Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (92.18)

H.R. 5741 Slavery Is Ok If Government Is Doing It

Recs

29

July 23, 2010 – Comments (71)

I guess the Civil War was just a power grab to get rid of the competition in the slavery market (of course, those who have read history know the colonial government endorsed and promoted slavery, and passed racist legislation specifically designed to make whites and blacks resent each other.)

Democrat Charlie Rangel has decided to turn back the clock with the proposal of H.R. 5471.  Let's look at the lowlights:

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5741

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Let's look at how our masters limit their ownership interest of your life:

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

 (1) a declaration of war is in effect;

 (2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

 (3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

A national emergency is whatever the President says it is.  Imagine the howling from the Left if Bush had proposed such draconian nonsense!  Instead, this comes straight from the other side of the false Left/Right paradigm (in case you didn't know, Obama's masters are the same as Bush's)

Thankfully, I am not fit for service! 

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service

Mental examination?  Phew, I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist and I don't believe in global warmiing hysteria.  There's no way I'm eligible.  Then again, I'll probably end up in a re-education camp.

High school students... stay in school!

 (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.

This is a really disgusting bill, but don't take my word for it.  Check it out yourself.  How should we handle this?  Should we call Rangel's office and tell him we're very very angry?  Should we write him letters of protest?  Do you really think phone calls, emails and letters are going to solve this problem?  Yeah, ok.

I  have a very simple question for you: Do you own your life or does the government?

We need the Oathkeepers now more than ever.

"If a dystopian nightmare of the totalitarian state finally arrives in the United States, it will be a result of a compromise, and there will be people around until the very end who will insist that we should be grateful because it could be much worse." - Lew Rockwell

David in Qatar

71 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 23, 2010 at 11:30 PM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

I'll say your not fit for service... it'll make ya just thyat easier to catch when your time in the Death camps come! (no re-education for YOU!)

You raise an interesting point and I need clarification here: the citizens who are already in the military now... Patriots or Goverment Stooges? Are they defending you and keeping you safe or just sucking off your hard work stolen from you in the taxes you pay? A strong America or Socialist Defense of folks that terrorists should kill because they are lazy?

Draw me a picture so an old dummy like me can understand 'cause all yer purty words done confused me on what you really think... Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Report this comment
#2) On July 23, 2010 at 11:44 PM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

Thanks for stopping by, Chris Matthews.  It's a pleasure to be on Hardball.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On July 23, 2010 at 11:45 PM, blesto (24.48) wrote:

"Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Said by you know who.

I would be for it IF the bill were to include any of the services of state or federal government. U.S.Forestry, Peace Corp, Jobs Corp...etc. Serving your country should be more than the military. I love the fact that our military is voluntary and it should remain that way. The bill should include all aspects of service to the country.

This bill, as it stands now, is not necessary. The draft can always be imposed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Report this comment
#4) On July 23, 2010 at 11:47 PM, MichaelMolenaar (< 20) wrote:

From a psycological persepctive, a corrupt politican like Rangel subconsiously knows that when they use their power for illegal personal gain, they are being a 'bad person'. In order to justify their ill gotten wealth without getting rid of it they try and pass bills that will "make society better" because they want to feel like they are paying off their debts by making other people work them off.

Report this comment
#5) On July 23, 2010 at 11:49 PM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

God forbid that government or anyone at all suggest to you that social needs are more important than your own self-gratification.  If you can't do exactly what you want when you want it then you are "enslaved."  And if some of your income is taken in taxes, it is "theft."  Libertarian = anti-social and selfish.

 

 

Report this comment
#6) On July 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM, ajm101 (42.46) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service

 

Report this comment
#7) On July 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM, MichaelMolenaar (< 20) wrote:

tomlongrpv-

To say it is a "suggestion" implies that national service is voluntary. It is not. National Service is slavery draped in an American flag. No free citizen living in a free country should ever be forced to get down on their hands and knees and "serve their country" at the barrel of a gun. Historically National Service has targeted teenagers because they have the least means of fighting back. Volunteering is a noble pursuit, but if you take away the freedom of choice of doing it then it is slavery. 

Report this comment
#8) On July 24, 2010 at 12:05 AM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

MichaelMolenaar

Throughout history societies have had mandatory public service and mandatory taxes.  The vast majority of people can tell the difference between such things and "slavery" or "theft."  It is only the recent pheonomenon of self-absorbed, self-centered libertarians who have trouble making the distinction.

Report this comment
#9) On July 24, 2010 at 12:07 AM, AvianFlu (80.04) wrote:

A free person forced to work against their will is indeed being enslaved.

For Post 5: You say "some" income. How much do you consider to be a reasonable amount? If 98% of your income is confiscated, then are you really free? Of course not. How about over 50%? I suggest that is also way too much...and that is about what government takes right now. The hours of your life are finite. The property you own represents hours of your life that you worked. When government takes your property, they are really taking part of your life.

Also, forgetting about the outrageous trampling of your personal freedoms lets talk about "social needs". A nurse I know just came back from Africa where she was assisting heart surgeries for free for natives. If forced into Rangel's plan she might not have time to do charitable work like that. Is the government going to come up with a better use of her time? I sincerely doubt it. Who's to say the government is wiser than individuals when it comes to choosing charitable works. In my view they can barely tie their shoe laces.

