Help your 11 year old dodge the draft!
-
I'm still just wondering why some people seem to have NO worries whatsoever about the Government forcing people to do something. You can cite all the programs/sources you want about this or that already being mandated, but it only proves one thing...if they get away with it here they'll sure as shit try and successfully get away with it in other places too then.
Give em a couple years and your days will be filled doing shit mandated by the government. Thank God for freedom...
-
tjamz;246008 wrote:
So...to sum up your post...teaching morale values lowers morale values? I guess I need to stop going to church if that is the case.I think you are confusing "teaching morale values" with "forcing community service". To use your analogy, are you being forced by the government to go to church?
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Why are people "forced" to attend school? (whether that be home school, private or public, it is still a requirement)
Aside from it being another mandate, I don't see the problem with having teenagers doing more in their communities. I guess my primary argument is that if they are involved in the community and see what their neighbors, businesses, etc.. are like it might just improve the neighborhood. I don't necessarily like that it is mandated, but if it goes through I see more good than harm coming from it. This of course is opinion as is the argument against it.
Just a thought, what if it was an elective class (community service) rather than a required class...but every school was required to offer it as an elective? Could we find some common ground there? Then there would be no requirements for it, but it would allow those who want to participate a program in which they could potentially make a difference.
I know I can't change anyone's mind on this whole topic, and frankly I don't want to. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine..odds are we'll never agree on it, and odds are also that it won't pass 100% as proposed. Instead of writing on a message board, why not call your senators & congressmen and let them know what you think of it? Arguing with me is pointless, arguing with them (and if you can get enough people to do it with you) may make a difference.
As for me, I often times like to argue just for the sake of arguing. MANY of the people on here that know me know that I'm much more centrist than liberal, in fact <u>I think if you were to ask Parker and CMK they'd tell you I'm probably more conservative than liberal.</u> I've voted Democrat 2 times in 4 presidential elections....mostly because I didn't like the republican candidates.
All I ask is that you reserve judgment until he has at least signed a law or two into the books. Like him or not, he is the President of the United States of America as elected by the majority of the voters in this country. In 4 years America decides if they like the way the country is run by either re-electing him or electing someone else. If you can't live with those terms, there are plenty of other countries out there that you can choose to live in.
-
I'd say offering it as an option where people could do it in return for their $4000 tax credit is much better...mandating that all have to do it is bullshit.
-
you make it sound like the feds will ship kids off to some slave labor camp.
when i was in junior high our class had to go work at the dorothy day house in mhd helping the coats for kids drive and then had to write a paper about the experience. it was for a grad standard. oh no, its already started.
my parents were so mad that i was subjected to forced child labor they wrote a letter to their congressmen. here thrash, this is me hitting the sarcasm button, just so we are all clear.
kids are forced to run the mile in phys ed. they are forced to complete grad standards in minn. they are forced to walk up and down three flights of stairs between classes. if it eliminates child obesity, a problem that you and I will be paying for since this monster of a president wants to make healthcare available for everyone, im aboard.
-
So you'd also be aboard for the government forcing fast food chains to close because they offer no real healthy nutritional value to people right? And you'd also support the strict limitations that should be placed on manufacturers of candy and other foods deemed "unnecessary" for daily living...
You see where this is going, and don't tell me that's stupid or far fetched because it's something that would help America and that's exactly what you want, right?
If the government wants people to do something, instead of forcing them, they should reward those who choose to and leave those who don't right where they are currently. Otherwise it's just one more law giving the government a tiny bit more control over something they really don't have any reason or right to control.
-
yea, no fast food
no cars because it promotes obesity, ride a bike
no xbox or tv because it promotes sedentary lifestyle along with a toaster and a microwave and computers and candy and internet and trains and planes and monster trucks cause they polute and eggs cause nobody can decide if they are good or bador, kids can stack canned goods at the pantry for an hour on tuesdays. your right, your idea is way more rational.
-
zbrown;246038 wrote:
Ok, ObamaYes, I voted for Obama. I voted republican for all but one other race. I donated money to the Ron Paul campaign (the only conservative that was running that I actually liked and who made sense).
I hunt & fish, eat red meat, am predominantly anti-abortion as a form of birth control and want my taxes lowered. I attend a Lutheran church, though I was raised Catholic. I would prefer that everyone work for what they get out of life, but also realize that sometimes bad things happen to good people so safety nets are necessary in the short term...I also realize this is abused by some people thereby ruining it for everyone that might actually need it, so there needs to be more oversight.
As I see it, the only major issue I have with the democratic party and the changes they have actually proposed this time around is the anti-abortion issue. That is something that they will need to sort out with the man above. The only major issue w/ the republican party is the social programs designed to help people in need...though the republicans mostly seem to talk a big game on this and not actually follow through with changing any of it. They had absolute power for 6 years, I don't think they even introduced legislation to change welfare.
-
Quickly off the top of my head...Chuck you have no problem with the Democratic party/Obama's plan to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban? The fact that he wanted ALL handguns banned? That he wants more guns added to the newer ban?
24valvenotak;246049 wrote:
yea, no fast food
no cars because it promotes obesity, ride a bike
no xbox or tv because it promotes sedentary lifestyle along with a toaster and a microwave and computers and candy and internet and trains and planes and monster trucks cause they polute and eggs cause nobody can decide if they are good or badExactly, now you're thinking rationally
-
Crazy stuff right here..
Kind of takes the term "Volunteer Work" out of it all. Doing this, would making job interviews, college applications not look so good when you put helping out your community & not able to put how you volunteered here/there.
I think if it were to be 'FORCED' to be done, it should be also given credit to the students.
So if your a college student and have to do a 100 hours -- you should get credit. If it's required.. Otherwise, people will find the lazy loop-hole-ish way of getting it done. Some people (college students especially) already live 'busy' lives.. It also wouldn't be so bad IF all students school/college were grand-fathered in and it would take effect years down the road.
-
StangerBanger96;246056 wrote:
Quickly off the top of my head...Chuck you have no problem with the Democratic party/Obama's plan to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban? The fact that he wanted ALL handguns banned? That he wants more guns added to the newer ban?Exactly, now you're thinking rationally
And with a democratic majority this will get passed a hell of a lot easier than most ppl prob think... Stock up now while u can...
"This year will go down in history, for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration, our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future" - Adolph Hitler - 1935
Looks to me like gun control was a great idea... ask the jews how that one went...
-
24valvenotak;246049 wrote:
yea, no fast food
no cars because it promotes obesity, ride a bike
no xbox or tv because it promotes sedentary lifestyle along with a toaster and a microwave and computers and candy and internet and trains and planes and monster trucks cause they polute and eggs cause nobody can decide if they are good or bador, kids can stack canned goods at the pantry for an hour on tuesdays. your right, your idea is way more rational.
ha....if my kids are old enought to be forced to work.... they are going to be working for me... not for someone else for free... if it is passed... there will be loopholes.. and i will use them.
-
StangerBanger96;246056 wrote:
Quickly off the top of my head...Chuck you have no problem with the Democratic party/Obama's plan to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban? The fact that he wanted ALL handguns banned? That he wants more guns added to the newer ban?I will have to see the ban that actually get presented vs the what was said on the campaign trail. For the most part, I am against an AWB ban, but in all honesty, I don't see it making it out of the house & senate...especially not without a super majority and not in hunting states (read: ND, MN, SD, etc..) it will get filibustered and watered down...does it make it right? I dunno, pure speculation there and I will reserve judgment until that time....I will say this, the last AWB ban didn't stop me from buying "assault weapons"...made them harder to come by for sure, but didn't outright stop it from happening.
CNN news via a post by 02AccordEXV6 wrote:
. Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: Despite his past endorsements of some gun control measures, Obama's reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional right of individuals to own handguns mirrors the administration's. Obama now says: <u>"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."</u>Here is how he has voted/spoken on this issue:
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
If the first AWB ban went back in, I'd be ok with it (would prefer it didn't...but I could live with it)...if it is expanded to more weapons like has been suggested, well, he probably wouldn't get my vote in 2012.
-
Back to the original reason of this thread. Im torn on my feelings on this. On one hand, I think it is good for our youth to learn responsibility to do something for their community and or country. I also think that being forced or mandated to do it is not freedom at all. What I want to know is... How is this going to be policed and what is the punishment for non compliance? Who's ultimately liable if the child does not comply? Someone tell me this.
-
PSiedTSi;246063 wrote:
WOW Bubba I'm impressed! That was ACTUALLY a great post lol...I can actually put a good 2 cents in if I really want... i'm usually too lazy... This has to be one of my most favorite quotes, because it helps prove a point. That being that without the second amendment, and having armed citizens, there is no real stopping of the government from taking away the rest of our rights as citizens. One of the best ways to keep a government in check, and to follow the true wants of it's citizens, is the fact that there's a chance if they wrong them they can rebel against that government. If the colonists wouldnt have had guns, i'm pretty sure we'd still be just another territory of Great Britain.
-
tjamz;246074 wrote:
I will have to see the ban that actually get presented vs the what was said on the campaign trail. For the most part, I am against an AWB ban, but in all honesty, I don't see it making it out of the house & senate...especially not without a super majority and not in hunting states (read: ND, MN, SD, etc..) it will get filibustered and watered down...does it make it right? I dunno, pure speculation there and I will reserve judgment until that time....I will say this, the last AWB ban didn't stop me from buying "assault weapons"...made them harder to come by for sure, but didn't outright stop it from happening.Here is how he has voted/spoken on this issue:
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
If the first AWB ban went back in, I'd be ok with it (would prefer it didn't...but I could live with it)...if it is expanded to more weapons like has been suggested, well, he probably wouldn't get my vote in 2012.
Obama has been a VERY large anti gun proponent and said that Bush not re-signing into law the AWB was a scandal...
Would you believe the Brady campaign if they were to suddenly say they were pro gun? I highly doubt you or any other person with an IQ above 50 would...so why believe someone whose history shows they are anti gun when they say "oh I believe it's everyones right"? He HATES concealed carry, HATES "assault weapons", HATES guns in general. His words can't mask his voting and attempted legislation record.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login