Involunatry Draft is Upon Us... Welcome to the Untied States of America (2393 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: 0.53 on 135 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-08-27 20:59:47 EDT
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2324785,00.html
Though a full draft is not yet in effect, a clear escalation can be seen in the issue of the middle east conflict and the will of the people of the U.S. to support this war by volunteering for military service. Recent recruiting shortfalls, which are common during times of unpopular conflcit, have forced Bush to not only raise the age of conscription from 26 to 42 years, but to authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel.
The following quote is from the article and speaks volumes.
"Marine officials said they had the authority to call Marines back against their will as long as they were needed to serve the "global war on terror" -- a conflict whose parameters remain undefined. "The authority is until GWOT [global war on terror] is over with," Colonel Guy Stratton, head of the Marine Corps' manpower mobilisation plans, said. "Until we're told to do otherwise, we'll use it."
More reading: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060823&articleId=3042
Wanna take bets on how long after the November Republican/Diebold victory a full-scale draft goes into effect?
User Reviews
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:13:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
A new record... only a couple of words before you start talking bullshit. There is no draft right now and there hasn't been in years and years and years.
"Though a full draft is not yet in effect, a clear escalation can be seen in the issue of the middle east conflict and the will of the people of the U.S. to support this war by volunteering for military service. "
Submitted by Butler (user info) at 2007-01-11 17:54:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder if Jenna and Barbara will be eligible? If so, I'll bet they end up in the Airforce down in Alabama.
Submitted by dexpaxas (user info) at 2007-01-11 17:53:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not World War 3, it's Global War on Terror. Same difference.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-11 17:49:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-31 03:40:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ya wanna know something creepy?
a few years ago, when OIF I started, my mom said that it was good that I had joined up, because in a draft, I wouldn't have a choice of what I wanted to do.
still even more weird, when I was growing up, I would constantly tell my mom "i'm never gonna get married, I'm joining the military" (mind you, I was young when I would parade around saying this)
my mom said, "that's good honey, I'd rather you join then get drafted, at least that way you can have a choice in what you do"
seriously, everytime I said something about joining the military (from the age of four on up) she would tell me to do it, because she didn't want me to get drafted.
weird, huh?
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-08-31 03:13:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, but you can't use the word draft! The united states will never have another draft. saying draft upsets bob dole!
What we're gonna have is an "involuntary conscription".
You shoulda taken the free hat, keychain trinket and t-shirt the army was offering when it was on a volunteer basis. Now you're gonna be 'in', and sans-paraphernalia.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-08-31 01:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh dear ETS you're such a fucking douche.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2006-08-31 00:15:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
already served, medically discharged, won't get called up again
hope you fuckers have fun in iraq
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-08-30 13:31:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:50:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Accessions Goal Percent
Army 10,890 10,450 104
Navy 4,043 4,043 100
Marine Corps 3,197 2,865 112
Air Force 2,130 2,121 100
That was the month of July
I'm not sure where the numbers in the articles you posted have come from (as they offer no backup to them) but the Army has goals of over 10k and has met them.
I'm sorry but I will not accept answers from a blog over stats from the DOD.
-------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHat do you mean? I thought everyone went to liberal news sources and blogs for their facts.
GUESS I WAS WRONG HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2006-08-30 13:17:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Stupid fucking yanks.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:58:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thank you, Badass. I appreciate that.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck off Foolproof, you assume that because we are talking we are talking about something you commented on...but we're not....we're discussing something different and can do so with out making assumptions or prejudice just because it's an ETS post.
so in short, shut the fuck up you overgeneralizing pantywaiste.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:50:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you people still on this. Fuck, I thought we answered this.
A: Involuntary draft is a repetive statement.
B: It is inactive reserves being called back, as per their contract.
C: LET. IT. GO.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:38:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On September 10, 2001, CBS News and its anchor, Dan Rather, reported that the Pentagon had "lost and was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in the year 2000 - fully one-quarter of its budget this decade."
This is the same DoD that wrote the Operation Northwoods document. Think about it.
Do you know what Winston's job was in the book 1984? He was one of many people who changed the reports and the news stories to reflect what the party needed to be true at a particular time. He altered the facts to rewrite history, make people disappear, bring people to life that never even existed and make them heros, then he would burn all the evidence in the "memory hole".
When the data conflicts, someone is either mistaken or lying. Who has the motive to do that? Well both sides have motives, perhaps, but on the one side we're talking about scores of sources that disagree with the DoD's numbers you just gave. Are they all lying? Did they all fail to check facts? OR is it more reasonable to believe that the DoD is twisting the facts so that these old stories don't match up?
Either you can choose to go with the scores of sources that disagree with them, or you can agree with the Pentagon. But if you believe in a single SHRED of what I've told you about how the people in there operate, then it might suit you to apply a stricter standard of proof.
And while you're at it, why don't you ask them to release the video tapes of the attacks of 9/11 and the Oklahoma Bombing.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:28:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS is right about the money tracking, I posted it on his post a while back
September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions
In a speech to the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25 percent of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for, and quotes a long-time defense budget analyst: "[Their] numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year." Coverage of this rather shocking story is nearly nonexistent given the events of the next day. [US Department of Defense, 9/10/2001; CBS News, 1/29/2002] In April 2002 it will be revealed that $1.1 trillion of the missing money comes from the 2000 fiscal year. Auditors won't even quantify how much money is missing from fiscal year 2001, causing "some [to] fear it's worse" than 2000. The Department of the Army will state that it won't publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack." [Insight, 4/29/2002] This $1.1 trillion plus unknown additional amounts continues to remain unaccounted for, and auditors say it may take eight years of reorganization before a proper accounting can be done. [Insight, 8/21/2003]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:17:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is the same DoD that came out on Sept. 10th 2001 and announced it had "misplaced" about a trillion dollars.
