This nation does not need the draft

Source: None
Published: May 21, 2016
Author: Michael A. Thiac
Post Date: 2016-05-21 18:38:41 by tpaine
Views: 17564

This nation does not need the draft

By Michael A. Thiac

A proposal to include women in the military draft, supported in Congressional testimony by the heads of the Marine Corps and Army, was stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act by a close vote of the House Rules Committee this week. But agitation for universal military conscription will continue, sometimes from the left, so “so that Americans ‘feel the burden’ of ongoing military operations against Islamic militants, will not go away.”

After 23 years of military service, it is clear to me that a universal draft is not essential, and indeed would be harmful to our national security.

Asking everyone to serve would be a disaster. Assume you put in a draft of “every” high school graduate. Approximately 3.9 million people turn 18 each year in the United States. Say of those, 80% are “fit” for military service (i.e., meet height/weight requirements, no issue with narcotics use, no criminal issues), you are talking of induction of 3.2 million people a year. This is a World War II level of forced public service when we are not at war with major powers.

If this is a two-year draft enlistment (what was used in Vietnam, as opposed to “the duration” during WWII), the armed forces will have to in-process and train them. The Army (and the other services) don’t have the facilities to in-process that many men and women right now. Can you imagine the cost of bringing online multiple basic training posts throughout the county? Currently we induct approximately 200K a year across all four branches of service, enlisted and officers. A draft could increase this by more than a factor of 15!

Now follow this some more. Army Basic Training is 9-10 weeks. What do you do with the people who “fail,” i.e. are overweight, do not meet standards on physical training tests, “fail” a urinalysis test, etc. Currently we throw them out. How many people will we throw out after we spend the resources to bring them in? Please don’t tell me others, not wanting to be forced to “serve,” will not deliberately do something to be excused. What will you do then? Put them in prison? Send them home?

Then you have to get them to Advanced Individual Training, a school that can be two to over twelve months, depending on the specialty. Say for good measure, combining travel and casual status, 3 months Basic, 3 months AIT. That’s half a year.

Get them to a new unit, and it takes a few months to get into the swing of things. Next thing you know, Private Snuffy has less than a year left. And he’s counting down days. Because he never wanted to be there and if you give him an order and he refuses, what do you do? Put him in the stockade? Throw him out? Either you keep a disruptive man in a unit, or you throw him out, either way you weaken the outfit. One of the greatest things needed for an effective unit is cohesion. With constant turnaround caused by draftees this will only degrade us.

If a draft is implemented for further social engineering, the Pentagon would have to spend a fortune (which we don’t have) to put people in who don’t want to be there, train them and send them out. Such a massive waste of resources would only weaken our nation’s defense. We need a highly trained, professional service.

Some draft advocates argue that while everyone should be subject to the draft, a smaller number wound be inducted on the basis of a lottery. Shades of the Vietnam War era, when a lottery was conducted on the basis of date of birth. This would still raise many problems.

First requirement: we need the armed forced manned by people who want to serve, for whatever reason. Personal (“I want to get away from Mom for a bit and figure out what I want to do with my life”), professional (“They will give me training that will cost me a fortune in the private sector, or I get the GI Bill for college”), or patriotism (I want to serve my country), or a combination of the three.

One of the greatest successes of this nation in the latter part of the 20th Century is the all- volunteer service. The Pentagon spent years and billions of dollars in a massive effort by experts to recover from the disaster of Vietnam. We came back with a fully professional, highly trained and functional military service. It is going to take years, billions of dollars and hard work from professionals to recover from the damage inflicted over the last seven years.

Another suggestion of the people pushing “mandated service” is some type of civilian service. We’ve tried that with AmeriCorps, aka “ClintonCorps,” and found it’s nothing but a massive waste of money, per the OMB and GAO. Also, what do you want these 18 year olds doing? Pick up trash on the side of the road? Clean up parks? Go into “communities” and organize the vote for Democrats?

Are you going to pay these people or is this indentured servitude? How much will that cost? All the while the people could be working in the private sector paying taxes. Also, if I live in a rural areaand there is nothing for these “public servants” to do, will you make me move to a city where “public service” is needed? How do you determine who needs “public service”?

What are you going to do when 40 thousand people say, “Hell no, I won’t go…” Are you ready to put thousands in prison if they refuse? How much will that cost? What if they run off to Canada again? What are you going to do?

