Mandatory Military Service

[Jpsmith1]

What about all of the permanent positions to supervise and support the conscripts?

Shhh shhh shhhhhhhhshshshshshsh.

Nobody cares about details like this.

Making them damn kids do a thing will make THEM feel better and to hell with any real benefit to the kids or the country.

 

[307]

Making them damn kids do a thing will make THEM feel better and to hell with any real benefit to the kids or the country.

The entire point is to benefit the country. A more interested, involved, educated, and experienced population voting with a greater sense of "skin in the game" is the actual point.

Or, we can let anyone able to fog a mirror an equal vote in determining the direction in the (currently) most powerful nation on Earth... That's going really well...

I know nothing will actually change. We'll fly this thing straight into the ground in the not so distant future.

 

[KenLee]

You're confusing the author with the director of the movie.

You didn't read the book sir. FWIW you should, its a great book.

Same here, brother, but I'd go the complete inverse. I firmly believe the bottom 15% of every bootcamp class should be sent home and there should be some limited avenue to quit during your first enlistment. I took every opportunity I got to rebel under the Orwellian control they had over us. I was at my best when quitting was on the table.

Iran has been months away from the bomb for decades.

15 years ago, I'd would have been in full favor of bombing them to the stone age. Today, I honestly could care less if they got the bomb, it's no threat to my children. I'll be damned if my sons die for the most toxic relationship on the planet.

My opinion: Service equals Citizenship.

Lebanon is the gift that keeps on giving to defense contractors and career Republicans politicians.

 

[KenLee]

What historical strategic benefits are there?

Lebanon

College is expensive. So are houses.

College $ is insane because they are now big business vs. a place of education in 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

 

[Jpsmith1]

The entire point is to benefit the country. A more interested, involved, educated, and experienced population voting with a greater sense of "skin in the game" is the actual point.

Or, we can let anyone able to fog a mirror an equal vote in determining the direction in the (currently) most powerful nation on Earth... That's going really well...

I know nothing will actually change. We'll fly this thing straight into the ground in the not so distant future.

So, military service "buys" one "skin in the game" but a guy like me who had major back surgery at 15 and who was turned down by every recruiter i spoke to can pound sand?

Two levels of citizenship is a bad idea.

 

[ThorM465]

So, military service "buys" one "skin in the game" but a guy like me who had major back surgery at 15 and who was turned down by every recruiter i spoke to can pound sand?

Two levels of citizenship is a bad idea.

Life ain’t always fair. The part you’re missing is that while you would lose your vote, you, your children, and your grandchildren would all live in a better, stronger America. Would that not be worth it?

 

[307]

So, military service "buys" one "skin in the game" but a guy like me who had major back surgery at 15 and who was turned down by every recruiter i spoke to can pound sand?

Two levels of citizenship is a bad idea.

Yes, a person who signed their name on the line and served in the US Military has more "skin in the game" than those who did not. It's not the only category of people who might deserve to have a louder voice in determining the future, but it's certainly one of them.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Life ain’t always fair. The part you’re missing is that while you would lose your vote, you, your children, and your grandchildren would all live in a better, stronger America. Would that not be worth it?

A "better, stronger America" by what metric?

Got any evidence or just "vibes"?

Living in a country with a dual standard for citizenship sounds less and less like a place I would want to live.

Hard pass.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Yes, a person who signed their name on the line and served in the US Military has more "skin in the game" than those who did not. It's not the only category of people who might deserve to have a louder voice in determining the future, but it's certainly one of them.

That's an opinion and you're welcome to it.

I prefer a pluraliatic society where everyone has an equal input and some people don't think they're better than others or should have a "louder" voice than others.

You did a job. I have opinions on how we should support veterans, as a society and we can talk about them.

Making veterans "more equal" is not one of them.

You did a job. Yes, this is controversial, but you volunteered to do a job. You did it. You got paid for it. You're not better than anyone for having done it.

 

[307]

That's an opinion and you're welcome to it.

I prefer a pluraliatic society where everyone has an equal input and some people don't think they're better than others or should have a "louder" voice than others.

