"You're going to destroy my Presidency"

[InkL0sed]

I am for a draft.

Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

[GabonX]

I'd ask if I could use MY shot gun as opposed to those shitty m-16s they give to the troops today.

But anyways..I'm a little taken back by your position.

You want their to be a draft SO THAT you can protest and dodge it?

[King Berzerker]

obama pwned his own presidency.

[InkL0sed]

I'd ask if I could use MY shot gun as opposed to those shitty m-16s they give to the troops today.

But anyways..I'm a little taken back by your position.

You want their to be a draft SO THAT you can protest and dodge it?

I want there to be a draft so that people might actually give a shit when we go to war. Nowadays, the military-industrial complex can run amok, and all people do is watch TV. I don't blame them either; I'm not out in the streets protesting the Iraq war, because it just doesn't affect me.

[King Berzerker]

I'd ask if I could use MY shot gun as opposed to those shitty m-16s they give to the troops today.

But anyways..I'm a little taken back by your position.

You want their to be a draft SO THAT you can protest and dodge it?

I want there to be a draft so that people might actually give a shit when we go to war. Nowadays, the military-industrial complex can run amok, and all people do is watch TV. I don't blame them either; I'm not out in the streets protesting the Iraq war, because it just doesn't affect me.

if there wuz a draft then u would care because u would have to fight in afganiatan

[InkL0sed]

Thanks for the clarification.

[King Berzerker]

Thanks for the clarification.

wut i mean is that you would still be there. just cuz there is a draft does not mean that we would not be invading the world.

[F1fth]

I've never got on wikipedia to look up Obama. I'm sorry that I didn't get every little thing that he did down because I don't care what he did in his past. I was proving a point that I knew more about him than the average voter did. While, on his past I want to make this clear, his past is irrelevant now. What matters now is what he does in the White House because if he fails the country fails (I'm not Rusch Limbaugh) and so far, he has been less than stellar in my book.

Last time I checked I'm not a far right loney who sees everything in black and white. I'm not an idiot who believes all Dems. worship the ground he walks on, just look at the Blue Dogs breaking with him on Health Care. The people I'm talking about are those who will blindly follow any leader, whether he (or she) is Republican or Democrat is completely irrelevant.

You want me to attack his policies? Fine, good by me. His plan to close Gitmo, was never planned out (does that remind you of someone 70% or so of Americans didn't like?). His Health Care and Stimulus Plans are a joke. The Health Care plan will put all Private Insurance Companies out of business because what business can compete with the government? I have one more question to ask you, Would you in your own life try to get out of debt by creating more debt? I ask this because that is what we are doing with the Stimulus Bill. Oh, and don't get me started on his 'tax evasion buddies.'

Excellent response -- this was the kind of thoughtful discussion I was hoping to see. You're alright in my book.

I was going to make this a longer post, but it's not even worth it.

I know... I can't believe these assholes... And, hey, why bother educating them when you can make fun of them, pat yourself on the back for a job well done, get into your BMW that you dad bought you and drive to the mall?

Uhh, what? I was going to make a huge post responding to everyone in this thread, but felt I first had to address the ridiculousness going on in this thread first. I'm not sure what you are implying, or what you think I was implying, but I fear you may misunderstand my intention.

Apart from that moronic comment by you, I agree with at least your #1. The dude worked hard. It's as simple as that. He graduated from high school, college, and law school, at the tops of his respective classes. That takes hard work. As for the professor part... professors are the laziest people I know, especially law school professors. But, let's assume he worked hard there. So, we get to the presidency... no one can say the president doesn't work hard. He's probably the hardest working president I've ever read about.

I'm not even saying the guy is the epitome of a hard-working American, though, even though his resume at least is notable. I'm saying that some people here were being extremely silly by suggesting that Obama didn't have to work for anything and that he's never been told "no." It is a massive mischaracterization and I was simply pointing that out.

2) Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Dems do not worship the ground Obama walks on and covet everything he says as gospel. You extreme rightists like to divide everything into black and white ("either you're with us or you're against us") and insist that if we're not calling Obama "a worthless pile of shit" that we must never think he can do no wrong -- and by the way, why does having political philosophies that you disagree with make you not just a bad person, but shit? There are definitely some things about Obama's policy that bother me and feel that some of the decisions he has made have been questionable, but hey, we weren't expecting the messiah nor perfection (though many conservatives said just that). Fact is though, he's done stuff that I've liked and stuff that I've disliked, just the same for everybody. Instead of wasting energy on arguing against the man, why don't you argue against the policies that you disagree with and for the ones you do; you know, something actually productive.

Two words for you, that were not proposed by anyone except Democrats - "Hope" and "Change"

Two other comments for you:

First, I've yet to read any Obama supporters on this website or on any other newsmedia site (other than those "whacko righty" websites) criticize anything that he has done. When you, and others, start criticizing the president, I can get on board with the idea that people don't see him as the savior.

Second, there are any number of threads on this website discussing the president's policies. Perhaps you can find them. Stop being a whiny baby and either argue for what the president is doing or against what the president is doing.

