PDA

View Full Version : Draft bill to be debated on 6/6


D_Raay
06-05-2006, 03:10 PM
Mandatory Draft Bill
Snuck In - To Be

Debated 6-6-6
6-4-6
On February 14, 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel (Democrat - NY) introduced a bill (Universal National Service Act of 2006 - HR 4752 IH) aiming at drafting everyone - men and women alike - from the ages of 18 to 42 into the military for a minimum period of 2 years.
Or to quote the bill: "To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to 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."
The House is to convene on June 6 (06/06/06] to debate and possibly adopt this bill, that is, unless a vast public outcry succeeds in derailing this insanity, which you can do by writing a letter of protest to your congress person through
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm or http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
Phone calls are even better. The numbers of all US Representatives are at:
http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.html
If you question the validity of this bill, go to:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752


Subject: Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

This was introduced by Rep. Rangel, so I assume it is to spread the
burden or to get attention from the group that is not vulnerable to an
economic draft. I received the message tonight and have not looked at
the Web page.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:
>
> Universal National Service Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
> HR 4752 IH
>
> 109th CONGRESS
> 2d Session
> H. R. 4752
>
> To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in
> the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and
> 42 to 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.
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>
> February 14, 2006
>
> Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred
> to the Committee on Armed Services
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A BILL
>
> To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in
> the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and
> 42 to 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.
>
>
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
> United States of America in Congress assembled,
>

DroppinScience
06-05-2006, 03:14 PM
Hasn't Rangel been doing this for a bunch of years now and it's been shot down repeatedly?

fucktopgirl
06-05-2006, 04:16 PM
that is sick!Happy to be in canada!

ericlee
06-05-2006, 05:34 PM
18-42?

Here's the maximum age requirements if you want to join the military:

* Army - 34
* Air Force - 27
* Navy - 34
* Marines - 28
* Coast Guard - 27

So if they put the draft in effect, it's allowable to exceed the age requirements with not even having potential to join the military?

Oh man.

Echewta
06-05-2006, 06:00 PM
I'm not against mandatory civil/military service for a year after you graduate high school. Nope. Not at all.

Not to worry though, it will never happen.

DroppinScience
06-05-2006, 10:45 PM
Here's the legislation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_163

It's much more to make a point than actually supporting the draft. In fact, Rangel sponsored it because he knew it wouldn't get anywhere...

QueenAdrock
06-05-2006, 10:48 PM
I might be getting a job with a military/defense thinktank research facility. I don't exactly know what they do, but I'm pretty sure my employment there will contribute to me going to hell.

Either way, what's the point in drafting EVERYONE? Don't we have enough people wanting to sign up for the military? Oh. We don't. Whatever. Drafts rule.

D_Raay
06-05-2006, 10:56 PM
Here's the legislation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_163

It's much more to make a point than actually supporting the draft. In fact, Rangel sponsored it because he knew it wouldn't get anywhere...
And thereby making a grand point, why should only the poor die for a rich man's cause?

I only posted this (I wrote none of it myself) because I thought some of you would get a laugh over it. That there is actually conservative outcry over it is especially whimsical to me. Call it Colbertesque.

Bob
06-06-2006, 08:57 AM
Here's the legislation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_163

It's much more to make a point than actually supporting the draft. In fact, Rangel sponsored it because he knew it wouldn't get anywhere...

yeah, my understanding is that it was a protest bill, not a "let's do this thing" bill. to put it in technical terms.

like ericlee pointed out, it doesn't even make sense.

Qdrop
06-06-2006, 09:44 AM
so, basically....
this bill has no merit, no chance of passing...because it was actually designed to garner support AGAINST war and a draft?

D, perhaps you should have researched this first....

D_Raay
06-06-2006, 11:58 AM
so, basically....
this bill has no merit, no chance of passing...because it was actually designed to garner support AGAINST war and a draft?

D, perhaps you should have researched this first....
Didn't you read my subsequent post?

Qdrop
06-06-2006, 12:46 PM
Didn't you read my subsequent post?

oh sure, cover your tracks.




i'm kidding.