[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Define religious attitudes. The show me why those aren't allowed in government, and how excluding them isn't a violation of Art. VI.

My guess would be in regards to maintaining the separation of church and state.

Boots has a good point, though. Wasn't Chief Justice Warren or Burger appointed with conservatism in mind, but turned out to be liberal.

BG

[boots]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
My guess would be in regards to maintaining the separation of church and state.

Boots has a good point, though. Wasn't Chief Justice Warren or Burger appointed with conservatism in mind, but turned out to be liberal.

BG

I don't know about all of the justices' histories, but O'Conner was supposed to be pretty conservative and has turned out to be very moderate. She tends to be the swing vote. Suter was supposed to be really liberal, but has been much more conservative than expected (or am I mixing him up with someone else?)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I think it's valid. Singular religions have no place in a government with citizens of many different religions. I fear for our country if Bush appoints any justices.

Your fears are baseless.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
My guess would be in regards to maintaining the separation of church and state.

Boots has a good point, though. Wasn't Chief Justice Warren or Burger appointed with conservatism in mind, but turned out to be liberal.

BG

Article VI strikes a balance. All federal officers have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the First Amendment. That would prevent, for example, any judge from being appointed with the out-and-out intent of judicially enforcing Sharia (or any other religion's equivalent). But you can't in the name of maintaining the separation of church and state actively exclude people for being religious or for considering their personal beliefs as part of their jurisprudence. That is as much an unconstitutional religious test as excluding Catholics, or Jews, or Athiests.

Boots does also make a good point. Historically, there are a number of justices who have not ended up voting the way the president who appointed them assumed. That is largely because the justices are considerably less political than is commonly supposed. They obviously do have political views, but the way a judge decides a case isn't quite like the way politicians decide on their votes. It's much more constrained and the process much more convoluted. Also, terms like conservative and liberal are not always applicable to the Supreme Court. Depending on the issue, you get all kinds of shifting coalitions, even on this court.

[Stradlater]

Thanks to those of you who've actually come up with good points, esp. boots. I have some more thinking to do...

[boots]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Thanks to those of you who've actually come up with good points, esp. boots. I have some more thinking to do...

Glad to help. I don't care which way you vote as long as you decided based on thoughtful reflection.

[itai195]

The main issue presidential candidates seem to bring up when talking about the makeup of the SCOTUS is Roe v Wade. Two of the court's oldest three members -- Stevens and O'Connor -- are part of the six justice majority that recognizes abortion rights. Also, Bush has repeatedly pointed toward Scalia and Thomas -- two of the most outspoken abortion critics -- as models of the sorts of justices he would name to the court. Keep all that in mind if abortion rights are important to you. But other than that, I'd have to agree with others that justics often don't end up living to partisan expectations (with some exceptions).

[boots]

Originally posted by itai195:
The main issue presidential candidates seem to bring up when talking about the makeup of the SCOTUS is Roe v Wade. Two of the court's oldest three members -- Stevens and O'Connor -- are part of the six justice majority that recognizes abortion rights. Also, Bush has repeatedly pointed toward Scalia and Thomas -- two of the most outspoken abortion critics -- as models of the sorts of justices he would name to the court. Keep all that in mind if abortion rights are important to you. But other than that, I'd have to agree with others that justics often don't end up living to partisan expectations (with some exceptions).

True, but I stress again that litmus tests in the vetting process are not binding once confirmed. Justices often show surprising political make-overs on just about any issue you can think of...once they are free of the politics used to select.

(I'm not saying your argument isn't valid, just that it may not be something one can count on with either candidate's selections.)

[deedar]

Originally posted by boots:
I don't know, guys. The issue of SCOTUS judges is really a crap-shoot regardless of who's doing the appointments. If we went on the "intent" of the appointment, both O'Conner and Suter are big disappointments. It's funny how the newly appointed justices often have minds of their own once they are free from the routine politics. Bush could very easily appoint a staunchly conservative judge who ends up being rather moderate to liberal once on the bench. Kerry could appoint a flaming liberal only to find a moderate to conservative justice.

I don't buy the fear mongering around this particular issue.