Look it up.
'
-----------
A TRILLION?
$1,000,000,000,000?
12 zeros?
How about YOU look it up, since you already seem to know it, and the we can ridicule it, instead of us wasting time searching for links to conspiracy blogs and multiple .org's that are funded by anti-political think tanks.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:17:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/hotdocs.htm
follow the link, funny how if they are so wrong or are lieing yet they are backing up what your articles say for the first half of last year.
So they are right when it works for you but wrong if it doesn't?
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:15:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, come on man can we be logical for a moment.
Article #1 points to a blog that makes claims but offers no proof of what it says.
Article #2 is a Rolling Stone Article that #1 uses for its info and is dated pre-October of 2005 which would have nothing to do in discounting the numbers I've posted from October of '05 to now.
Article #3 Same principle as #2 Dated September of '05
Article #4 Again September '05 (are you seeing a pattern here?)
Article #6 July '05
Article #7 Again, posted in June of '05 but contradicts all the other articles by stating that the Army did finally reach a goal
Article #8 Broken link but says APR05
Article #9 Talks about the Navy, not a big deal but again we were talking about the Army and furthurmore it talks about specific MOSs those being medical ones which have historically fallen short in the military
Article #10 published June 10 2005
Article #11 Yes there are people that hate in the military, article does nothing to say whether their past affiliations are carrying over or adding a detriment to forces. We're talking about kids Brad...18-19 years old, surrounded by confusion. Also, states nothing about enlistment numbers.
Article #12 April 2005
Ok so do you see what I'm saying here, you have provided not 1 link in all 12 (and I read all of them) that countered anything I've said from October to today.
I think this is part of your MO, most of those Articles where linked off of the first one and all of them have no relevance so to stomp about stating that you've ened the argument and yet you aren't even in it is ludicrous.
I think you know a bit abot me man and I say this time and time again, but I can't help or stick up for you if you are acting irrationally.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:14:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Article #11 Yes there are people that hate in the military, article does nothing to say whether their past affiliations are carrying over or adding a detriment to forces. We're talking about kids Brad...18-19 years old, surrounded by confusion. Also, states nothing about enlistment numbers.
Article #12 April 2005
Ok so do you see what I'm saying here, you have provided not 1 link in all 12 (and I read all of them) that countered anything I've said from October to today.
I think this is part of your MO, most of those Articles where linked off of the first one and all of them have no relevance so to stomp about stating that you've ened the argument and yet you aren't even in it is ludicrous.
I think you know a bit abot me man and I say this time and time again, but I can't help or stick up for you if you are acting irrationally.
Look man, go to the link I put and you can go back through every month and look at the numbers.
Simple stating that the DoD fucked up some accounting numbers is not an arguement.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 11:09:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:50:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Accessions Goal Percent
Army 10,890 10,450 104
Navy 4,043 4,043 100
Marine Corps 3,197 2,865 112
Air Force 2,130 2,121 100
That was the month of July
I'm not sure where the numbers in the articles you posted have come from (as they offer no backup to them) but the Army has goals of over 10k and has met them.
I'm sorry but I will not accept answers from a blog over stats from the DOD.
---------------------------
This is the same DoD that came out on Sept. 10th 2001 and announced it had "misplaced" about a trillion dollars.
Look it up.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:50:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Accessions Goal Percent
Army 10,890 10,450 104
Navy 4,043 4,043 100
Marine Corps 3,197 2,865 112
Air Force 2,130 2,121 100
That was the month of July
I'm not sure where the numbers in the articles you posted have come from (as they offer no backup to them) but the Army has goals of over 10k and has met them.
I'm sorry but I will not accept answers from a blog over stats from the DOD.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:36:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Is that the eternal conspiracy theorist call for the future? "DIEBOLD FIXES ALL ELECTIONS!"
Yeah, too bad we'll all be dead in the year 2160 when it is finally determined, after 100% republican leadership in the executive office since 2000, that Diebold was responsible for fixed elections. With the 90% republican majority in the Senate and the 85% leadership in the house, it will be quite the scandal. How could people have let that go on for so long?
Stabkill
P.S. You're nuts.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-30 02:34:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by toucansam (user info) at 2006-08-30 00:23:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
how did i know that this was by ets.
==============================================
maybe 'cause it had his name on it?
Submitted by toucansam (user info) at 2006-08-30 00:23:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
how did i know that this was by ets.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 22:48:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Be careful who you believe.
This should settle the "SHORTFALLS" debate right here and now.
http://blog.politicalnonsense.com/2005/10/05/main/recruiting/
"Reuters, AP, and the Guardian all published stories on recruiting shortfalls this year. All lauded the army for meeting its goals since June, with no mention of the reductions..."We have met the active Army's monthly recruiting goals since June, and we expect to meet it for September, which sends us into fiscal year 2006 on a winning streak," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said.
In recent months, the Army lowered the monthly recruiting goal from 8,050 to 6,700, and then again- to 5,650. It increased the maximum enlistment age from thirty-four to thirty-nine, the maximum age for officer candidate school from twenty-nine to forty-two, and college funds per soldier by $20,000. In addition, the Army added recruiters and bought advertisements appealing to young Americans' sense of patriotism."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7483114/the_briefing/
"In June, Gen. Richard Myers boasted that Army recruiters had reached "100 percent" of their enlistment goal for the month. But the general failed to mention that the June target of 5,650 recruits was 1,050 lower than the goal for May -- which had already been cut by 1,350 to "adjust for market conditions.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1582328,00.html?gusrc=rss
"The biggest slump in recruiting figures for a quarter of a century has thrown the US army's plans for expansion into doubt, it was claimed today.