Report this comment
#10) On July 24, 2010 at 12:09 AM, ajm101 (42.46) wrote:

And mandatory service during wartime is hardly comparable to slavery.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Treatment:

"As masters applied their stamp to the domestic life of the slave quarter, slaves struggled to maintain the integrity of their families. Slaveholders had no legal obligation to respect the sanctity of the slave's marriage bed, and slave women— married or single — had no formal protection against their owners' sexual advances. ...Without legal protection and subject to the master's whim, the slave family was always at risk"

"Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. One overseer told a visitor, 'Some Negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case.' A former slave describes witnessing females being whipped: 'They usually screamed and prayed, though a few never made a sound.' If the women was pregnant, workers might dig a hole for her to rest her belly while being whipped."

Report this comment
#11) On July 24, 2010 at 12:09 AM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

Hmm... so my grandfather, father, and uncles who were drafted to fight in WWI and WWII were slaves.

I love the internet.

I would have really loved for either one of you two, David, Michael, to have made that suggestion in their presence or even that of their friends.

Or mine or my son's. But you won't. :-D

 Truely you are courageous men, you do the Oathkeepers proud. With men like you standing firm behind the keyboards, only good will result. So, how IS Rand Paul doing these days? He has been so quiet lately... and I've been looking for news of him.

Ya know, I do not dislike libertarians. I have voted Libertarian. God's Truth to that. But I do not believe that ya'll are putting your best foot forward tonight...

Report this comment
#12) On July 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM, ajm101 (42.46) wrote:

The real crime is a professional military that bears the entire brunt of stupid wars of choice that the public at large pays no price for.  I wish the US had mandatory military service even outside of wartime (ie, slavery) like notorious slavery-loving countries like Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and others.

Report this comment
#13) On July 24, 2010 at 12:31 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

tomlongrpv,

Your argument, and that of others, boils down to: because other countries (and the U.S.) have done it before, it is therefore right.  That is not a standard of ethics that I am familiar with.  Perhaps you could point out the works of ethical scholars that promote your view. 

I happen to disagree vehemently with your view. How do you propose to conscript me if I refuse?  WIll you jail me?  Kill me? Fine me until I can no longer afford to eat?

I believe that not only do I own my life, but every person on this planet owns their own life.  If the wars and community service are so unpopular, then perhaps we should scale back on them, rather than adding to the horror by conscripting young peope and robbing their most productive years.

If you feel that you don't own your life, and that your children don't, I would like to make a claim on them.

Let's start the bidding at $5.

It's also very enjoyable to watch the hypocritical Leftists on this blog squirm when they have to cheer their masters for doing the exact same thing they would decry if Bush was in charge!  Ha! 

Republocrats, indeed.  So much for civil liberties!  Our guys are running the prison now! 

I wonder what it's like to hate your fellow citizen that much.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On July 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, blesto (24.48) wrote:

David in Qatar said, "Thankfully, I am not fit for service! "

I thought you were an ex-pat.

Report this comment
#15) On July 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

blesto,

I'm still an American citizen. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On July 24, 2010 at 12:44 AM, ajm101 (42.46) wrote:

David, comment #13 was almost entirely strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks.  That's weak.

Report this comment
#17) On July 24, 2010 at 12:51 AM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

"They simply don't care. Because they surround themselves with people who think exactly like they do.

When everyone else in your social circle approves & encourages such behavior, anyone outside of it with a dissenting opinion will be instantly dismissed.

They see society as the problem, not their insane viewpoints."

I was just reading Somethingawful.com, saw this and thought of you.

But they were discussing furries and otaku...

Report this comment
#18) On July 24, 2010 at 12:54 AM, devoish (99.16) wrote:

2003 

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (search), D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

2006

Congressman Charles Rangel today introduced new legislation to reinstate the military draft that will include draftees up to 42 years of age....

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

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

2010

WASHINGTON (AP/1010 WINS)  -- Rep. Charles Rangel is again calling for a military draft to highlight the fact that relatively few families are bearing a disproportionate burden in fighting the nation's wars.

The New York Democrat introduced a bill Thursday to reinstate the draft, a symbolic gesture that has no chance of becoming law. Rangel previously introduced similar legislation in 2003 and 2007.

Rangel said lawmakers who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should require "all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country."

Rangel said he supports President Barack Obama's efforts to eventually bring troops home, but he wants it to happen faster.

You do not tell me what to think. I tell you what I think.

Imagine the howling from the Left if Bush had proposed such draconian nonsense!  Instead, this comes straight from the other side of the false Left/Right paradigm -Hopelesslylost
It is a false citizen vs.Government paradigm.

- Steven

C'mon David, this is just to easy. 

Report this comment
#19) On July 24, 2010 at 1:11 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

devoish,

You jumped the gun, as usual.  I'm talking about the draft here, not Rangel's political grandstading.  I'm glad I'm getting under your skin.  Though this is a political play, Rangel supports conscription, just like the leftists above that jumped to the defense of such an intolerable practice.

From his Wikipedia page: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel

Rangel has been long been opposed to the all-volunteer army and repeatedly called for the government to bring back the draft (military conscription)

We already know what you think.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On July 24, 2010 at 1:50 AM, SockMarket (97.76) wrote:

that isn't slavery, its conscription. same basic idea (except your chances of getting killed is higher with conscription and you get paid in conscription). There are large differences between the two. 

I hate conscrption and all who promote it. If you want to serve you nation, potentially by killing other people then that should be your choice, not the government's. 

That said, putting a post like this up and making no mention to the fact that it is 7 years old (leading others to believe it is current) is disgusting, and is a bad as an academic and ethical practice in and of itself and I am rather dissapointed in you David.

Report this comment
#21) On July 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

dinodelaurentis,

Hmm... so my grandfather, father, and uncles who were drafted to fight in WWI and WWII were slaves.

I love the internet.

