yeah, Im sure that will happen,,,,

Like Jimi once said ... "But let us not talk falsely now / The hour's getting late" ... I'm not gonna fall for that specious little trap you're trying to set. There is NO equivalency between whether or not I support SECOND AMENDMENT gun ownership RIGHTS as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the creation of a PERSONAL ARMY to serve HIS psychopathic need to control everything he touches. I mighta been born at night, bebbykeks, but it sure wasn't LAST night ... try that li'l logical 'equivalency' fallacy with someone who just fell off the turnip truck. While you're up, you might also try responding to the points I raised - or is that too much of a challenge ... ?

you answer like a politician...lol what happened to yes or no?

I think I understand the thinking behind this bill.

It goes something like this:

Reasoning A:

1. There is at least 1 handgun for each American citizen.
2. Almost all families andor households have firerams in the house.
3. Most of these guns are never used.
4. If we make people to use them at a time that the nation needs their input by way of offensive impact or defensive aggression, then we can utilize a lot of firepower without moving a finger or spending a dime. (Fiscally consciencious policiy. Obama's headline.)

or

Reasoning B, if A fails to gain popularity:

1, 2, 3, being the same, then continuing on a different path of reasoning, namely:
4. All things ever made in America alwaysget used. (Old fiscal policy regarding the forbidding of manufacturing goods that are no good.)
5. All these guns in the homes will be used, ergo.
6. America is an insular country.
7. No foreigners inside American borders, really, in droves, unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, which countries have a large number of low-turnover foreign tourists who wield and occasionally, but nevertheless much too often for the liking of the locals, use deadly fire power.
(8. The Afghans and Iraquis should give Americans dual citizenship, and allow them to vote in elections. Why not? The Iroquis did. One vowel difference, big deal, force them to do the same, you can do it, boys, we'll televise the baseball leagues' standings if you do.)
9. erm... where was I... so the guns will be used eventually, and to stop Americans from shooting each other, we can sweet talk them, sez the prez, maybe, into shooting only non-Americans, i.e. other than their neighbours, my neighbours, and thy neighbour, when we find thousands of them in our country in khakis, in tanks, in nuclear warheads.

I wanted soooo much to work in "in khakis, in kakas, ..." in there somehow and I could not.

Therefore I self-punish myself to get my "just desserts" by sending myself downstairs and by force-feeding myself a tub of ice cream.

Sharp at 1537 hours, immediate notice, this is a command, over and out.

its not a simple yes or no,, its like asking if I would be in support of my child going to jail for theft or something
of course I wouldnt be HAPPY about it in principle
but in fairness and equity, I would have to support the motivation

so, no, Im not HAPPILY supporting any mandate to risk ones life
but I am politically suppporting the motivation to have americans give back and get involved

You DO sound just like Oblowme....a yes or no answer is all thats needed, not a lengthy explanation of why you think its good.

Oblowme liked to answer "present" when a yes or no vote was needed. Then, as now, he sidesteps the issues.

well, I guess IM not a mainstream american who needs to commit to one side before having all the relevant information,,,

another reason Im glad I voted for OBama,,, and against the usual bloodthirsty, power hungry, impatient, American candidate

And yet, Oblowme has proven to be all of those.

WE all have our different perceptions,,,,

Some have perceptions, other have facts.

mostly perceptions, and interpretations of what the facts MUST mean or say about someone,,,

the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.


As I sad before, have those who signed their Loyalty to Hussein Cards be the first to offer up their kids to the war meat grinder.

The all volunteer military is running short of dead soldiers and it's gettin' close to time to bring back the draft.

The Bill says Hussein has the say of the who, what, and where of the kids. I'm sure you Libs trust he will not put them in harms way.

Libs, don't be a'cryin' when Hussein comes a'callin' for your kids. No mo' skippin' off to Canada.

It does'nt get anymore of a clear definition than that.

whats clear is that this is a proposal by Rangel,, not OBama

what is also clear is that this was a proposal submitted previously under Bush as well

what is also clear is this proposal would give ANY sitting President authority,, not specifically OBama, as is evident by the fact that Rangel has proposed this idea since 2003, long before OBama was in the position at the white house

whats clear is that this is a proposal by Rangel,, not OBama

what is also clear is that this was a proposal submitted previously under Bush as well

what is also clear is this proposal would give ANY sitting President authority,, not specifically OBama, as is evident by the fact that Rangel has proposed this idea since 2003, long before OBama was in the position at the white house

more on the bill,, referenced from wikipedia but you can plug the bill in another resource and see for yourselves


The Universal National Service Act of 2006 (H.R. 4752) introduced February 14, 2006. New York Democrat Representative Charles Rangel again called for the draft to be reinstated. It required men and women 18-42 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". Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had rejected this proposal. It had no sponsors.

The Universal National Service Act of 2007 (H.R. 393) is a bill introduced by Charles B. Rangel in the United States House of Representatives on January 10, 2007. When the bill was introduced, it was referred to House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. On February 26, it was then referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. As of December 12, 2007, the bill had two co-sponsors. They are Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and Rep. James McDermott (D-WA).

Nice Job you did your homework. I think the neocons are so worked up about this is the fact that the chicken hawks would get drafted or their kids.

Let's just wait and see how all the good little psuckups and psychophants respond when 'The UN' tells 'em it's time for THEIR kids to dedicate a minimum of TWO YEARS of their life to serving HIS needs ... Anybody notice yet that, if all the new peeps are busy bein' off serving in 'The UN's FAKE army, there won't (can't, really) be any replacement troops in the REAL military ... ? Logical consequence: The REAL military shrivels and dies on the vine while his PERSONAL 'defence corps' grows in size and strength. This movie ran in the '30s - back then, it was Ernst Röhm's SA vs Sepp Dietrich's SS. Raise your hand if you saw this movie and know the secret ending ... History has a nasty way of repeating itself 'cuz the ig'nant among us insist on forgetting the lessons it taught us the last time ...

Oh - you're right only about ONE thing: Rangel IS the one putting the paperwork forward, but (re-visit 'The UN's campaign speeches) OBAMA's the one with the 'semi-messianic' drive to create HIS OWN 'Personal Defence Corps' (even if he pronounces it 'corpse'). This is all on record and the CONCEPT is directly traceable to 'The UN' - Rangel, as is usually the case, is just doin' what Puppetmaster Obama tells him to do. He's the 'paper pusher' - Obama's 'The Causer' ...

I suppose an illinois senator was pulling a representatives strings way back in 2003 too,,,

this is getting to be like one of those spoof commercials

If you have become divorced in the last two years, your life generally suck, you have come down ill, or had to do anything you didnt want to,,,,call the law offices of BLAME OBAMA NOW

we are experts at tying responsibility back to OBama in whatever situation you can dream up

Last night Jon Stewart responded to Barack Obama's much talked about appearance on "The View," or as Stewart refers to it, "a daily show about the misadventures of the world's unluckiest couch." While Obama made criticisms about the media during his coffee talk, the media also lashed out at him for appearing on the show, calling it inappropriate and undignified. Other more specific criticisms revolved around the President missing a semi-annual Boy Scouts Of America conference.

Stewart defended Obama's appearance on the show in two ways, first by showing a clip of former president George W. Bush and his wife in an interview with Dr. Phil wherein he asks, "were y'all spankers? Did you spank him?" Secondly, he came to the conclusion that if Obama had ditched the "View" appearance for the Boy Scouts, the conservative media would have skewered him for missing a candid conversation with women on national television, saying "nothing Obama does will ever make you f**king happy."
WATCH:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/stewart-to-media-nothing_n_664777.html