The US army is expected to have enlisted 73,000 personnel in the 12 months to the end of September [2005], well short of its 80,000 target. Although the figures have yet to be confirmed officially, the expected 7,000 shortfall would be the largest - in absolute number as well as in percentage terms - since 1979, according to army records."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/21/1423215&mode=thread&tid=25
"Army to Begin Recruiting High School Dropouts
In military news - the Army has opened up a new pool of potential military recruits: high school drop-outs. Under a plan announced Tuesday, the Army can begin enlisting recruits without a high school diploma if they agree to take the GED test. The military is offering to pay for the recruits to attend a GED test preparation class and to cover the cost of taking the GED exam. This policy change comes as the Army, National Guard and Army Reserve are all on pace to fall short of its annual recruiting goals."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/1430222&mode=thread&tid=25
"Senators Blame News Media For Recruiting Woes
A group of Senate Republicans has begun blaming the news media for the military's recruiting problems. Senator James Inhofe said families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there." Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas added, "With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up." The Army is fourteen percent short of its annual target of new recruits. It missed its monthly goals in February, March, April and May. The Army reached its goal for June but that was only because the goal was lower than any other of the year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/national/30recruit.html?ex=1277784000&en=221bb7504e208fd0&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005/20050406_508.html
http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=1315&issueID=88
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaUtpzV0_MQE&refer=us
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=18e0e7dce2b8c8d3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs
http://festersplace.blogspot.com/2005/04/april-recruiting-shortfalls.html
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-08-29 21:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
hrmmm
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-29 21:37:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
already mentioned on this post
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/08/mil-060810-dod01.htm
goals have been at or above 100% for the last 3 quarters.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-08-29 21:33:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
americans are fucked
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-29 21:28:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well, when the army says "We're gonna recruit XXXX number of people this quarter" and then, 3 months later, the numbers are released and they're equal, I'd imagine that's making a goal.
Unless of course you think the media changes stories that were written 3 months previous just to make current numbers look good like a kooky conspiracy theor... ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I see now.
Gotcha.
Douchewipe.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:39:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:25:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's a few for ya.
Recruiting goals have actually been MET the past 3 quarters.
---------------
According to whom?
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:25:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's a few for ya.
Recruiting goals have actually been MET the past 3 quarters.
This isn't a draft of non-military personnel, this is an involuntary re-upping of current forces.
Fuck you for making me defend the executive branch.
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:16:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:12:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
nathan hale said, 'give me liberty or give me death' and was then hung as a spy in 1776. he was something like 21 years old, give or take...
------------------------------
Patrick Henry said,"give me liberty or give me death."
Nathan Hale said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
I said, "you're a fucktard"
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-29 17:12:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
nathan hale said, 'give me liberty or give me death' and was then hung as a spy in 1776. he was something like 21 years old, give or take...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 16:53:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-29 16:23:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 01:01:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Bob.
I'd rather just be taken out in a field and shot than to lift one single cell of my body in support of what is happening in my world right now with respect to the military.
Liberty or death motherfucker...
...uh, they shot the guy that said that.
----------------
He died of natural causes at the age of 63.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-29 16:23:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 01:01:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Bob.
I'd rather just be taken out in a field and shot than to lift one single cell of my body in support of what is happening in my world right now with respect to the military.
Liberty or death motherfucker...
...uh, they shot the guy that said that.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-29 16:02:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-08-29 09:13:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
There is no such thing as an INVOLUNTARY call-up of VOLUNTEER reserve troops you fucking idiot. That situation cannot exist. If you volunteer, you can't be called up involuntarily. Are the lights coming on yet, stupid? I used to attempt to be civil after reading your inflammatory, misinformed, single-source quoted, ultra-liberal, conspiracy-laden bullshit posts, but no longer.
See, idiot, when you you enlist in the military, you also agree to a certain number of years of inactive reserve service. That's just how it is. And if you join the RESERVE, then you should goddamned well expect to get called up...
IN A TIME OF WAR. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
At no point since Vietnam has the military drafted anyone, idiot. And, barring World War Three, they will continue not drafting people. The calling-up of VOLUNTEER forces from inactive reserve may piss those individuals off, but that does not a draft make, idiot.
Another steaming pile of shit from a true, unashamed fuckwit.
Go away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-29 08:15:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
Inactive ready reserve being called up is not unheard of and is nothing like the draft.
Are you just too stupid to get it, or do you just like to stir up shit?
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2006-08-29 09:21:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For all his conspiracy paranoia, the law of averages suggests that Brad's bound to right at least one of these times.
Let's hope it's this one.
(Seriously, military men get all the best threads)
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-08-29 09:13:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
There is no such thing as an INVOLUNTARY call-up of VOLUNTEER reserve troops you fucking idiot. That situation cannot exist. If you volunteer, you can't be called up involuntarily. Are the lights coming on yet, stupid? I used to attempt to be civil after reading your inflammatory, misinformed, single-source quoted, ultra-liberal, conspiracy-laden bullshit posts, but no longer.
See, idiot, when you you enlist in the military, you also agree to a certain number of years of inactive reserve service. That's just how it is. And if you join the RESERVE, then you should goddamned well expect to get called up...
IN A TIME OF WAR. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
At no point since Vietnam has the military drafted anyone, idiot. And, barring World War Three, they will continue not drafting people. The calling-up of VOLUNTEER forces from inactive reserve may piss those individuals off, but that does not a draft make, idiot.
Another steaming pile of shit from a true, unashamed fuckwit.
