Why we need the Draft Back!

[Taichiliberal]

I suggest that you re-read the posts that you responded to because you seem to be confused at my position. For instance, I wrote "luck-of-the-draw from that pool who saw combat" and you appear to have read 'the draft was a lottery'. There were many soldiers who were in support roles. For instance my wife's uncle fixed Jeeps in Vietnam, and my Dad designed missiles during the Korean conflict. Although both were drafted, neither saw combat due to "luck-of-the-draw".

There are similar apparent mis-reads from other portions of my statements.

And, why the vitriol?

Stop BS'ing.....I reprinted what you wrote. Your "luck of the draw" phrase is totally absurd and leaves little interpretation. Again, there was a DRAFT and THEN a random drawing as to who would go first. Rather than just admit you were wrong...you go off on some tangent about "support roles", which had NOTHING to do with your original statement. No one "mis-read" your statement....you just can't admit that it was wrong, so you just add on more nonsense as you go along. Maybe you should practice on better expressing yourself in print. Bottom line: no matter which way you turn, you were wrong on the original point of contention. It's all there in black & white for all to see.....whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevent.

Oh, and given your snotty, condescending/condemning attitude in your posts, my "vitriol" is just a response in kind. I give back what I get.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Right, I am the one repeating myself without anything (like dictionaries, the Constitution itself, data directly derived from the DOD, etc.) to back up my statements.

Your drivel is no longer worth responding to.

Sorry chuckles, but your lying here...and the previous posts show that. I addressed each and every "point you put forth (and the DOD didn't write the Constitution...they follow it. They say NOTHING about comparing involuntary servitude to military service and/or slavery). You couldn't detract from the main point I made...your determination to enforce your "interpretation of the 13th Amendment to suit your beliefs is just an exercise in futility

You're a typical neocon blowhard...and when taken to task, you punk out. Adios!

 

[Good Luck]

Sorry chuckles, but your lying here...and the previous posts show that. I addressed each and every "point you put forth (and the DOD didn't write the Constitution...they follow it. They say NOTHING about comparing involuntary servitude to military service and/or slavery). You couldn't detract from the main point I made...your determination to enforce your "interpretation of the 13th Amendment to suit your beliefs is just an exercise in futility

You're a typical neocon blowhard...and when taken to task, you punk out. Adios!

Taken to task, huh? I give you the dictionary definition of servitude. I explain point by point how military service meets the definition of servitude. I show how involuntary meets both definitions.

The ONLY substantial thing you have done is mention Article 1, section 8 of the constitution allowing Congress to raise an army. Every thing else has been the typical "No it isn't, no it isn't" of the typical whiny liberal. You have NOT address why military service does not meet the definition of servitude, you simply state that it is not.

WHERE (as in repost your response and underline it) did you actually specifically refute my point that military service is servitude to the body politic? WHERE did you address my point that involuntary servitude is not just another name for slavery, as you keep saying it is? Where did you counter my point that slavery claims a person as property, but servitude can remove one's liberty without claiming ownership? Where ahve you countered my point that involuntary servitude is prohibited, but voluntary servitude is not?

You have not directly addressed ONE single point I have made. Just as the point that the facts showw it was Clinton that drew down the military, you have not made one genuine counter point. All you do is say I am wrong.

You are clearly incapable of honest debate. Go back to your mommy's basement and fill up on rootbeer.

 

[DamnYankee]

Stop BS'ing.....I reprinted what you wrote. Your "luck of the draw" phrase is totally absurd and leaves little interpretation. ....

Oh, and given your snotty, condescending/condemning attitude in your posts, my "vitriol" is just a response in kind. I give back what I get.

Actually I've tried to be polite with you, but since you insist on being belligerent, you will receive what you give. Obviously you interpreted it wrong and are now on some kind of hissy fit. Typical of a liberal.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Taken to task, huh? I give you the dictionary definition of servitude. I explain point by point how military service meets the definition of servitude. I show how involuntary meets both definitions.

The ONLY substantial thing you have done is mention Article 1, section 8 of the constitution allowing Congress to raise an army. Every thing else has been the typical "No it isn't, no it isn't" of the typical whiny liberal. You have NOT address why military service does not meet the definition of servitude, you simply state that it is not.

WHERE (as in repost your response and underline it) did you actually specifically refute my point that military service is servitude to the body politic? WHERE did you address my point that involuntary servitude is not just another name for slavery, as you keep saying it is? Where did you counter my point that slavery claims a person as property, but servitude can remove one's liberty without claiming ownership? Where ahve you countered my point that involuntary servitude is prohibited, but voluntary servitude is not?

You have not directly addressed ONE single point I have made. Just as the point that the facts showw it was Clinton that drew down the military, you have not made one genuine counter point. All you do is say I am wrong.

You are clearly incapable of honest debate. Go back to your mommy's basement and fill up on rootbeer.

I thought you were done with me? Seems that you're so desperate to prove your BS right that you have to have the last word, even if it's just a regurgitation of previous postings.