"Liberal" justice or "conservative" isn't the point. While preferring a "liberal" appointment, a "conservative" one is perfectly fine. My fear is that bush would appoint a justice that would inject religious preferences and views into the process (e.g. scalia). That's unnaceptable.

[voyageur]

One issue to consider when voting are the candidates' records on environmental issues. Here is one place where they are quite different. According to groups like the Sierra Club and the Conservation Law Foundation, Kerry has one of the strongest pro-environmental voting records in the congress. Bush on the other hand, has moved to weaken existing environmental protections and deleted portions of a major EPA report encouraging action on global warming. With the US population expected to grow by 43% in the next 50 years, it's important to pay attention to these issues, which have gotten eclipsed by concerns about terrorism.

I'll be voting for Kerry because I believe we need to do more to preserve our environment before it's too late.

[boots]

Originally posted by deedar:
"Liberal" justice or "conservative" isn't the point. While preferring a "liberal" appointment, a "conservative" one is perfectly fine. My fear is that bush would appoint a justice that would inject religious preferences and views into the process (e.g. scalia). That's unnaceptable.

"Liberal"/"Conservative"/"Religious", the label doesn't matter. The principle is the same. Most (IMO) appointments are unpredictable regardless of the "issue" you use to vet.

[deedar]

Originally posted by boots:
"Liberal"/"Conservative"/"Religious", the label doesn't matter. The principle is the same. Most (IMO) appointments are unpredictable regardless of the "issue" you use to vet.

Point taken. Just think, however, of the appointment a justice in the johh ashcroft vein. Send shudders up my spine.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by deedar:
Point taken. Just think, however, of the appointment a justice in the johh ashcroft vein. Send shudders up my spine.

For this reason, I'd still rather not have Bush appointing justices...it seems like something like this has more of a chance to happen.

Nobody can see the future, but we can make general (practically meteorological) predictions...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Article VI strikes a balance. All federal officers have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the First Amendment. That would prevent,

Absolutely nothing without some way to enforce the oath. Where do you go for redress if the supreme court is wrong? What do you do about a SCJ who isn't holding to his oath? Impeachment is not an option, AFAIK. It's not like it does any good to change the constitution, monstrously slow as that process is, if the justice isn't holding to it anyway.

Although belonging to a religion is not an acceptable litmus test, trying to predict whether they would be inclined to sticking to their oath of office is essential. Granted, they can think the Constitution is wrong all they want, as long as they are willing to set that aside for the sake upholding their oath.

I'd prefer that they agree with the Constitution anyway, making them naturally inclined not to break their oath, but determining such is not possible.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
Point taken. Just think, however, of the appointment a justice in the johh ashcroft vein. Send shudders up my spine.

Being more realistic, it would be more likely to be someone like Miguel Estrada, who is very impressive. Of course, Leahy and his fellow Democrats borked him for no particular valid reason when he was nominated for the DC Circuit. Another name I would keep an eye on is Viet Dinh. I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominated to the bench in a secnd Bush Administration, and who knows, maybe eventually to the Supreme Court.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Absolutely nothing without some way to enforce the oath. Where do you go for redress if the supreme court is wrong? What do you do about a SCJ who isn't holding to his oath? Impeachment is not an option, AFAIK.

Supreme Court justices can be impeached. They can also be forced out by pressure, as happened to Justice Fortas.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'd prefer that they agree with the Constitution anyway, making them naturally inclined not to break their oath, but determining such is not possible.

Why is it that every liberal seems to think that their interpretation of the Constitution is "the Constitution" and that any other interpretation is disagreeing with the Constitution? Constitutional law is much, much, more debatable than that. We can agree on certain precepts, but liberal positions on debatable issues of interpretation are not Holy Writ. How do you think we arrived at these interpretations? It's by judges disagreeing wth earlier interpretations. That process isn't your monopoly.

Also, if you don't mind me observing, liberals have a way to demogogue this issue. Imagine, for example, that their nightmare were to happen and Roe v. Wade and progeny were to be overruled. That wouldn't outlaw abortion. All it would do would be to restore the issue to the states and to the democratic process where it could be decided according to majoritarian principles, not tortured legal ones.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I don't really see how anybody could be undecided, if they follow what's going on, ....