Go away.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-29 08:15:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Inactive ready reserve being called up is not unheard of and is nothing like the draft.
Are you just too stupid to get it, or do you just like to stir up shit?
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-29 08:09:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
its funny how the supporters come in late in these posts, fail to read the comments and see that every point ETS made here was proven to be incorrect or general hype, and just continue to ride his cock.
ETS, if you were righteous as you'd like to think you are you'd post a retraction to the false comments and statements that are represented on this post, admit to the fact that you didn't research this and were just trying to stir shit and perhaps in doing so...gain yourself a little bit of credibility back.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-08-29 07:44:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:11:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
Until then, shut the fuck up and let us keep kicking towelhead fundamentalist ass.
===================
Pure simplistic gutter intelligence... made even more brilliant by the intelectual who wrote it.
This is why I come here.
Yet ETS didn't bite......
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-08-29 05:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah he's probably right, at least if the states wants to invade more countries without wide and heavy global support.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-29 04:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Um... this really doesn't have much to do with what was submitted by rockdocc, but I'm an idiot so (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:07:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
---
See, now THIS guy?
God bless him. I bet nobility leaks out of this guy's assgap.
People like Captain America here are so god-damned American that they will sacrifice EVERYthing for their country... including their awareness. These people are pure. They are always invited to BBQs and you happily let them carpool. Likable, affable, otherwise smart individuals whose tragic flaw is typically the fact they willfully ignore "the bad" for what they have been assured (programmed) is "the good". There is really no reasoning with them... as they are already convinced that people with divergent opinions are to be marginalized and ignored anyways. Oh, and they are almost always "faithful" and generally have the capacity to out-believe even the most ridiculous of concepts - "War on Terror?"... heck, that's an easy sell.
Nice enough folks, though.
---
Fuck. Ok fine. I think a little research is key before crankin' out my rhetorical drivel.
I done messed up... that whole middle part there? yeah, shouldn't >really< be directed at rockdocc. It's actually just a generalized feeling I have about most of the 51% of the retards that enabled Bushco. You know, basically, what I would consider your average american. I read too far into that one particular comment and just went ahead on pure conjecture. My appologies for largely undeserved bile. I just loaded up and fired. My bad. I'm a retard.
sackinfrackindirdefrakinrackin... it's bed time.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-29 04:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well done Mr. Tooth!
Very enjoyable discussion.
There is certainly a full range of comments on this particular topic...
---
>>Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:36:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
I hope there is a fucking draft. There are way too many people in this country who dont appreciate their freedoms. Fucking gothic assholes. And conspiracy theorists.
+2 Draft.<<
---
Just notice the fervent simplicity of this individual's rage. Mutherfuckers!
"Hope there is a draft"? Really? Dude... stay away from kittens.
And really the Goths? They have embraced such assholishness that you deem them deserving of this barely contained fury? Not the nerds? Punks? Hippies? (Dirty fucking hippies!) Heads? Stoners? Jocks?
Oh, and drafts are fucking stupid. War is stupid. This particular "war" is a disgrace.
>><<
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:07:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
>>Boss, I see where you're coming from, and yes it does look like an involuntary draft to lay people; but it's not. If you're a reservist, no matter which section of the reserves you serve in, you can still get called up.
for example: No matter how long you sign for, whether it be 2 years of active duty or 4, the obligation is 8 years in the military, period. If one was to stay in the reserves, as an active reservist or not, one can still get called up. I know, it looks like a draft, but trust me, right now we volunteers to go and fight. Not conscripts, people don't fight well against their will.<<
---
See, now THIS guy?
God bless him. I bet nobility leaks out of this guy's assgap.
People like Captain America here are so god-damned American that they will sacrifice EVERYthing for their country... including their awareness. These people are pure. They are always invited to BBQs and you happily let them carpool. Likable, affable, otherwise smart individuals whose tragic flaw is typically the fact they willfully ignore "the bad" for what they have been assured (programmed) is "the good". There is really no reasoning with them... as they are already convinced that people with divergent opinions are to be marginalized and ignored anyways. Oh, and they are almost always "faithful" and generally have the capacity to out-believe even the most ridiculous of concepts - "War on Terror?"... heck, that's an easy sell.
Nice enough folks, though.
>><<
>>Submitted by ChristPuncher (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:40:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
FUCK DIS CUNTRY LETEM FIGHT DERE OWN WARS
GO BASEBALL AND BEARS AND CHEESEBURGERS WOO!!!<<
---
Funny.
Brilliantly Simplistic.
Tragically, the latter sentiment is more than enough to distract millions.
Submitted by Sepsis (user info) at 2006-08-29 01:25:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
'ello
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-29 01:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Bob.
I'd rather just be taken out in a field and shot than to lift one single cell of my body in support of what is happening in my world right now with respect to the military.
Liberty or death motherfucker.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2006-08-28 23:17:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not concerned. As long as they don't come to my house and ship me to boot camp in handcuffs, I'm sure that I'll have more than enough time to skip out of the country.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-08-28 23:15:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
id rather go to jail than fight.
no fucking way i would support this shit.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-08-28 20:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-08-28 20:30:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry ETS, Kaos would write circles around you, no matter how many tabs of acid you took.
See, he's doing something with his life, instead of screaming about the sky falling on the internet. He's published. You know, people with ACTUAL credentials reviewed his work, proclaimed it good enough to be marketed, and published it.
What have you accomplished, Brad?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-28 20:19:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 19:27:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-08-28 18:59:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Snark...
Listen man, I want you to know that I think what you're doing for Uber is great and all, but I just don't think I can participate in this. Everyone is taking this way too seriously, and I can't see what the benefits are. Don't get me wrong, I will actively be reading and voting in the contest, but I don't think entering would be the right choice for me.
