Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.

1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.

... I served
in the Marines in 91, I volunteered and I wanted to do what I did. How many
of you have actually served?


I did, don't know who else you might be talking about. Maybe Rove,
Cheney, Libby, Limbaugh, etc etc?


If the Marines would take my fat ass back right now, I would go in a heart
beat!


News flash- you can lose weight. Of course, then you'd have to put your
money where your mouth is.

Not only that, If you were in the Marines in 1991, then you're young
enough to be giving yourself pretty severe health problems by being
overweight (not that it's good for you at any age).



Do you understand that WE WANT to be in Iraq because we see the bigger
picture?


Not at all. In fact, it seems very likely that *you* want the U.S.
military to be in Iraq because you've been consistantly & flagrantly
lied to.



Stability in middleast is probably the most important issue at hand.
Especially with Iran developing nuclear technology.


Now there, we totally agree. So why are you supporting Bush & Cheney's
work at destabilizing the Middle East, and their undermining of all
previous serious international attempts to reign in Iran's nuclear program?



Please do not speak for the rest of us if you have never served a day in
your life. You have no idea what you are talking about. And that is what you
liberals are good at. Talk - no action.

Yeah, I guess that's why you address a post like this to me...

DSK

Now that's scary. I heard on the news the other day that the U.S. Army is
spending $50 millions + to acquire & maintain a database of 'recruitable'
high school & college kids.


Doug Kanter wrote:
This link leads to a way of opting out of the database.
http://www.leavemychildalone.org/ind...t&contentid=63

I suspect all it does is stop the telemarketing, which might save the
gullible. My son knows how to handle telemarketers of all types, so I'm not
too worried. "Wait...before you continue....can I touch my genitals while
you're speaking to me?" Produces in instantaneous hangup.



That's cool. It would take a teenager to think of that.

We got this 'anti-telemarketer' phone that releases an electronic beep,
it's supposed to signal auto dialers that this is an inactive number. It
has reduced the number of calls we get. But I figured out that you can
cue it to make several gawd-awful squawks & WHEEP-WHEEP-WHEEPs etc etc,
and so I've been pretending to be interested in their offer, and then
holding the phone away from my ear and giving it to them. Then I
apologize and "try" to continue the deal, just to see how long they'll
stick with it. Poor suckers.

The one gal who had the persistence to stick thru ten minutes of this
and we were at the point where I was about to agree to her deal, so I
shouted "NO! NO, don't do it!" and slammed the phone down.

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:
There's no requirement that one answer a ringing phone.


Agreed.

A direct quote from my grandfather- "That telephone is in this house for
MY convenience, not theirs."

I often don't answer the phone because I'm busy. OTOH if I'm not doing
anything, discouraging telemarketing is a useful task and benefits our
society. Plus it can be fun.

DSK

How many of you have actually served?


I did,


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
And to your credit I might add - you'll get no grief from me on that
issue.

Even if it was in the Navy.

Hey, just trying to stay on topic here.

DSK

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:29:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:26:35 GMT, "Bryan"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I saw a military recruitment TV commercial the other day, in which a
parent was sort of asked, "if your child asks about going in the
military,
what would you say?" kind of thing. Those weren't the exact words, but
close enough. The idea was that parents should have "information" so
they
can answer their kids' questions and help them decide upon the
military.

This newsgroup and it's political discussions has caused me to think
about
something that never crossed my mind. I need to ask my father (retired
air
force pilot) why he and my grandfather (army, infantry) never encouraged
me
to join the military. It will be interesting to know if my father
thinks
his grandson should join the military.

I wouldn't hesitate to advise any grandchildren of mine to join the
military if they asked me for my advice.

If they asked you why you recommend it, especially at this specific point
in
history, what would you tell them?

I would start out by explaining that life is an adventure. Everyday
is a new series of events that lead to in multiple directions. Take
advantage of the training and skills offered by the military in
exchange for adding to your store of skills and ability so that
whatever direction your life takes, you are a little more prepared for
it.

I would say that you can pick what you want to do - Aircraft,
electronics, yada, yada, yada. If you really want to have some fun,
shoot for the elite specialties. Hell, even those pussy Navy types
can do good things for you.

I would tell them that the discipline and camaraderie will stay with
them forever and give them something to fall back on when times get
tough.

I would tell them to take advantage of the educational opportunities
offered and max your skill set as much as possible.

I would say that yes, the chances of being killed by bad guys is
higher than being killed driving across town, but if you pay
attention, trust your buddies and follow the lead of your Senior NCOs
- stay sharp, you'll be just fine.

Last, I would say that will be bad times, but they will be more than
offset by the good times and those will be more than worthy of
remembering.

All true (almost), but to my son, I've said that if you're going to get your
guts blown out, make sure it's for a good cause.


"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our
form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences
between us and our enemies."
-- Apparently he isn't counting the invasions, occupations and
nation-building endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2005 State of the Union
address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.

1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.


I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.

Horse feathers.

Why?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.

1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.


I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.

Horse feathers.

Harry is just illustratig his total lack of understanding of the military.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:11:46 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.
1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.
I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and
sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.
Horse feathers.
Which part?

The first part. I don't think it makes any difference.

If only because of the Pentagon's propensity to hand out cushy jobs to
sons of prominent people - like Lt. Gore for example.

I agree with the second. :)

Oh, we'd surely need a mechanism to ensure the sons and daughters of
rich Republicans were killed or maimed in appropriate numbers.

Say what?

I think Harry may be suggesting that for certain cushy jobs, there should be
a random way of choosing people, so some senator's kid doesn't have an
advantage.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:53:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
Dan J.S. wrote:
First, how do you respond the the fact you liberals want a draft.

1- I am not a liberal
2- "Liberals" don't want a draft, nor do I.


I want a draft.

I want the sons and daughters of rich Republican voters drafted and sent
over to Iraq to die with the sons and daughters of the mostly poor.
Having a military force with 50,000 sons and daughters of wealthy
Republican families in it would tend to chill a simple-minded
President's desire to engage in imperialism.

All young men and women 18-25 should be entered in a draft pool. No
exemptions, except for serious disability.

Horse feathers.

Harry is just illustratig his total lack of understanding of the military.




So, Fruitz, you're saying that preferential treatment is an integral and
permanent aspect of the military?

Horse feathers.

Which part?


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The first part. I don't think it makes any difference.

If only because of the Pentagon's propensity to hand out cushy jobs to
sons of prominent people - like Lt. Gore for example.


How was he given a cushy job? Unlike many others, he actually *went* to
Viet Nam. And he also had the guts to be an official conscientious
objector, which limited the number & type of jobs the Army could give
him. There are not many worse spots they could legally have put him in.

That's aside from the fact that conscientious objectors are NOT popular
in the military, for obvious reasons, and life as one is fairly miserable.

Rancor against Al Gore is IMHO pretty much proof of a severely biased
attitude, and shows that one's opinions are chiefly formed by the
farther right wing propaganda.

How about this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

DSK