People makes jokes that the candidates are very similar, but they're not. Far from. It just comes down as to what you want done with respect to the issues that matter to you.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
People makes jokes that the candidates are very similar, but they're not. Far from. It just comes down as to what you want done with respect to the issues that matter to you.

It's not because I think that they're similar that I'm on the fence.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Supreme Court justices can be impeached. They can also be forced out by pressure, as happened to Justice Fortas.

Good.

Why is it that every liberal seems to think that their interpretation of the Constitution is "the Constitution" and that any other interpretation is disagreeing with the Constitution? Constitutional law is much, much, more debatable than that. We can agree on certain precepts, but liberal positions on debatable issues of interpretation are not Holy Writ. How do you think we arrived at these interpretations? It's by judges disagreeing wth earlier interpretations. That process isn't your monopoly.

The only concern I voiced in here was the separation of church and state. My only regret is that it wasn't made more explicit in the Constitution.

Also, if you don't mind me observing, liberals have a way to demogogue this issue.

Oh, please, who do you think coined the term "activist judges"? It isn't just the left playing demagogue on this, or any other issue you care to bring up, Simey. Hell, the right invented demagoguery, your just mad cause the lefties stole it.

BG

[voodoo]

This is the least interesting part of US politics. Endless mudslinging between pawns who have nothing to add. No thoughts, no points and no vision. Boooooooring! ZZzzzzzz



(this is not meant personally to any posters in this thread, but rather an outsider's criticism of discussions like this thread)

[zigzag]

I happen to agree with stradlater that the make-up of the Supreme Court deserves our attention in anticipation of the election. It's true that judges sometimes deviate from expectations, but one still has to consider the odds. I don't particularly like the odds with Bush as compared to Kerry - I prefer moderate judges, and I think Kerry is more likely to appoint them.

Judges are constrained by the rule of law, but IMO there's no question that politics and personal values play an important role in the decision-making process. That's why we need nine of them (and why FDR wanted to make it eleven - or was it thirteen?).

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You're kidding, of course-

The Bush administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and has spent and will spend a total of $15 BILLION USD over the next five years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030709-35.html

You see, it's called keeping one's word and doing the humanitarian thing, and then not using it for political gain when running for re-election. It's called 'letting actions speak for themselves, rather than trumpeting them from the campaign stop.'

Well, sorta kinda...

These events are set in motion by the law Congress passed that authorized the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief�the $15 billion, 5-year program that targets assistance to 15 nations most severely stricken by the epidemic. The law divides overall U.S. contributions into two categories: fighting the world epidemic between bilateral assistance programs and donations to the Global Fund.

The Geneva-based institution was just being formed at the time of the congressional debate; lawmakers had no way to know how it would take shape and how much international backing it might receive. So Congress built into the law what Dybul calls a "challenge grant." The law designates an amount for the U.S. contribution on an annual basis, but it also declares that U.S. donations cannot exceed 33 percent of the total Global Fund budget. The intent was to nudge the rest of the world to offer up the other 67 percent of the granting institution's bankroll.

"The U.S. government should not be solving [the world's AIDS crisis] on our own," Dybul explained in a Washington File interview August 19. "Congress was very clear."

The Global AIDS Coordinator's Office began operations in late 2003, so this year marks the first time that Ambassador Randall L. Tobias has had to do what the law requires him to. He had to check the bank balance at the Global Fund on July 31 and determine how much money was there and how much had come from the United States.

It turns out that if Tobias were to write a check for the entire U.S. donation that Congress authorized in 2004, the amount would exceed that 33 percent ceiling. U.S. support hits that ceiling at $426 million, even though Congress approved a U.S. grant to the Global Fund of $547 million for 2004.

So Tobias has $121 million that he can't give the Global Fund contributions increase by another $240 million. He could shift it into some of the many other disease-fighting programs the United States is backing in more than 100 nations around the world. Before he does that, however, he decided to take the leverage approach.

I'm just pointing out that we're NOT writing a check for $3 Billion every year for 5 years.
(emphasis mine)

[Mr. Bob]

There are some things that Bush is pushing for that I like, some that I really do not.