I would have really loved for either one of you two, David, Michael, to have made that suggestion in their presence or even that of their friends.

Or mine or my son's. But you won't. :-D

I think you win for biggest douchey comment of the week. 

I served in the Marines for 10 years.  My father was a Marine infantryman in Vietnam (he signed up for the Marines because he didn't want to be drafted into the Army.)  He lost his leg in that war.  He is an amputee.  My grandmother's first cousin was on Tarawa. My uncle was in the Army in Vietnam. My grandfather was in WWII.  His father was in WWI.

And yes, I would tell your family members that I think the draft is slavery, and I would explain why, because everyone deserves to determine their own life.  And I'm also certain that they would be more respectful and thoughtful in their reply than you, having seen the horrors of government wars firsthand.

I think you're the problem, not the Internet.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On July 24, 2010 at 2:01 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

danielthebear,

It's not 7 years old.  He first put the bill forward 7 years ago.  He put it back up 9 days ago.  It is current.  Nine days ago is current, in my book.  Disgusting, in yours.  Oh well.

Let me say this so everyone is clear: Grandstanding aside, Rangel, like many others in power, supports conscription.  There is no confusion here.  Rangel supports conscription.  If it wasn't politically unpopular, others would come out in support as well.  I'm thankful, a few of the above commentors are not in charge. 

The point is that conscription says the government owns your life and can employ it when it sees fit.  That's slavery.  It's not just wrong. If you can't resist without being punished by imprisonment, that's slavery.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#23) On July 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

I'm Number 1!! I'm Number 1!!!

Actually David, I was hoping you'd responde to my first post. (I'm so glad I'm getting under your skin. You know just like you did to devoish...)You raise an interesting point and I need clarification here: the citizens who are already in the military now... Patriots or Goverment Stooges? Are they defending you and keeping you safe or just sucking off your hard work stolen from you in the taxes you pay? A strong America or Socialist Defense of folks that terrorists should kill because they are lazy?
I'm over that hope now. :-D

Also, I have not engaged in ad hominum arguments. That's your special purpose. "Chris Matthews". "Douchey".

10 years as a marine? Volunteer? Surely a Marine could not be as sensitive as you. All the Marines I know can take commentary.

Ya know, all you had to do was pull up General Smedley Butler as an example, but no, you had to go around the horn dragging this point out in some sort painful flagilation. Brevity has it's good side, ya windbag.

No need to respond now fool. I would never draft you into an argument. How could I? You're not a slave are you?

You may be a Marine. You lack social graces that's for sure. You only think you would have told my family your political opinions. My Father suffered fools only up to a point.

Fool on David,

Dino in Virginia Beach

 

Report this comment
#24) On July 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

I'm Number 1!! I'm Number 1!!!

Actually David, I was hoping you'd responde to my first post. (I'm so glad I'm getting under your skin. You know just like you did to devoish...)You raise an interesting point and I need clarification here: the citizens who are already in the military now... Patriots or Goverment Stooges? Are they defending you and keeping you safe or just sucking off your hard work stolen from you in the taxes you pay? A strong America or Socialist Defense of folks that terrorists should kill because they are lazy?
I'm over that hope now. :-D

Also, I have not engaged in ad hominum arguments. That's your special purpose. "Chris Matthews". "Douchey".

10 years as a marine? Volunteer? Surely a Marine could not be as sensitive as you. All the Marines I know can take commentary.

Ya know, all you had to do was pull up General Smedley Butler as an example, but no, you had to go around the horn dragging this point out in some sort painful flagilation. Brevity has it's good side, ya windbag.

No need to respond now fool. I would never draft you into an argument. How could I? You're not a slave are you?

You may be a Marine. You lack social graces that's for sure. You only think you would have told my family your political opinions. My Father suffered fools only up to a point.

Fool on David,

Dino in Virginia Beach

 

Report this comment
#25) On July 24, 2010 at 2:30 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

dinodelaurentis,

Please. You came on this post looking for a fight and you got it.  Now you want to run away, calling names all the way out the door?

Never roll around in the mud with a pig, because you're both gonna get dirty and the pig's gonna like it.  I'm the pig.

Fool on!

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#26) On July 24, 2010 at 2:51 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

dinodelaurentis,

A couple more points. I've written about the current military on several occasion.  What do I think about them?  See here for a thorough discussion. 

Second, in regards to your father, who I am certain is a better man than the picture you paint represents, are you saying that he would beat me up if I told him my political beliefs? Who cares?  What would that say about a person that fought for "freedom" that he wouldn't tolerate any dissent about political issues?  There is no way your father is that violent or repressive.  I think you should ask him, though.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On July 24, 2010 at 2:53 AM, NOTvuffett (84.32) wrote:

I suspect that Rangel's main objective is to try to deflect attention from his ethical violations that are coming to a head.  I think he also sees a voluntary military as disproportionately exposing people of modest means and minorities to the hazards of combat.  Others argue that a volunteer force is more effective than a force of conscripts.

I don't see anything sinister about military conscription in a time of great need, something like WWII. Forcing people to give up a couple years of their life for any jacked up idea that the govt. can think of disturbs me though.

Report this comment
#28) On July 24, 2010 at 6:45 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

NOTvuffett,

As devoish noted above, this is the third time Rangel has proposed this legislation.  His effort is a ploy to show how few people want to fight the war (no argument.)  However, when you research Rangel, something devo failed to do before posting (how ironic), you will see that he fully supports conscription for many different forms of national service and opposes the all-volunteer army.  Obama has made similar comments.

That's what this post is about: conscription.  It's not about Rangel or political plays, although my own distaste of Rangel shows through too well :)  Obviously, if I had waited until my second cup of coffee and worded the post better, perhaps it would have warded off a few of the crazies.  I don't care.  I don't get paid for this.  If they don't like it, they can take off.  I write these blogs for my own enjoyment. 

I"m glad you brought a level head to the discussion.  My question back to you is simple, and twofold:

Who gets to decide that we are in a time of great need?  What happens if I disagree with that evaluation?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#29) On July 24, 2010 at 7:35 AM, devoish (99.16) wrote:

A national emergency is whatever the President says it is.  Imagine the howling from the Left if Bush had proposed such draconian nonsense! - Hopelesslylost

Hopelesslylost you are the "misinformerofus". You post this nonsense pretending as though something happened today that did not happen in 2003. There is no need for any of us to "imagine" the howling from the left if this had happened when Bush was President because it did happen then.

As far as imagining the howling from the Libertarians, if the President of the United States proposed a draft, I suppose we can only extrapolite from the response to a piece of protest legislation from a Congressman.

So it seems to me that "libertarians" as represented by you would pen a misinforming political propoganda piece designed to pretend we are at risk of losing some freedom because of legislation that will not pass and is not new.

The "left" as represented by Congressman Rangel "howled the same" protest legislation against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whether the President was a Republican or Democrat.

Oncde again - no imagining about the "left" needed.

In fact your taking the time to pen this BS political hatchet piece suggests to me the possibility that the charges currently being brought against Rangel are politically motivated BS. Just a small indicator in his favor until the investigation is done.

Thanks for staying on top of this draft legislation for us and fairly representing the likelihood of its passing based upon its 402 -2 rejection in 2003, and the possibility that it is simply protest legislation hoping to slow Congress down by making sure they risk sending their children and the children of defense contractors, when they consider going to war. Equality under the law - what a concept.

Making such legislation succeed at its stated goal would require additional work.

Thank you for sharing.

The Grand, High, Exalted, Mystic, Still Thinking for Himself and Still Telling You What He Thinks, King Devoish

Report this comment
#30) On July 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

devoish,

That's nice.

This post is about conscription.  You decided to make it about something else, without mentioning that Rangel actually does support conscription and opposes voluntary service. 

Do you have any thoughts on conscription? 

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#31) On July 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

David in Qatar:

Libertarian extremism is a poor substitute for rational thought.  Societies are structured in part based upon a surrendur of private rights--otherwise they don't work.  The rational question is whether a particular sacrifice is in the best interests of society as a whole.  We could, of course, do away with drafts.  Indeed even during the Civil War the US had a way out of the draft--you could pay $300 or you could pay someone to stand in for you.  Rangel's idea (and he may or may not be right) is that we might be a little more careful about entering into wars if the children of the political elites were at risk as well.  Depending entirely on hired mercenaries to staff an army may not work in the long run.  It didn't work for Rome.

 

Report this comment
#32) On July 24, 2010 at 2:41 PM, NOTvuffett (84.32) wrote:

David,

I stated that I thought conscription was only appropriate for military service.  "great need" is a bit subjective but I would say it would have to be something that actually endangers the survival of the republic and if required forces coudn't be met with a volunteer force. Perhaps no conflict since WWII has met that standard.  If you disagreed, well Canada would probably welcome you with open arms, lol.

My point was that if the govt. could press you into a civilian service where would the idiocy end?  Spend two years of your life passing out condoms and leaflets on AIDS prevention in Africa?  How about a Global Warming Brigade- you could be stationed in Scandanavia to convince Laplanders to switch to a vegan diet because reindeer farts are destroying the planet, lol.

blesto made the point that the draft could be imposed at any time under current law, which is true.  All men are required to register for Selective Service for just such an eventuality.

David, keep up the good work, I enjoy watching you stir up our resident Marxist's and kneejerk leftists. 

 

Report this comment
#33) On July 24, 2010 at 3:20 PM, jambenfool (< 20) wrote:

tomlongrpv: I appreciate your thoughtful and informed responses.

David in Qatar:  You are of course free to aire whatever thoughts you have, but netiquette calls for you to direct them to appropriate channels. The vast majority of TMF readers joined to discuss investment. If I want to read what I and apparently many other consider to be libertarian rants, there are plenty of other places I can go. In the future please direct them to a more appropriate forum. 

Have a great weekend, everyone.

 

Report this comment
#34) On July 24, 2010 at 4:00 PM, 20PercentPM (< 20) wrote:

David in Qatar,

You and I both volunteered for the military; i was in for 20 years and you for 10. If someone was forced to join the military, because they were drafted, I can see where some would definitely think of that as being a form of slavery.

However, we still have it much better than the country you are currently working in. I don't know if you can read these headlines yourself, the following website is blocked in Qatar, unless you have some sort of way to do an IP redirect.

 

http://qatarsucks.com/

 

Here are some headlines on the websites home page regarding slavery:

Workers take company to court for illegally retaining their passports.

With Qatari Citizenship Comes Slave Owner Status

NHRC condemns widespread abuse of workers rights in Qatar.

Aljazeera slams Qatar again: Slavemasters hold cash while migrants building Doha suffer.

Are the gulf states stable? Is a worker revolution coming? Slavemasters are outnumbered.

 

We aren't a perfect country, but it sure beats the alternative. God Bless the USA

 

20PercentPM

No Longer in Qatar

 

 

 

Report this comment
#35) On July 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM, devoish (99.16) wrote:

tomlongrpv,

#31, Very well said.

