Draft? No need, we've got the Universal National Service Act in the cooker

[BeHereNow]

That's right, no need to draft, it's simply going to
be called something else and will conveniently
fit into the neocon "guest worker program" quite nicely!

"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." 
The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age."

AND it will fit the new jackboot plan for domestic survellience ever so nicely!

"The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the  "Neighborhood Watch Teams" and the "Volunteer Police Service" established in partnership with local law enforcement. (see http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf )"

Welcome to never ending war!
Equal opportunity opportunity to serve empire
for the rest of our lives!
Text of HR 4752 IH available here!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060530&articleId=2535

BHN

[Warpy]

1. Gee, it doesn't exempt women who are pregnant

recovering from childbirth, or caring for infants and toddlers. It could only have been devised by a MAN, and a very stupid one, at that.

[Erika]

2. But it will exempt wealthy GOP kids

As if they never found a loophole before.

[lonestarnot]

5. Most assuredly.

[BeHereNow]

9. Nah,wealthy kids will simply be given jobs in the bunkers!

Send the poor, brown and immigrants to do the dirty work!
Just like now, only in BIGGER numbers!
BHN

[lonestarnot]

12. You are dreaming.

[beam me up scottie]

15. More like panic.

Some people love fear soooooooooooo much, when they can't find a good source, they make their own.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

19. You're still in high school?

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

[BeHereNow]

23. Yeah, that's what I said...I'm in high school

every day- teaching the least among us.
Those who have NO future.
I would wager it safe to bet that
you wouldn't last a day in my job.

BHN

[lonestarnot]

34. Are you brainwashing them that the least among us will be treated

more fairly with a draft?

[beam me up scottie]

35. You teach them to panic for no reason? How comforting.

And take it from an ex-Marine, darlin, you wouldn't last a day in mine;)

[lonestarnot]

73. You're fucking dreaming alright! Me in your world NOT!

Marines are stupid. Air Force has the brains. That's why we're on top! Darlin'.

[BeHereNow]

16. The wealthy will be spared the messier jobs for as long as possible-

This to allow the adjustment period to the idea
of the act being like the "Peace Corps."
Hey, with 11 million illegals all eligle to serve,
they've got time to spare, no?
8.5 million uninsured children n the country?

Listen, I work in a high school filled with kids
who will be more than happy to get three square meals
a day and a roof over their heads, since there is no other
future for them. They'll be HAPPY to be part of this
new Amercian Century junket!

I'd say the bill will look more and more attractive to
millions facing the same plight as the kids I see graduating
into a no-win job market and economy.

So tell me again, who is dreaming and who is being realistic?

BHN

[lonestarnot]

36. Well if you are teaching them, you better be sure to show the

other side of war and how 3 squares are not needed when your body parts get scooped up into plastic bags.

[BeHereNow]

3. A thinking person would begin designing Brown shirt maternity wear!

Hey, we've been sending young moms and dads to
Iraq and who knows how many other places for years!
Why should the rest of young parents of America be denied
the privilege?

More war!
More troops!
More brown shirt TSA jobs for all!

BHN

[beam me up scottie]

27. The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! Bwaaaaaaaaaak!!!

[Why Syzygy]

4. You do remember that

Kerry supported such a plan? Still does :shrug:

[BeHereNow]

6. As did WES CLARK!!!

As do ALL the strawmen posing as second party representatives!
LOL!!!
Notice, a democrat placed THIS bill in the hopper!
YAY!
More war!
Empire is ON the move!
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

10. The Democrat who introduced this in 2003 voted against the war.

Did you even bother to follow your own links?

[sandnsea]

17. Not mandatory national service

He never supported mandatory national service, it was voluntary to trade for 4 years of college tuition.

[BeHereNow]

32. And those serving could be called up in the event of

a "national emergency" by the president and deployed
where deemed necessary.
Read it again.

BHN

[sandnsea]

39. Read what?

The bill in the OP isn't Kerry's.

[beam me up scottie]

7. This was introduced by a Democrat.

Charles Rangel.

Remember him?

He also introduced it in 2003.

[135th]

8. Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced...

So is the draft an official part of the Democratic party platform yet, or is it being held off until 2008?

[BeHereNow]

11. Well I have been screaming loudly, to the annoyance of most at DU

that there is no longer a two party system
in this country, just a bunch of people perpetuating
the illusion for the benefit of the "left" and right" deluded masses, for YEARS.

They are ALL owned by the same multi national corporate bankers
and the military defense contractors.

They wil be fine, because they have all become
very wealthy while selling the rest of us down the same
rive they have sold the civilians in other countries down.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
READ the fucking bill and tell me we have a two party system?

BHN

[lonestarnot]

13. Again you are dreaming.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Well, listening to people who scream bloody murder for nothing IS annoying

Wake up yourself and do your own homework instead of wailing like a banshee and asking everyone else to do the same.

[BeHereNow]

21. Book mark this thread and we'll talk when it comes to pass.

In the meantime. you have options you know-
as in put me on "ignore..."
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

24. You didn't even read what you linked to, did you?

Gee, why am I not surprised?
:eyes:

No, I won't put you on ignore, I want to see your reaction when you finally realize this is a ridiculous reason/excuse to panic.

[BeHereNow]

26. I have read the bill SEVERAL times-

As a matter of fact, I have also encouraged my students
to read it.
I know exactly what it says.

Your point about the bill is???
Because I KNOW you read it...
BHN:spank:

[beam me up scottie]

28. bwaaaaaaaaak!

[salvorhardin]

30. Have you actually read what Charlie Rangel said about the bill?

You don't think the author of the bill would know why he introduced it and what its' purpose is?

[Blackthorn]

22. I said the same thing after Kerry folded in 2004.

The same thing after Al Gore chose not to sponsor an investigation into the election that was stolen from him. Talk is cheap.

[BeHereNow]

25. No, No see...as long as we IGNORE the facts...

We don't have to face reality!
:sarcasm:

Glad to know there is a least one other realist here
on this thread.

:yourock:

BHN

[beam me up scottie]

33. You mean like how a black Democrat who voted against the war introduced it

Meet Charlie:

[salvorhardin]

20. Rangel has been introducing this bill for years

It's primarily showmanship to use to make his point concerning who serves in the military and why.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft

Try getting your news from something other than the tinfoil brigade.

[BeHereNow]

29. And IF it passes after the 2008 elections?

Which I predict it will.
Please feel free to bookmark this thread and prove me wrong
later.
I would welcome it.

I don't consider the source tinfoil btw.
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

37. You "predict" ? So now you're Madam FuFu?

Explain your rationale for making such a prediction.

Start with the numbers from the last time it was introduced and why you think they will be considerably different.

[salvorhardin]

38. I consider anybody who bases...

I consider anybody who bases their ideas about the world based on Larouchites and conspiracists to be part of the tinfoil brigade.

A major Griffin source, Michel Chossudovsky, has departed from a history of serious left critique to making unsubstantiated claims based on right-wing conspiracists such as Jeffrey Steinberg, a well-know top aide to neofascist Lyndon LaRouche, and John Whitley, who sees world affairs shaped by secret plots. Chossudovsky's website also cites and praises material from the American Patriot Friends Network, a site notorious for peddling unsubstantiated right-wing anti-government conspiracist theories similar to those circulated in the militia movement (1,2).
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html

[BeHereNow]

43. The authors commentary does not change the content

of the bill.
There are also harvard law links with commentary to
the bill available on the net-
perhaps they would somehow change the content of the bill for you?
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

45. Anti-semites are notoriously unreliable, BHN. You didn't do your homework.

I alerted on this thread.

Anyone who would defend a site that publishes James Petras should be ashamed of themselves.

[salvorhardin]

47. I'm ashamed that SUNY continues to pay Petras

And that students at SUNY Binghamton aren't protesting his classes.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

46. So you would rather base your opinion

On the reporting of a Larouchite conspiracist rather than the words of the actual author of the bill? OK. As long as we've got that straight.

[beam me up scottie]

48. I hope this "teacher" isn't referencing anti-semitic literature in class.

I'd raise the roof if my kids were given this garbage to read.

[salvorhardin]

50. No kidding n/t

[BeHereNow]

58. So you're saying you would not want your kids to read the bill?

THAT is what we are reading-
not the commentary of the site.
THE BILL is what MATTERS.

By the way, are you accusing me of being anti semeitc
in a round about way?
Because I do believe that is a violation of DU rules???
No?

BHN

[beam me up scottie]

60. I would demand the termination of any teacher who gives students racist

propaganda.

Clear enough for you?

[BeHereNow]

65. You are saying the text of the bill is racist propaganda?

THE BILL IS WHAT THEY ARE READING.
Not the commmentary-
Are you even READING my replies?
THE BILL IS WHAT THEY ARE READING
AS IT IS WRITTEN ON GOVERNMENT SITES.
SO you are implying WHAT?
THAT GOVERNMETN DOCUMENTS ARE RACIST PROPAGANDA?
Maybe you should go to bed now....
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

66. Where do you teach? I want to know which kids are getting this article.

If you are too incompetent to even research your sources, you have no business teaching anyone, let alone impressionable children.

[beam me up scottie]

62. You're quoting an anti-semite and defending him-I don't have to accuse you

of anything.

[4bucksagallon]

31. It's a shame, we really could use a draft to wake people up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060530&articleId=2535
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization

[BeHereNow]

40. Not to worry- the wake up call is coming

Between the economy and the criminal corporate owned congress,
the "wake up call" is coming.
Despite what the deluded think,
it WILL come.
Bookmarking for future reference,
good night-

BHN

[salvorhardin]

42. If Larouchites are the one sounding the wake up call

I think I'll sleep in.

[salvorhardin]

44. That's an odd disclaimer

Because Michel Chossudovsky *is* the Centre for Research on Globalization.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Info from sites that publish antisemitic hate speech is acceptable to you?

If you really did research this before posting, how dare you link to sites that print such vile bigotry?

[BeHereNow]

52. Text of Bill, from a NEUTRAL SITE.

The bill is the topic of discussion, BTW-
not the link I posted it from.
AS, you seem bound and determined to
shift the topic of the post, which may I remind you is-
THE HR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Service_Act_of_2006

BHN

[beam me up scottie]

55. There is no excuse. You're quoting a site that publishes hate speech.

I'm sickened by your lack of remorse for giving them the publicity they were seeking when they set their trap.

:puke:

[salvorhardin]

57. The text of the bill is not in dispute

The interpretation of the bill from a Larouchite conspiracist that publishes anti-semitic hate speech is in question.

Credulousness crossed with blind ideology is a dangerous combination.

[qwertyMike]

51. Draft?

KIDS, GET OFF YOUR SKATEBAORDS AND IPODS AND GET OUT ON THE STREET.

WANNA DIE WITH A MOUTHFUL OF SAND IN 105 DEG. TEMPERATURES?

GET YOR F*CKIN DECK SHOES OFF AND HIT PENNSYLVIA AVE.

where are you?

[beam me up scottie]

53. Disregard.

No draft, nothing to see here except hyperbole from anti-semitic sources.

[BeHereNow]

54. The BILL is the topic, not the source-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Service_Act_of_2006
My, you are working over time to distract the attention
of the topic, are you not?
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

56. Your source is racist. You're doing exactly what they want you to do.

:applause:

[BeHereNow]

61. The BILL is what matters-

You , like some others on thread, have chosen to IGNORE
the content of the bill and chosen rather to focus
on the commentary.
I posted one of MANY sources I have on the bill.
I repeat- THE BILL is the issue at hand.
If you can't release YOUR prejudice of the commentator,
than you really can not participate intelligently
in the discussion.
The discussion is NOT about the commentator-
THERE ARE MANY OTHERS on the same bill.
THE BILL is the issue at hand.
BHN

[salvorhardin]

63. If the bill was the issue

You would have chosen to post a link to a .gov website. Instead you chose to promote a Larouchite conspiracist who publishes anti-semitic hate speech.

[BeHereNow]

67. For God's SAKE!

You REALLY have missed the point.
AND you are accusing me of something that is simply
YOUR conjecture.
I have SEVERAL sites bookmarked on the bill-
I just happened to link THAT one-
I have NO agenda here other than informing people
about the bill!
WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA?
BHN

[salvorhardin]

68. If your agenda was to inform people

You would have quoted the author of the bill as I did instead of a Larouchite conspiracist that publishes anti-semitic hate speech.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Not to mention editing the op or asking the mods to lock this thread.

I have to wonder why this person's agenda seems to include free publicity for anti-semites.

[beam me up scottie]

64. You quoted an anti-semite and instead of doing the right thing and asking

the mods to lock this so you could repost WITHOUT the hate speech, you defended your source.


YOU made it about the racist by quoting him.

[salvorhardin]

59. No, the source and the source's Larouchite conspiracist interpretation

No, the source and the source's Larouchite conspiracist interpretation are the topic. The author of the bill has stated quite clearly what his objectives are, while the Larouchite conspiracist who also publishes anti-semitic hate speech has used the text of the bill to further his Larouchite conspiracist goal.

I'll say it again... credulousness crossed with blind ideology is a dangerous combination.

[BeHereNow]

70. NEW DISCUSSION THREAD HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2058995

As I will not continue to tolerate the idiocy of the posting on this thread.
THE BILL IS THE ISSUE.
I welcome INTELLIGENT discussion of the BILL-
not accusations by a pack of late night antisemetic conspiracy theorist attacks.
BHN

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

74. locked... hmmmf

so much for that crap.

[BeHereNow]

75. OUR discussion is over- and how dare you insinuate that I am anti-semetic

I will not discourse with you further.
You need to go to bed.
BHN

[lonestarnot]

76. I was here before you were maker!

[lonestarnot]

77. Learn how to respond to the correct poster. Maybe you should

calm down.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

78. The bill still has no cosponsor. It's not going anywhere.

A previous version introduced in 2003 was soundly defeated.


Good night.:hi:

[Broken_Hero]

79. Locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html