You did a job. I have opinions on how we should support veterans, as a society and we can talk about them.

Making veterans "more equal" is not one of them.

You did a job. Yes, this is controversial, but you volunteered to do a job. You did it. You got paid for it. You're not better than anyone for having done it.

You're making false assumptions.

We sure as hell don't all contribute to society equally so I"m not sure why we'd all have equal say.

 

[Jpsmith1]

You're making false assumptions.

We sure as hell don't all contribute to society equally so I"m not sure why we'd all have equal say.

What happened to those immortal words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal"

Or are some men more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell?

 

[307]

What happened to those immortal words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal"

Or are some men more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell?

Created, sure, but we damn sure don't stay that way. A good portion of this nations citizens are freeloaders with a room temp IQ and minimal ethical standards.

The same document you're quoting was installed into a government where only a very small % of the population was allowed to vote. No need to return to the extreme of only white male landowners voting, but obviously the "mob rule" of the current system is failing miserably. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground...

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That's an opinion and you're welcome to it.

I prefer a pluraliatic society where everyone has an equal input and some people don't think they're better than others or should have a "louder" voice than others.

You did a job. I have opinions on how we should support veterans, as a society and we can talk about them.

Making veterans "more equal" is not one of them.

You did a job. Yes, this is controversial, but you volunteered to do a job. You did it. You got paid for it. You're not better than anyone for having done it.

As someone who did that job, I agree completely.

The principle of “one man, one vote” and the equality of individuals before the law, which the Greeks called isonomia, is a foundational part of our republic.

I’m really sick of the “some animals are more equal than others” mentality. It’s pernicious and I think it’s only put forward by those who think they are superior. But if they didn’t count themselves in the superior class, they’d howl like demons at the concept.

 

[307]

The principle of “one man, one vote” and the equality of individuals before the law, which the Greeks called isonomia, is a foundational part of our republic.

Then why didn't our founding fathers include this in the founding documents?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Created, sure, but we damn sure don't stay that way. A good portion of this nations citizens are freeloaders with a room temp IQ and minimal ethical standards.

The same document you're quoting was installed into a government where only a very small % of the population was allowed to vote. No need to return to the extreme of only white male landowners voting, but obviously the "mob rule" of the current system is failing miserably. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground...

I’m sorry, friend. This is the world we made in 1776. A world where some rube with shit on his boots and a fifth grade understanding of the world has the same vote as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison. That was obvious to everyone paying attention by 1790, at the latest.

Our country hasn’t always lived up to the lofty promises in the Declaration, but it is always our touchstone and moral compass. Whenever we have deviated from its principles, it has turned out poorly for us.

If you don’t like people being ignorant, then get out there and lead them.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Then why didn't our founding fathers include this in the founding documents?

It’s there in the Constitution and the first fifteen amendments. It’s in the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, congressional debates, court opinions, etc. The principles were so obvious that people didn’t initially write them down.

 

[307]

It’s there in the Constitution and the first fifteen amendments. It’s in the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, congressional debates, court opinions, etc. The principles were so obvious that people didn’t initially write them down.

Can you show me in the Constitution where each individual is granted the right to vote? Keeping in mind that simply was not how the government of the US functioned for at least the first 100+ years.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’m not going to give you a lesson in Constitutional law. You can read the sources I cited, or not.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Created, sure, but we damn sure don't stay that way. A good portion of this nations citizens are freeloaders with a room temp IQ and minimal ethical standards.

The same document you're quoting was installed into a government where only a very small % of the population was allowed to vote. No need to return to the extreme of only white male landowners voting, but obviously the "mob rule" of the current system is failing miserably. Surely there is a reasonable middle ground...

Yet less than 50% of eligible voters engage in this purported "mob rule"

 

[average]

Yet less than 50% of eligible voters engage in this purported "mob rule"

That's one of the things that really pushes me away from "we need to restrict voting because x" or "only people who do x,y, and z should be allowed to vote. Midterm elections a majority of voters don't even vote. Limiting the rights of fellow Americans isn't gonna fix that we keep elect representation that doesn't have any interest in helping average Americans