Imagine the howling from the Left if Bush had proposed such draconian nonsense! - Hopelesslylost

Instead, this comes straight from the other side of the false Left/Right paradigm (in case you didn't know, Obama's masters are the same as Bush's) - Hopelesslylost

This post is about conscription - Hopelesslylost

Oh. So what you really wrote that none of us could see was - "Charlie Rangel supports conscription as a way of keeping the USA out of wars of choice because he believes that if our President, his Cabinet and our Congressmen, had been sending their own children, Barbara and Jenna Bush, Mary and Elizabeth Cheney, and Chelsea Clinton to guaranteed four year tours on the front lines in Fallujah we would not enter a war of choice but instead would be buying Iraqs oil instead of stealing it". "Thoughts?".

Had you actually written a post such as that, about conscription, I might have replied "Congressman Rangel probably has a good idea but it would need to guarantee high risk service for at least half the "of age" children of all the Congressman and Senators who voted us into war.

But you did not write such a post.

The Grand, High, Exalted, Mystic, Marxist, Knee Jerk Leftist, Who Doesn't Think He is a Marxist Knee Jerk Leftist for Pointing Out a Load of Politcal Bull Crap, King Devoish.

Report this comment
#36) On July 24, 2010 at 10:15 PM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

20PercentPM,

If you're reading qatarsucks.com - an author that couldnt' distinguish between an indian, a pak, a bangledishi with copy of each passport - you're going to be led to some faulty.

As far as cheap labor goes, they have it here better than back home.  I would know.  I lived in Pakistan.

tomlongrpv ,

Societies are structured in part based upon a surrendur of private rights--otherwise they don't work.

So that makes it ok?  That's the point of these posts, and I know that reflection is difficult for you.  I question what you blindly accept.  In turn, you lose your mind.  This is two posts now.  You are about 30% of the way to full fledged troll.  And for the record, your extreme statistm makes rational thought impossible <---- look how easy it is to be as clever as you. 

NOTvuffett,

SInce we haven't declared war (or fought one against a country that has an army, air force, or navy) in 60+ years, I'm skeptical about the need you cite.  I don't think "national need" is anything but a cover for governments to commit horrible atrocitiies.  If I have to flee the country because I don't want to be drafted into an army to fight some unknown enemy 10,000 miles away.... it is slavery.

jambenfool,

Obviously others disagree with you assessment.  It wouldn't even matter.  I don't blog for you.  Take your reading eslewhere.  You're a big boy.

devoish,

No, you didn't take the time to look up Charlie Rangel's beliefs before you jumped on this post and made it about something else.  You still won't do it.  Political plays or not, for the 15th time, Rangel supports conscription.  The fact that you won't address the core issue of the post tells me that you probably feel the same way but are too cowardly to admit it.

As for the war, the young people that volunteered should get out and stop serving.  The parents should stop encouraging their kids to risk life and limb for Muslim subjugation and neocon lies. 

But I don't force people to live the way I want them to.  That's the realm of liberals and conservatives.

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#37) On July 24, 2010 at 11:37 PM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

tomlongrpv ,

Societies are structured in part based upon a surrendur of private rights--otherwise they don't work.

A cup of coffee in the morning does wonders for me. 

If I am forced to surrender my rights, they are not rights.  They're privileges.  Now, I don't if you meant to say that we have no rights, only privileges.  That's a line of reasoning I can work with.  But to come on my post, accuse me of not thinking rationally, and then display that you don't understand the fundamental difference between rights and privileges is amusing.

And for my fan club that cheered your comment, devo and jambenfool, do you guys need a refresher on the difference between rights and privileges as well?  Do you still think that my new troll's comment is spec-tak-u-larrr?

I hope not, but then again, one of you is clearly crazy, so who knows.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#38) On July 25, 2010 at 12:10 AM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

David In Qatar.

I cannot think of a civilization that has existed well without a state.  Hence my statism and my opposition to libertarianism (aka anarchism).  It has never worked in the past and does not seem likely to in the future.  But I invite you to share examples of societies that have functioned without conscription in times of war and done well.  That would help enlighten the discussion more than your negative barbs would.  We are talking about conscription, correct?  If so, it would be helpful to hear about societies that have survived well without it while under stress from outside aggression.  Enlighten us with your brilliance.

 

 

Report this comment
#39) On July 25, 2010 at 12:14 AM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

P.S.  What is a right?  A right is what society collectively decides we are each entitled to--a social contract if you will.  In the absence of such a thing there are no rights and no privileges.  So when I say society requires the surrendur of some of your rights I simply mean what you think are your rights--which is in your case I suspect the right to do whatever you please whenever you please.

Report this comment
#40) On July 25, 2010 at 1:32 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

tomlongrpv,

A right isn't decided by other people.  That's not a right.  That's a privilege. I think you need to brush up on this subject before you start calling out my intelligence.  If you want to understand where I'm coming from, learn the difference between rights and privileges, or argue that we have no rights.  Again, that's an argument I can jump on board with.  But to argue that rights are granted by the State or by some illusory social contract is intentionally distorting the meaning.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#41) On July 25, 2010 at 2:07 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

One more point, and then I'm moving on to my next post.  I'm not interested in what most people believe or what the current situation is. We all already know that.  I'm much more interested in what should be. You may disagree with me on that, but you can't disagree by simply pointing out what is.  It's not relevant and it's already known, so who cares?  I know that most people think "rights" come from a social contract.  I also know that few people have even thought about the implications of such a contradiction.  I talk about what should be in order to highlight those aforementioned contradictions. 

I write about what should be because that's what interests me.  If you wish to write about something else, click the button on your MyCaps page named "Create New Post."