Yes, "Hope" and "Change" indeed. While some may link those ideas to biblical-style claims of a promised land once Obama was elected, I would wager that the intended meaning of those slogans we to overcoming the vehement cynicism that had taken root in American politics. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

And you're right, I'm not a vocal critic of Obama. That's because I don't often delve into political discussions these days and only do so when I feel someone is being so ridiculous that I can't help but say something. And further, we've yet to see the consequences of his actions at this early point. We really don't know yet if some of the actions he's taken will be of positive or negative consequence, or at least I don't because I'm no expert. I will say though, for your satisfaction, that a few things in particular that bother me about the Obama administration are 1) not following through with the transparency to the extent we were promised it, and 2) the expediancy with which they are trying to get these landmark bill passed through Congress (these are important, damnit, and should be carefully considered!).

But my mistake though, I thought the people being whiny babies were the ones in this thread calling the president "a worthless piece of shit," and claiming that white people have it so rough in politics, and stating that Obama hasn't worked for anything he's acheived (which you yourself noted was unfair). I guess I missed that the intent of this thread was to bitch about Obama (of which there are MANY threads dedicated to). My bad.

[PLAYER57832]

Apart from that moronic comment by you, I agree with at least your #1. The dude worked hard. It's as simple as that. He graduated from high school, college, and law school, at the tops of his respective classes. That takes hard work. As for the professor part... professors are the laziest people I know, especially law school professors. But, let's assume he worked hard there. So, we get to the presidency... no one can say the president doesn't work hard. He's probably the hardest working president I've ever read about.

One sensible comment in a mire of mud.

2) Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Dems do not worship the ground Obama walks on and covet everything he says as gospel. You extreme rightists like to divide everything into black and white ("either you're with us or you're against us") and insist that if we're not calling Obama "a worthless pile of shit" that we must never think he can do no wrong -- and by the way, why does having political philosophies that you disagree with make you not just a bad person, but shit? There are definitely some things about Obama's policy that bother me and feel that some of the decisions he has made have been questionable, but hey, we weren't expecting the messiah nor perfection (though many conservatives said just that). Fact is though, he's done stuff that I've liked and stuff that I've disliked, just the same for everybody. Instead of wasting energy on arguing against the man, why don't you argue against the policies that you disagree with and for the ones you do; you know, something actually productive.

Two words for you, that were not proposed by anyone except Democrats - "Hope" and "Change"

Two other comments for you:

First, I've yet to read any Obama supporters on this website or on any other newsmedia site (other than those "whacko righty" websites) criticize anything that he has done. When you, and others, start criticizing the president, I can get on board with the idea that people don't see him as the savior.

Compared to Bush, he is.

As for the rest, he was given a bigger mess than most presidents, than any recent president except maybe Johnson. He is not a savior, but a hope... we hope. And 6 months is a bit early to start criticizing him for "ruining" our country. So far, he has not made any huge mistakes. That is enough, for now.

Your second comment is not relevant to me

[King Berzerker]

regan was given a bigger mess than obama. 6 months of spending more money than all other presidencies ever in the history of the hole country is a sign of stupidness or evil. this is now his economy. they now admit that they made a mistake with the stimulus. they said that unemployment would not go over 8% if they got what they wanted... they got it,. its now 9.5%. he has failed, has shown that he cannot fix broken america and that his hope is dope. he won his senate seat because he replaced corruption... same with his presidency. problem is, he is corrupt too. they all are.

[Woodruff]

I am for a draft.
Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

A draft would be the worst possible thing that could happen to our military. One of the foremost reasons our military is as strong as has been is because it is an all-voluntary force.

[King Berzerker]

a draft would be bad.

[InkL0sed]

I am for a draft.
Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

A draft would be the worst possible thing that could happen to our military. One of the foremost reasons our military is as strong as has been is because it is an all-voluntary force.

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

[Woodruff]

I am for a draft.
Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

A draft would be the worst possible thing that could happen to our military. One of the foremost reasons our military is as strong as has been is because it is an all-voluntary force.

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

The money (especially toward technology) is also one of the foremost reasons, no argument.

But to say that the all-voluntary force ISN'T one is simply silly. Or do you believe that someone who DOESN'T want to be there is going to perform at anywhere near the level of someone who CHOOSES to be there?

[InkL0sed]

I am for a draft.
Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

A draft would be the worst possible thing that could happen to our military. One of the foremost reasons our military is as strong as has been is because it is an all-voluntary force.

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

The money (especially toward technology) is also one of the foremost reasons, no argument.

But to say that the all-voluntary force ISN'T one is simply silly. Or do you believe that someone who DOESN'T want to be there is going to perform at anywhere near the level of someone who CHOOSES to be there?

Israel. QED.

[InkL0sed]

Also, we had drafts for the wars before Vietnam, and we did just fine then. And we'd have more people in the military. Nobody's saying if there was a draft, we couldn't have volunteers also.

The argument that our military is the way it is because it's made of volunteers is absolutely silly.

[Woodruff]

I am for a draft.
Of course, if there was one, I'd avoid it / protest my pants off.

A draft would be the worst possible thing that could happen to our military. One of the foremost reasons our military is as strong as has been is because it is an all-voluntary force.

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

The money (especially toward technology) is also one of the foremost reasons, no argument.

But to say that the all-voluntary force ISN'T one is simply silly. Or do you believe that someone who DOESN'T want to be there is going to perform at anywhere near the level of someone who CHOOSES to be there?

Israel. QED.

What Israel has is NOT a draft. Although Israel has conscription, which is essentially a small "mandatory service period" for some, many Israelis do not serve in the military for various reasons. And the conscription is very limited in time and scope (it's two years and the jobs they can do are essentially either the infantry (doesn't take a tremendous amount of training) and the menial jobs having little to do with the military itself). QED indeed.

[King Berzerker]

+ 2, in israel, ur like surrounded by crazy arabs that want to blow you off the map. u either help defend or die.

[F1fth]

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

The money (especially toward technology) is also one of the foremost reasons, no argument.

But to say that the all-voluntary force ISN'T one is simply silly. Or do you believe that someone who DOESN'T want to be there is going to perform at anywhere near the level of someone who CHOOSES to be there?

Israel. QED.

What Israel has is NOT a draft. Although Israel has conscription, which is essentially a small "mandatory service period" for some, many Israelis do not serve in the military for various reasons. And the conscription is very limited in time and scope (it's two years and the jobs they can do are essentially either the infantry (doesn't take a tremendous amount of training) and the menial jobs having little to do with the military itself). QED indeed.

But the point is that the volunteers wouldn't go anywhere if there was a draft. We'd have all of them as well as the draftees.

+ 2, in israel, ur like surrounded by crazy arabs that want to blow you off the map. u either help defend or die.

...

[InkL0sed]

What Israel has is NOT a draft. Although Israel has conscription, which is essentially a small "mandatory service period" for some, many Israelis do not serve in the military for various reasons. And the conscription is very limited in time and scope (it's two years and the jobs they can do are essentially either the infantry (doesn't take a tremendous amount of training) and the menial jobs having little to do with the military itself). QED indeed.

Yeah, what F1fth said.

Plus, you're really not understanding my point, which is the following:

When the President/Congress decide to go to war, if they don't have the country united under them, they will have massive protests a la Vietnam. In the name of democracy, this is a good thing.

If they do manage to get a war, that means that people either actually support it or don't care enough to really oppose it. Plus, again, I really don't see how having volunteers is a big factor in making our military the best in the world. I'm pretty sure that's because we have enough top-grade missiles, jets, and nukes to take on basically any force ever.

[King Berzerker]

i think woodruff is saying that you have more dissention if the people are not volunteers at leat here in america.

[InkL0sed]

That's the point. Do try to keep up.

[King Berzerker]

but they will still force kids off to war. they will just get killed. look at how low our casualties were in iraq? dutiful soldiers are better soldiers.

[Woodruff]

No, that's because we spend a ridiculous amount of money on it.

The money (especially toward technology) is also one of the foremost reasons, no argument.

But to say that the all-voluntary force ISN'T one is simply silly. Or do you believe that someone who DOESN'T want to be there is going to perform at anywhere near the level of someone who CHOOSES to be there?

Israel. QED.

What Israel has is NOT a draft. Although Israel has conscription, which is essentially a small "mandatory service period" for some, many Israelis do not serve in the military for various reasons. And the conscription is very limited in time and scope (it's two years and the jobs they can do are essentially either the infantry (doesn't take a tremendous amount of training) and the menial jobs having little to do with the military itself). QED indeed.

But the point is that the volunteers wouldn't go anywhere if there was a draft. We'd have all of them as well as the draftees.

Certainly, yet more resources would have to be put into the draftees that wouldn't be necessary for the volunteers (for the most part). A draftee is more likely to be a problem as far as insubordination and that sort of thing. So time is spent on them trying to first rehabilitate them (attitude change) and then eventually process them via court-martial. A draftee is more likely to not do as good of a job ON THE JOB. It's really human nature...if you don't want to be there, you won't do as good of a job. So someone is going to have to either be looking over the draftee's shoulder or come behind them to clean up after them (fix whatever they didn't do right). Typically, a draftee is not going to be as interested in the training as someone who selected that career.

Certainly, that wouldn't apply to all draftees, as some would have the personal pride to want to do a good job regardless of whether they chose to be there or not, but it would be human nature to allow disgruntlement to affect them.

I firmly believe that a draft would result in a higher manpower number and yet STILL turn into an actual DRAIN on military resources for these reasons rather than an augmentation to them. In my view, not having draftees is "addition by subtraction".

[Fircoal]

I don't see why we should have a draft. I mean I guess my opinion is skew, but we shouldn't be people where they don't want to be, espeically if it's a war that's not believed in. I mean I wouldn't like to be drafted for any war. I don't want to kill anyone, so why should I have to?