But more to the fact, why should an older generation, who have mostly not served in America in her armed forces (nor otherwise gave years of their young lives volunteering), tell the upcoming generation “you must earn your citizenship in a way we were not burdened with”? Our founding documents recognize the supremacy of the individual over the collective, “…that we, as individuals, have a right to live, live freely and pursue that which motives us not because man or some government says so, but because those are God-given natural rights.” (emphasis mine) (Levin, 2009, 2-3)[1]

OK, I have a bit of a radical idea. If you are an adult, what you want to do with your life is…get this…your decision. This is a free country (to a lesser degree in times past, especially after the last 7 years). You want to go to college, fine. You want to go to the service, fine. Get a job somewhere, fine. Work at McDonald’s while staying in mom’s basement -- that is your business. As long as you obey the law and support yourself, so be it. You are not provided with freebees, you get from us nothing. Freedom means you have opportunity, not guarantees.

In my younger days I believed in mandatory service for the young people. But spending 23 years in my country’s uniform and knowing how the Army (and the other services) needed to clean up in the 1970s and the issues they had with draftees, I changed my view. One of the major successes of the US has been the all-volunteer service. I would rather have 5 people who want to be there than 10 who are counting down days from the moment they get there.

Michael A. Thiac is a police patrol sergeant and a retired Army intelligence officer. When not patrolling the streets, he can be found on A Cop’s Watch.

[1] Levin, Mark R, Liberty and Tyranny”: New York: Threshold, 2009

A proposal to include women in the military draft, supported in Congressional testimony by the heads of the Marine Corps and Army, was stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act by a close vote of the House Rules Committee this week. But agitation for universal military conscription will continue, sometimes from the left, so “so that Americans ‘feel the burden’ of ongoing military operations against Islamic militants, will not go away.”

After 23 years of military service, it is clear to me that a universal draft is not essential, and indeed would be harmful to our national security.

Asking everyone to serve would be a disaster. Assume you put in a draft of “every” high school graduate. Approximately 3.9 million people turn 18 each year in the United States. Say of those, 80% are “fit” for military service (i.e., meet height/weight requirements, no issue with narcotics use, no criminal issues), you are talking of induction of 3.2 million people a year. This is a World War II level of forced public service when we are not at war with major powers.

If this is a two-year draft enlistment (what was used in Vietnam, as opposed to “the duration” during WWII), the armed forces will have to in-process and train them. The Army (and the other services) don’t have the facilities to in-process that many men and women right now. Can you imagine the cost of bringing online multiple basic training posts throughout the county? Currently we induct approximately 200K a year across all four branches of service, enlisted and officers. A draft could increase this by more than a factor of 15!

Now follow this some more. Army Basic Training is 9-10 weeks. What do you do with the people who “fail,” i.e. are overweight, do not meet standards on physical training tests, “fail” a urinalysis test, etc. Currently we throw them out. How many people will we throw out after we spend the resources to bring them in? Please don’t tell me others, not wanting to be forced to “serve,” will not deliberately do something to be excused. What will you do then? Put them in prison? Send them home?

Then you have to get them to Advanced Individual Training, a school that can be two to over twelve months, depending on the specialty. Say for good measure, combining travel and casual status, 3 months Basic, 3 months AIT. That’s half a year.

Get them to a new unit, and it takes a few months to get into the swing of things. Next thing you know, Private Snuffy has less than a year left. And he’s counting down days. Because he never wanted to be there and if you give him an order and he refuses, what do you do? Put him in the stockade? Throw him out? Either you keep a disruptive man in a unit, or you throw him out, either way you weaken the outfit. One of the greatest things needed for an effective unit is cohesion. With constant turnaround caused by draftees this will only degrade us.

If a draft is implemented for further social engineering, the Pentagon would have to spend a fortune (which we don’t have) to put people in who don’t want to be there, train them and send them out. Such a massive waste of resources would only weaken our nation’s defense. We need a highly trained, professional service.

Some draft advocates argue that while everyone should be subject to the draft, a smaller number wound be inducted on the basis of a lottery. Shades of the Vietnam War era, when a lottery was conducted on the basis of date of birth. This would still raise many problems.

First requirement: we need the armed forced manned by people who want to serve, for whatever reason. Personal (“I want to get away from Mom for a bit and figure out what I want to do with my life”), professional (“They will give me training that will cost me a fortune in the private sector, or I get the GI Bill for college”), or patriotism (I want to serve my country), or a combination of the three.

One of the greatest successes of this nation in the latter part of the 20th Century is the all- volunteer service. The Pentagon spent years and billions of dollars in a massive effort by experts to recover from the disaster of Vietnam. We came back with a fully professional, highly trained and functional military service. It is going to take years, billions of dollars and hard work from professionals to recover from the damage inflicted over the last seven years.

Another suggestion of the people pushing “mandated service” is some type of civilian service. We’ve tried that with AmeriCorps, aka “ClintonCorps,” and found it’s nothing but a massive waste of money, per the OMB and GAO. Also, what do you want these 18 year olds doing? Pick up trash on the side of the road? Clean up parks? Go into “communities” and organize the vote for Democrats?

Are you going to pay these people or is this indentured servitude? How much will that cost? All the while the people could be working in the private sector paying taxes. Also, if I live in a rural areaand there is nothing for these “public servants” to do, will you make me move to a city where “public service” is needed? How do you determine who needs “public service”?

What are you going to do when 40 thousand people say, “Hell no, I won’t go…” Are you ready to put thousands in prison if they refuse? How much will that cost? What if they run off to Canada again? What are you going to do?

But more to the fact, why should an older generation, who have mostly not served in America in her armed forces (nor otherwise gave years of their young lives volunteering), tell the upcoming generation “you must earn your citizenship in a way we were not burdened with”? Our founding documents recognize the supremacy of the individual over the collective, “…that we, as individuals, have a right to live, live freely and pursue that which motives us not because man or some government says so, but because those are God-given natural rights.” (emphasis mine) (Levin, 2009, 2-3)[1]

OK, I have a bit of a radical idea. If you are an adult, what you want to do with your life is…get this…your decision. This is a free country (to a lesser degree in times past, especially after the last 7 years). You want to go to college, fine. You want to go to the service, fine. Get a job somewhere, fine. Work at McDonald’s while staying in mom’s basement -- that is your business. As long as you obey the law and support yourself, so be it. You are not provided with freebees, you get from us nothing. Freedom means you have opportunity, not guarantees.

In my younger days I believed in mandatory service for the young people. But spending 23 years in my country’s uniform and knowing how the Army (and the other services) needed to clean up in the 1970s and the issues they had with draftees, I changed my view. One of the major successes of the US has been the all-volunteer service. I would rather have 5 people who want to be there than 10 who are counting down days from the moment they get there.

Michael A. Thiac is a police patrol sergeant and a retired Army intelligence officer. When not patrolling the streets, he can be found on A Cop’s Watch.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com/a...s/2016/05/this_nation_doe s_not_need_the_draft.html#ixzz49KgBSsAg Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Post Comment   Private Reply

#21: sneakypete    To: tpaine (#0)

What this nation needs more than anything else is a revolution,followed by mass trials and public executions of the treasonous professional ruling classes. Maybe a draft with no exceptions except for the mentally and physically handicapped will help that happen,as more people get to personally see the corruption and betrayal of our government,and get training in how to deal with it at the same time?

sneakypete posted on 2016-05-22 09:15:14   Reply   Private Reply

#22: sneakypete    To: tpaine (#3)

How about the constitutional boot camp idea, -- no camp, no vote?

That shouldn't even be a question. Nobody but veterans and land owners should be allowed to vote,and nobody that isn't a citizen should be allowed to own land.

sneakypete posted on 2016-05-22 09:17:26   Reply   Private Reply

#23: sneakypete    To: Deckard (#16)

There,there! Don't be so afraid. Even girls go through basic training.

sneakypete posted on 2016-05-22 09:22:46   Reply   Private Reply

#24: tpaine    To: sneakypete (#21)

Maybe a draft with no exceptions except for the mentally and physically handicapped will help that happen,as more people get to personally see the corruption and betrayal of our government,and get training in how to deal with it at the same time?

A voluntary boot camp, (no camp, no vote) would undoubtedly help that happen, as more people would get to personally see how our government has been corrupted, and get constitutionally based training in how to deal with it.

Good idea..

tpaine posted on 2016-05-22 09:32:01   Reply   Private Reply

#25: sneakypete    To: tpaine (#24)

A voluntary boot camp, (no camp, no vote) would undoubtedly help that happen, as more people would get to personally see how our government has been corrupted, and get constitutionally based training in how to deal with it.

Good idea..

Yes,it is,but it's not my idea. It was Robert Heinlein's idea,and a damn good one.

sneakypete posted on 2016-05-22 11:45:41   Reply   Private Reply

#26: nolu chan    To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#19)

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE, shortly after high school, as a precondition before they get the vote.. -- No camp, no vote, ---- This would require a constitutional amendment, of course..

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-23 16:19:35   Reply   Private Reply

#27: tpaine    To: nolu chan (#26)

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE, shortly after high school, as a precondition before they get the vote.. -- No camp, no vote, ---- This would require a constitutional amendment, of course..

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

One hundred years ago, I would have bet that the income tax amendment was a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18- year olds each year.

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.
I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Isn't it typical that nolu, a Statist, would view every proposal through a statist curtain...

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 18:06:59   Reply   Private Reply

#28: Deckard    To: tpaine (#27)

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

Is it really voluntary when the conditions are: "Go to the boot camp or you can't vote"?

Deckard posted on 2016-05-23 18:44:03   Reply   Private Reply

#29: GrandIsland    To: Deckard (#28)

I like how you handle your Paultard pals with kid gloves... while that pal is espousing the greatest amount of freedom loss... mandatory military service. That has the taste of communist China with a little shit flavor on the side.

But please, carry on treating me like shit because I don't have a problem with you stopping your car for 5 seconds at a DWI check point. lol

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 19:44:30   Reply   Private Reply

#30: tpaine    To: Deckard (#28)

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

Is it really voluntary when the conditions are: "Go to the boot camp or you can't vote"?

How many times have we been told that, -- 'voting is a privilege, not a right'?

You want to exercise your privilege to vote? Study up on our Constitution...

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 19:45:31   Reply   Private Reply

#31: GrandIsland    To: A K A Stone (#20)

You're a statist.

I agree.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 19:48:38   Reply   Private Reply

#32: tpaine    To: GrandIsland, showing his lack of erudition, yet again, Y'ALL (#29)

Deckard, I like how you handle (tpaine) with kid gloves... while (he) is espousing the greatest amount of freedom loss... mandatory military service. --- GrandIsland

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much? -- Of course not...

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 19:52:04   Reply   Private Reply

#33: tpaine    To: GrandIsland (#31)

I agree

I hear a gigantic sucking sound going on in the distance..

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 19:54:31   Reply   Private Reply

#34: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#33)

I hear a gigantic sucking sound going on in the distance.

That's what Carol Wells will hear one morning... and find O'l Ron blue in the lips and 5 degrees colder that he was when they went to bed.

It's called the last breath.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 20:27:16   Reply   Private Reply

#35: tpaine    To: GrandIsland (#34)

Babble on about whatever, -- but can you admit, just for once, that you were WRONG?

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 20:30:16   Reply   Private Reply

#36: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#35)

I'm not wrong. I'll even agree with Pukard. Withholding the RIGHT to vote at 18 without a mandatory 2 year military service is the same as being forced.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

If tpaine was stopped outside a voting booth (for no other reason that it's only a privledge) and not allowed to vote, you know for a fact that the USSC would rule you've been violated.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 20:36:38   Reply   Private Reply

#37: tpaine    To: All (#35)

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

This would require a constitutional amendment. -- Hard to pass, but if coupled with a absolute repeal of ANY effort to institute a draft/selective service, -- it might work.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 20:48:34   Reply   Private Reply

#38: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#37)

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

Remind me not to vote for you for any public office or anyone you support for public office, Mr. Mao Tse Tung.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 20:52:11   Reply   Private Reply

#39: tpaine    To: GrandIsland, convicted felons cannot vote? --- y'all (#36)

How many times have we been told that, -- 'voting is a privilege, not a right'?

You want to exercise your privilege to vote? Study up on our Constitution...

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction', -- majority rule?

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 20:55:40   Reply   Private Reply

#40: tpaine    To: GrandIsland (#38)

Remind me not to vote for you for any public office or anyone you support for public office,

I'm voting for, and support Trump.

You voting for Hillary, as many suspect?

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 20:58:38   Reply   Private Reply

#41: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#39)

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction', -- majority rule?

The judge that presides over the felony conviction, dip shit.

"As of 2010, roughly 5.85 million Americans — or about 2.5 percent of the voting age population — were unable to vote due to a current or previous felony conviction, according to an analysis by the Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for reforms in the criminal justice reform. That amounts to roughly one in every 40 adults in America who can’t vote because of a previous conviction, a large enough population to potentially influence the outcomes of close local and national races."

Now is the time you can shine like Obunghole. I'm waiting for you to wash away personal responsibility and sink us lower into moral decay by stating that laws that prohibit felons from voting is just another way to keep the black voter down. Go ahead, libtard... say it.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 21:47:16   Reply   Private Reply

#42: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#40)

I'm voting for, and support Trump.

As you Paultards like to say (any you wear the saying out)... even a broken clock is right twice a day.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 21:50:37   Reply   Private Reply

#43: tpaine    To: GrandIsland (#41)

I wholeheartedly disagree with your constitutional understanding of voting. Americans have the RIGHT to vote unless that's revoked by a felony conviction.

And who gets to decree what is a 'felony conviction, -- majority rule?

The judge that presides over the felony conviction,

Nope. Under our Constitution judges do not get to decree what are laws. -- Our legislators, guided by the document, write laws, and are NOT obligated to follow majority edicts.

"As of 2010, roughly 5.85 million Americans — or about 2.5 percent of the voting age population — were unable to vote due to a current or previous felony conviction, according to an analysis by the Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for reforms in the criminal justice reform. That amounts to roughly one in every 40 adults in America who can’t vote because of a previous conviction, a large enough population to potentially influence the outcomes of close local and national races."

And you're HAPPY about that? I'm not. -- I think you should lose the vote ONLY for serious crime, and once you've served your time, get your vote back, irregardless of race.

Now is the time you can shine like Obunghole.

Your attitudes support him, not mine.

On waiting for you to wash away personal responsibility and sink is lower into moral decay by stating that laws that prohibit felons from voting is just another way to keep the black voter down. Go ahead, .. say it…

The uninformed black voter is a large part of our electorial problem. Young blacks REALLY NEED remedial education in our Constitutional principles..

tpaine posted on 2016-05-23 22:47:56   Reply   Private Reply

#44: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone, tpaine, GrandIsland (#20)

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE,

You're a statist.

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination” invented by Chairman Mao Tse- tung of China?

As a Pseudo-Maoist, he appears to be advocating “reeducation camps” like the prison camps operated by the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution. The theory underlying such camps was the Maoist theory of reforming counter-revolutionaries into socialist citizens by re-education through labor.

The theory underlying his “reeducation camps” is:

This nation … really need[s] to educate our young people [later changed to EVERYONE], before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country... It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

With his advocacy to preserve a "true ideology" as he knows it through “reeducation camps" … he is no statist, he is a true dyed-in-the-wool Maoist.

Gatlin posted on 2016-05-23 23:12:40   Reply   Private Reply

#45: nolu chan    To: tpaine (#27)

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

nolu chan #26

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

tpaine#27

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

You can't mandate high schools or high school teachers to provide military training. You need whole new structure to train 3-4 million new 18-year olds per year. Today, the entire military does not have that capablity or anything remotely near it.

And, of course, you have no explanation whatever of how you will persuade the significant majority of Americans to disenfranchise themselves. They are more likely to vote for putting you in stocks for a public flogging shown on the Times Square jumbotron.

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface. (That's not you, is it?)

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-23 23:30:59   Reply   Private Reply

#46: tpaine    To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#44)

I posted at (#35): ---

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

This would require a constitutional amendment. -- Hard to pass, but if coupled with a absolute repeal of ANY effort to institute a draft/selective service, -- it might work.

Gatlins weird 'answer': ---

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination” invented by Chairman Mao Tse- tung of China? -- - As a Pseudo-Maoist, he appears to be advocating “reeducation camps” like the prison camps operated by the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution. The theory underlying such camps was the Maoist theory of reforming counter- revolutionaries into socialist citizens by re-education through labor. --- With his advocacy to preserve a "true ideology" as he knows it through “reeducation camps" … he is no statist, he is a true dyed-in-the-wool Maoist.
I have no counter to such gibberish. -- Sorry bout that.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-24 01:19:03   Reply   Private Reply

#47: tpaine    To: nolu chan, gatlin, y'all (#45)

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface. (That's not you, is it?)

Thanks for the laugh..

No, it's not me. I'm much older and my ass hole looks more like your lips, or so gatlin tells me..

tpaine posted on 2016-05-24 01:23:09   Reply   Private Reply

#48: nolu chan    To: tpaine (#47)

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

nolu chan #26

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18-year olds each year.

tpaine#27

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

You can't mandate high schools or high school teachers to provide military training. You need whole new structure to train 3-4 million new 18-year olds per year. Today, the entire military does not have that capablity or anything remotely near it.

And, of course, you have no explanation whatever of how you will persuade the significant majority of Americans to disenfranchise themselves. They are more likely to vote for putting you in stocks for a public flogging shown on the Times Square jumbotron.

You missed your calling with the role of Arseface.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 02:12:46   Reply   Private Reply

#49: tpaine    To: nolu chan (#48)

I'm in favor of a short 'boot camp' type service, for EVERYONE, shortly after high school, as a precondition before they get the vote.. -- No camp, no vote, ---- This would require a constitutional amendment, of course..

To get such a constitutional amendment you would have to get a significant majority of the voters to agree to disenfranchise themselves. I would assess that as a political impossibility.

One hundred years ago, I would have bet that the income tax amendment was a political impossibility.

Were you able to overcome that impossibility, you would encounter the obvious logistical problem of an inability to offer such "boot camp" type service to 3 to 4 million new 18- year olds each year.

We cope with putting them all through 4 years of high school, - so 8 weeks of constitutional boot camp should be possible.

Once the Federal government is empowered to dictate that all must complete a mandatory boot camp in order to vote, I can only imagine what an Obama federal government would find the authority to include in the mandatory boot camp training. I'll pass on giving such a massive grant of power to the Federal government.

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Isn't it typical that nolu, a Statist, would view every proposal through a statist curtain...

tpaine posted on 2016-05-24 03:24:40   Reply   Private Reply

#50: GrandIsland    To: tpaine (#43)

Your attitude supports him not mine.

Your whole post is bullshit... But I'll just respond to the above bullshit.

Obunghole stands to lose more votes by snubbing felons since most of his fan base are criminals and welfare shitbags. You defend those same felons... and who's attitude is the same as the Kenyans?

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-24 05:55:19   Reply   Private Reply

#51: GrandIsland    To: Gatlin (#44)

Would he not be more of a Maoist, with his proposed use of the sort of Marxist- Leninist communist “training and indoctrination

Actually, I'd call him, Pukard and Sucky Bucky Assholist's.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-24 05:57:35   Reply   Private Reply

#52: GrandIsland    To: nolu chan (#48)

Voluntary

Like tpaines Nazi brain.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-24 06:01:36   Reply   Private Reply

#53: A K A Stone    To: tpaine (#49)

Who cares what you are for. Your statist bullshit idea isn't going to happen.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-24 06:26:36   Reply   Private Reply

#54: A K A Stone    To: tpaine (#49)

Put words to your amendment. It would be fun to watch chan rip it to shreds.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-24 06:29:21   Reply   Private Reply

#55: Gatlin    To: GrandIsland (#51)

Actually, I'd call him, Pukard and Sucky Bucky Assholist's.

I like that ...

Gatlin posted on 2016-05-24 07:07:09   Reply   Private Reply

#56: Roscoe    To: A K A Stone (#54)

Put words to your amendment. It would be fun to watch chan rip it to shreds.

Chan could even write some of the test questions for tpaine. The collaborative idiocy could be mucho entertaining.

1. Under the Constitution, which of the following statements is correct?

a) Congress writes national law
b) Federal courts write national law
c) The Department of Homeland Security writes national law
d) All of the above

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 09:01:43   Reply   Private Reply

#57: tpaine    To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#56)

Under the Constitution, which of the following statements is correct?

a) Congress writes national law b) Federal courts write national law c) The Department of Homeland Security writes national law d) All of the above

Under the Constitution, Congress writes federal law.

According to nolu chan, federal court OPINIONs are law..

Roscoe hopes that the department of homeland security makes law.

And so do ALL his buddies.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-24 09:18:51   Reply   Private Reply

#58: nolu chan    To: tpaine (#49)

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=27#C27

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=45#C45

You mean voluntary like an Obama policy that says boys can use the girls showers and girls can use the boys showers. It's voluntary but the penalty is the loss of millions or billions of dollars.

It's voluntary like raising the drinking age to 21 or losing all highway funding.

Do it or else voluntary.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46349&Disp=49#C49

I indicated above we could make it voluntary. Read much?

It would be a constitutional amendment, -- one that could specify the power of ANY level of govt to " include mandatory training".

Yeah, it's voluntary mandatory training.

What a stupid shitbag you are, Arseface.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 12:08:50   Reply   Private Reply

#59: nolu chan    To: tpaine, Roscoe, Arseface (#57)

According to nolu chan, federal court OPINIONs are law..

http://law.justia.com/cases/

U.S. Case Law

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court (1759 - present)

U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals

U.S. Federal District Courts

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 12:14:22   Reply   Private Reply

#60: nolu chan    To: GrandIsland (#52)

Like tpaines Nazi brain.

Voluntary mandatory, like a U.S. Postal Service Memo I recall that said "voluntary compliance is mandatory." Maybe Arseface drafted it.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 12:18:30   Reply   Private Reply

#61: Roscoe    To: nolu chan (#59)

U.S. Case Law

Dear SFB:

case law

n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes ; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=148

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 12:51:42   Reply   Private Reply

#62: nolu chan    To: Roscoe (#61)

Dear SFB:

case law

n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes ; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=148

Dear Arseface:

You can alwas try using a real law dictionary.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Case law. The aggregate of reported cases as forming a body of jurisprudence, or the law of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in distinction to statutes and other sources of law. It includes the aggregate of reported cases that interpret statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions. See Common law.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 13:11:44   Reply   Private Reply

#63: Roscoe    To: nolu chan (#62)

Case law. The aggregate of reported cases as forming a body of jurisprudence, or the law of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in distinction to statutes and other sources of law. It includes the aggregate of reported cases that interpret statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions.

Nice foot shot, SFB!

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 13:59:13   Reply   Private Reply

#64: tpaine    To: All (#37)

This nation does not need the draft, but we really need to educate our young people, before they can vote, in our Constitution, our republican form of govt, and on how to defend themselves and this country...

It should be a short, voluntary course, but if not taken, -- no vote.

This would require a constitutional amendment. -- Hard to pass, but if coupled with a absolute repeal of ANY effort to institute a draft/selective service, with protections to preventing federal government meddling -- it might work to resolve political problems, --- problems that are so evident on even little LF, where a group is advocating majority rule authoritarianism.

As has been said before: ---

"Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. --- While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. ---- Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened."

This behavior is obvious on this thread, and is very amusing..

tpaine posted on 2016-05-24 14:52:19   Reply   Private Reply

#65: nolu chan    To: Roscoe (#63)

Nice foot shot, SFB!

Nice make believe, asshole.

Otis H. Stephens, Jr. and John M. Scheb II, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pages D-4, D-5:

Common law. A body of law that developes primarily through judicial decisions, rather than legislative enactments. The common law is not a fixed system but an ever-changing body of rules and principles articulated by judges and applied to changing needs and circumstances. See also: English Common Law.

- - -

English common law. A system of legal rules and principles recognized and developed by english judges prior to the colonization of America and accepted as a basic aspect of the American legal system.

In your ignorance, you would not recognize the common law system of law if it hit you in the face.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 18:50:14   Reply   Private Reply

#66: Roscoe    To: nolu chan (#65)

The common law is not a fixed system but an ever-changing body of rules and principles articulated by judges and applied to changing needs and circumstances.

Another great foot shot.

Lex non scripta, SFB.

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 19:10:52   Reply   Private Reply

#67: nolu chan    To: Roscoe (#66)

The common law is not a fixed system but an ever-changing body of rules and principles articulated by judges and applied to changing needs and circumstances.

Another great foot shot.

Lex non scripta, SFB.

No, you fucking idiot, case law/common law is not unwritten law. It is written court opinions. The common law is ever-changing because written court opinions are always being added to it.

How dumb can you document yourself to be?

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-24 20:34:16   Reply   Private Reply

#68: Roscoe    To: nolu chan (#67)

It is written court opinions.

You're shooting your feet right off at the ankles.

Truly, thou art the king of the SFBs.

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 20:57:51   Reply   Private Reply

#69: nolu chan    To: Roscoe (#68)

You're shooting your feet right off at the ankles.

Keep documenting your ignorance. It is fun to watch.

Lex non scripta, SFB.

Unwritten law. Really, you useless shitbag.

nolu chan posted on 2016-05-25 00:30:49   Reply   Private Reply

#70: Roscoe    To: nolu chan (#69)

shitbag

"The common law does not consist of particular cases decided upon particular facts: it consists of a number of principles, which are recognised as having existed during the whole time and course of the common law. The Judges cannot make new law by new decisions; they do not assume a power of that kind: they only endeavour to declare what the common law is and has been from the time when it first existed." --Sir William Brett

SFB

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-25 00:33:05   Reply   Private Reply