Thanks for the discussion, all.  I'll see you on the next post.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#42) On July 25, 2010 at 11:32 AM, tomlongrpv (88.64) wrote:

David in Qatar.

Then who grants you your rights?  You?  God?  Perhaps the difference is semantics.  But it is also a purely academic one because in a society with no state (and states without working military organizations rarely survive) you only have those "rights" that you can secure for yourself by force. Such a thing is hardly a "right," nor is it the way we should measure rights.  Rights are what we decide to give each other without conditions.  Privileges are earned by meeting the conditions.  Hence you have no right to drive a car, only a priviledge to do so after you get a license.

Report this comment
#43) On July 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM, SockMarket (97.76) wrote:

David,

I am a bit late in this re since I was out yesterday. anyway, people frequently re-propose bills that have been shot down before multipule times to prove a point (usually it is that they are nuts) not for the purpose of debate. This is rather clearly one of those bills (in my mind, I can't see it getting debated) and since it's intent was tied to 03 and policies then I don't think that it has a ton to do with the current situation. 

As such I certainly would have appreciated a note tying it to the origional proposition of the bill...and I was under the impression, since you did not refute or comment on Devoish's time note, that it was not current at all. Hence why I thought it was disgusting. 

as for the rest of the blog:

Rangel, like many others in power, supports conscription.

I suppose that this is why it was voted down 2-402 when it was origionally proposed, back in 03.

You could argue that most like it but don't consider it a viable voting strategy for the sake of political capital preservation (or to please voting constituents) however if that is truly the prvailing attitude #1 would be false and since seniors are the largest voting group by far and many of them fought and none would be ellible for the draft I would find #2 hard to believe as well.

I seriously doubt the "aye's" would be in double digits if it was ever voted on again.

The point is that conscription says the government owns your life and can employ it when it sees fit.  That's slavery.

I don't disgaree that it is an abomination, as I said, but I do think they are very different. Here is a brief description of each, mostly drawn from wiki and my memories:

Slavery

(me) As Solomon Northup describes in his book upon the subject slaves were:

- forced to give all earnings, except those made on Sunday, over to their masters

- subjected to torture without any provocation (in his story, a fellow slave is whipped so badly she cannot move for a quarter year, simply because the master felt like it)

- were not secure sexually and there was no defense against rape, etc.

- could be, at any time, bought or sold as property.

- upon being caught attempting to leave could be, in some states, killed by the master and were at least tortured.

- the harder you worked and the more you did, the more you were expected to do, and were frequently thrashed if you didnt keep up that workload, even if it was more than the average slave's workload. 

- slavery was life-long, you weren't freed from it.

- (wiki) " Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. In some societies it was legal for an owner to kill a slave; in others it was or it is a crime."

- wiki definition: "Slavery is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. In some societies it was legal for an owner to kill a slave; in others it was or it is a crime."

Conscription

- (me) this is compulsory enrollment in a job, albeit a (potentially) terrible and dangerous one for a period of time

- if you have reasons, ie disability, why you cannot go they will let you out. 

- all wages earned are kept by the earner/those he designates them to go to

-  while you can endure hardships as part of the service I don't believe that it matched up with what slaves went through.

- conscription you can get out of, by getting older

- if you do well you are rewarded and promoted

- escape is punished with potential imprisionment and a bad record

- wiki's definition "Conscription, also known as the draft or national service, is the compulsory enrollment of people and the term typically refers to their enlistment in a country's military"

 

As I see it slavery was a living hell, where death is the end of the ordeal. Conscription is forcing someone to do a job that can be very dangerous and has a terrible goal: killing other people. The escape is in getting older, although an untimely death works too. But, as bad as conscription is, it is not slavery.  

Report this comment
#44) On July 25, 2010 at 1:28 PM, SockMarket (97.76) wrote:

I should say my memories of historical accounts of slavery, mainly Solomon Northup's 12 Years a Slave book.

Report this comment
#45) On July 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, devoish (99.16) wrote:

 No, you didn't take the time to look up Charlie Rangel's beliefs before you jumped on this post and made it about something else.  You still won't do it.  Political plays or not, for the 15th time, Rangel supports conscription.  The fact that you won't address the core issue of the post tells me that you probably feel the same way but are too cowardly to admit it. - Hopelesslylost

This post is about conscription - Hopelesslylost

Oh. So what you really wrote that none of us could see was - "Charlie Rangel supports conscription as a way of keeping the USA out of wars of choice because he believes that if our President, his Cabinet and our Congressmen, had been sending their own children, Barbara and Jenna Bush, Mary and Elizabeth Cheney, and Chelsea Clinton to guaranteed four year tours on the front lines in Fallujah we would not enter a war of choice but instead would be buying Iraqs oil instead of stealing it". "Thoughts?".

Had you actually written a post such as that, about conscription, I might have replied "Congressman Rangel probably has a good idea but it would need to guarantee high risk service for at least half the "of age" children of all the Congressman and Senators who voted us into war.

But you did not write such a post.

I repeat myself so your audience knows you ignore the answer that you do not like and so pretend not to hear.

Report this comment
#46) On July 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

tomlongrpv,

You are endowed with rights by your creator. We all are. They are inseparable from the individual. Only the United States Constitution clearly states this for its citizens - and it makes the United States of America quite unique in the world.

Citing that other governments around the world have done this for a long time, and still do it to this day, does not make it right - it only makes it common.

For a government to mandate service - is to put you into servitude - and as such are you still free? Even if compensated monetarily (who decides what you are worth?) - you are not free to choose. A draft, conscription if you like, is servitude. Whom do you serve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble

How can we secure liberty when forcing people into servitude? How can you rationalize the apparent conflict between forcing someone to perform service in the name of liberty? Check your premises!

I did not serve. My brother volunteered for the Navy (and is still in today) - his choice. My father volunteer after WWII and fought in Asia - his choice. I extend my sincere best wishes for anyone who volunteers.

An all-volunteer forces also acts as a check on the aspirations of empire builders - but it seems woefully inadequate when the purse strings are loosened.

Conscription with an open checkbook is a formula for war without end.

Known as citizen nzsvz9

Report this comment
#47) On July 27, 2010 at 1:46 PM, silverfang77 (< 20) wrote:

This bill is a terrible idea! I'm in the thick of the age group they're targeting. I thought I was finished with mandatory government this and that when I finished high school 14 years ago. Apparently now, Rangel thinks I owe the government more of my time.

I work. I pay taxes. Isn't that enough? 

What about people in our age bracket who have full time jobs, families, etc.? How are they supposed to pay their bills if they're forced to leave their jobs for two years to serve Uncle Sam? Or will this government service be in addition to, rather than in lieu of, their regular jobs? Will they even have time for their kids anymore? Families are strained enough for time as it is!

Surely, Rangel and the feds have better things to do (like cleaning up the Gulf Coast) than drafting hardworking, tax paying citizens into some quasi-military service scheme!

Report this comment
#48) On July 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM, devoish (99.16) wrote:

Silverfang,

Why is it Government who should clean up BP's mess?

Report this comment
#49) On July 27, 2010 at 8:04 PM, argyll185 (< 20) wrote:

For you people calling this slavery are just ignorant. You claim to be tax paying, hard working people. Thats all fine and dandy, regardless, you are just being a productive human being. Military service is completely seperate from that. This bill is calling for manditory service to a country that gives you the rights to be free, and only in a time of war or national emergency. The last time war was declared was Korea. Since then they have been termed conflicts, like the two "wars" we are currently fighting. They are both termed conflicts or operations. No matter how much you deny the fact, war is necessary, and war is what brought you the freedoms that you abuse. In order to safguard those freedoms, military action needs to be taken. From the posts that I have read, all of you are saying that you are too good to actually go out and defent the freedoms that you take advantage of. "Let someone else do it" is all you really need to be saying. If you feel that you are being opressed or forced into "slavery" by your government in order to maintain freedoms, you can take advantage of one of our greatest freedoms and get the fuck out. Its that simple, you dont want to fight for the freedoms you abuse, you can leave. Go to another country where you feel more at ease about just abusing freedoms offered. Wait, that would mean that you have to have a 4 year degree and at least $20,000 in a savings account. America is the only country that allows anybody to come in. Hell, we will even have the tax payers foot the bill on your education, your subsidised housing and your food stamps, as well as your health care. No other country will support immigrants the way America does. So I say again, if you do not wish to do your part and defend the freedoms you abuse on a daily basis, try to go somewhere else. Canada doesnt want you, if you immigrate to Mexico, you are automatically a felon, subject to search and seizure of anything and everything the police want without cause, just because they can. There is nothing you can do about it, no place to run, because you are a Mexican citizen. Stop complaining about doing your part to keep the freedoms you abuse. The bill says in a time of war, or a national emergency. Last i checked, all branches of the military are downsizing, and there are more than enough civil servents and national guardsmen to come to your rescue in the time of national emergenct, when you are too stupid to get out or take care of yourself, just like in hurricane Katrina. Someone else came to the rescue of all the idiots that didnt have the brain power to follow a manditory evacuation. Stop acting like a big shot because you have a job and pay taxes. Again, that has nothing to do with defending the country that you live in from people who want nothing more to do than destroy it. 

Report this comment
#50) On July 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM, guiron (20.32) wrote:

Is this a joke?

Report this comment
#51) On July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM, guiron (20.32) wrote:

You are endowed with rights by your creator. We all are. They are inseparable from the individual.

How was it then that we only knew about these rights until a few centuries ago? Seems to me the news came pretty late.

What I think we're born with is the capacity to act. Rights come from a structure of government. Without government, who will enforce the protection of those rights? If it's just you and you alone against the world, doesn't matter that you believe you have rights. Who will protect them on your behalf?

Report this comment
#52) On July 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM, catoismymotor (84.28) wrote:

I can't believe some of these comments. Such a cornuocopia of cluelessness has rarely been on display on TMF.

Report this comment
#53) On July 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, TMFTwitty (95.40) wrote:

Fools, please back off the personal attacks and incivility. Spirited political discussion is fine, but this has devolved beyond reasonable disagreements.

Thanks - Richard

Report this comment
#54) On July 28, 2010 at 3:33 PM, IIcx (53.40) wrote:

Look up the definition of the term conscription before throwing any stones at whereaminow.

I wonder if this is their solution to unemployment?

Wait, everyone between the ages of 18-42 are to become employees of the federal government? This is crazy - we can't afford this.

Report this comment
#55) On July 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM, IIcx (53.40) wrote:

This has to be a spoof.

HR 5471

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to extend for 6 months the increase provided under that Act in the Medicaid Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP).

 

Isn't Democrat Charlie Rangel under investigation by the House Ethics committee? Is someone playing a mean joke?

Report this comment
#56) On July 28, 2010 at 4:38 PM, IIcx (53.40) wrote:

Weird -- looks like it was introduced and sent to the Armed Services Committee. Something doesn't smell right with an election coming up so the need must warrant the Bill; pretty scary.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5741

Note: Charlie Rangel is 80 and has been in the House since 1971. The ethics changes appear to be little more than parking ticket issues. Is everyone nuts these days?

