Mexica wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:
You want to see something more boring? Read your own trash.
So, even
you concede that you are boring.
Classic.

Of course, just not as boring as you are.
Mexica wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Mexica wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:
Of course
On this we agree.
LoneStarMadam wrote:
just not as boring as you are.
On this we disagree.

can't win 'em all
No
you can't.
&
you can? Not in this lifetime sistah
Actually, it's more like this:
TOPIC TOPIC TOPIC People is not me.
As facinatiing as you may find me, women getting drafted is the topic if there should be a draft.
If men can be forced to wear combat boots in some gawd forsaken hell hole & get shot at, why shouldn't women? Equality it's what's for supper.
As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan,allow me to interject something here.
I AM OPPOSED TO A DRAFT!!!
So is the Pentagon,the President,and most of Congress.
IF Rangel wants a draft,then let him try to get it enacted.
IF however,there ever is a draft,then everybody,both male and female,should be in the pool and eligible for the draft.
I agree that there should be no draft. In Snood's thread on a draft, which began with a reference to Rangel's proposal, those would be german remarks. This thread only asks if conscription should apply equally to women as to men.
I rather supsect that the opposition to conscription by this administration derives from the sure and certain knowledge that support for the military adventurism in which it is engaged will collapse completely if there is a draft. I suspect they'd like to have a draft, but have enough sense to know it would be bad for their program.
As to whether the Congress would support a draft, that is another matter. This is now a lame-duck Congress, so leaving aside the fact that i have no good reason to believe that MM knows what "Congress" thinks, i'd just point out that what the next Congress wants will be definitive. I also suspect, though, that neither this Congress nor the next will want a draft. Once again, i suspect that has more to do with political common sense than it does with moral virtue.
Have enough sense That seems to be a commodity that this administration is sorely lacking in of late. I don't know what they'll do, even more important, they don't know what they'll do.
However, once again, if a draft comes back, nobody, with the exception of extreme cases, should be exempt, IMO.
Even geezers and toothless, obese old hags?
Roxxxanne wrote:Even geezers and toothless, obese old hags?
If they fall within the age limits for the draft,yes.
You would not be excluded either.
mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Even geezers and toothless, obese old hags?
If they fall within the age limits for the draft,yes.
You would not be excluded either.
Oooh, I dunno bout Roxxxann with a gun.
My grandon that is serving in Afghanistan (Jalabad) sure wouldn't want
his kind serving next to him.
mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Even geezers and toothless, obese old hags?
If they fall within the age limits for the draft,yes.
hey mystery, ltns...

hope all is well.
getting into this late, so maybe this has been discussed; what is the age limit on a draft now ? it was 39 when my eligibility ended, but i don't know if it's changed.
also, have you guys talked about a national service program yet ?
I think Rangel suggested or that perhaps I read somewhere that the military already has the provision to call up people in an emergency. In that article the upper limit was 42 which I think Clark Gable was when he signed up for WWII duty after Carole Lombard died in a plane crash.
The age limit for a first-time Army recruit is now 42, as of June '06.