OT: Isn't this sweet?

Religions > Atheism > OT: Isn't this sweet?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Mark K. Bilbo"
Date:	06 Jun 2006 08:45:25 AM
Object:	OT: Isn't this sweet?

"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United
States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period
of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the
national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752
Love the "and for other purposes."
Let's just militarize the entire country shall we? This idiotic bill
brought to you by Rep. Charles Rangel D-NY...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 04:13:27 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>

Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:907772

"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United
States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period
of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the
national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752

Love the "and for other purposes."

Let's just militarize the entire country shall we? This idiotic bill
brought to you by Rep. Charles Rangel D-NY...

And therein lies the explanation: it's another of Rangel's
"Want to throw a war? Sure, why not ... but then let's make
sure EVERYBODY goes, `kay?" bits of political theater.
Hey, between this the the "defense" of marriage silliness,
it's Sweeps Week on the hill.
-- cary
.

User: "Hotel Charlie One"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 02:46:39 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net:

A ready supply of "warm meat", and face it, that's what conscripts
are, insures continual growth of government in domestic and foreign
affairs. And, of course, we NEED this. We NEED safety. We do not need
liberty.
Naturally, this won't pass, but it will just add fuel to fire. America
is becoming more and more polarized. The cynic in me is waiting for
the day that one party states "We are for freedom and liberty" just so
the other party can respond "Well, we aren't".
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are gone. The America of our founders
is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.

User: "Mark"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 08:33:13 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net:

uh...and this has exactly *what* to do with atheism???
--
Mark
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	08 Jun 2006 11:20:24 AM

"Mark" <mark@no.answer.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97DBDB424A529markisnotavailable@70.168.83.30...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net:

uh...and this has exactly *what* to do with atheism???

Didn't notice the OT, eh?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	08 Jun 2006 01:17:10 AM

Mark wrote:

uh...and this has exactly *what* to do with atheism???

Don't get bent out of shape. "OT" means off topic, and it designates
a post that is probably of interest to a lot of people reading a.a. but
which doesn't pertain to atheism.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 09:21:49 PM

Previously, on alt.atheism, Mark in episode
<Xns97DBDB424A529markisnotavailable@70.168.83.30>...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
news:7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net:

uh...and this has exactly *what* to do with atheism???

Why?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 01:19:23 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net...

Yikes! Makes me almost glad to be 45 :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Witziges R�tsel"
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 12:04:02 PM

We the people already provide for our common defense - we pay
taxes, some of which go toward hiring military and security personnel.
Rangel's proposal is not only socialism it's slavery.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752
Love the "and for other purposes."
Let's just militarize the entire country shall we? This idiotic bill
brought to you by Rep. Charles Rangel D-NY...

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 12:07:43 PM

Previously, on alt.atheism, Witziges R�tsel in episode
<6Aihg.3907$LN1.2136@trndny01>...

We the people already provide for our common defense - we pay
taxes, some of which go toward hiring military and security personnel.
Rangel's proposal is not only socialism it's slavery.

Criticising the state is insanity comrade!
We have a nice sanitarium in northern Alaska that can help you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 12:24:44 PM

Witziges R=E4tsel wrote:

We the people already provide for our common defense - we pay
taxes, some of which go toward hiring military and security personnel.
Rangel's proposal is not only socialism it's slavery.

Indentured servitude, actually.
But it's not really meant to pass. It's "Put up or shut up."
What it's saying is: If Iraq really is what you claim it is, if we
really NEED to be there, then, in the face of a need for more
troops, the only logical thing to do would be to hold a draft.
But, no Vietnam-era "Fortunate sons" who, like Bush, could
pull a few strings and escape service. When they call you you're
going in. Period. Even not the frontlines then somewhere else.
If not the military then somewhere.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 06:27:04 PM

Previously, on alt.atheism, jtem01 in episode
<1149614684.366398.312330@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...

Witziges R�tsel wrote:

We the people already provide for our common defense - we pay
taxes, some of which go toward hiring military and security personnel.
Rangel's proposal is not only socialism it's slavery.

Indentured servitude, actually.

But it's not really meant to pass. It's "Put up or shut up."

What it's saying is: If Iraq really is what you claim it is, if we really
NEED to be there, then, in the face of a need for more troops, the only
logical thing to do would be to hold a draft. But, no Vietnam-era
"Fortunate sons" who, like Bush, could pull a few strings and escape
service. When they call you you're going in. Period. Even not the
frontlines then somewhere else. If not the military then somewhere.