But hope springs eternal, so maybe this will sink in......you can't take things out of context, and then add on your supposition as PROOF of your contentions. "Involuntary servitude" is the phrase used in an amendment regarding SLAVERY or as a form of punishment, NOT the military (dictionary definitions of each word non-withstanding). I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist.

And, once again, you either purposely or carelessly forgot that I mentioned MORE THAN ONE Article that refered to military service with regards to the State(s). PUH-LEEZE, get a PDF of the Constitution and do a word search for "troops" and "military". What you won't find is any sentence or paragraph that links those words with slavery or the phrase "involuntary servitude". You see genius, it's not for the Constitution to meet YOUR definitions, it's for YOU to understand what the DECLARATIONS in each Article are directly pertaining to. This is why there are so many details, Articles, amendments, so people won't confuse issues via generalities.

You made the statement, yet the document you refer to do does not support your claims....all you've got is an insipid stubborness that deludes you into believing that just repeating supposition and conjecture and denying all else proves you right. Hint: it doesn't. But like the typical neocon, it's YOUR definition of reality that counts, not reality itself. So be it......I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually I've tried to be polite with you, but since you insist on being belligerent, you will receive what you give. Obviously you interpreted it wrong and are now on some kind of hissy fit. Typical of a liberal.

You are truly delusional if you think your snide, condescending posts are "polite". The chronology proves me out...and makes you out to be a liar. Bottom line: you can dish it out, but you can't take it....and it's a bitter pill for you to swallow especially when you're proven wrong. Here's the rest of my response that you conveniently left out:

Again, there was a DRAFT and THEN a random drawing as to who would go first. Rather than just admit you were wrong...you go off on some tangent about "support roles", which had NOTHING to do with your original statement. No one "mis-read" your statement....you just can't admit that it was wrong, so you just add on more nonsense as you go along. Maybe you should practice on better expressing yourself in print. Bottom line: no matter which way you turn, you were wrong on the original point of contention. It's all there in black & white for all to see.....whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevent.

You're done, chuckles. All you'll do now is just repeat your disproven points and hurl more insults. I leave you to your folly.

 

[DamnYankee]

You are truly delusional if you think your snide, condescending posts are "polite". The chronology proves me out...and makes you out to be a liar. Bottom line: you can dish it out, but you can't take it....and it's a bitter pill for you to swallow especially when you're proven wrong. Here's the rest of my response that you conveniently left out:

Again, there was a DRAFT and THEN a random drawing as to who would go first. Rather than just admit you were wrong...you go off on some tangent about "support roles", which had NOTHING to do with your original statement. No one "mis-read" your statement....you just can't admit that it was wrong, so you just add on more nonsense as you go along. Maybe you should practice on better expressing yourself in print. Bottom line: no matter which way you turn, you were wrong on the original point of contention. It's all there in black & white for all to see.....whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevent.

You're done, chuckles. All you'll do now is just repeat your disproven points and hurl more insults. I leave you to your folly.

I read the rest of your earlier post but omitted it because it was irrelevant.

 

[Good Luck]

I thought you were done with me? Seems that you're so desperate to prove your BS right that you have to have the last word, even if it's just a regurgitation of previous postings.

But hope springs eternal, so maybe this will sink in......you can't take things out of context, and then add on your supposition as PROOF of your contentions. "Involuntary servitude" is the phrase used in an amendment regarding SLAVERY or as a form of punishment, NOT the military (dictionary definitions of each word non-withstanding). I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist.

And, once again, you either purposely or carelessly forgot that I mentioned MORE THAN ONE Article that refered to military service with regards to the State(s). PUH-LEEZE, get a PDF of the Constitution and do a word search for "troops" and "military". What you won't find is any sentence or paragraph that links those words with slavery or the phrase "involuntary servitude". You see genius, it's not for the Constitution to meet YOUR definitions, it's for YOU to understand what the DECLARATIONS in each Article are directly pertaining to. This is why there are so many details, Articles, amendments, so people won't confuse issues via generalities.

You made the statement, yet the document you refer to do does not support your claims....all you've got is an insipid stubborness that deludes you into believing that just repeating supposition and conjecture and denying all else proves you right. Hint: it doesn't. But like the typical neocon, it's YOUR definition of reality that counts, not reality itself. So be it......I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.

You continue to insist that "involuntary servitude" is inseparably connec ted with slavery. It is not. The 13th amendment states "Neither slavery NOR involuntary servitude...." clearly indicating that the two are not the same thing. YOU are the one insisting they are the same thing, yet demand that I provide proof they are not. Yet, I did so by providing dictionary definition of servitude.

You also insist that if the Constitution does not equate military service to servitude, then they are not the same thing. Again, that supposition is plain false. The constitution does not need to define every phrase it uses to protect individual rights. They use phrases which have specified meanings. (assuming one can actually read instead of predefining for their own purposes)

Specific to this discussion, the term "involuntary servitude" was used in the 13th Amendment. The term was used, in the manner it was used, to forbid ALL forms of involuntary servitude. The words have a specific meaning within the English language. I provided to you that meaning. If you choose to ignore what a word or phrase means because it does not meet your preconceptions, that is your problem.

Since all forms of involuntary servitude are forbidden, it is not necessary for the Constitution to specify each and every type of involuntary servitude. That is why they used the phrase - to cover ALL involuntary servitude.

I specified in simple, easy to understand language why military service meets the definition of servitude. Again, you choose to believe that only the Constitution can determine whether a type of service meets the definition of servitude. The Constitution isn't long enough. The Constitution does not define each and every type of expression covered by the 1st Amendment either. the writers assumed we would have the intelligence to determine if a form of expression is covered by free speech. The also assumed we would have the intelligence to determine if a type of service meets the definition of servitude. Too bad your type has top continually prove them wrong on that.

Bottom line: military service meets the definition of servitude, therefore involuntary service meets the definition of involuntary servitude. The constitution does NOT have to say so for this to be true. Common usage of the English language - which is what was used to write the Constitution - is what makes that determination.

Additional bottom line: you are a mindless liberal twit, without any concept of the real meaning of the Constitution. All you know is how you want your big assed central government to have the power to subjugate the people to your particular philosophies.

 

[christiefan915]

I thought you were done with me? Seems that you're so desperate to prove your BS right that you have to have the last word, even if it's just a regurgitation of previous postings.

But hope springs eternal, so maybe this will sink in......you can't take things out of context, and then add on your supposition as PROOF of your contentions. "Involuntary servitude" is the phrase used in an amendment regarding SLAVERY or as a form of punishment, NOT the military (dictionary definitions of each word non-withstanding). I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist.

And, once again, you either purposely or carelessly forgot that I mentioned MORE THAN ONE Article that refered to military service with regards to the State(s). PUH-LEEZE, get a PDF of the Constitution and do a word search for "troops" and "military". What you won't find is any sentence or paragraph that links those words with slavery or the phrase "involuntary servitude". You see genius, it's not for the Constitution to meet YOUR definitions, it's for YOU to understand what the DECLARATIONS in each Article are directly pertaining to. This is why there are so many details, Articles, amendments, so people won't confuse issues via generalities.

You made the statement, yet the document you refer to do does not support your claims....all you've got is an insipid stubborness that deludes you into believing that just repeating supposition and conjecture and denying all else proves you right. Hint: it doesn't. But like the typical neocon, it's YOUR definition of reality that counts, not reality itself. So be it......I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.

"I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist."

Again you are correct and law is on your side.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

 

[Mott the Hoople]

"I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist."

Again you are correct and law is on your side.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

Yup, Taichiliberal has pwned Good Luck on this point.

 

[Good Luck]

"I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist."

Again you are correct and law is on your side.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

Yes, SCOTUS and I disagree on this matter. SCOTUS decisions are not, after all, 100% correct at all times. It should not take long to dredge up a number of decisions made over the past couple centuries you disagree with.

It's good of you, however, to actually bring forth the information in support of the military draft argument. Unlike "TaiChiLiberal" who simply stated since the Constitution did not equate military service to servitude, it is not. That is not a valid argument, and is not the argument SCOTUS made in bringing about their decision.

The argument was that the writers of the 13th did not intend to interfere with duties to the state, which in itself is a rather delicate line to be taking is a supposedly free society. Like many other times, they seem to forget that government is supposed to be the servant of the people in our society, not vice versa. When government, be it the president, congress, or the courts start talking about what the people owe the government, there is something fundamentally wrong with any decision made on that assumption.

 

[Good Luck]

Another point the 1916 SCOTUS seems to have glossed over in their decision is the fact that the Civil War saw the first post-Constitution military draft, which was HUGELY unpopular, leading to riots and all kinds of mayhem. Since the 13th Amendment was written immediately after those events, it would logical to assume if they intended a governmental exception to prohibiting involuntasry servitude, they would have made the exception clear. Instead the 1916 SCOTUS, as happens all too often when balancing governmental powqer with the liberty of the people, came down on the side of government by interpreting "what they meant" instead of looking at what was actually written.

 

[Taichiliberal]

"I've asked you time and again to provide where in the constitution the phrase "involutary servitude" is used in reference to or conjunction with renderings regarding military service. To date you have not provided such.....which indicates that it doesn't exist."

Again you are correct and law is on your side.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

Thanks.....but I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Bravo STILL will not totally concede he is wrong. He'll just disagree with the SCOTUS. Like I said, neocons are not interested in documented, valid historical facts and the logic derived from them...they are only interested in THEIR interpretations and viewpoints....facts and logic be damned. This is the mindset you find among such genius as Crowley, Kristol, etc. Fortunately, rational people will read objectively and see the insipid stubborness of these clowns....as they did in the November 2008 elelction.