On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:59:59 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:41:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
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?

Overstated on my part. I should have said EXPOSED to the same
possibilites of being shot or maimed as the sons and daughters of the
mostly low-income families whose kids now serve. I don't want any of
them killed or maimed, but...if someone has to drive an unarmed gasoline
truck, let it be a US senator's son.

Thank you for clarifying that. It is appreciated.

Nice to see Harry is still sucking up to someone, especially someone with some
sense.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:29:18 -0400, " *JimH*" wrote:


wrote:

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

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?

Overstated on my part. I should have said EXPOSED to the same
possibilites of being shot or maimed as the sons and daughters of the
mostly low-income families whose kids now serve. I don't want any of
them killed or maimed, but...if someone has to drive an unarmed gasoline
truck, let it be a US senator's son.


Bull. You said what you meant and only backed off when you were challenged.


Agreed.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:32:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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?


Do you think OCS, ROTC, and West Point officers are treated the same?

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:32:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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?


Do you think OCS, ROTC, and West Point officers are treated the same?

I'm in no mood for your games today. You know what I meant. If not, expend
the energy to read through the entire thread.

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:32:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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?


Do you think OCS, ROTC, and West Point officers are treated the same?

As typical, the liebrals just don't get it.




--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:32:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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?


Do you think OCS, ROTC, and West Point officers are treated the same?

As typical, the liebrals just don't get it.

Moron. If you've received training ahead of other new arrivals, you *should*
be treated differently. Having a parent in congress, or is the president's
personal attorney is not comparable with the things you mentioned.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:48:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:32:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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?


Do you think OCS, ROTC, and West Point officers are treated the same?

As typical, the liebrals just don't get it.

Moron. If you've received training ahead of other new arrivals, you *should*
be treated differently. Having a parent in congress, or is the president's
personal attorney is not comparable with the things you mentioned.


The answer to your question is 'yes'. Is it right? No. And, that includes
preferential treatment based on race or sex.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

DSK wrote:

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


One of the auto dialers called me once with some pre-approved credit
card deal. I gave them some fake info. Then they asked me for my phone
number. Since they called *me* I simply said "Oh, I don't have a phone.
They disconnected it when I couldn't pay the bill." The caller didn't
hesitate and asked me if I could give him my number at work.

Telemarketers can be fun when you are in the right mood.

Dan

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
.net...
DSK wrote:

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


One of the auto dialers called me once with some pre-approved credit card
deal. I gave them some fake info. Then they asked me for my phone
number. Since they called *me* I simply said "Oh, I don't have a phone.
They disconnected it when I couldn't pay the bill." The caller didn't
hesitate and asked me if I could give him my number at work.

Telemarketers can be fun when you are in the right mood.

Dan

All I did was join the Do Not Call register and I have not been bothered
since.

In article ,
says...

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.

If your grandchild weren't as smart as you'd like and couldn't
specialize in something that'd keep them out of combat, how could you
possibly advise them to put themselves in harm's way for an idiotic war
such as the one we're presently engaged?

I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience, especially if they
ended up being shooting practice for some freakin' insurgent in Baghdad.

jps