For example, I really do think we need a constitutional amendment that gives rights to life starting at conception. More and more Americans are against abortion now then ever, because science is finding more about children that live in the womb. If we wish to be a nation that truly respects life, and civil liberties, we need to do so for all of our citizens, not just 75% of them. The only thing Americans will have to do is behave with extra responsibility, nothing more. Placing �requirements� for deserving the title �person� is an absolute wrong, and is the single most reason why mankind never seems to get along. Having judges in the Supreme Court that respect life, is an important step, just as important when we removed bigot judges from the Supreme Court many years ago who endorsed slavery. After all, The Declaration of Independence even says that everyone should be given the right of life, by their creator. Creation does begin at conception.

However, I honestly believe, that marriage should not be placed in the constitution anywhere. Marriage is personal belief, and does not affect the living body of another person, nor their independent civil liberties. Marriage, is not guaranteed in either the constitution, or The Declaration of Independence, therefore it is not something that the government should be forced to provide, or deny. Our government gives rights to individuals, not to couples. I say, let the people decide. If people want to get married, sure, if not, sure. But, nothing should be placed in the constitution allowing or disallowing marriage, in any way. That is not what the Constitution is for.

For Defense, being in the military, I can tell you Bush helps a lot. Clinton did a good job starving the military for years, Bush is changing that. Current day Democrats are usually ones that take the political route with foreign affairs, even when people are dying. Bush says we are going to kill the baddies, and that is that. I would say, for the current position America is in, resolve is necessary, Bush has it, Kerry does not.

Also, the Patriot act is something that needs to be returned to the drawing board. There are things that need to be incorporated, but something�s that really need to be either revised, or plainly omitted. But, Kerry supports the Patriot Act, so it�s lose lose situation.

There are many things to consider this election. I really dislike some of Bush�s ideas, but for me, really dislike more of Kerry�s. The two main things for me are abortion (which is just as bad, if not worse, then slavery, and the majority of Americans despise), and the war, because like or not, we have one and we really have to win.

I was also swinging both ways, until Kerry made his points clear on the war, and when he stated he will only elect pro-choice judges to the court. When over 70% of people in the USA say partial birth abortion is wrong (http://wwwc.house.gov/everett/news/c...col_061603.asp), and should be stopped, and you flip them off, it only shows you do not care about the will of the people, and about basic human rights.

It really comes down to those absolute issues. Economics can swing both ways, education can swing both ways, nado nado. Many things both parties can do just as well, just differently. There are a lot of things I really like about the Democrats, and many things that I really dislike about the Republicans. But, for now, Abortion and the war, are the two most important things for me. The other things, I am keeping an eye on, and are important. But, ensuring the security of the American people (and I mean all of them) are my priorities this election.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
No, I'm suggesting that George W. will heavily consider the religious attitudes of the justices he would appoint.

Appointments don't mean a thang if they ain't got that Senate swang.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
More and more Americans are against abortion now then ever

What's the basis for this claim? Just wondering, because I hear abortion proponents claim the exact opposite.

I like the rest of your post, thanks for sharing your opinion. I agree with you regarding the military, his plans there and for space exploration are two Bush policies that I like, but they might be the only ones. To me this election comes down to trust (re Iraq), the WoT, healthcare, and environmental policy. No matter how many times people want to call Kerry a liar for his Vietnam claims, I can't in good conscience re-elect a president who misled the country into an unnecessary war in Iraq. I think Kerry does have the resolve to finish the job in Iraq. I also think Bush is pursuing the WoT the wrong way, especially in regards to his weak record improving domestic security. I agree with you that economic policy is basically a draw.

Beyond these concrete issues, I'd say that in general I haven't liked some of the directions in which this country has been heading the past four years. Under Bush I see a lot of fear amongst Americans... One example I see a lot, since I'm an avid photography fan, is the added scrutiny to which photographers have been subjected. Ordinary people taking photos of public areas are subjected to interrogations by police and the FBI. It's not an everyday occurrence, but it's happened enough that many photographers are starting to take notice. The Bush administration has to take responsibility for creating this environment of fear and suspicion, IMO. It didn't have to be this way after 9/11.

[Spoogepieces]

If Americans are living in fear then it's because they choose to live that way. I haven't let 9-11 stop me from going about my normal routines. I even boarded a plane a week later and travelled overseas without thinking any differently than I had before the WTC bombings.

I've had no problems taking photos in places where one would expect more security or scrutiny.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
If Americans are living in fear then it's because they choose to live that way. I haven't let 9-11 stop me from going about my normal routines. I even boarded a plane a week later and travelled overseas without thinking any differently than I had before the WTC bombings.

I don't live in fear, but traveling via plane certainly sucks since 9/11.
LET ME HAVE MY FUCKING SWISS ARMY KNIFE!!!

Oh, and NO, I'm NOT taking off my shoes.

[Spoogepieces]

I honestly haven't noticed a difference and I go on an international flight every month. The lines are no longer now than they were prior to 9-11 at this point. What's different now? I really can't notice anything different now versus pre-9/11 other than my luggage having a "your luggage has been randomly searched" pamphlet thrown in once in awhile.

[Randman]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
[BMeanwhile I'm getting calls from some guy in Asia working for a cellphone company. He tells me T-Mobile has a special offer and asks for my credit card details. Says his name is James. I ask him what his mother tongue is. He tells me. Then I curse him in his own language.

Economic imperialism means Iraqi jobs go to foreigners, which makes Iraqis helpless and angry, especially since it's their resources being taken away. American and European jobs are also going to foreigners who should reject them and create their own industries. But no, economic imperialism means they must buy our products and work for cheap.

Vote for a change. Kerry doesn't want jobs outsourced as much as Bush. [/B]

That's a very silly and limited viewpoint. What about the Americans working abroad? They're taking jobs away from locals. What about American products? Europe and Asia buys plenty of American stuff.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I honestly haven't noticed a difference and I go on an international flight every month. The lines are no longer now than they were prior to 9-11 at this point. What's different now? I really can't notice anything different now versus pre-9/11 other than my luggage having a "your luggage has been randomly searched" pamphlet thrown in once in awhile.

To say "I really can't notice anything different" is just completely and utterly absurd. How many times before 9/11 were you asked to "step over here" or to "take off your shoes".

Give me a break. I think you're trolling.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Really, though, the next four years don't bother me. I can withstand another Bush term. The real issue, however, is the longer-term. Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly don't think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social freedoms for decades to come.

They have made pretty clear they don't plant to retire until he's out. O'connor made that exceptionally clear. She's really the one Bush has been pleading to leave. The other older ones are mostly conservative. The few moderates are in good health. She's the swing voter. He wants her spot.

She looks very willing to wait 4 years if she has to. But if Kerry wins, I wouldn't be suprised if she leaves within 6 months.

Originally posted by dcolton:

Some VERY important military decisions, that will define how the US military operates, will be made during the next Presidnecy. Bush and Kerry have two completely different visions.

My opinion, if you want a military prepared to defend this nation, vote for bush. If you want a military prepared to fight for the UN and provide humanitarian aid, vote for Kerry. I am over generalizing, but there is a lot at stake when it comes to the military.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130541,00.html

Bush is looking at Iran as a next target. Bush is of the opinion our military is far from over extended in two theatres (despite the pentagon being pretty open about our effective limits approaching).

Iran is part of his 4 year plan. He's made that pretty clear.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Bush is looking at Iran as a next target. Bush is of the opinion our military is far from over extended in two theatres (despite the pentagon being pretty open about our effective limits approaching).

Iran is part of his 4 year plan. He's made that pretty clear.

Iran? Show me! And you are completely wrong, (once again) about Bush's vision of the military. Kerry's answer is to throw more manpower into the system so we can better serve the UN while Bush's answer is to reorganize the military and focus more on combat roles while farming out non-combat roles. The military's job isn't to distribute food...it is to fight wars. And under the leadership of Bush, our military will be prepared to defend ourselves more effectively at home and abroad.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Iran? Show me! And you are completely wrong, (once again) about Bush's vision of the military. Kerry's answer is to throw more manpower into the system so we can better serve the UN while Bush's answer is to reorganize the military and focus more on combat roles while farming out non-combat roles. The military's job isn't to distribute food...it is to fight wars. And under the leadership of Bush, our military will be prepared to defend ourselves more effectively at home and abroad.

To think Kerry wants to practically give it all up to the UN scares me. He is such a UN shill it's not funny.

I can't believe ANYONE in their right mind thinks this is what is best for our country.

[vmarks]

What's really fearsome is that Kerry wants to give Iran nuclear fuel.

As if he believes they'll not turn that into nuclear weapon material.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What's really fearsome is that Kerry wants to give Iran nuclear fuel.

As if he believes they'll not turn that into nuclear weapon material.

He will just make a deal like Clinton did with NK. IT WILL WORK!

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
To say "I really can't notice anything different" is just completely and utterly absurd. How many times before 9/11 were you asked to "step over here" or to "take off your shoes".

Give me a break. I think you're trolling.

How many times after 9-11 have I had to do that? One time.

Maybe it's because I travel through international terminals. I have no idea.

The only time I faced inconvenience was in the trip right after 9-11 when so many people were cowering and crawling along in fear.

[Randman]

I'm still undecided but leaning toward Bush. I still haven't heard much compelling about Kerry save that he's not Bush/ That might be good enough for some, but I'd stick with the devil you know.

[typoon]

I am going to vote for Bush but for a time I didn't know if I would or not. Or even if I would just sit this election out. After watching many of the speeches from the convention It has made me want to vote for Bush. Listening to Arnold, Giuliani and the First lady speak really helped me make up my mind to vote for Bush for sure in the election.

When you compare the message that you hear from both parties the Repbulicans sound MUCH more positive about things.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Iran? Show me! And you are completely wrong, (once again) about Bush's vision of the military. Kerry's answer is to throw more manpower into the system so we can better serve the UN while Bush's answer is to reorganize the military and focus more on combat roles while farming out non-combat roles. The military's job isn't to distribute food...it is to fight wars. And under the leadership of Bush, our military will be prepared to defend ourselves more effectively at home and abroad.

Every terrorism speach in the past 3 months has mentioned his willingness to invade Iran.

We've also got military recruiters told to be prepaired for reassignment in June 05... 'coincidentally' when Bush requested the SSS be ready for a draft, 'should a need arise'.

We've also got military families told to be prepaired for spring re-deployment. Again, coincidence.


Quite a few signs all in place. Can't ignore them all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Randman:
I'm still undecided but leaning toward Bush. I still haven't heard much compelling about Kerry save that he's not Bush/ That might be good enough for some, but I'd stick with the devil you know.

Oh that was the OLD Kerry. The NEW Kerry is all about Bush.

Don't you know Kerry is a conservative? He is! Just ask him. He is for the war again now BTW.

If Bush's ratings ever go down you might see another version of Kerry come out.

I think the guy has a multiple personality disorder. He doesn't know WHO he is. And sadly, either does the American public.

[boots]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Every terrorism speach in the past 3 months has mentioned his willingness to invade Iran.

We've also got military recruiters told to be prepaired for reassignment in June 05... 'coincidentally' when Bush requested the SSS be ready for a draft, 'should a need arise'.

We've also got military families told to be prepaired for spring re-deployment. Again, coincidence.


Quite a few signs all in place. Can't ignore them all.

Part of me is sad, part of me is hopeful, but I am reading the signs the same way you are. I was just unsure for a while if it would be syria or iran. I think it's pretty clear now.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Every terrorism speach in the past 3 months has mentioned his willingness to invade Iran.

We've also got military recruiters told to be prepaired for reassignment in June 05... 'coincidentally' when Bush requested the SSS be ready for a draft, 'should a need arise'.

We've also got military families told to be prepaired for spring re-deployment. Again, coincidence.


Quite a few signs all in place. Can't ignore them all.

Show me. A link? Source for your info? Something, anything besides your opinion!

I am most interested in your June 5 date, Bush telling the selective service to be ready for a draft and military families told to be prepared for redeployment.

[boots]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Show me. A link? Source for your info? Something, anything besides your opinion!

I am most interested in your June 5 date, Bush telling the selective service to be ready for a draft and military families told to be prepared for redeployment.