I've always found the concept of "national service" to be appalling no
matter what excuse they come up with this time.
And I'm seriously underwhelmed by Democratic grandstanding. The time to
have opened their mouths about the Iraq war was when the resolution was in
front of them. And, *still, they run away from anybody who actually says
"maybe we should leave."
I'll be impressed when every one who voted for the resolution gets up on
camera and says "I was wrong."
Until then, far as I'm concerned, they can shut the ***** up.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 10:37:33 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

I've always found the concept of "national service" to be
appalling no matter what excuse they come up with this
time.

I don't, but the question is irrelevant. These national service
bills (you didn't think this was the first, did you?) are an
attempt by a minority party to break through a Republican
congress & obedient media, sparking a debate.
Simply put: War without a draft is like new spending without
a tax increase. In both cases, as long as the perception is
that nobody has to pay for them, most people are willing to
go along.

And I'm seriously underwhelmed by Democratic grandstanding.

Really? I'm underwhelmed by a media that has long since rolled
over for the Reich wing.
About a month ago -- after repeated (my the media ad ntausium)
charges that the Democrats "Have no plan," pretty much the
entire Democratic delegation to both houses of congress, together
with State Madeleine Albright, General Wesley Clark, veterans,
police, firefighters & first responders, gathered in Washington's
Union Station to unveil thier plan for defending America.
Nobody covered it.
Not that anyone can be surprised at this point. I mean, here
we are, 2006, and not one major broadcaster has yet to
notice that Bush told more than one lie in his 2003 State of
the Union address -- or that Bush didn't belong to the Texas
national guard at the time his Whitehouse-created "point
summeries" have him reporting for duty in Texas.
We do not have a free press. Period. And you can blame
the Democrats for recognizing reality and trying to work
around it, or you can blame the maggots who created the
situation.

The time to have opened their mouths about the Iraq war
was when the resolution was in front of them.

I'm not convinced that you (or anyone else here) would
have voted differently if you were in their shoes.

And, *still, they run away from anybody who actually says
"maybe we should leave."

Whose "They"?
Plenty of Democrats say we should leave. Others rightly
point out how bad that would be, but wrongfully assume
that there's any chance of changing the conduct of the war.

I'll be impressed when every one who voted for the resolution
gets up on camera and says "I was wrong."

And until then... what? You'll ***** yourself over?

Until then, far as I'm concerned, they can shut the ***** up.

You don't want a political party. You want a hive mind.
The Republicans already offer that. How's that been working
out for you?
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 09:00:37 AM

Previously, on alt.atheism, jtem01 in episode
<1149651453.327276.293990@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

I've always found the concept of "national service" to be appalling no
matter what excuse they come up with this time.

I don't, but the question is irrelevant. These national service bills (you
didn't think this was the first, did you?) are an attempt by a minority
party to break through a Republican congress & obedient media, sparking a
debate.

Simply put: War without a draft is like new spending without a tax
increase. In both cases, as long as the perception is that nobody has to
pay for them, most people are willing to go along.

And I'm seriously underwhelmed by Democratic grandstanding.

Really? I'm underwhelmed by a media that has long since rolled over for
the Reich wing.

About a month ago -- after repeated (my the media ad ntausium) charges
that the Democrats "Have no plan," pretty much the entire Democratic
delegation to both houses of congress, together with State Madeleine
Albright, General Wesley Clark, veterans, police, firefighters & first
responders, gathered in Washington's Union Station to unveil thier plan
for defending America.

Nobody covered it.

Not that anyone can be surprised at this point. I mean, here we are, 2006,
and not one major broadcaster has yet to notice that Bush told more than
one lie in his 2003 State of the Union address -- or that Bush didn't
belong to the Texas national guard at the time his Whitehouse-created
"point summeries" have him reporting for duty in Texas.

We do not have a free press. Period. And you can blame the Democrats for
recognizing reality and trying to work around it, or you can blame the
maggots who created the situation.

The time to have opened their mouths about the Iraq war was when the
resolution was in front of them.

I'm not convinced that you (or anyone else here) would have voted
differently if you were in their shoes.

And, *still, they run away from anybody who actually says "maybe we
should leave."

Whose "They"?

Plenty of Democrats say we should leave. Others rightly point out how bad
that would be, but wrongfully assume that there's any chance of changing
the conduct of the war.

I'll be impressed when every one who voted for the resolution gets up on
camera and says "I was wrong."

