any nation. So, it seems to me that no matter how inefficient "socialist" health care may be, it would work better than what we have today.

And mark my words, there are enough uninsured and others that are underinsured that a national health plan will happen. So, the GOP better figure out something or they will be swept out of office and replaced by people that will do something for America as a whole.

And speaking of "socialist" stuff, do you consider the military to be socialist? The police? The FDA? Social Security? Medicare? ODOT? Would you prefer that we pay no taxes and every man for himself???

If you think health care is expensive now....Wait until it's Free!

Based on the other "socialist" health plans that other countries use, it will be less expensive than what we have, and will cover everyone. Seems like a win-win to me.

>>>"This is why the US is ranked something like 43rd for health care among industrialized nations, yet spends the MOST of any nation."

It's never a simple as the liberals would like to have us think it is. You're overlooking the incredible cost of lawsuits and endless tests to protect the doctor's rear end that go on due to our legal system.

And don't overlook the long wait for health care that goes on with socialized medicine.

Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approach looks interesting on the surface. No socialized medicine. Simply a law that everyone had to be covered by private insurance. There is some sort of sliding scale so that those who can't afford the premiums get help, depending on their income.

They actually started saving millions with the plan and got everyone covered.

Getting everyone onto a commercial plan would be a much easier sell than socialized medicine. And, some sort of tort reform along with it wouldn't hurt the project. Of course, guys like The Breck Girl Edwards wouldn't be able to rape the world of all it's money, but then somethings got to give.

If you are worried about raping the world of all it's money, you should focus on the insurance and pharmacy industries, not lawyers who are helping people get what they are rightfully owed after they are injured. When I had shoulder surgery a few years ago, I saw the itemized list of everything they provided, both medicine and supplies. A simple 2 inch by 2 inch gauze pad was $25! Only they system we currently have set up would tolerate this kind of nonsense.

>>>"what they are rightfully owed"

Says who?


>>>"A simple 2 inch by 2 inch gauze pad was $25!"

You're paying for your 2 inch gauze pad, plus a few more for the uninsured, plus some for the possible excessive lawsuits in case there is an infection under the gauze pad, and on and on. Again, it's never as simple as the liberals would like us to think it is.

You're also paying for Lobbying, Advertising and stockholder returns.

>>>"stockholder returns."

I forgot about stockholder returns. We should do away with those for sure. Don't let anyone make any money on their investments. Money is bad. Eating at the public trough is good. Liberalism is so wonderful.

Taking the profit out of providing health care will lower costs. Hospitals should be non profit enterprises. So will the elimination of the uninsured that the rest of us pay for already. Eliminating the bureacracy of insurance companies and hospital billing would save tons of money. Improvements can be made, but that means someone will lose (hint, the losers are the ones contributing to the GOP to keep the status quo)

Healthcare, like warfare, should never be a profit center.

Lives become commodities.

I think you might find that the complexity of billing for Medicare and Medicaid is worse than it is with private insurance. It's ridiculous in all cases.

>>>"the losers are the ones contributing to the GOP to keep the status quo"

I'm pretty sure you're not this naive. The money flows freely at all times to whoever has the apparent power to protect the status quo.

Deane, you're naive if you think the Dems are more interested in protecting the status quo than the GOP is, in regards to health care.

And, from what I've heard, Medicare and Medicaid is more efficient than the private sector is.

For you leftist Einsteins who think socialized medicine is the answer, you have faith in the same kind of bureaucracy that tried to run the post office?

Herb

Mail gets picked up at my house 6 days a week and delivered to someone elses house anywhere in the country for 41 cents. What does Fed Ex or UPS charge? Hint...way more than 41 cents!

Wrong question.

Here are the right questions:

What is the true cost of that letter being mailed, how much is it being subsidized by taxpayers and how much faster and more reliable are private deliverers like Fed Ex and UPS?

Herb

According to the USPS website:

"The USPS does not receive tax dollars for operations. We are a self-supporting agency, using the revenue from the sale of postage and products to pay expenses."

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm

I use mail for both personal and business, along with Fed Ex and UPS. I can tell you all 3 are reliable, but UPS and Fed Ex are substaintially more expensive than USPS.