Do a google search. You'll have to wade through some partisan/fanatic drivel, but the facts you extract seem to be consistent: There is a big push to get all of the 8000 some local SS board vacancies filled by spring 2005.

There are currently bills in both the house and the senate to reinstate the draft. They are in committee at the moment.

Those are some of the facts.

Liberal spin: The push is a sign of something going on. Look at the troop numbers and who is "planning" on renewing their service.

Conservative spin: This is part of the normal cycle. Board appointments are up to 20 year appointments, so we are just at that time. And it makes sense to have legislation in the system already should something come up. It's called strategic planning.

Take it how you will. I can also say that a number of families in our state have been notified of activation for late spring 2005. Nominally, they have been told they will rotate into Iraq. Spin it like you will, but that is the status as I have been able to find. Obviously, if the administration were planning to institute a draft, they wouldn't announce it before the election. So you won't find a "smoking gun." Given the rumblings about Iran, I fully expect something to happen. Maybe not a draft and an all out war, but something is going to happen. It has to.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by boots:
Do a google search. You'll have to wade through some partisan/fanatic drivel, but the facts you extract seem to be consistent: There is a big push to get all of the 8000 some local SS board vacancies filled by spring 2005.

There are currently bills in both the house and the senate to reinstate the draft. They are in committee at the moment.

They are not bills to reinstate the draft. They are bills to keep the Selective Service alive and to make changes to how it works. Bush could order a draft tomorrow if he wanted. Here is some info:

For more than 50 years, Selective Service and the registration requirement for America's young men have served as a backup system to provide manpower to the U.S. Armed Forces.

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 which created the country's first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent Federal agency.

From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis.

The obligation of a man to register is imposed by the Military Selective Service Act. The Act establishes and governs the operations of the Selective Service System.

Here is a link to learn more: http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

The myth that Bush is going to reinstate the draft is a farce. It is an act by unethical and desperate democrats to lie to their constituates.

Or here is more info:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Take it how you will. I can also say that a number of families in our state have been notified of activation for late spring 2005.

Activation for what? Are you implying the draft?

[boots]

Originally posted by dcolton:

Activation for what? Are you implying the draft?

No, not draft activation. Activation for active service. (NG troops) As I posted, I don't know about a draft (though I kinda doubt it). Just offering observation on the timing.

As for the bills:

S.89
Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC]

Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.

Read the text. It isn't a simple SS update bill. Both of then require 3 years of service (though they both have a "national service" component).

[itai195]

boots, they're both sponsored by Democrats. And besides that, Fritz Hollings is an idiot IMO

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
For example, I really do think we need a constitutional amendment that gives rights to life starting at conception. More and more Americans are against abortion now then ever, because science is finding more about children that live in the womb.

With all due respect to your position, the reason more Americans favor banning abortion than in previous years has less to do with science, and more to do with Americans becoming more religious. I've worked in biology for over 25 years, and have yet to come across a scientist who's feelings on this issue have changed because of scientific discoveries.

[Zimphire]

voy that is because Science can't tell us when life TRUELY begins. We don't know. And until we DO, we shouldn't be doing ANY of it.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
voy that is because Science can't tell us when life TRUELY begins. We don't know. And until we DO, we shouldn't be doing ANY of it.

Yes, well, I think it hinges more on what one's definition of life is, and that seems to be a question that is as much in the realm of philosophy and religion as science.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by voyageur:
With all due respect to your position, the reason more Americans favor banning abortion than in previous years has less to do with science, and more to do with Americans becoming more religious. I've worked in biology for over 25 years, and have yet to come across a scientist who's feelings on this issue have changed because of scientific discoveries.

I take it you don't live in the states. More Americans aren't becoming religious. For a period of 3 or 4 months after 9/11, yes. Now...no. Just turn on a tv. Sex and violence everywhere.

We are far from becoming more religious.

Athiests are trying to hijack the constitution and defile history by attacking the name of god. Gays are destroying the institution of Marriage and forcing their lifestyle on the American public. We have an ex-president who took advantage of teeny bopper interns and convinced liberal America that oral sex was not sex. The list goes on and on.