And until then... what? You'll ***** yourself over?

Until then, far as I'm concerned, they can shut the ***** up.

You don't want a political party. You want a hive mind.

The Republicans already offer that. How's that been working out for you?

That's nice.
Listen, you're not going to get anywhere with me. Far as I'm concerned,
the two parties should just go ahead and merge into the Corporatist Party
and be done with it. In fact, as we've already turned governance over to
the corporations, it's inefficient and wastes money to bother with having
things like a Congress at all. Cash and carry legislation is expensive.
Just let the corporations take over openly. We'd save money.
I still remember things such as how Feinswine couldn't get on her knees
fast enough to suck corporate ***** over the DMCA. One of the allegedly
"liberal" Senators from the allegedly "liberal" state of CA whored for
the "rights" of corporations so many times I lost count. Or the Senator
from Disney, Hollings, who never saw a draconian measure from Mickey Mouse
he didn't like.
I notice, for instance, that the so-called "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention
and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" passed with 74 votes in the Senate. I
don't recall there being 74 Republicans in the Senate. 18 Democrats--half
of them, Clinton not voting--joined the Republicans to pass that atrocity.
It was written by the credit card industry, for their benefit, and handed
to Congress with a note of "pass this you lackeys." Yes, the Republicans
had the votes and it was going to pass but the only reason to rush over to
their side, wagging your tail, was to position yourself for a campaign
contribution treat.
And, yes, I--in their position--would have voted against the resolution.
Yes, they would have taken quite a beating at the time given the fever the
administration had whipped up. But now--as could have been predicted--they
would be in the position of having been *right instead of practicing
quantum politics like Kerry, he of the "I'm for and against at the same
time!"
Anyway.
The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace yourself for
the decline, the fall of big empires is always a bumpy ride."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: ""
Title: Talking solutions	07 Jun 2006 03:30:50 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

It was written by the credit card industry, for their benefit, and
handed to Congress with a note of "pass this you lackeys."
Yes, the Republicans had the votes and it was going to pass
but the only reason to rush over to their side, wagging your
tail, was to position yourself for a campaign contribution treat.

#1. Ban all contributions except from individuals. No corporate,
group or lobbiest money.
#2. Stop back-door contributions through PACs and "Charities."
Members of congress & their immediate families should be
barred from involvement in any organization/group that solicits
contributions (whether tax deductable or not).

And, yes, I--in their position--would have voted against the
resolution. Yes, they would have taken quite a beating at
the time given the fever the administration had whipped up.
But now--as could have been predicted--they would be in
the position of having been *right instead of practicing
quantum politics like Kerry, he of the "I'm for and against
at the same time!"

#3. Avoid destroying your own credability by mixing your
claims (associating them with) mindless partisan campaign
propaganda.

The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace
yourself for the decline, the fall of big empires is always a
bumpy ride."

No Democracy ever died a natural death.
.

User: "Truth"
Title: Re: Talking solutions	07 Jun 2006 03:32:08 PM

On 7 Jun 2006 13:30:50 -0700,

wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

#1. Ban all contributions except from individuals. No corporate,
group or lobbiest money.

#2. Stop back-door contributions through PACs and "Charities."
Members of congress & their immediate families should be
barred from involvement in any organization/group that solicits
contributions (whether tax deductable or not).

#3. Avoid destroying your own credability by mixing your
claims (associating them with) mindless partisan campaign
propaganda.

The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace
yourself for the decline, the fall of big empires is always a
bumpy ride."

No Democracy ever died a natural death.

you will die to and then you will have to answer to God
--
..............................................................

Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Talking solutions	11 Jun 2006 09:23:28 PM

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:32:08 -0400, Truth <Truth@Truth.truth> wrote in
alt.atheism

On 7 Jun 2006 13:30:50 -0700,

wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

#1. Ban all contributions except from individuals. No corporate,
group or lobbiest money.

#2. Stop back-door contributions through PACs and "Charities."
Members of congress & their immediate families should be
barred from involvement in any organization/group that solicits
contributions (whether tax deductable or not).

#3. Avoid destroying your own credability by mixing your
claims (associating them with) mindless partisan campaign
propaganda.

The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace
yourself for the decline, the fall of big empires is always a
bumpy ride."

No Democracy ever died a natural death.

you will die to and then you will have to answer to God

Mental midget, 'God' doesn't exist. Grow the ***** up!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Talking solutions	07 Jun 2006 08:18:46 PM

Previously, on alt.atheism, Truth in episode
<1w6lrwibkplrd.d3c9u3fjxn0g.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 7 Jun 2006 13:30:50 -0700,

wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

It was written by the credit card industry, for their benefit, and
handed to Congress with a note of "pass this you lackeys." Yes, the
Republicans had the votes and it was going to pass but the only reason
to rush over to their side, wagging your tail, was to position yourself
for a campaign contribution treat.

#1. Ban all contributions except from individuals. No corporate, group
or lobbiest money.

#2. Stop back-door contributions through PACs and "Charities." Members
of congress & their immediate families should be barred from involvement
in any organization/group that solicits contributions (whether tax
deductable or not).

And, yes, I--in their position--would have voted against the
resolution. Yes, they would have taken quite a beating at the time
given the fever the administration had whipped up. But now--as could
have been predicted--they would be in the position of having been
*right instead of practicing quantum politics like Kerry, he of the
"I'm for and against at the same time!"

#3. Avoid destroying your own credability by mixing your claims
(associating them with) mindless partisan campaign propaganda.

The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace yourself
for the decline, the fall of big empires is always a bumpy ride."

No Democracy ever died a natural death.

you will die to and then you will have to answer to God

That's okay, I'll put in a word with Thor for him...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Talking solutions	07 Jun 2006 06:37:44 PM

Truth wrote:

you will die to and then you will have to answer to God

Cool. Do I get to pick the catagory?
"I'll take things that begin with 'r' for a thousand, Alex...errr..
God."
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Talking solutions	07 Jun 2006 08:18:25 PM

Previously, on alt.atheism, jtem01 in episode
<1149712250.015518.148170@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

It was written by the credit card industry, for their benefit, and
handed to Congress with a note of "pass this you lackeys." Yes, the
Republicans had the votes and it was going to pass but the only reason
to rush over to their side, wagging your tail, was to position yourself
for a campaign contribution treat.

#1. Ban all contributions except from individuals. No corporate, group
or lobbiest money.

That would be a definite first step. And the punishment for interference
in elections or legislative process should be revocation of the corporate
charter. Which is the corporate version of the "death sentence" as the
corporation ceases to exist and its assets are liquidated.
We used to revoke charters when corporations got out of hand. We don't do
it anymore. We still *can. We just don't. We've been moving for decades
toward the position that they have all the rights of an individual but
none of the responsibilities and we can't punish them for anything.

#2. Stop back-door contributions through PACs and "Charities." Members of
congress & their immediate families should be barred from involvement in
any organization/group that solicits contributions (whether tax deductable
or not).

And, yes, I--in their position--would have voted against the resolution.
Yes, they would have taken quite a beating at the time given the fever
the administration had whipped up. But now--as could have been
predicted--they would be in the position of having been *right instead
of practicing quantum politics like Kerry, he of the "I'm for and
against at the same time!"

#3. Avoid destroying your own credability by mixing your claims
(associating them with) mindless partisan campaign propaganda.

The only thing I have left to say about US politics is "brace yourself
for the decline, the fall of big empires is always a bumpy ride."

No Democracy ever died a natural death.

But we've been working on this a long time now. So long Abraham Lincoln
worried corporations would take over.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 01:11:51 AM

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

I think that Rangel's point is that if we have a war, the risk should be
shared equally, rich and poor alike. I believe that this was brought up
before. Rangel and others object that the majority of troops sent to
Iraq and other places are disproportionately from the lower
socioeconomic brackets.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 05:16:59 AM

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-851497.23115106062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

The military is not a place to be imposing social-justice issues or
"sharing risks equally" thru coercive conscription.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If Bush is responsible for what happened in Al Haditha, does that mean
Clinton is responsible for the massacre at Waco Tx. in 1993?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	08 Jun 2006 12:22:21 AM

In article <Xns97DB49B4F2CB9fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-851497.23115106062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

The military is not a place to be imposing social-justice issues or
"sharing risks equally" thru coercive conscription.

And the poor will continue to die for the rich.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	08 Jun 2006 09:48:16 AM

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-3295AC.22222107062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns97DB49B4F2CB9fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-851497.23115106062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

The military is not a place to be imposing social-justice issues or
"sharing risks equally" thru coercive conscription.

And the poor will continue to die for the rich.

And your heart bleeds.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If Bush is responsible for what happened in Al Haditha, does that mean
Clinton is responsible for the massacre at Waco Tx. in 1993?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	08 Jun 2006 11:54:46 PM

In article <Xns97DC77B1E6747fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-3295AC.22222107062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns97DB49B4F2CB9fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-851497.23115106062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

The military is not a place to be imposing social-justice issues or
"sharing risks equally" thru coercive conscription.

And the poor will continue to die for the rich.

And your heart bleeds.

The thousands who bush murdered bled too.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	09 Jun 2006 05:46:58 AM

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-7D9C0D.21544608062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns97DC77B1E6747fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-3295AC.22222107062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns97DB49B4F2CB9fstone69@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-851497.23115106062006@news.giganews.com:

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

The military is not a place to be imposing social-justice issues
or "sharing risks equally" thru coercive conscription.

And the poor will continue to die for the rich.

And your heart bleeds.

The thousands who bush murdered bled too.

Bush didn't murder anybody. Some al Qaeda terrorists murdered a whole
lot of people, as did some Baathist terrorists, and a few other kinds of
Muslim terrorists.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If Bush is responsible for what happened in Al Haditha, does that mean
Clinton is responsible for the massacre at Waco Tx. in 1993?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Sean C"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 08:29:37 PM

In article <7bmdnb7KFcRoGxjZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@megapath.net>, Mark K.
Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

Rangel is playing a dangerous game trying to challenge the inequities
of our military service by proposing a bill that just might end up
resulting in a draft, and then the Dems will be blamed for it. We need
to end the war, not institute a draft. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out who's going to be drafted and who isn't.
It would be nice to see some kind of voluntary civilian service, like
the old Civilian Conservation Corps, being offered to kids in exchange
for free tuition, no profit home loans or other goodies.
--Sean C
.

User: "Kate"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 03:04:18 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Isn't he the same guy that wanted to bring back the draft so the
rightards would have to actually deal with sending their children to
fight and back off of creating wars?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 02:46:30 PM

"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1149624258.178653.252350@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Isn't he the same guy that wanted to bring back the draft so the
rightards would have to actually deal with sending their children to
fight and back off of creating wars?

Ah, now it becomes clearer: Katie wants to send our children to fight.
All that volunteer military gets her all confused.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If Bush is responsible for what happened in Al Haditha, does that mean
Clinton is responsible for the massacre at Waco Tx. in 1993?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Kate "
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	06 Jun 2006 10:47:06 PM

On 06 Jun 2006 19:46:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1149624258.178653.252350@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

Isn't he the same guy that wanted to bring back the draft so the
rightards would have to actually deal with sending their children to
fight and back off of creating wars?

Ah, now it becomes clearer: Katie wants to send our children to fight.
All that volunteer military gets her all confused.

Uh, I didn't say I wanted anything.
Obviously you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension.
But we knew that.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Isn't this sweet?	07 Jun 2006 05:08:19 AM

(Kate ) wrote in news:449d4bbf.441455093@news-
west.newscene.com:

On 06 Jun 2006 19:46:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1149624258.178653.252350@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the
United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to
perform a period of military service or a period of civilian

service

in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and

for

other purposes."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752

Love the "and for other purposes."

Let's just militarize the entire country shall we? This idiotic

bill

brought to you by Rep. Charles Rangel D-NY...

--

Isn't he the same guy that wanted to bring back the draft so the
rightards would have to actually deal with sending their children to
fight and back off of creating wars?

Ah, now it becomes clearer: Katie wants to send our children to fight.
All that volunteer military gets her all confused.

Uh, I didn't say I wanted anything.

You couldn't have made it any clearer, Katie.

Obviously you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension.
But we knew that.

Obviously I have more in the way of reading comprehension than you have
in the way of writing comprehension.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If Bush is responsible for what happened in Al Haditha, does that mean
Clinton is responsible for the massacre at Waco Tx. in 1993?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

Page 1 of 3

Post reply

Re: Isn't the Gospel Anti-Jew?
Re: Why Christianity Isn't Working
Re: Bible isn't worthy of belief
In the News: Official isn't asked to pay
=> Hey Spammy! - if Pat Tillman isn't with "god" ... where in the hell is he?
Re: OT: The British system isn't working
Re: Kerry Isn't Fooling Gun Owners
Re: Isn't it Sad?

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 42 - 50
Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition
Re: REPOST: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 66 - 70
Why There isn't a God - Duck ***** Edition
Why There Isn't a God - Papal Bull Edition
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
It Isn't Too Late...to Hang In There

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER