H.R. 5741: Mandatory 2 year Service to Federal Government

reply to post by dreamwalker74


not sure where the liberal label came from. further proof that the ability to read does not necessarily transcend into the ability to comprehend. i have come to see the futility of my argument on this board. you are all so enamored with your own bs that you very obviously can't understand anything past that strange smell emanating from that cavern where your head currently resides. cowards will always be the burden of those who choose to act upon their own destiny. as you flail through your life please show courtesy to those who move toward action and just lay down and take a nap or something.

I saw Rahn Emmanuel touting this on Meet the Press a few weekends ago. He seemed very excited about this!!!!! Of course he was!!!!

I am so disgusted with this, I don't even have the words.

Okay, all you Obama lovers! Here's the change you wanted to see!

Happy Volunteering! Hope you can fit it in---in between waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, paying your taxes, hanging on to your jobs, getting your car inspected, finding a job... Hope you can find a couple of years to serve the Feds!

reply to post by TheWrongStuff


All I can do is laugh. Socialist, that is the problem. You are right on one point, and that is it. IT all starts within the neighborhood. You work with your neighbors and then it goes on from there. You never NEED to serve your country, per se, Patriotism is one thing, being armed is another. THESE are the simple facts.

You obviously know not too much about the actual history of man. You refer to baby rapers? and others, but for what reason? Communists and socialists do the same thing. Maybe you don't remember the Soviet Union BEFORE the Bolshevik Revolution. We will never know just how many innocent people were murdered, how many young women were raped and the other things that happened. But that's not "our" history. Want this nations history, ask a Native American.

Socialism has never worked, will never work and has no place for existance anywhere in the universe. Socialism is the same as welfare, which you are so against.

THAT is what I don't get. The government was instituted to "deal with" commerce between the states and Foreign Nations. HOW it got transposed into enslaving man is another question, but people like you wish to further that enslavement and then try and justify it. Perplexing to me.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or personal accountability?

I have studied law for many, many years. Common Law is long forgotten, sad really. Freedom is not equated with "socialism" and it never will be. "Keep your nose out of my business and I will keep mine out of yours", what is so wrong with that. If I have the intelligence to develop something useful, I need not share it with you or anyone else. If I take natural resources to do it, then by Dominion, part of that is yours, this is true. We are all children of the earth and all the natural resources belong to US and NOT the corporations. WE are taxed disproportionately in comparison, WHY?

Read about the Six Nations of the Iroquois, I think you will learn much more than I can teach you here. The founding fathers learned much from them and that is the root of the founding of this nation. Until 1789, then it all went downhill. Ala, the "central bank".

[edit on 28-7-2010 by daddio]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by daddio]

If Charlie Rangel proposes it, that's an automatic "General Quarters!" for me. Personally, I don't have anything to worry about as far as being "called" - I'm 48 and already served.

But I oppose the hell out it.

And what I do worry about is what this might portend with a Dem controlled congress and a questionable president at the helm, seemingly advancing numerous ulterior agendas that concern our rights, and the sovereignty of the US.

That said, I oppose this for many reasons:

1. I believe in most countries where either some service is required, with the option to take an education deferment, that most if not all costs of that education is paid by the government.

I see no such provision in this Rangel World trash, taking us back to the era of Viet Nam - where the rich could send their kids off to college indefinitely, while a lot of the poor were compelled by economics to fight an unpopular war. College costs today are astronomical, and federal aid has NOT kept pace - and the part time job market is a joke compared to the costs.

Also, I think that unlimited supply of cannon fodder gave the lousy politicians even less reason to make the hard calls and let the military friggin WIN it, and get it over with and save American lives.

I think any draft is wrong; it ain't worth fighting for some civie pampered pet's asswipe mistakes - Democrat or Republican, Bill, George or Barack!

If it's a worthy cause Americans have always met the call.


2. Conscription for civilian works IS slavery; one thing we fought the American Revolution over was the press-gangs from the British navy and private enterprise, who kidnapped adult Americans and "Pressed" them into service, either on warships or the merchant marine.

As ohioriver pointed out, from the Constitution:

Amendment XIII.
Ratified December 6, 1865

Section 1. Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Lastly -

I don't have any kids, but I got a ton of nieces and nephews who fall right in the 18-42 age range; I would sure as hell stand up on my hind legs and exercise my Second Amendment rights on their behalf, and anyone else who asked my assistance.

Now that's REAL community service Charlie Rangel, delivered in little lead cups at high velocity - Cheers.

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by TheWrongStuff
what a bunch of little babies. the government didn't trash this country. the us government collectively can't f'n fingerpaint.

if you are truly unwilling in any regard to sacrifice 2 short years of your life to earn the rights and privleges that this country offers than there is no room for you, no one cares if you leave and your "right" to free speach doesn't really pertain to this situation because you are a dirty little civilian who should be mowing my lawn and bringing my wife lemonade.

You murdered innocent people and raped and stole trillions of "dollars" worth of wealth from those nations.


Nuff said, rant over.

sho nuff. your words not mine. apparently difficulty comprehending your own writting escapes you as well...maybe try the books with pictues first instead of the big law books that empower your cowardice in the face of manual labor. and the message board spell checker routine...boy that isn't tired.

cry babies like you will find fault with everything and then stand around watching the world fall around you without doing a thing and blame the government for not saving you.

the cowards on this board talk about civil war, but you will cowtow as soon as anyone near you with any strength stomps their foot.

you lost this argument before you started. the founding fathers never laid down mandates for compulsory service because that went without question.

They'd either be incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant to introduce this bill.

and we thought the Republicans were bad!!! sad to say i voted for this, there is no worse feeling than knowing that you fell for a lie, i can not speak for everyone, but my self and i can say i am sorry!!!!!!!

Originally posted by InspectorGadget
They'd either be incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant to introduce this bill.

Not really, they've already done it with medical personel, a de facto draft as needed, when they say and as long as they want. They can even force them to serve after they've retired from practice. Gotta love the kind of care govt is planning for it's servants.
It's already been done with one segment and will be done with others soon enough becasue nobody said anything and few knew.
I'm sure you know that there is a provision already in place that allows gubmont to appropriate any and all privately held resources they deem necessaryin case of emergency, but I'm sure they'll leave a reciept payable on proof of survival. So much for property rights, which I vaguely recall had something to do with something called rights of bill or a commandment or somesuch document a long time ago that nobody has any recollection of what the fuss was about

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mordant1]

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Just a thought:

If you add mandatory public service (Hitler Youth, SS) with

Eugenics (Planned Parenthood, abortion, birth control)

false flag operations (911, Reichstag fire)

war funding (Bush's, Banking Elite)

an enemy wanting to destroy our way of life (Muslims, Jews) and

a charismatic leader that gets us all worked up (Obama, Hitler).....

we have the makings of the new Reich and the third world war. Like I said, just a thought.

Yabba dabba doo, I think you nailed it. But your comments will go to waste.

Most folks here are still fighting a battle we have already lost. (Thats' Dems vs. Reps).

The gang that tried to overthrow FDR, aided and abetted Hitler, are moving full speed ahead, with "the annointed one" at the fictitious helm, headed for the same port they tried to reach in the 1930's and 1940's.

If they cannot see this, no one can help them and I will waste no more time on ATS in any Republican-Democratic discussions. It's just ludicris and counter productive. It's what TPTB want us to do and I refuse.

So continue the partisan debate as the current battle for all the marbles is being lost, and be ready to serve your country whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by InspectorGadget
They'd either be incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant to introduce this bill.

Rangel is likely both from what I've heard...

Originally posted by mydarkpassengerAnd what I do worry about is what this might portend with a Dem controlled congress and a questionable president at the helm, seemingly advancing numerous ulterior agendas that concern our rights, and the sovereignty of the US.

Rangel tried it a couple of years before Obama, but still in a Dem controlled congress, and Pelosi herself threw it out... And the time before that, it only got two votes. This is a dead issue...

[edit on 7/28/2010 by JoshNorton]

The only draft I would accept is a draft by the people against the bankers and the fascists thugs claiming to be our leaders.

I will not accept any other draft and put a bullet in the head of whoever tries to draft me by force or put me in jail for refusing.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by mydarkpassengerAnd what I do worry about is what this might portend with a Dem controlled congress and a questionable president at the helm, seemingly advancing numerous ulterior agendas that concern our rights, and the sovereignty of the US.

Rangel tried it a couple of years before Obama, but still in a Dem controlled congress, and Pelosi herself threw it out... And the time before that, it only got two votes. This is a dead issue...

[edit on 7/28/2010 by JoshNorton]

But, you just said it your self, they tried this "before" obama. prince pelosi threw it out at that time because she kew she'd be canned if she tried to pass it. But now she has obama in the White House an that puts a different light on it.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Its simple really, people will not go for a pinch of this unless there are nuclear attacks on all major cities in the U.S or something else equally devastating. Otherwise...

I have a hunch though that these executive orders and resolutions are not meant to be implemented in this administration or even the next. This will fade and 10-20 years from now...down comes the sledge hammer.



[edit on 26-7-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

You may be right, but I think that it is for something sooner rather than later.

reply to post by Acid_Burn2009


Im sure you wouldnt mind me at your side in the field I just dont give a f*** for Oslumlord,his whole lame brain government or his future country of illegals so there for why the hell would I want to die for something I hate. America is a land I would die for but she is all but gone.

Coward? You bet! Every war since WWI has been a war not worth
fighting. Give me a 'good reason war' and I'll gladly show you my
bravery. My heart does go out for our soldiers bravery, but you
know as well as I do it's all false pretenses, which I wont support.
Now, go kindly and try to attack someone else thank you.

reply to post by up up and away

For those of you who won't go along with this look into what it means to be a "Conscientious Objector"

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
--------------------------------------------------------

I doubt this will go through anyway.

reply to post by TattarrattaT


Yes, people still have to serve...

Still different from the current doctrine in dealing with them.

I wonder what the protocol will be with the ones who deliberately continue to do illegal substances... the ones who can't help it, and the ones who do them to try and get out. This is a point not even addressed in this manifesto.

reply to post by thegoodearth


Yeah that's a good point about people who will continue to drink or be high or whatnot.

I don't think they really can make people do anything they don't want to do. If "forced" to work, there are too many things unwilling people can do to sabotage the program. For example, do the job poorly, or do things that make negative progress. 2 steps forward 3 steps back. Just be generally incompetent.

They probably could penalize you for actually doing obvious sabotage, but if you just suck at whatever you are asked to do then I think they would just discharge you at some point.

Even if you get put into an office to file papers, nobody can actually force you to file those papers correctly.

I think that's the real reason why Conscientious Objection is usually included in these types of bills. If they forced you into combat when you clearly declared you will not fight, then you would be a detriment to their operations.

They can only take your labor from you if you give it to them.

reply to post by TattarrattaT


I had put my 0.02 in a few pages back and was accused of being a right wing Tea Party hater...et al... which I really didn't understand the entire gist of the attack on my post, but that is the beauty of ATS, right?

In the same tone as what you are saying...

But, where does logic factor in here... I have only been on scene with Marines and lived/ worked around them for 15 years. And these are the ones who volunteered.

God Bless~