====
As if you even had a passing chance of winning it anyway. Jesus christ dude, there are people not entering because of the forfeit ban that could nail you into the fucking ground and no-one is crying about that.
People are taking it way too seriously? Who's the self-important cunt apologising for not entering a bullshit internet contest because "it's just not the right choice" for him. As if you'd even be missed. No-one is going to beg you to enter, sweetheart, so you might as well just pack that mediocre ass of yours up and head on over to PH.
-------
nice pwnage, btw
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 18:50:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And let's not forget this one: http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/27/stories/2006082704991200.htm
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 18:37:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ...will it never end?
Haven't these fucking people lied enough?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/28/plane.note.reut/index.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 18:26:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-28 17:30:22 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:37:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:17:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm still confused about enlistment age.
it was well over 26 as maximum for, i think, ever. in fact it was 34 for most regular branches of service and i think 36 for marines. the reserves always had a different enlistment age.
----------------
It was 26 to enlist all the way up till, I think, 2002 or 2003. Then just this year it was extended to 42.
-------
by the way, this change was to account for ex-military WANTING to rejoin, but were not allowed to because of minimum ages.
These people are doctors, judges, Arabic speakers...
----------------
...morons...idiots...dipshits...
Submitted by Butler (user info) at 2006-08-28 18:13:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 just for telling everyone else what conservatives already know. Republicans don't see what the big deal about a draft is because they think everyone else will be able to dodge it just as easy as they have:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-28 17:30:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:37:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:17:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm still confused about enlistment age.
it was well over 26 as maximum for, i think, ever. in fact it was 34 for most regular branches of service and i think 36 for marines. the reserves always had a different enlistment age.
----------------
It was 26 to enlist all the way up till, I think, 2002 or 2003. Then just this year it was extended to 42.
-------
by the way, this change was to account for ex-military WANTING to rejoin, but were not allowed to because of minimum ages.
These people are doctors, judges, Arabic speakers - highly specialized and trained individuals who quite frankly, didn't exist at 26. They did not have the knowledge or experience.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-08-28 17:22:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-08-28 03:03:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
In the event of a draft, I have fully laid plans to blind you in one eye while you sleep, and possibly cut off one of your arms.
I might also take out one of your kidneys, but that'll just be for fun.
_______
Get Oxford on the phone! Not only is he late for supper again, but we've also (finally) got an appropriate definition of love! Or at the very least an interesting court case for Judge Judy to tackle.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-08-28 17:18:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-08-28 14:45:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
26 was the cutoff age for the last draft.
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2006-08-28 14:36:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Knock Knock, Canada.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-28 14:02:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Age:
Active Army - 42
Army Reserves - 42
Active Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Active Navy - 34
Naval Reserves - 39
Active Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserve - 29
Active and Reserve Coast Guard - 27
There, that settles it.
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:59:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
+0 because it could happen. How many americans would fight i know i wouldnt id move.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:59:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:42:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
when i joined the Army in '93 the max enlistment age was 35, I've yet to hear news that it has changed.
==========
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:37:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:17:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm still confused about enlistment age.
it was well over 26 as maximum for, i think, ever. in fact it was 34 for most regular branches of service and i think 36 for marines. the reserves always had a different enlistment age.
----------------
It was 26 to enlist all the way up till, I think, 2002 or 2003. Then just this year it was extended to 42.
------------
badass is right. seriously i have no idea where that 26 thing is coming from. minimum has always been 18, 17 with special circumstances like a court order or if you're emancipated with a ged/hs diploma and you have a waiver. max has always been mid thirties with a higher allowance for reserves and national guard. if 26 was the max i guarantee the military would have very large shortage of officer candidates.
Submitted by WingedFoote (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:53:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
auto ets rating
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:49:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
to quote the story you just linked
"Older soldiers like her are showing up more often at Army training bases across the country since Congress gave the service approval earlier this year to raise its enlistee age limit, which had been 35, to just under 42 years."
So I'm not sure why you are still throwing that 26 number out there.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:42:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
when i joined the Army in '93 the max enlistment age was 35, I've yet to hear news that it has changed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:37:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:17:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm still confused about enlistment age.
it was well over 26 as maximum for, i think, ever. in fact it was 34 for most regular branches of service and i think 36 for marines. the reserves always had a different enlistment age.
----------------
It was 26 to enlist all the way up till, I think, 2002 or 2003. Then just this year it was extended to 42.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:34:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for being an uninformed dipshit - you know it's all about credibility Bradley, when you resort to obvious untruths that 5 FUCKING MINUTES on Google could have told you otherwise, then people have to question all your OTHER bullshit.
Now, read this part that Bob wrote again, and I can answer any questions you may have.
---------
The Term is IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) and applies only to soldiers with time remaining on their Military Service Obligation (MSO), all soldiers have a statutory obligation of 8 years.
As of 2004 there were approximately 118,000 members in the IRR.
The president, having enacted the Presidential Reserve Callup Authority, can only activate 30,000 of those troops.
This is not the first time in history, not even the first time in this war, that this call - up has occurred. In 2004 they called up 5,600 of these reservists. In 91 they called up 20,000 so I hardly think that the 2,500 being called up this time is some sort of glaring step towards a draft.
All of these former soldiers are still under contractual obligation to the military, if they don't want to go....too fucking bad you signed up for it.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:21:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and that's the reserves not the actual army. they're still capped at like 34.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:17:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm still confused about enlistment age.
it was well over 26 as maximum for, i think, ever. in fact it was 34 for most regular branches of service and i think 36 for marines. the reserves always had a different enlistment age.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck it, I'm exemptable
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 13:07:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/33783
Excuse me...it wasn't conscription age, it was enlistment age raised from 26 to 42 during the Bush administration.