The USPS may not receive tax dollars any more, but they used to.

If indeed they don't, good for them.

Herb

(shakes head in wonder)

What? Did a prime directive go out today or something?

Keep your eye on the prize people.

The GOP has ZERO success with privatization. Corruption up the wazoo, literally leaking dollars by the second. Handing work off to private contractors is one of our biggest overall costs right now. Who is gonna pay?

That's right, the tax payer.

The GOP has surrendered your civil liberties.

The GOP continues to support the (P)resident who blew the single greatest political opportunity of our time.

They want to rule your sexuality. They want to rule your faith. They want to exploit your wealth, health and mind.

Get past these things and we can talk about how granting government monopolies, without checks on costs and quality of service, would do us any good.

Carry on.

Herb ignorantly said>>>>
Just because you want her to win in '08 doesn't mean it will happen.

Another lie!

Glad to see your just like all the other EXTREME RIGHTIES out there... LIAR!

Liar?

Liar?

Like your lying about my positions?

Show me where I lied, Trixter.

You can't, because I haven't.

Poseur away.

Herb

The Post Office runs well then.

Good, we can continue to leave it alone. Maybe take some of it's ideas and apply them to health care.

And neither have I and you continue to say I have.....

US not considering draft: Pentagon

by Jim Mannion Mon Aug 13, 12:47 PM ET

"WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon sharply rejected Monday a key general's assertion that a return to the military draft has always been "an option on the table" and should be considered.

"I can tell you emphatically that there is absolutely no consideration being given to reinstituting the draft," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "The all-volunteer force has surpassed all expectations of its founders."

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, a White House deputy national security adviser, discussed the draft in a radio interview Friday in which he said military leaders were right to be concerned about the impact of repeated deployments on military morale and readiness.

Lute, who is in charge of coordinating the US war effort in Iraq, said the all-volunteer military is serving "exceedingly well" and the administration has not decided it needs to be replaced with a draft.

But he said, "I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table."

"But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," he said in the interview with National Public Radio.

Reinstating the draft has become a virtual taboo since it was ended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War, and replaced with a smaller, better paid all-volunteer force.

The US military found that it preferred voluntary service to universal conscription because it drew better educated, more highly motivated recruits looking to make a career of the military.

An unpopular draft was a key feature of protests against the Vietnam War.

Until recently, though, the rare calls for a return of the draft have come from liberals, who see the existence of a professional military as one reason there was so little public opposition to the US invasion of Iraq.

Some conservatives also have worried that the absence of universal military service would lead to a generation of civilian leaders with no military experience.

And there has been a rumbling of complaints that the war's burden has not been broadly shared.

But resistance to a return of the draft has remained strong even as the army has had to ease standards and pay huge sums in incentives, bonuses and advertising to attract military age recruits.

Former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress in 2005 "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Gates, who is on vacation, has not commented on Lute's remarks, but Whitman referred reporters to the secretary's confirmation hearings in December in which he said a draft was not needed.

Acknowledging that the US military is having a harder time filling its ranks, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it was a temporary problem tied to the war in Iraq.

"In all honesty, I think that when people perceive that joining the services is not a direct ticket to Iraq, our opportunities for increasing the numbers are going to be significant," said Gates, who was president of Texas A and M University at the time.

"We have this problem, frankly, with the Corps of Cadets at Texas A and M, where we have a tough time recruiting people because they think if you put on a cadet uniform at A and M that mom and dad think you're going to go straight to Iraq," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The army and the marine corps both exceeded their recruiting goals for July, and are on track to meet their annual target.

But the army, which missed its recruiting goals in May and June, added a 20,000 dollar bonus for recruits who signed up and are shipped off to boot camp before September 30, the end of the fiscal year."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070813/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarydraft_070813164731

Of course the downside to the "successful" US Postal Service is that employees sometime "go postal" or worse, turn into forum idiots.

I have no idea of who you are talking about! (snickering to self)
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

Heck, we don't need a draft as long as we have enough "volunteers" to keep sending each back for five or 10 times until they are killed.