I won't be changing my tune about anything. I'm more useless to the military than a freshly shaven pussy is to Elton John.

What I mean is that it is dependent upon whether another sovereign nation (as opposed to a secret far-flung group), forces us into conflict by an act of war against us. As for how many we can fight at the same time, that is obviously a factor of the size of the theater and the forces arrayed against us. Our stratgeic SOP up until Clinton was to have enough forces on hand to fight two full scale WWII type theaters at once. This is now no longer possible, therefore we wouldn't commit to conflicts that size unless forced to. And if we were FORCED to, you would find plenty of people ready to serve their country, even if you aren't.

You are a complete fucking idiot.

How is invading Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or any of the other places the neo cons want to take over "dying for America"?? You're a fool if you honestly believe that rhetoric.

You don't think the Bush administration is going to start another war unless they're "forced"? And you seriously think Americans are going to sign up by the tens of thousands to fight Iran or ANYONE because Bush and Cheney say they're a threat? If that's what you're saying, either you're joking or you seriously watch way to much TV.

canada :thumbsup

You might want to check the Canadian laws before you make that a plan. :thumbsup

Just curious, how exactly do you know otherwise? From what GFYers are saying? Do you have some great link into the thought process of Americans? Just a week ago you didn't know about a very typical black stereotype, now you know all about how thousands/millions of people do/don't think?

You must have some kick ass sources.

I understand who runs America right now, and I've paid attention to what they've said and read almost everything they've written for the past decade. Neo conservatives are in complete control of the executive branch. It's not about fucking watching TV or reading the latest news or "sources", it's not hard to understand what America's foreign policy is going to be when you understand the people running it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Start there, read everything they publish on that site, and then start reading books, speeches, and essays written by the principles. They've already laid out their policy for Bush's 4th term, and besides "regime change" in Iran and North Korea, it involves, and this is a quote, "fighting unfriendly regimes in Central and South America". It's not a big fucking secret, you just have to pay attention.

Now they've moved the only non-radical out of the cabinet, replaced him with a neo con, and now they're talking about filling Rice's position with Paul Wolfowitz. lol, just because you guys don't understand how badly in trouble you are if that happens, doesn't mean no one does.

I would fight and die to defend my country, but not to invade another's.

BTW, I'm no pussy, my nerves have been tempered in battle. How about yours?

Yikes, look at the map on that site, they've removed the part about Central America. God damn, that's fucking scary, that might be about to blow up sooner than anyone thinks. :helpme

He beat "Call of Duty" in a week.

1. The Nazis had no desire to go beyond Europe and Russia.

2. You're advocating blind faith in our leaders to do what's right. Nazis advocated the same thing. I believe true patriotism are those who will question their leaders to ensure that the best thing that can be done for our country is truly being done.

Kerry wanted to expand the military by 40,000 billets. That's not news to me, but now that the election is over, I can see the GOP really going for this draft thing. It's almost exclusively conservatives who say things like "military service should be compulsory". This would bring that dream into being.

They would have to repeal the 13th amendment.

Even the vietnam draft was not really involuntary servitude... You're simply required to show up. They CAN NOT force you to take the oath of service legally. During vietnam you had to step across a line of somthing similar to represent your agreement then take an oath. It was basiclaly a big trick to get around the amendment.

Michael, I love you. Shut up.

As I understood the thread, we were speaking in the hypothetical, unless by some chance a horrific miracle occurred to force us into reality. Perhaps I should have said "WERE there a new draft, would such and such blah blah blah."

Besides, you and I both know there's no draft now, and unless Dubya goes completely against the Constitution, (not really that much of a stretch, I'm afraid), there can BE no draft.

You coming to Vegas? (Quickie subject change)

lol, yeah the constitution is going to hold the neo cons back from starting a draft. Just like it's protecting your right to a fair trail and journalist's rights to protect their sources. I hope that helps you folks sleep better at night.

You shouldn't wear your animosity and rage on your sleeve it simply makes you look like a misinformed fool.

The moment the supreme court stops upholding the constitution I'll buy the bag of dung your selling.

The gun beside the bed helps me sleep better at night, thanks.

But you bring up a real point. It seems to me that the Constitution is rather abruptly becoming a moot document. Case in point: defining marriage for everyone, no matter who you are, and trying to get an amendment to make it so. Scary shit. :(

The McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The PATRIOT Act. Have I made my point?

Neither have been brought as a case before the suprme court.

I didnt say when unconstitutional laws are passed. I said when the suprme court stops upholding the constitution.

Way to prove MY point about you being misinformed when it comes to government.

"The Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees held as "enemy combatants" may challenge their confinement through the U.S. courts"

me too but first i would clear up thier mistake since im almost 42:1orglaugh

Sorry, but you're wrong. The minute both acts were signed, lawyers from almost every civil rights group in the country were submitting writs of certiori. The ACLU and the NRA, just to mention one that I know for a fact did.

They upheld unconstutional laws. Both of the ones I mentioned.

Quite the contrary, you've just proven that you don't know what the supreme court has and has not ruled on.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/30/pa...act/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/29/sc...ure/index.html

The supreme court upheld both as being constitutional, when they are clearly not.

In the future, I suggest you get your facts straight before making assertions and trying to point someone else out as being ignorant when you are the one who is ignorant. :2 cents:

Um. Where in those articles is the information on the supreme court "upholding" anything?

Your simply tryign to confuse poeple into believing you. Its kinda lame.

Its writs of certiorari AND COURTS ISSUE THEM NOT LAWYERS.

OOps I stand corrected I guess when you reqest certiorari a its called Certiori.

I'd still like the information on a case the court actually HEARD, Requesting a writ of certiorari doesnt mean the court ruled on anything.

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

That shit was big news when it happened. Where were you, under a rock?

Also, these stories contradict your assertion that these cases never went to the supreme court.

You're just trying to change your argument and get out of it now that I've proven you wrong. You're not fessing up to being mistaken and it's kind lame. Just admit you were wrong and get on with life.

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm

"While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/certiorari.htm



Care to keep pretending you know what the fuck your talking about?

Here's the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform decision.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...nal02-1702.pdf

I'm still working on trying to find the decision regarding the PATRIOT Act. The supreme court website is a bitch to navigate.

If I were asked to go, I wouldnt run from it, even though I really wouldnt wanna go, I'd most likely go.

You said, "Neither have been brought as a case before the suprme court." I provided 2 links that showed that they were brought up. I also gave a link showing where they made a decision on the Campaign Finance Reform Act. Care to keep pretending you know what the fuck your talking about?

Once again... tryign to use obfuscation and confusion to prove somthing that is untrure. I'm skmming this... perhaps you could point me to the unconstitutional paragraph??


So I was wrong... I did not follow the finfance reform case So yep I missed that. But what part of THE COURTS ruling is unconstitional?


Your grabbing at straws dude.... none of this really has anything to do with the draft. Its called obfuscation. Lawyers do that a lot. The sad thing is I think you really believe that the constitution is going to be shredded.

Because 2004 is sooo similar to 1941!

I served for 4 years on a submarine, that was enough for anyone!

Calling that document or anything within unconstitutional is a joke.

The act had EXEMPTIONS for certain groups and the NRA and ACLU were trying to obtain exemptions but were denied becasue they accept cooperate funding.

You really should read shit before posting it to try and back yourself up.

You admitted you were wrong, thankyou. Now let's get on to other things.

The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution and review legislation for constitutionality. That's their job, they are a "constitutional convention in continuous session." (Marbury vs Madison)

You said:
I said:
These cases are examples of laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and that the supreme court has reviewed and upheld. Since the laws are upheld, they are deemed to not be unconstitutional. Thus the supreme court has already stopped unholding the constitution.

You're the one obfuscating by bringing up a bunch of details that are meaningless to the discussion at hand. For example, the whole "writ of certiori" argument you tried to carry one and which I essentially ignored. Check the mirror before you accuse anyone else of something. :2 cents:

Dude wether that ruling is or is not constituation is not meaningless.

You brought up writ of certiori and used it incorrectly to state that it had osmthing to do wit ha supreme court ruleing.

Your a joke and anyone subjectivly reading whats gone on here knows it. Anyone who take a half hour to skim the gocument you linked will also know it. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT RULING HTAT IS UNCONSTITUATINAL. No... you cited ONE case... that Im reading... wich appears to be CLEARLY constituional.

You keep repeating yourself thinking it will make what you say true.

If I got drafted id say this country is TOTALLY fucked. Reminicent of Hitlers Germany in the final days, when he had 80 year old men and kids fighting to the last. Hmmmm Yeah draft a crippled over weight middle aged man to fight. :1orglaugh

If anyone or any organization that is forced to stay silent, then that goes against the first ammendment.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or the press . . . "

Those organizations are groups of citizens who have formed for a specific political reason. If they are silenced during an election period, then one of the major voices that the American people have has been silenced. PLEASE explain to me how that is not unconstitutional.

How is it consitutional? Groups of citizens are forced to remain silent 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. How is that constitutional?

Um no.... Thats an invalid summary. The act is mostly about stopping LARGER companies setting up puppet non-profit groups or using already existing groups that are exempt form the rules to FUNNEL MONEY into advertisments without having to take responsibility for what happens to the money after they hand it over.

It also keeps everyones speech FREE by trying (but failing) to close loopholes that make the freedom no longer free by giving groups with shitloads of money the ability to override the speach of others.
Again... no. Only groups of citizens that had MONEY FUNNELD INTO THEM FROM A LARGER COOPERATION.

There are many groups that dont accept cooperate money that are exempt.

These are groups of citizens organizing themselves to push a particular idea, or set of ideals. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially when the only thing we're allowed to listen to otherwise are the campaigners who constantly lie out of their ass. They're allowed to lie in their campaign ads and somehow it's not false advertising. That's a much greater threat to freedom and democracy then a group of citizens wanting to say something about an election, regardless of where their money comes from.

The whole idea of groups that are funded one way or another sounds like it's just a red herring so that we won't pay attention to the real bullshit going on.

Further, funding is not a matter that is addressed in the first ammendment, therefore I don't see how this law can be constitutional.

Hahahah so youd like big corps to grant senators and govoners money? So they can put up ads in thier office? Heck your limiting thier free speech! You can't look at free speech the way your arguing becasue it just doesnt work that way in the real world.

I can't waste any more time on you. No matter what I say your gonna see what you want. Choose to see though cheney's corporate ties then choose to ignore the ACLU and NRA's cooperate ties and support thier PROPAGAHNDA about constitutional violations. Then citing this reform as a red haring to cover up some conspiracy to try ot proove me wrong.


I'm done, but you shouldn't be. I know you don't want to admit it on this forum but at least look into it more until you realize whats REALLY going on in this country. Right now your basically defending cooperations having full run of the elections and let me tell you right now they are trying as hard as they can to do just that.

"Anything but bush!!! (Including unlimited cooperate campaign spending)"

Is kinda how your coming across to me. The way the law reads now individuals are EXEMPT from these rules you call unconstitutional as well as groups that don't take cooperate money. The constitution was written for individuals not groups or copperations.

You're basing your entire argument on the idea that these groups don't serve the people at all and instead serve corporate interests. That's silly, corporate interests have lobbyists. Groups like the NRA and ACLU represent the interests of the citizens. These groups are now shut down during election periods. These groups are a major voice of the people and get a lot more exposure then any one individual could possibly get. This stops individuals from getting together and effectively speaking out about politicians and legislation.

The constitution was written for citizens and these groups are collections of citizens. If you still don't agree, that this law is unconstitutional, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, some of the judges on the supreme court agreed that this is unconstitutional since it was not a unanimous decision. That means that there are some who do believe this to be unconstitutional.

We're not going to resolve this here, because this is a matter of opinion and it is likely that we are taking vastly different approaches. I am taking the approach of individual freedom and assemblies of citizens having the same rights as individual citizens. You appear to be taking the approach that groups of citizens have different rights then individual citizens.

Just agree to disagree, and have little bit of respect and dignity for your opponent.

Conclusion: It is my opinion that the supreme court has upheld uncontitutional laws and it is yours that they have not. Discussion over, have a nice day.

I did my military service back in israel, we get drafted every year for a month till the age of 45 :) i personally hate it :)

but if the country is at risk and my family's life is on the line i would go to fight without thinking twice.