Thanks for the correction.
Still a sign of a growing problem.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-08-28 11:17:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OK Brad, what about raising the conscription age? That would have to be officially documented. Where's the proof?
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:48:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so the Times of London, quoting no specific sources for 'recruiting shortfalls' is more concrete than say the official DOD report on recruiting numbers...I mean why would the DOD lie...if they had been coming up short the could report so and get the president to recall more inactive reserve.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:29:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure there are plenty of other sources for the information, but for now, talk to the Times of London.
"The order is the first time that the Marine Corps have been forced to resort to an involuntary summons since the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Army, far worse hit by recruiting shortfalls, has ordered around 14,000 inactive servicemen and women back to duty since the war in Iraq began."
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:20:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as 'recent recruiting shortfalls' I'd like to know where you got that information as the DOD's latest release shows all active duty recruiting is at 100% goal or better.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/08/mil-060810-dod01.htm
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:17:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you remember the draft scare at the begining of the Persian Gulf War, or the one when we first went to war with Iraq? It's like a downturn in the stock market; you'll always have some whackjob out there predicting a crash and subsequent end of days.
If Bush, or any candidate (but especially Bush; the guy's got all the competency and PR of Wily Coyote) were to even mention the draft it would be political suicide, not only for him, but everyone in his administration and a giant black mark for his party. It would also be a kick in the ass for the military. Back in '04 something like 25% of youth polled said they would resist the draft. This would mean that not only would you have law enforcement out in a futile search for tens of thousands of twenty-year-old draft candidates; you'd also have people holding guns who are not only untrained, but disgruntled. And they think the morale is bad now? With luck, they'll just miss the enemy a hell of a lot. On a bad day, they'll frag that officer who's been pissing them off. The draft just wouldn't work in the modern US.
Where'd you hear about Bush raising the conscription age? I've checked a few government sites and haven't seen anything to back that up.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:02:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Involuntary Draft?
As opposed to the "Voluntary Draft" aka joining the military?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-08-28 10:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Eat shit
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 09:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You also forgot to mention, likely because it counters the point you are making, that ALL active duty recruiting numbers have met or exceded thier goals from October of 2005 to July of 2006.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-08-28 09:56:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WHOA, THERE!
First off, those Marines that were recalled were all on Inactive Ready Reserve status. Which is to say, that they signed a contract for x number of years of active service, to be followed by a period of time (usually a year or two) where they are eligible to be called up after their enlistment ends.
It's all quite routine.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-08-28 09:32:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
26-42? i'm sure someone already addressed this but that seems a little off. and the max enlistment age depends on the branch and if it's the reserves or not.
besides that - all the military folk have already said this, but when you sign up it's in the contract that you can be called back to active duty for that 8 year total.
hehehe i kinda laughed when i told my little bro this. i warned him.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-08-28 08:49:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
old news and I think your criminal record will keep you safe
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-08-28 07:51:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry bud but you and your website there are far behind the curve here.
Sure, its easy to make news when it's anti-Bush or when it looks like a possible conspiracy....but take it easy junior.
A few things you may not have known or bothered to look up before you went off on this flighty little mission here:
The Term is IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) and applies only to soldiers with time remaining on their Military Service Obligation (MSO), all soldiers have a statutory obligation of 8 years.
As of 2004 there were approximately 118,000 members in the IRR.
The president, having enacted the Presidential Reserve Callup Authority, can only activate 30,000 of those troops.
This is not the first time in history, not even the first time in this war, that this call - up has occurred. In 2004 they called up 5,600 of these reservists. In 91 they called up 20,000 so I hardly think that the 2,500 being called up this time is some sort of glaring step towards a draft.
All of these former soldiers are still under contractual obligation to the military, if they don't want to go....to fucking bad you signed up for it.
Seriously though, this may have been a conspiracy in 2004 when it first happened but not now.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-28 06:53:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
--------------------------------
That's why the smarter of us will do 8 years active. When I get out, I owe the Army shit. They call me, I can tell them to fuck off.
Beautiful.
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2006-08-28 03:57:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Maybe they'll draft me, maybe they won't - but where I'm from, it's not on the cards yet, and no-one wants a communist in the ranks.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-08-28 03:03:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
In the event of a draft, I have fully laid plans to blind you in one eye while you sleep, and possibly cut off one of your arms.
I might also take out one of your kidneys, but that'll just be for fun.
Submitted by Kracka (user info) at 2006-08-28 02:05:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-08-28 01:10:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:45:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long. We already had to water down our expectations for people to enter and a draft will bring countless amounts of winey bitches into the service. (there are enough of them in now)
Submitted by eppliks (user info) at 2006-08-28 01:36:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:12:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Canada seems real good right now....
_____
Sure does. It's too bad that there's the smart border measure of 2001. Look it up.
Submitted by JoeyG (user info) at 2006-08-28 01:23:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yadda yadda yadda
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-28 01:15:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well in a worst case scenario, if a full scale draft was started I don't see why you would give a shit anyway, they may drop their entry standards for a draft, but they still aren't going to drop them so low as to put a weapon in your hands after having done a psychiatric exam
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-08-28 01:10:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:45:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long. We already had to water down our expectations for people to enter and a draft will bring countless amounts of winey bitches into the service.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:38:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:07:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Saying this is a draft is pretty disrespectful to the civilians who got their birth dates picked out of a bingo container.
-------------
I didn't say it WAS a draft. I said it was an escalation.