Report this comment
#57) On July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, IIcx (53.40) wrote:

whereaminow,

Note: you posted HR 5471 with a link to the introduced Bill 5741. 

Report this comment
#58) On August 01, 2010 at 1:13 PM, dinodelaurentis (23.16) wrote:

llcx,

   I concur.

   This is a joke.

Report this comment
#59) On August 03, 2010 at 1:47 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

IIcx,

Thanks for pointing out the typo. The bill is 5741, as noted in the title and if you hit the link you will see it is 5741.

dinodelaurentis,

It's a joke to you, because you have no leg to stand on.  And appearantly no response but to turn a typo into something more.  Did you ask your father if he is violent and oppresive?

And, for the record, conscription is slavery and Rangel supports conscription.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#60) On August 03, 2010 at 10:36 AM, whereaminow (92.18) wrote:

I said I wouldn't come back to this post, but I changed my mind.  Sue me.  I don't write for you.

Let's walk through the typical conversation as described above:

Libertarian: Conscription is slavery.
Statist: What?! That's ridiculous!  You're an irrational extremist!
L: Wow, ok.  Well, they have a lot in common.  For example, both slavery and conscription have to be enacted by force - at the point of a gun.
S: They're two totally different things, because one's called slavery and the other is called conscription.  And you don't get conscripted at the point of a gun.
L: So how do you get conscripted?
S: They send you a letter.
L: And what happens if I ignore that letter
S: The government will want a reason why you didn't comply.
L: Well, what if my reason is, "cuz I don't give a f*ck about your cause."
S: Then you get what you deserve!  Some people (not me) have to carry the weight of our nation's interests and you were picked for that and if you don't want to do it you're a hypocrite!
L: That's nice.  So what happens next?
S: You'll be arrested, I would hope.  And thrown in jail like the unpatriotic hippie scum you are!
L: By the point of a gun right?
S: Yes, of course.
L: So how is this different from slavery?
S: It's totally different! 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#61) On August 03, 2010 at 10:47 AM, catoismymotor (84.28) wrote:

David,

With a little tweek here and there you can easily use #60 for income taxes.

Cato

P.S. - You should hear shortly from my attorney, Dr. Gonzo.

Report this comment
#62) On August 03, 2010 at 10:58 AM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

"...all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country."

As if any of our politically motivated conquests truly contribute to the defense of our country. 

Report this comment
#63) On August 03, 2010 at 11:11 AM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

Let's pretend this bill is placed into action.  I am currently a 19 year old to be college sophmore studying finance.  I am passionate about my field of study and wish to pursue a career in the financial services industry.  Instead of continuing on I am forced by a bunch of older politicians, who have already lived 3 times longer than I have, to go to war and possibly die.  I will have to submit to the will of these same politicans who have spent money so irresponsibility that my generation will have to pay ridiulous taxation, more decisions I had absolutely NO control over as I was not able to vote in the 2008 election. I love my country and I have friends in the Marines and the Army who would go to war in an instant.  This is because they love and excel in that line of work.  It is their choice to put their lives on the line and they do it.  No one should have their RIGHT of choice taken away... especially in the US where we have such an abundance of citizens voluntarily choosing to go into the military.   

Report this comment
#64) On August 03, 2010 at 11:14 AM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

*so irresponsibly

Report this comment
#65) On August 03, 2010 at 12:42 PM, ajm101 (42.46) wrote:

sah713 - here is important information for you - most of the people that are in the military do not want to have to go to war and possibly die, either, even though they know it's possible when they enlist.  grow up a little.

Report this comment
#66) On August 03, 2010 at 12:51 PM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

Please explain to me how they didn't or don't "want" to go if enlisting is voluntary and they had free choice. 

Report this comment
#67) On August 03, 2010 at 12:53 PM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

I assume when one joins the military they know good and well they might be deployed into a warzone.  If not, that individual is lacking some serious common sense.

Report this comment
#68) On August 03, 2010 at 12:53 PM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

I assume when one joins the military they know good and well they might be deployed into a warzone.  If not, that individual is lacking some serious common sense.

Report this comment
#69) On August 03, 2010 at 12:59 PM, dargus (79.36) wrote:

sah, just because someone signs up for the military doesn't mean they want to fight. The military pays a salary and offers great benefits, including college. This is generally what those who join the military want. I don't know how old you are, but those who signed up to get a college education before September 2001 probably didn't expect to go fight a war. Sure, it was possible, but I doubt a desire to fight was their main motivation. The climate is a bit different now, but remuneration is probably still a major factor for most who join.

Report this comment
#70) On August 03, 2010 at 2:07 PM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

I did not mean to suggest that a desire to fight is the main reason why people join, though my comment may have been worded that way.  It is ridiculous when people suggest that people who join the military do it out of duty and patriotism, when the majority join in order to reap the benefits of military service (free tuition, benefits, tax-free income, etc...).  Also, how do all of the foriegn civil wars and struggles in other nations we partake in have anything to do with the "defense of our country?"  We have never been attacked on our own soil by a foriegn body since WWII (the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a privately funded terrorist cell).  If another country landed on our shore and started attacking America, I would join in defending our country.

Report this comment
#71) On August 03, 2010 at 2:14 PM, sah713 (21.40) wrote:

That was a response to argyll who stated:

"No matter how much you deny the fact, war is necessary, and war is what brought you the freedoms that you abuse. In order to safguard those freedoms, military action needs to be taken."

An extensive national defense budget may be necessary due to the rise of terrorism around the globe and threats from N. Korea, but our meddling in the affairs of other nations in order to protect our political clout is not. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement