Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Universal National Service Act of 2003
Congressional Record ^

Posted on 02/14/2003 11:52:24 AM PST by floridarocks

Universal service for males and females ages 18-26. New Senate Bill s.89. Can see it at http://thomas.loc.gov


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 next last
To: Centurion2000
If you pay taxes it's involuntary non-military servitude.

No it isn't. The government doesn't care if I don't pay any taxes if I don't earn or own anything. I could choose to be a bum and would owe nothing. However If I were conscripted there would be no way for me to avoid service without going to jail. Additionally the government doesn't mandate what career I choose or the exact dollar amount I must pay as opposed to a draft that would make very specific demands about the nature of the work and the time required. The tax codes just demands a certain percentage of whatever I choose to earn. Despite the taxes I pay, my work is still profitable to me in contrast to a draft which would be of no personal benefit. Furthermore, constitutional amendments specifically allow taxation of income and specifically forbid slavery.

121 posted on 02/15/2003 1:29:31 AM PST by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: templar
I feel no sympathy for speeders when the police deliver their rewards

Spoken like a true bootlicker. Does leather really taste that good?

This statement sounds like it could easily be construed as a terroristic threat under much of the recently passed legislation

You're demonstrating the problem with the police state. All I did was disagree with you, and now you essentially accuse me of being a "terrorist". Your mindset led millions of Germans and Russians to the slaughter.

I've determined from your posts, that you're nothing more than a statist, and I won't change your mind. Nor will you change mine. We'll have to simply agree to disagree.

122 posted on 02/15/2003 7:00:27 AM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
All I did was disagree with you, and now you essentially accuse me of being a "terrorist".

I just observed that you implied that politicians, police, etc. who were your political opponents need to be afraind of you if they don't do what you want. Actually, your exact words were " As should those who pass or attempt to enforce laws infringing upon the Rights of Free men and women." in reference to facing penalties. I didn't accuse you of anything, I just gave a friendly warning that you may find yourself in violation of a number of anti-terrorist laws with statements like those and should clarify your position and consider your wording more carefully. I've seen a number of people end up in deep hot water because of careless wording of their sentiments. If you don't want the advice then don't take it. But expect no sympathy if it comes back at you unexpectedly.

BTW, I notice that you haven't stated that you were not intending actual violent threats to coerce politicians, law enforcement, and the civilian population into a course of action, and that is terrorism. Look it up in a Black's and remember that the definitions have expanded broadly under recent congressional legislation.

We'll have to simply agree to disagree.

Apparently, we don't 'agree to disagree', we agree to be on opposite sides. My side has the authority and power, yours does not. The side I'm on will win as surely as as the governments side won at Waco.

123 posted on 02/15/2003 8:19:00 AM PST by templar (peace at any cost, as long as it's them paying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
"I do as I please

Do you? Try walking down the sidewalk with a revolver on your hip. That will likely get you arrested even here in Florida, one of the "better" states when it comes to guns.

Or try not paying your property taxes. See what happens to that house that is "yours"."

Yes, I do as I please. I have no reason to wear a revolver on my hip, since crime in my community is near nil. So, it pleases me not to wear one, although I have a nice Mossberg short-barreled 12-ga. shotgun in my home for defensive purposes.

As for my property taxes, I can find no reason not to pay them. They support things I use and support, like my local schools, libraries, fire departments, etc. Why would I not pay my share?

I don't break any laws knowingly. Why would I? So, yes, I do as I please.
124 posted on 02/15/2003 8:32:37 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
"LOL! So the 85% of drivers who willingly speed on the highways are "outlaws"?"

Yes, by definition, they are. Personally, I do not speed...ever. I use my vehicle's cruise control feature to help me with that goal. I even slow to 25mph in school zones, although I see very very others doing so. That speed limit seems quite rational.

If a law is badly drawn, or wrong, we have the means to change it, built right into our system. Until we change it, those who break the law break the law. If you drive 75 in a 65 zone, you may be ticketed and pay a fine. It's that simple. I prefer not to pay those fines, and I'm not in that much of a hurry.
125 posted on 02/15/2003 8:37:51 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
"Of course I would put this in a better manner. No voting until a term of service is completed."

Interesting. No vote without service. I expect that your idea will be roundly flamed by the libertarians in this thread.
126 posted on 02/15/2003 8:39:00 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
"Unless you try to do what was proposed you have nothing to worry about. If you wan't to get tyrannical on me, I'll make sure your dead first."

Yes, yes. You've demonstrated your machismo several times here. However, don't forget that those you're threatening are those who _have_ served in the military, and have training in thwarting such threats.

127 posted on 02/15/2003 8:41:38 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell; MineralMan; CholeraJoe
Meatheads who cannot even follow debates do not intimidate me.

Still name calling, I see. Same thing the liberals do all the time.

Had you read my post #51 you would have seen: ...

I responded to your post 42 (which is quite a bit before 51, so you might consider how that meathead statement applies here) in which you made an unwarranted personal attack against MineralMan which denigrated his service to his country in the military. I'm a vet as well and take it personally when another honorable vet is slandered for his service. Your attack on him is not disagreeing with his position, debating it or stating any political or legal reasons you disagree with it. It's just slander. You went on to call both myself and CholeraJoe facists in your opening sentance of post 51, which is a basic liberal tactic (fascist today seems to mean anyone that disagrees with a liberal philosophy or position, not the italian fascist of WWII. It's just the mindless hate language of liberalism). That hardly indicates that you having any well thought out position to enter into the dabate. You seem to think that the American political process is one of personal opinions, name calling, and death threats to those you oppose rather than open reasoned debate and constitutional law. It isn't.

BTW, when naming another freeper or his post, it is a courtesy to include him in your posting. We all forget sometimes, but it looks like talking we're behind someones back not to include them.

128 posted on 02/15/2003 8:48:07 AM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Bush better squash this right now.

Excuse me, but from some of his own statements Bush is one of the ones forwarding this required 'volunteer' service idea. Why would he squash it? And from the looks of some of the neocon statements around here, heck half of them would send their sons and daughters off into the hands of the Empire willingly. So much for conservatism

129 posted on 02/15/2003 8:49:54 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Your position does not comport with Federal military policy in the first 72 years of the republic.

The first 72 years was over 150 years ago. My position is in the context of current law, which is what we must obey as citizens of the country. I don't disagree with your position or statements. They're well thought out and reasoned. If you could get them into court under the right circumstances, they could even become law. Unfortunately, as it stands, they are only your opinions and interpretations, not the law. The law is what's in the books. We have to deal with the law as it stands today. With time, effort, determination and (most of all) lots of money we can change the law. We can change what's in the books. But till we do that we are obligated to obey current law.

130 posted on 02/15/2003 8:58:48 AM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: templar
You mentioned Waco. Do you consider the incineration of over 80 Americans(many women and children) to be "open reasoned debate"?
131 posted on 02/15/2003 9:23:16 AM PST by jsraggmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: jsraggmann
"You mentioned Waco. Do you consider the incineration of over 80 Americans(many women and children) to be "open reasoned debate"?
"

I wonder what Waco has to do with a discussion of Universal Service? Why do you bring it up. None of those debating that issue here were there. None had anything to do with what happened there. Indeed, Waco has nothing to do with the question of Universal Service, a bill introduced in the Senate in 2001 by Republicans and in 2003 by Democrats. Even GW Bush appears to be in favor of such a thing.

Where does Waco come into the discussion?
132 posted on 02/15/2003 9:34:06 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Don't get your panties in a wad! templar brought it up in Post 123. You DO read the posts, don't you?
133 posted on 02/15/2003 9:38:03 AM PST by jsraggmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jsraggmann
"Don't get your panties in a wad! templar brought it up in Post 123. You DO read the posts, don't you?"

Indeed I do. But I don't wear panties, so I cannot possibly get them in a wad. It's jockies for me, thanks. I'll continue to post messages here as I please, regardless of what others post, if you don't mind.
134 posted on 02/15/2003 9:49:04 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Universal Service is the ultimate socialism: Nationalization of People.
135 posted on 02/15/2003 9:52:17 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: floridarocks
Interesting

This bill and others including "patriot act II" are all ready to be rushed to the House and Senate Floors,

after the next act of terror is allowed to take place.

Timing is everything
136 posted on 02/15/2003 10:09:45 AM PST by WhiteGuy (Cynical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridarocks
welcome to socialist America!
137 posted on 02/15/2003 10:11:04 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renegade; All
The Senate, the President, and Judges

The Seventeenth Amendment in giving Senators the power to by- pass state interests and pander to citizen constituency interests only heightens and hastens the march to socialism. Our nation has different interests as has been explained previously and to remain a republic we must have separate powers looking after those interests.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843984/posts?page=

138 posted on 02/15/2003 10:12:52 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: floridarocks
says he is a Progressive

which means a commie rat democrat!

http://hollings.senate.gov/bio.html
139 posted on 02/15/2003 10:18:50 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Personally, I do not speed...ever

Your "not speeding" causes a lot more accidents than those who speed ~10 MPH over the limit.

That speed limit seems quite rational.

Speed limits are anything but "rational", except in rare cases. The purpose of a speed limit should be to the set the maximum speed upon which a road can be tranversed by a vehicle in good operating condition under good driving conditions. Most of the time, they are set by bureacrats or municipalities looking to steal money from people. As such, they convey little information and most drivers treat them as such by simply ignoring them.

140 posted on 02/15/2003 10:21:49 AM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson