Draft old people

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 14 2006, 06:16 PM) [snapback]332856[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm. Not a single smilie.

That said, how about the Soylent Green solution? It takes care of the seniors, solves the whole Social Security (& especially the Medicare!) mess, plus contributes to the food supply. Edward G. Robinson was happy enough with it. <_<

 

Then we cound not put them out on the ice to die!

 

Well, it would guarantee that in about 5 years we would all be speaking Korean, Chinese, or Arabic.

One of the sillier comments by Daniel.

 

I think the people who support the war need to be the ones who fight it. Why aren't the Bush girls in Iraq?

 

my 2 cents

1) The gov't needs young people who want to probe something and earn a purple heart
2) Old people just want to come back home safely (not that young don't, but they want a medal on the way back)
3) Human reaction times

 

I think it's a great idea. In fact it should only be retirees that are drafted. After all, they're not contributing anything anymore.

And don't forget that along with the "poverty draft" they got the "poverty G. I. Bill". Instead of getting a free college education, they now have to pay half. With the old draft you can eliminate the G.I. Bill completely. What old geezer is going to want to go to college if they survive their tourS of duty? And if the geezers have failed to make a will leaving their meager goods to their surviving kin..the government will get that too.

Perhaps we can also draft illegal aliens. That will certainly provide them with steady work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 14 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]332895[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it's a silly idea, but, unfortunately, I'm beginning to believe that he actually believes what he writes has credibility and that he truly believes himself. I'm wondering if we are dealing with someone certifiable . . .

This is my favorite Daniel twist on reality . . .
(I bring it up every once in a while for the giggle factor . . . and in hopes he tries to explain . . . which would undoubtedly lead to more laughs and rolling eyes.) :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 2 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]248538[/snapback]</div>

He even promised to respond to the proof to the contrary that I had posted:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 4 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]249965[/snapback]</div>

Come on Daniel . . . it's now been a full six months. What's wrong? The people at the legal aid office not returning you calls? Aren't you the least bit ashamed that you can make such a claim, confirm your assertion, and then not be able to provide proof when called out on it? . . . EVEN WHEN YOU PROMISED TO BACK IT UP????

If you can't back up your statements with proof, you are a fraud and have absolutely no credibility it the world of reality. :angry:

 

The families of politicians, non voters supporters should be forced to serve. Politicians' families first, followed by eligable non voters (notice I didn't say non-registered voters, as they are non-voters). Then, the supporters. Therefore if I voted D and a D started a war I should be REQUIRED to serve, right after the politician's relatives and non voters have signed up. War? What war?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 15 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]333117[/snapback]</div>

That is a correct statement of the law. However, it is a crime to reenter the United States without a visa if one has previously been deported.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 15 2006, 11:48 AM) [snapback]332991[/snapback]</div>

I won't go there. I actually respect that Daniel is consistent and believes these things so fervently. I just think he is so wrong.....I don't want anyone he supports to ever be in power.

Oh, and about thinking that if people had to send their own kids/relative3s to war there would be no wars. What a misguided statement. Just because YOU would never want to fight for this country or have your relatives do it...doesn't mean everyone thinks like you. There was a time when people were proud to serve...and families still encourage their own kids to serve.

I really am sick of those type of comments because it defies common sense. Why doesn't President Bush send his dsughter to fight???? Because they are adults and can decide for themselves....THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 15 2006, 02:05 AM) [snapback]332942[/snapback]</div>

Now thats the smartest thing I've heard!... If they want to earn thier keep, let them start there... they will end up with full benifits and schooling... just like they want.. if they survive...

but at least they would have earned it, instead of getting it scott free without years of working thier way up.
If we are going to give of our resources away freely earned from generations of sweat and blood.. let them earn it and do thier part...

As far as drafting the old folks... they can't be too old, or they will be a liablity rather than a help.
I don't know who all has done any type of military or paramilitary training... but the old could not adapt, heal, and physically stand up to the lack of sleep and physical stress of true wartime.

Also, many of them wield alot of responsiblity over large firms and thier losing the authority and knowledge they possess would cripple many parts of our society.

However, I do like the idea of having someone with some judgement skills fighting our war... but hopefully they are our generals and leaders... its does get scary to give a young guy full of piss and vinegar and no judgement skills a weapon..... but thats the way its always been.

Maybe the young ones take orders better by intimidation.

Some of what makes our society so great is the fact that many who carry great authority and power started in the military and learned early to work hard and be disciplined.

Our youth today have it so easy in our nation of wealth and liberal rights and free handouts, that they don't understand if they have to pay a price for anything... not even freedom,
they don't understand that everything we have that the world is envious for was bought with blood, sweat and tears. Someone gave his life so they could keep thiers... nope, the whole world is viewed as mom and dad and they expect everything for free, and are bitter and resentful if they find no one really cares for them and they should have learned to care for themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 15 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]333117[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 15 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]333140[/snapback]</div>

Funny how most of you people in your liberal mutual admiration society make wild proclamations about reality, law, political stuff and then don't back it up with fact.

So Daniel and IsrAmeriPrius SAY it isn't against the law to enter the USA without documents . . . WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT . . . IT MUST BE LAW! . . . because they say so.

You know what? The internet is a wonderful research tool. You can find most anything on the internet . . . EVEN THE LAW!!! So do Daniel or IsrAmeriPrius offer up some research to prove their statements? NO. Daniel would rather hide behind the weak excuse of “a lawyer told me, and they aren't returning my emails.†IsrAmeriPrius on the other hand just flaps his proverbial lips.

At lest in the string where Daniel made his dumb comment, Jared2 did some research and posted it . . . and to his credit, he told the truth . . . and the truth backs ME up!

“Not only is it a crime to enter the U.S. illegally, it is a crime to "harbor" or employ an illegal alien. You can go to jail for 5 years for even encouraging an alien to remain in the US.

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(iii)â€
[snip]
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=249786

I guess Jared2 either already knew the law, read my post of immigration laws which say it is illegal,
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=249591
or he did his own independent research. Even though I may not agree with most of his politics, he tends to earn my credibility respect.

 

This sounds like a good idea to make Dubya, Cheney, Gingrich, Rush, and all the other Chickenhawks to put up or shut up. They want war so badly? Great - they can finally fight in one instead of sending other people to do it for them!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 15 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]333257[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 15 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]333257[/snapback]</div>

He said it, AND... it was on the internet.... Those are the big tests for if it's fact or just plain 'ol BS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Oct 16 2006, 04:38 AM) [snapback]333328[/snapback]</div>

Chickenhawk? Teehee.

Actually, Foley's the chickenhawk. My understanding is, a chickenhawk is an older man who has an interest in pursuing homosexual relations with the young'uns...

___________

Seriously, I think that we need to work harder to avoid getting these blockheads into office in the first place; once they're there, it's much more difficult, and disruptive, to change the course of policy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 16 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]333580[/snapback]</div>

Chickenhawk can mean older men lusting after young men, or it can refer to old bellicose men who can't get it up anymore compensating for this by sending young men to die in useless wars that they avoided in their youth because they "had other priorities", the most important one being to avoid war zones at all costs. Some politicians are "chickenhawks" in both senses of the word.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 16 2006, 03:52 PM) [snapback]333618[/snapback]</div>

Or their just chicken "s%#ts"