I said "the draft is upon us," and "though a full draft is not yet in effect, a clear escalation can be seen..."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:30:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:16:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
actually i had forgotten about that crash.
i remember the press in the UK talked intially about it being a SAM then nothing.
The news changed.
I'm currently in Calgary - i commute between calgary and houston but I think I get CNN - i'll check.
--------------
Yea, that's the kind of shit that tips you off, you know...when the news changes like that and they don't even act like anything changed. It's like you've entered a twilight zone. It's really scary. I can't give specific examples at the moment, but I know it happens a lot.
By the way...you remember the Miami terrorist scares and the Canadian scare right? Those stories disappeared completely about the time it was discovered the FBI and the Royal Mounted Police was involved with those groups from the very beginning and even provided them with all the bomb material they possessed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:26:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:13:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
yes of course you meant untied.
did you also mean involunatry?
just admit a typo.
jesus.
-------------
You know what's funny about this? The whole REASON I intentionally misspelled that?
IT goes back to some stupid lillte aphorism I wrote back in eithr late 1996 or early 1997 which said:
"It takes just one little mistake to make 'united' become 'untied', so learn to be the editor of your own life."
Swear to Christ on a cross it was intentional. I thought about spelling it Un-Tied, but it didn't look right when I did it.
Why the hell would I lie about that? I've never made a huge deal over spelling mistakes.
Submitted by Serious_Melvin (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:20:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:16:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
actually i had forgotten about that crash.
i remember the press in the UK talked intially about it being a SAM then nothing.
The news changed.
I'm currently in Calgary - i commute between calgary and houston but I think I get CNN - i'll check.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:10:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:32:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
i often agree with your politics just not your delivery.
-------------------
Well, I'll be the first to admit I don't have the most polished approach when it comes to communicating my points of view to others (that's a bit of an understantement, I know); however, my demeanor directly reflects the sense of urgency I feel about history repeating itself right now in a very bad way.
Sometimes it feels like the only way to get through to people is to scream over all the noise to which they're already being subjected, but of course, that just gets annoying.
On another note... I don't know if you're still in the States, Jamie, but there is a CNN 'report' on right now about TWA Flight 800 entitled "No Survivors: It Could Happen Again" in which the official story is upheld and the theories of coverup by the U.S. Navy are systematically attacked using one man's red herring 'evidence' as proof that any idea of a conspiracy regarding the indident is "idiotic". In fact, they even use that word, "idiotic", to describe anyone who DARES be so "irresponsible" as to question the official story when families of victims are listening.
They call the people who witnessed a missile climbing into the sky and the subsequent fireball of Flight 800 plummeting to the earth as "mistaken" or the victim of an optical illusion. They maintain the official story that Flight 800 was the result of a fuel tank explosion, which may or may not be true. But the problem I have is the cut-throat nature of the language they use to describe those who still have unanswered questions about this particular crash. It's unbecoming of officials who are seeking the truth about this tragic event.
In fact, all of the points raised in the CNN presentation supporting the NTSB investigation and account of events seem to be refuted on this website:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html
What irks me is that no major publications or media outlets seem to give the REAL charges of conspiracy behind some of these tragic events like TWA-800 or 9/11 any fair listen. It's always the same...there is a red herring or straw man argument put forth and it's easily knocked down by a barrage of 'expert testimonies', which usually amounts to some of the same assholes who are being accused of complicity steering the argument away from the actual questions people are asking.
With the recent Russian crash, the 12 arrests from the Amsterdam flight, the London scare, etc etc etc, my instinct screams at me that something is up. All this chatter is not for nothing. Operating on the premise that there IS a worldwide conspiracy that dictates almost all major events, or at least the media's reaction to them, the world looks like a different place. Everything makes more sense in this light.
I suggest everyone try it. Just for a couple weeks or so. Try it! Watch your news programs through this lens that all of it, even the news, is PR, spin, targeted advertising, and propaganda. Everything that possibly CAN be controlled...is. The people whose lives revolve around money are obsessed with maintaining control and implementing any recommendations coming from psychological studies that will give them a competitive edge in their businesses. These corporations have found politicians to be an important ally in their quest to maximize profits. This is especially true for energy companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the mass media. This relationship is mutually beneficial to both the politician and the company because they each have something to offer the other, none moreso than in the case of the media.
I could ramble for ages here. It never ends. Is it tiring? Hell yes it is.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-28 00:07:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well I don't know how it works in the US, but in australia if you join the armed forces then quit, you are put on a permanent list so that in the event of war you will be called up AFTER the active force reserves and BEFORE the general population. Which makes sense, because by having once signed up for the defense forces you have already signed documents saying you would have no problem with being involved in armed combat. Also, you've already got basic training for weapons and military life. Your article claims they are only calling on people who are or were previously marines, meaning they have had military training and agreed to kill, so you won't get any genuine conscientious objectors. Once a soldier, always a soldier, saying this is a draft is pretty disrespectful to the civilians who got their birth dates picked out of a bingo container.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:56:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for that awesome picture.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:38:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
is that as long as the imminent 'shag' you are going to have you dried up young cunt?
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:25:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've been hearing about the imminent "draft" for several years now.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:16:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I was supposed to have a draft after the last election. Where is it? Hyperbole. Rhetoric. Exaggeration. Distortion. You just don't have any credibility, ETS. Bush comes off like the embodiment of papal infallibility compared to your hysterics.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:13:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yes of course you meant untied.
did you also mean involunatry?
just admit a typo.
jesus.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-08-27 23:11:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If legions of whining assholes like yourself would actually get out and fucking VOTE instead of dicking around on the internet and hoping to dick inebriated minors, maybe you could swing things your way.
Until then, shut the fuck up and let us keep kicking towelhead fundamentalist ass.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:29:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
Did you really mean Untied instead of United?
-----------------
Hey! Someone noticed.
Yes it was intentional.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and for the record, i agree with ChristPuncher.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:45:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long. We already had to water down our expectations for people to enter and a draft will bring countless amounts of winey bitches into the service.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:43:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 this post
-2 draft
Submitted by ChristPuncher (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:40:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
FUCK DIS CUNTRY LETEM FIGHT DERE OWN WARS
GO BASEBALL AND BEARS AND CHEESEBURGERS WOO!!!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:32:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:55:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
How does this have a 1.6 rating?
Do you guys know who I am? I'm big bad ETS. You know...the crazy guy who talks too much shit about things that are best left unsaid...
But seriously, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that even some of those who tend to disagree with me on a lot of things can still see the writing on the wall.
You never cease to amaze, uber. ""
i often agree with your politics just not your delivery.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:29:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Did you really mean Untied instead of United?
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:10:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oops. rated twice.
oh well.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:10:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As for my recent arrest... I wasn't "partying with minors". It was more of a concert than a party. Death metal is for all ages, my friends. And if someone wants to try to steal my identity from my drivers' license #, I say go for it. How much could THIS identity really be worth anyway!? Hell, I'll even throw in my username and password.
=========================================================================
+2 forever for being arrested for being at a metal show. That in itself is metal, therefore, you sir, are metal.
\m/\m/
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:09:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As for my recent arrest... I wasn't "partying with minors". It was more of a concert than a party. Death metal is for all ages, my friends. And if someone wants to try to steal my identity from my drivers' license #, I say go for it. How much could THIS identity really be worth anyway!? Hell, I'll even throw in my username and password.
=========================================================================
+2 forever for being arrested for being at a metal show. That in itself is metal, therefore, you sir, are metal.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-08-27 22:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Boss, I see where you're coming from, and yes it does look like an involuntary draft to lay people; but it's not. If you're a reservist, no matter which section of the reserves you serve in, you can still get called up.
for example: No matter how long you sign for, whether it be 2 years of active duty or 4, the obligation is 8 years in the military, period. If one was to stay in the reserves, as an active reservist or not, one can still get called up. I know, it looks like a draft, but trust me, right now we volunteers to go and fight. Not conscripts, people don't fight well against their will.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:55:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How does this have a 1.6 rating?
Do you guys know who I am? I'm big bad ETS. You know...the crazy guy who talks too much shit about things that are best left unsaid...
But seriously, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that even some of those who tend to disagree with me on a lot of things can still see the writing on the wall.
You never cease to amaze, uber.
As for my recent arrest... I wasn't "partying with minors". It was more of a concert than a party. Death metal is for all ages, my friends. And if someone wants to try to steal my identity from my drivers' license #, I say go for it. How much could THIS identity really be worth anyway!? Hell, I'll even throw in my username and password.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:48:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:44:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
When speaking of the military, the word 'draft' inherently contains the
connotation of 'involuntary'. Just so you know your title was redundant. . .
-----------
Good point.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:45:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:13:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
although i abhor the idea of a draft if they sign a military contract they should take the consequences.
it's not all running jumping climbing trees in fantastic makeup you know.*
*thanks Eddie.
-------------------
One of the main elements of attack is the element of surprise, and so what could be more surprising than the 1st Battalion Transvestite Brigade? ;)
Thanks Eddie indeed. Still my favorite.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
When speaking of the military, the word 'draft' inherently contains the
connotation of 'involuntary'. Just so you know your title was redundant. . .
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:44:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Glad I'm 30; I'll get drafted after they kill off all the youngsters.
My moral flexibility will land me in black ops anyway.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:43:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:36:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hope there is a fucking draft. There are way too many people in this country who dont appreciate their freedoms. Fucking gothic assholes. And conspiracy theorists.
+2 Draft.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:34:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/55348
And to think that there was time when I wanted to be an American.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:32:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
sigh...
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:24:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long. We already had to water down our expectations for people to enter and a draft will bring countless amounts of winey bitches into the service.
__________________________________________________________
Many volunteers are there because they sucked in the real world. During the draft
back in the 60s the quality of soldier was much better than during the later years.
When some people know they have to go, they revert back to a set of principles instilled
in them by a good upbringing. They do the job to the best of their ability.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:20:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long.
30 years. SOOOOO long.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:13:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
although i abhor the idea of a draft if they sign a military contract they should take the consequences.
it's not all running jumping climbing trees in fantastic makeup you know.*
*thanks Eddie.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:12:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Canada seems real good right now....
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:09:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hereby renounce your American citzenship. You are exempt from the draft. Now get the fuck out.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:08:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"authorize the Army and Marines to involuntarily call up reserve Marine and Army personnel."
All branches of the US military are able to do this. No matter how long you sign up for, whether it be 15 months, 2 years, 4 years etc etc. It means you are actually signing up for 8. It has been this way since we have had an all volunteer force and it is clearly stated in everyones contract. If people are upset about being called up then they were not ready to take the oath in the first place. If they are upset about fighting the war on terror then tough luck. They signed the contract.
The military itself is not supporting of a draft because they have been proud to be a voluntary force for so long. We already had to water down our expectations for people to enter and a draft will bring countless amounts of winey bitches into the service.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:06:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Brad, you amaze me sometimes. Your smart enough to see this evident problem but not smart enough to not tell a cop to fuck off. You are insightful enough to develop your own conspiracies, but not insightful enough to not party with minors. You are wise enough to keep your situation light hearteed while in jail, but not wise enough to not put your ID number on uber. That my friend, was absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If you haven't served. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Your time will come.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-08-27 21:00:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment