El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
NO on the Border Security Bill NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent NO on eliminating the marriage penalty NO on eliminating the death tax NO on creating Health Savings Accounts NO on the Defense of Marriage Act NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance NO on banning partial-birth abortion NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote NO on the Patriot Act NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist detainees
> NO on the Border Security Bill > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > NO on the Patriot Act > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
> > NO on the Border Security Bill > > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > > NO on eliminating the death tax > > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > > NO on the Patriot Act > > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > > detainees
> NO on the Border Security Bill > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > NO on the Patriot Act > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
Don't know all the provisions of this so I won't comment too much. But what other democratic nation has built a wall around one of its borders to protect itself from the surrounding democracies?
> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax
I'm assuming that the marriage penalty and the death tax are part of the Republican tax cut package. Every other president has raised taxes at war time to make sure the government has the added funds to support the troops. This president and his lemmings in Congress have cut taxes in war time. Voting against making the tax cuts premanent is a vote for fisical conservativism - something a Republican should be doing, not a Democrat. If you knew anything about the "death tax" or how the government taxes an estate after death, you'd know that items that have a designated beneficiary (IRAs, life insurance, and the like) are not considered part of the estate. The estate is then taxed on any value above $1 million, set to go up to $2 million in a couple of years.
> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
So you want the government getting involved in setting up health savings accounts for everyone - a national health plan? Sounds like a "liberal"/Democrat idea, not a "conservative"/Republican one.
> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
DoMA descriminates against gays by stating that a marriage should consist of a union between one man and one woman. Besides, if you were going to make a "defense of marriage" wouldn't you want to protect marriages by making them harder to disolve by making divorce illegal? That would be a real defense of marriage, but the lawyers we elect to the congress would never allow something that would chip into their collegues business.
> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
I'm not familiar with the law, so I can't comment on it.
> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
You mean a "no" vote on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from returning to its pre-McCarthy-Era form, which is when the phrase "under God" was added?
> NO on banning partial-birth abortion
Abortion, like it or not, is a legal, medical procedure. If the woman's life is at stake, a partial-birth abortion should be allowed. If there are other factors involved the late-term abortion should be allowed. If you want to take it to an extreme, different religions define when the fetus is a seperate person from the mother differently so on religious grounds it should be allowed.
> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
You mean she voted no on a poll tax? Most states charge $20-$60+ dollars for a photo ID/driver's license. The poor, the homeless, the disenfranchised, might not be able to afford or obtain a photo ID, but they can register to vote. Are we supposed to tell them they can't vote because they can't afford or acquire a photo ID?
> NO on the Patriot Act
There are too many potential personal liberties abuses in the Patriot Act. She should have voted No.
> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
Isn't that part of the Patriot Act?
> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
Are you referring to the bill that was supposed to clarify (reinterpret) the Geneva Accords to fit Bush & Co's desire to covertly torture terrorists to get information? Until there was some compromise on it, McCain was opposed to the bill too. Pelosi stuck to her guns and still opposed it, McCain and many other senators flip-flopped and supported it once a few changes were made.
So you think a 700 mile fence is going to do much?
> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
They shouldn't be made permanent. Tax cuts should go more towards the middle class, not the insanely rich. Who would I trust on money matters, you or Warren Buffet?
> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
Do you know what else was in this bill? My guess is there was some other odious things in there.
> NO on eliminating the death tax
Do you know both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates feel the same way about this as Nancy? I love how the Repubs frame this as the death tax. Do you know how many people this actually affects?
> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
Was this going to lead to serious health care reform? Doubtful!!
> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
You are okay with discrimination? You do realize there is a difference between getting married in a church and going down to the local townhall or justice of the peace, right?
> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
This just shows how Congress refuses to debate measures that actually matter to people.
> NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
What evdience of fraud in voting do we have? I think voting machines need to be fixed before this, if ID would even help any present problems.
> NO on the Patriot Act
She was right on this, as was Feingold and any other Senator who voted like Nancy. It's called enforcing existing laws, and funding law enforcement to do their job.
> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
Get your talking points from Faux News do you? There is a thing called FISA. I know you hate abiding by laws, but get used to it.
> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
So it is okay to torture people? Do you think you'll get reliable information out of people you torture, or do you think they are more likely to give you information(which will likely prove bogus) just to stop being tortured?
> NO on the Border Security Bill > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > NO on the Patriot Act > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
> NO on the Border Security Bill > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > NO on the Patriot Act > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
EStreetJoe wrote: > If you knew anything about the "death tax" or how the government > taxes an estate after death, you'd know that items that have a > designated beneficiary (IRAs, life insurance, and the like) are not > considered part of the estate. The estate is then taxed on any value > above $1 million, set to go up to $2 million in a couple of years.
This is absolutely incorrect. IRAs, life insurance (of which you have an incidence of ownership), and other assets that have a designated beneficiary, are part of your taxable estate in calculating the federal estate tax.
> > NO on the Border Security Bill > > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > > NO on eliminating the death tax > > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > > NO on the Patriot Act > > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > > detainees
> Yes, and?
********************
Listing bills without knowing their content is such a useless effort, is it not? No matter, I would innately trust her instincts before I would those of practically any Republican they could come up with.
EStreetJoe wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:52 pm, Patrick1...@aol.com wrote: > > Pelosi voted:
> > NO on the Border Security Bill
> Don't know all the provisions of this so I won't comment too much. But > what other democratic nation has built a wall around one of its borders > to protect itself from the surrounding democracies?
> > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > > NO on eliminating the death tax
> I'm assuming that the marriage penalty and the death tax are part > of the Republican tax cut package. Every other president has raised > taxes at war time to make sure the government has the added funds to > support the troops. This president and his lemmings in Congress have > cut taxes in war time. Voting against making the tax cuts premanent is > a vote for fisical conservativism - something a Republican should be > doing, not a Democrat. > If you knew anything about the "death tax" or how the government > taxes an estate after death, you'd know that items that have a > designated beneficiary (IRAs, life insurance, and the like) are not > considered part of the estate. The estate is then taxed on any value > above $1 million, set to go up to $2 million in a couple of years.
> > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
> So you want the government getting involved in setting up health > savings accounts for everyone - a national health plan? Sounds like a > "liberal"/Democrat idea, not a "conservative"/Republican one.
> > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
> DoMA descriminates against gays by stating that a marriage should > consist of a union between one man and one woman. Besides, if you were > going to make a "defense of marriage" wouldn't you want to protect > marriages by making them harder to disolve by making divorce illegal? > That would be a real defense of marriage, but the lawyers we elect to > the congress would never allow something that would chip into their > collegues business.
> > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
> I'm not familiar with the law, so I can't comment on it.
> > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
> You mean a "no" vote on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from > returning to its pre-McCarthy-Era form, which is when the phrase "under > God" was added?
> > NO on banning partial-birth abortion
> Abortion, like it or not, is a legal, medical procedure. If the > woman's life is at stake, a partial-birth abortion should be allowed. > If there are other factors involved the late-term abortion should be > allowed. If you want to take it to an extreme, different religions > define when the fetus is a seperate person from the mother differently > so on religious grounds it should be allowed.
> > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
> You mean she voted no on a poll tax? Most states charge $20-$60+ > dollars for a photo ID/driver's license. The poor, the homeless, the > disenfranchised, might not be able to afford or obtain a photo ID, but > they can register to vote. Are we supposed to tell them they can't vote > because they can't afford or acquire a photo ID?
> > NO on the Patriot Act
> There are too many potential personal liberties abuses in the Patriot > Act. She should have voted No.
> > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
> Isn't that part of the Patriot Act?
> > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > > detainees
> Are you referring to the bill that was supposed to clarify > (reinterpret) the Geneva Accords to fit Bush & Co's desire to covertly > torture terrorists to get information? Until there was some compromise > on it, McCain was opposed to the bill too. Pelosi stuck to her guns and > still opposed it, McCain and many other senators flip-flopped and > supported it once a few changes were made.
On Nov 5, 2:50 pm, "Boilermaker" <jrjorgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> EStreetJoe wrote: > > If you knew anything about the "death tax" or how the government > > taxes an estate after death, you'd know that items that have a > > designated beneficiary (IRAs, life insurance, and the like) are not > > considered part of the estate. The estate is then taxed on any value > > above $1 million, set to go up to $2 million in a couple of years. >This is absolutely incorrect. IRAs, life insurance (of which you have > an incidence of ownership), and other assets that have a designated > beneficiary, are part of your taxable estate in calculating the federal > estate tax.
My bad. I mixed up the probate estate and the taxable estate - and I also might have mixed up state and federal estate tax rules. For the Federal Tax, anything over $2 million is taxed at 46%. That amount is alot easier to reach than you might think.
> On Nov 5, 2:50 pm, "Boilermaker" <jrjorgen...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> EStreetJoe wrote: >> > If you knew anything about the "death tax" or how the government >> > taxes an estate after death, you'd know that items that have a >> > designated beneficiary (IRAs, life insurance, and the like) are not >> > considered part of the estate. The estate is then taxed on any value >> > above $1 million, set to go up to $2 million in a couple of years.
>>This is absolutely incorrect. IRAs, life insurance (of which you have >> an incidence of ownership), and other assets that have a designated >> beneficiary, are part of your taxable estate in calculating the federal >> estate tax.
> My bad. I mixed up the probate estate and the taxable estate - and I > also might have mixed up state and federal estate tax rules. For the > Federal Tax, anything over $2 million is taxed at 46%. That amount is > alot easier to reach than you might think.
> NO on the Border Security Bill > NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent > NO on eliminating the marriage penalty > NO on eliminating the death tax > NO on creating Health Savings Accounts > NO on the Defense of Marriage Act > NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) > NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance > NO on banning partial-birth abortion > NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote > NO on the Patriot Act > NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists > NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist > detainees
And that is why I am voting YES! for the Democratic Party on Tuesday.
I have to give you credit, Patrick. After years of posting political nonsense that pissed people off, these past three days you have posted some quality information and really changed the way some people look at the election and have really influenced their vote.
At least a dozen readers out there are now MORE likely to vote Democratic.
Well played! And welcome to the fight!!!
--
Dan
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." George W. Bush
>> NO on the Border Security Bill >> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent >> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty >> NO on eliminating the death tax >> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts >> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act >> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) >> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance >> NO on banning partial-birth abortion >> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote >> NO on the Patriot Act >> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists >> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist >> detainees
Nancy--call me!
--
Dan
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." George W. Bush
>> NO on the Border Security Bill >> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent >> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty >> NO on eliminating the death tax >> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts >> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act >> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) >> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance >> NO on banning partial-birth abortion >> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote >> NO on the Patriot Act >> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists >> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist >> detainees
> And that is why I am voting YES! for the Democratic Party on Tuesday.
> I have to give you credit, Patrick. After years of posting political > nonsense that pissed people off, these past three days you have posted > some quality information and really changed the way some people look at > the election and have really influenced their vote.
> At least a dozen readers out there are now MORE likely to vote Democratic.
> Well played! And welcome to the fight!!!
Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the rest of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they all figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have to go fight - something we know they oppose intensely. I think they figure the Democrats will stop the draft for them. They might put out a feisty little public persona but deep down they are terrified of the smirk. Maybe we should all vote Republican so the smirk can draft a couple million of them for his crusade.
>>> NO on the Border Security Bill >>> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent >>> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty >>> NO on eliminating the death tax >>> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts >>> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act >>> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) >>> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance >>> NO on banning partial-birth abortion >>> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote >>> NO on the Patriot Act >>> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists >>> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist >>> detainees
>> And that is why I am voting YES! for the Democratic Party on Tuesday.
>> I have to give you credit, Patrick. After years of posting political >> nonsense that pissed people off, these past three days you have posted >> some quality information and really changed the way some people look at >> the election and have really influenced their vote.
>> At least a dozen readers out there are now MORE likely to vote Democratic.
>> Well played! And welcome to the fight!!!
> Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the rest > of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they all > figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have to go > fight - something we know they oppose intensely. I think they figure the > Democrats will stop the draft for them. They might put out a feisty little > public persona but deep down they are terrified of the smirk. Maybe we > should all vote Republican so the smirk can draft a couple million of them > for his crusade.
Yeah, but maybe they want us to think that and vote Republican, and instead they will vote Democratic, and since there are more of us than them the fact that they know that we know that they know what we are up to than we should do the oposite of what they are trying to vote the other way against the people we are NOT voting for on Tuesday!!! :-)
--
Dan
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." George W. Bush
gumboman wrote: > Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the rest > of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they all > figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have to go > fight - something we know they oppose intensely.
That's one thing I'm sincerely hoping that the Dems do, initiate a draft. I'd support it a thousand percent. Also, with a draft, there would be fewer reserve and national guard units called up, so I'd be for eliminating reserve and national guard service as qualifying. Active military, volunteer or draft.....period. Three year commitment for everyone, except women.
I'd also be for maintaining the draft in peace time. When the troops come home from Iraq they can chase illegals down there in Texas...then we can offer every illegal the option of serving four years to obtain US citizenship. We could solve lots of problems with a good ole fashioned draft......bring it on :-)
>>>> NO on the Border Security Bill >>>> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent >>>> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty >>>> NO on eliminating the death tax >>>> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts >>>> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act >>>> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) >>>> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance >>>> NO on banning partial-birth abortion >>>> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote >>>> NO on the Patriot Act >>>> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists >>>> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist >>>> detainees
>>> And that is why I am voting YES! for the Democratic Party on Tuesday.
>>> I have to give you credit, Patrick. After years of posting political >>> nonsense that pissed people off, these past three days you have posted >>> some quality information and really changed the way some people look at >>> the election and have really influenced their vote.
>>> At least a dozen readers out there are now MORE likely to vote >>> Democratic.
>>> Well played! And welcome to the fight!!!
>> Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the >> rest of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they >> all figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have >> to go fight - something we know they oppose intensely. I think they >> figure the Democrats will stop the draft for them. They might put out a >> feisty little public persona but deep down they are terrified of the >> smirk. Maybe we should all vote Republican so the smirk can draft a >> couple million of them for his crusade.
> Yeah, but maybe they want us to think that and vote Republican, and > instead they will vote Democratic, and since there are more of us than > them the fact that they know that we know that they know what we are up to > than we should do the oposite of what they are trying to vote the other > way against the people we are NOT voting for on Tuesday!!! :-)
Very funny!! You and I both know that the Iraqi mess would end tomorrow if a draft was started. When are the folks at the PNAC, NRO and AEI going to send their kids off to Iraq? Never is the answer. They are cowards.
> gumboman wrote: >> Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the >> rest >> of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they all >> figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have to go >> fight - something we know they oppose intensely.
> That's one thing I'm sincerely hoping that the Dems do, initiate a > draft. I'd support it a thousand percent. Also, with a draft, there > would be fewer reserve and national guard units called up, so I'd be > for eliminating reserve and national guard service as qualifying. > Active military, volunteer or draft.....period. Three year commitment > for everyone, except women.
> I'd also be for maintaining the draft in peace time. When the troops > come home from Iraq they can chase illegals down there in Texas...then > we can offer every illegal the option of serving four years to obtain > US citizenship. We could solve lots of problems with a good ole > fashioned draft......bring it on :-)
>>>>> NO on the Border Security Bill >>>>> NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent >>>>> NO on eliminating the marriage penalty >>>>> NO on eliminating the death tax >>>>> NO on creating Health Savings Accounts >>>>> NO on the Defense of Marriage Act >>>>> NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization) >>>>> NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance >>>>> NO on banning partial-birth abortion >>>>> NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote >>>>> NO on the Patriot Act >>>>> NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists >>>>> NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist >>>>> detainees
>>>> And that is why I am voting YES! for the Democratic Party on Tuesday.
>>>> I have to give you credit, Patrick. After years of posting political >>>> nonsense that pissed people off, these past three days you have posted >>>> some quality information and really changed the way some people look at >>>> the election and have really influenced their vote.
>>>> At least a dozen readers out there are now MORE likely to vote >>>> Democratic.
>>>> Well played! And welcome to the fight!!!
>>> Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the >>> rest of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they >>> all figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have >>> to go fight - something we know they oppose intensely. I think they >>> figure the Democrats will stop the draft for them. They might put out a >>> feisty little public persona but deep down they are terrified of the >>> smirk. Maybe we should all vote Republican so the smirk can draft a >>> couple million of them for his crusade.
>> Yeah, but maybe they want us to think that and vote Republican, and >> instead they will vote Democratic, and since there are more of us than >> them the fact that they know that we know that they know what we are up to >> than we should do the oposite of what they are trying to vote the other >> way against the people we are NOT voting for on Tuesday!!! :-)
> Yea, good point .................I think
> JH
Thanks :-)
--
Dan
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." George W. Bush
> gumboman wrote: >> Me too - but maybe we should pull the old switcheroo on Patrick and the >> rest >> of his crowd. I think they don't mind the Democrats now because they all >> figure the draft is coming after the election and they all may have to go >> fight - something we know they oppose intensely.
> That's one thing I'm sincerely hoping that the Dems do, initiate a > draft. I'd support it a thousand percent. Also, with a draft, there > would be fewer reserve and national guard units called up, so I'd be > for eliminating reserve and national guard service as qualifying. > Active military, volunteer or draft.....period. Three year commitment > for everyone, except women.
> I'd also be for maintaining the draft in peace time. When the troops > come home from Iraq they can chase illegals down there in Texas...then > we can offer every illegal the option of serving four years to obtain > US citizenship. We could solve lots of problems with a good ole > fashioned draft......bring it on :-)
I agree for the most part but with a couple of caveats. The military should never be involved in domestic affairs. In peacetime, soldiers should respect the time honored tradition of doing KP, drinking tequila and chasing cheap whores.
I also don't think you want to put many of those northern boys along the Mexican border. It really is HOT down there and I've lived in heat all my life. That might qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
> Very funny!! You and I both know that the Iraqi mess would end tomorrow > if a draft was started. When are the folks at the PNAC, NRO and AEI going > to send their kids off to Iraq? Never is the answer. They are cowards.
Calvin,
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea of a draft. I know it might sound heretical coming from a liberal but all you have to do is look around this one single board for a while to understand many of these people would benefit from military service.
gumboman wrote: > I agree for the most part but with a couple of caveats. The military should > never be involved in domestic affairs. In peacetime, soldiers should respect > the time honored tradition of doing KP, drinking tequila and chasing cheap > whores.
Well, I'm not sure I'd consider border patrol a totally domestic affair, but yeah, we can get around that.....
> I also don't think you want to put many of those northern boys along the > Mexican border. It really is HOT down there and I've lived in heat all my > life. That might qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Hey......it would toughen them up. No mercy. Military service is not meant to be a rose garden :-)
|
